Re: gEDA-user: fritzing

[Joerg <joergsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John Doty wrote:
> 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).
> 

It can be harder or not. Most of my work is re-design other folks' 
designs. Sometimes it is a bear to do but when the original job was done 
(almost) well enough to pass everything then it's fairly easy. From what 
I've heard the Russians did a pretty good job with the MIG series of 
aircraft.

>>
>>>> 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.
> 

Sure, I do that all the time. Learning about x-ray technology right now 
(not medical this time).

But a top notch engineer must know when it is better for the overall NRE 
budget and product performance to call in an expert on a certain matter. 
Unfortunately there are way too many groups or individuals who try it on 
their own not matter what. For reasons that completely elude me.


>> 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.
> 

It is not an illusion at all if this feedback process is managed well. 
Rest assured, I sure hope not but should you ever develop a cardiac 
event that requires stent placement with local ultrasound guidance there 
is a system that has been optimized very well, by exactly the process I 
outline above. It has proven itself time and again, since the 90's. 
Competitors have tried, even HP threw in the towel. Number of 
competitors with electronic IVUS to date: Zero.


>>>>> 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.
>

I have (politely) outlined things that many engineers in industry cannot 
live with, and have told me so. If a refdes shake-up doesn't qualify as 
something that needs improvement, then I don't know what does. I 
seriously doubt that this fine group sees it that way. If they did, 
yeah, then I'd simply rest my case ;-)


>>>>>            .. 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...
> 

That is a necessity with many, many products. If there isn't input from 
a wide group of people you end up with a not so good product or with a 
niche product. That is not the case with one-off designs and such. But CAD?

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/



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