Re: gEDA-user: Fwd: Parts DB API: the story so far

[Stuart Brorson <sdb@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> Trying to make the database optional even after developing its use
> sounds hard.  Is there opposition to a database?  No database ever would
> be limiting...

I've been watching this discussion for quite a while.  I don't want to
derail it, since it's good to have an exchange of ideas.  However,
since you asked, I'll chime in.

I am completely, utterly, and deadly opposed to a database, except as
an optional plug-in -- i.e. a separate facility which the remainder of
gEDA can run without.  If gEDA requires a database for use, then we
lose 99% of all gEDA users.  A database is a PITA to install, build,
maintain, administer, upgrade, and use.  It is also a dependency which
will make gEDA uninstallable by almost everybody.

The beauty of gEDA is that it is (barely) simple enough that rank
amateurs can figure it out and produce boards.  It is also powerful
enough that professionals can produce low to mid-level complexity
boards.  Don't break that feature!

My strongly held opinion is that if somebody wants a database for use
with gEDA, what they *really* want is an ERP system (e.g. Sugar or
something like that).  In that case, they are in a different class of
gEDA user than gEDA's target audience of students, educators, hobbiests,
etc.  Power users should consider paying for professional IT services
to put an ERP system into place, and integrate it with gEDA.  Indeed,
this represents a business opportunity which somebody should grab.

However, gEDA should continue to operate on principles of easy
installation, easy use, and easy maintainence.

Just MHO,

Stuart


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