Re: gEDA-user: gEDA gets some great press!

[sdb@xxxxxxxxxx (Stuart Brorson)]

Hi guys --

Thanks for the report about EB.  I have also heard bad things about EB
through the "grapevine".  

> > I bought the schematic entry/pcb/autorouter package a few years from 
> > Electronics Workbench.  It crashed frequently for me, had problems 
> > with new part design, and in general frustrated me so much that I 
> > gave up using it.  I would specifically not associate the words 
> > "professional caliber" with that software.  Granted, this is a sales 
> > and marketing person, and perhaps the software has been improved 
> > tremendously and is now "professional caliber," but it did give me a 
> > laugh reading this.

[snip!]

> The word(s) "polished" and "professional caliber" in this instance refer
> to gui window dressing and not
> to stability or usability. I have found the geda tools
> stable and reliable. I tried electronics workbench and
> quite frankly, it was not reliable in many areas that
> I needed reliablity in. Further, I use many of the geda tools for real
> work - not hobby stuff and have
> found them to be stable, reliable and usable.
> 
> In short, this is a marketing Talking Head doing what
> a Marketing Talking Head does: Talking about things
> they do not understand and using FUD.

My suggestion:  Don't (just) post this stuff on the gEDA list.  You're
only preaching to the choir (although we *do* like the tune. . .).
Instead, send a letter or e-mail to EE Times relating your experience
with gEDA & related tools.  With the publication of this article, the
whole subject of free/open-source EDA will be in play for a couple of
weeks, so now is the time to write those letters!

The point behind free/open-source EDA  is that it returns control to
the user, and the more engineers who learn about it, the better it is
for all users:  more developers will be drawn in to improve the tools,
more people will use it so your gEDA skills then become more
marketable and valuable, and more engineers will be able to share
designs because the flow is open. 

I think (and I belive that Ales thinks this too) that ultimately
gEDA's file formats could become quasi industry standards --
facilitating design sharing and reuse simply because they are open,
text-based, and well documented.  Think about all the times you've
been faced with a design port issue.  Wouldn't it have been nice to
have a standard schematic format readable and writable by all
schematic capture programs?  If enough people use it, gEDA's format
could become a de-facto standard, and we would all benefit from that.

The point is that free/open-source EDA takes control of your design
away from your vendor, and returns it to you, which is where it
belongs.  

Stuart