gEDA-user: Viable or obscure gEDA? Is wider usability needed?

[John Griessen <john_g@cibolo.com>]

I for one, 
will help with chunks of work like Bill lined out.
There may be enough spare time among us if maybe ten
could agree on an outline plan.  I have system and chip design
experience including DSP hardware and firmware
plus microcontrollers and some perl,awk,c scripting.


Clean design for easy extensibility and wide usability is why I am 
interested in open source projects.  I see them effecting change for small
work groups in manufacturing medium volume products and service 
businesses.  The service businesses I am thinking of areor will be aimed at 
upgrading and maintaining networks of automated house infrastructure, 
private roads, small factories, ranches, remote second homes, vehicles, 
farming tools/robots, power generation/cogeneration/conversion and farmed 
fuel stock processing systems 
that countryside folk in the developed countries need and the third world will want
as they come out of their dark ages.

Who else?

John Griessen

On Sat, 2003-12-27 at 14:47, Bob Paddock wrote:
> > The dependence on various packages, particularly guile and it's friends,
> >  could easily doom this whole effort. 
[jg]Or leave it to function in obscurity for a tiny fraction of engineers,
rather than be an enabler for cottage industry.

>  I suggested using 
> Linux, for firewall/router.  They literally laughed in my face.  "No we'll 
> limp along like this for a couple of months, till we can afford to install 
> this $4,000 router".
> 
[jg]The old "You get what you pay for" adage has taken hold insidiously 
with the business as usual crowd, like land developers; lawyers;
doctors; civil engineers; retailers; etc., in a way that exacerbates
mediocrity-marketing of technology by M$ et al.  It's up to the tech
engineers and scientists to move any kind of
small-scale-viable-techno-tools forward.  Business as usual will not.

> No worries about any good software like gEDA ever making it to some companies, 
> no mater how easy it is to port.

> > As for the GUI, I would not write most of the code directly to Gtk 1.2,
> > or Gtk 2.0, or any such thing. ...code to a portable interface layer
> 
> http://www.wxwindows.org/ covers that area nicely.