Re: gEDA-user: Database on symbols, footprints and other (was "Re: gattrib")

["Windell H. Oskay" <windell@xxxxxxxxx>]

> A community database would need trillions of symbols when the combinatoric
> possibilities are considered. Now how big is the community that's
> contributing? There are 41 contributors to gedasymbols. They have
> contributed 1392 symbols. That's a measure of the capacity of this
> community. Now, I'm not disparaging that effort, and indeed I will
> continue to contribute to it and exploit it. How about you? But I have no
> illusions that this will solve the whining about symbols, even if we could
> enlist every EE in the entire world to contribute.

Nobody but you is claiming that we need trillions of symbols nor all the
EEs in the world.  Straw man much?)

Instead, please consider: If it becomes easier to produce and use useful
symbols, the number of users and the number of people likely to contribute
useful symbols could grow very, very quickly. Telling people over and over
again that they're idiots for wanting something like that will does just
the opposite. It lead to a lower rate of symbol creation.



> And that's exactly what we have. But having a set of symbols for every
> likely use is impossible. Ditto for a "database" that represents their
> attributes (it's really the same thing, just packaged differently).

Again, you're arguing against a position that nobody is arguing for.

  Nobody needs to build a filled database from scratch, nor does the
database structure need to be perfect on the first version.  Having
*capacity* to introduce symbols and attributes for every likely use--
for 90% of people who are using gschem and/or PCB to build circuitry--is
quite likely.

And, it will grow the community, which will lead to increased availability
of ready-made starter symbols.  It will never be perfect or 100%
inclusive, but that's hardly a reason to give up.   For every corner case
(plumbing, thermal simulations, VLSI, and who knows what) there's still
scripting capacity.


>> Your insults don't change the fact that something that adds great value
>> to
>> 90% of users without removing functionality is a net gain.
>
> But something that leads them down a dead end path is a loss.

Your continued abusive behavior towards n00bz and veterans alike here is a
damaging, dead end path that leads to loss for all of us.  EDA is
irrelevant to the problem.


> You misrepresent my position.

In which way?  You seemed to agree with the position that a blank canvas
is better than the Mona Lisa.  Have you changed your mind?


> I've contributed several gnetlist back ends
> to the project. And there are a couple of useful scripts in my gedasymbols
> area. But these actually work, and solve the problems I intended to solve
> with them.

I acknowledge and appreciate your role as contributor to the project.
 I even saw that you were nice to someone on the list last week. (I was so
surprised that I saved the message for future reference.)  However your
contributions do not compensate for nor justify your actions on this
list.

Perhaps you should also consider acknowledging and appreciating that
people here discussing gEDA are also trying their best to contribute to
the project.


> Cute features leading to dead ends (although unfortunately very
> common in modern software) are not an advance.

Deciding in advance that every possible feature is a "dead end" or is just
"cute" isn't helpful.  Shooting them down without discussion necessarily
prevents advances.  I think that it's a very accurate description of your
position to say that you're opposed to advances in gEDA. Can you really
argue against that conclusion?

 I for one-- and I am not alone --have grave reservations about discussing
gEDA features on this list.  It's bound to be a dead-end path so long as
you keep this up.


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