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

[John Griessen <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Steve Meier wrote:
> 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?

That we do engineering always conscious of cost vs. performance is all 
it means to me.


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

Sure.

> 
> 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?

don't forget the incremental cost of making a change of any kind...


John G

-- 
Ecosensory


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