Re: gEDA-user: PCB: Stale rat's nest?

[sdb@xxxxxxxxxx (Stuart Brorson)]

> > I think what we need is early on in the documentation to have a quick
> > and to the point definition of terms.  Unfortunately, there is not an
> > industry standard among cad tools so such a section (I'm thinking a page
> > or less) would be a big help.  For example, what we call a "footprint"
> > in PCB is a "pattern" or a "stencil" in a couple of other tools.
> >
> > -Dan
> 
> I don't mean to push Eagle, but it too shows this sort of variance. 

[ ... ]

> It's not such a big deal for me now that I know what a slot is and what refdes 
> means, but what about the next noob who tries to use gEDA?

The terms used by gEDA are industry standard, or are at least
instantly understandable by practitioners versed in the art.  I see no
reason to change them.  As for newbies, they need to learn the lingo
if they want to use the tools.  It's as simple as that.

I'll put a glossary onto the wiki at some point soon.  Noobs who don't
use Google before asking questions will be treated with politeness at
first, but might soon find themselves asking questions but getting no
answers.  

> Since there's at least one program that uses more common words, I think it 
> wouldn't be unreasonable to expect gEDA to eventually follow suit.  

Nope.  GEDA uses well-known terms.  I can't speak for Eagle's exact
nomenclature, but if gEDA's nomenclature differs from Eagle, it
doesn't mean that gEDA is wrong.

> A more 
> understandable interface means more users, and more users (ideally) means 
> more bug reports and feedback.

Actually, we get plenty of bug reports and feedback.  I think we'd
prefer to see more patches and other constructive *contributions* like
documentation on the wiki, articles, new utilities, etc.

Stuart