Re: gEDA-user: gEDA just hit SlashDotOrg

[Dave N6NZ <n6nz@xxxxxxxx>]

DJ Delorie wrote:
>>> Assuming you know how to use chainsaws in general, of course.
>> Yes, and that last sentence is my point. gEDA is a chainsaw in a
>> world of where most only know handsaws.
> 
> I think you're trying too hard to bend my analogy to your needs.  I
> suspect that, no matter what anyone else says, you'll figure out a way
> to say that our users are too stupid to do what we want to make them
> do, when in reality, they shouldn't *have* to adapt to our way - we
> should offer them something that's familiar to them, even if it's just
> a starting point, in order to reduce the barriers to them trying gEDA.

That's a start.  And it's good.  But it's a very modest goal.

> I wanted *results* and I wanted
> them *fast*. 

Yes, good point.

Warning: Rants may follow.  This is not to be interpreted as flame-bait. 
   That is not my intention. This is an old phart giving you a piece of 
his mind while chomping on a rancid cigar.  You can take the criticism 
as you will -- how you react to it says more about you than about gEDA.

----------- stop reading now if you are easily offended ------------

So far, I've stayed out of this discussion because I got bored of 
ranting about EDA tools some time around 1987.  What I find 
disheartening in this whole thread is:

1. Lack of perspective
2. Lack of a desire for excellence
3. Rampant gEDA fan-boi-ism that blinds people to it's weaknesses.

Look, I've used 1981-era EDA tools.  They sucked.  They sucked in 
exactly the same way that gEDA sucks, because gEDA is a 1981-era EDA 
tool.  I look at this discussion and shake my head because people seem 
to have as their highest goal making a better 1981-era EDA tool.

Come on, people, aim higher.  The EDA world has learned and re-learned a 
lot of lessons in the past 30 years.  Why isn't gEDA interested in 
leading the way?  Why is gEDA only interested in re-inventing 1980's 
suckage?  Where is the desire for excellence?

As to gEDA being a "power tool".... oh, puuullleeeze.  gEDA won't scale 
to anything meaningful.  In the 1980's I was a mainframe CPU designer -- 
think 30-40 engineers plus 30-40 techs all trying to get the schematics 
correct.  gEDA would be a nightmare in that kind of a project.  I can't 
imagine using gEDA on anything bigger than a 40 sheet or so, one person 
project.  And even then, gschem needs a good off-page signal 
cross-referencer.  (Cue the fan-boi: "Just write a script!" Ha ha... 
come back when you grow up.  That needs to be built in and just work.)

Anyway, 80 engg+tech projects are long behind us.  I've seen CPU design 
projects with 350+ engineers and 10's of thousands of sheets of 
schematics.  When gEDA can scale to that, it will be a power tool. 
Until then, drop your delusions of grandeur.  It's getting in the way of 
your seeing the scalability and usability problems in geda.

gschem is a toy-scale tool for toy-scale projects.  It has 1980's era 
interfaces, functionality, and problems.  Most of these problems are 
well known.  Many are even well solved in other tools.

Please, set your sights higher, fast-forward 2 or 3 decades, go see what 
the other guys do, and try to produce a tool that actually *is* excellent.

------------rant off---------------

Now excuse me while I chase some kids off my lawn.

-dave


_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user