Re: gEDA-user: fritzing

[John Doty <jpd@xxxxxxxxx>]

On May 10, 2009, at 3:10 PM, Joerg wrote:

> John Doty wrote:
>> On May 9, 2009, at 2:51 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>
>>> Stefan Salewski wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 17:13 -0700, Joerg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> IMHO that is fundamentally wrong. How many successful race car
>>>>> drivers
>>>>> these days do you think can disassemble and re-assemble a Ferrari
>>>>> engine
>>>>> _and_ tune it properly?
>>>>>
>>>> What I heard about Michael Schumacher was that his strength was
>>>> more his
>>>> technical understanding about the car, which makes it possible to
>>>> discuss with the tech team to improve the cat, than his driving
>>>> skills.
>>>>
>>> Sure they know the technology, just like a pilot must know the inner
>>> workings of a jet engine or like I know how C and assembler is
>>> written.
>>> But that does not mean those people can perform the work of an  
>>> expert
>>> mechanic or engineer in those fields.
>>
>> The best can. When Yeager was test flying the Mig-15, he wired the
>> pyros on the ejection seat himself.
>>
>
> Wiring pyros is not designing an ejection seat.

Understanding a system as hazardous as a Mig-15 well enough to know  
how to prepare it, without any documentation, so that he could  
survive a test flight that probed the limits of its performance  
required more engineering savvy than most aerospace engineers posess.  
Design is easy: you only have to master your own approach. Getting   
an alien approach to work is much harder. Similarly, good design  
review is much harder than good design (and therefore unfortunately  
rare).

>
>
>>> In fact most can't, and they don't
>>> have to.
>>
>> Just because most people are content with mediocrity does not mean we
>> should cater to their laziness. And note that this kind of laziness
>> makes their job harder: master the tools, and the computer becomes an
>> enormously more powerful device in your hands.
>>
>
> Every sector of a trade has their strengths and weaknesses. Or  
> should I
> consider engineers who can't design high voltage ICs, RF amps or  
> fix EMC
> problems in their sleep "mediocre" just because I can do those things?

That's not what matters. It's the ability, and the willingness, to do  
*whatever* the job requires that sets the first rate apart. What  
first rate engineers can "do in their sleep" is pick up whatever  
specialized skills are needed for the job at hand. And don't tell me  
such people don't exist: I've worked with several.

> I
> would never dare to say that, because it's not true. They just have
> other specialties.
>
>
>>>
>>>>> I know several fine electronics engineers who are not at all
>>>>> versed in
>>>>> fixing a PC, let alone install an OS. In fact, this is the
>>>>> majority of
>>>>> top notch engineers that I know.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It's hard for me to imagine an engineer who can not install an OS,
>>>> when
>>>> so many 12 years old school boys can do it. I can imagine other  
>>>> "top
>>>> notch" people, like (financial) managers, artists, maybe
>>>> mathematicians
>>>> -- but that is not out target group.
>>>>
>>> Maybe hard to imagine for you but that how life is :-)
>>
>> Nope. Life for the first rate is studying a new thing every day,
>> stretching yourself, learning how to exploit different methodologies
>> and points of view.
>>
>> Von Neummann once recommended a specific vacuum tube to the engineers
>> working on the early computers. He understood the issues and knew
>> that this specific new tube had worth characteristics. That's first
>> rate.
>>
>>>
>>>> Of course gEDA for Windows would mean more users. But would those
>>>> additional user contribute something to the project?
>>>>
>>> Oh yes. Without feedback from lots of folks who do engineering  
>>> and CAD
>>> for decades you cannot create a good CAD tool.
>>
>> Unless you walk in the developers' shoes, you cannot give truly
>> effective feedback. And developers who never walk in users' shoes
>> will never really understand what they need. Fundamentally, gEDA is
>> better because we don't have that inefficient kind of division of  
>> labor.
>>
>
> Not so. For example, in medical electronics we receive the most  
> valuable
> feedback from the best cardiologists in the country, guys I'd trust  
> 100%
>   if my time on the table came. Yet most don't have the foggiest idea
> how electronics work. And that's perfectly ok.

I have seen this illusion created many times in the space program.  
The engineers and astronomers believe they have had a profitable  
exchange when, in fact, they have talked past each other without  
understanding.

There's a reason that Hubble observations are planned by software  
written by an astronomer with space operations experience who taught  
himself AI. The software specialists who wrote the original version  
produced a system that formally met every requirement but didn't  
work. They didn't do their homework, and therefore didn't understand  
the problems they were supposed to be solving.

>
>>>
>>>> KiCAD was available from the beginning for Windows. Based on your
>>>> logic
>>>> the development of KiCad should be very fast, because of all these
>>>> "top
>>>> notch engineers" who can use it and who can contribute. ...
>>>
>>> It has improved trmendously over the last three years.
>>>
>>>
>>>>                                                      ... I do not
>>>> know
>>>> much about KiCAD, but it seems to be not too bad, and I know some
>>>> people
>>>> who used it on Windows. ...
>>>
>>> IMHO it's at a more useful stage right now than gEDA. No flames
>>> please,
>>> that's just my personal opinion, as someone who's done CAD quite
>>> extensively for over 20 years. Kicad is a very good CAD program,
>>> but has
>>> some quirks left.
>>
>> They won't get fixed by complaining.
>>
>
> Mentioning and explaining details of a bug is not complaining.  
> Papering
> over stuff like that is what keeps SW in the nerd corner.

You have not identified any bugs. All you've done is complain that  
the software doesn't fit your prejudices.

>
>>>
>>>>            .. But most development seems to be still done by
>>>> the original author.
>>>>
>>> Yes, and therefore even more amazing. But I never understood why the
>>> Charras team and the gEDA team don't join forces. Very good things
>>> could
>>> come out of that.
>>
>> We have completely different and fundamentally incompatible visions.
>> That doesn't mean we can't respect each other, ...
>
>
> Fully agree.
>
>
>>     ... but I think joining forces is crazy.
>>
>
> Don't agree :-)

You agree we have fundamentally incompatible visions, yet you think  
we can join forces? Crazy...

John Doty              Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd@xxxxxxxxx




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