Re: gEDA-user: uEDA .. was .. Re: Heavy Symbols and such

[Steve Meier <smeier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John Doty wrote:
> The interesting idea so far in this discussion has been to let the  
> BOM be source rather than product.
>
>   
Dang, That was the idea I intentionally left out of my last diatribe.
And you cut right to it. I agree, that the world being bom specific as
opposed to schematic specific is interesting even if i havn't got a
clear vission oh what being bom specific means. I was going to ask, that
does being bom specific mean.... that we build new designs with an a
bias to the components we already have?

Seems like the purchasing department/ inventory management groups might
like the idea?

I would rather find a way to describe a problem economically... The cost
of using one component over another as long as the availability and
capability of the componet doesn't become an issue,  should determine
the selection of the component.

Or, should the potential future cost of a component be includded in the
selection of what goes into the new design?

You have heard the joke that if you took all the economists in the world
and lined them up head to foot they would not reach a conclussion?

Hey add hardware engineers debating the meritts of languages to that
last thought ;)

Steve Meier


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