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

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

> No, it is about polluting good engineering with sloppiness.

Aye. To wit: You've been polluting what could otherwise be a good forum
for engineering discussion with seriously sloppy social engineering.


> As a non-contributer, you ask for changes whose consequences you do not
> understand.

I have not asked for ANY changes except in your behavior.

Do you *really* think that there would be dire consequences for gEDA if
you were to argue the exact same things except *politely*?

(And, thank you for labeling me a "non-contributer" -- I'll be sure and
keep my place rather than contributing. Helpful indeed.)


> It's a *consequence* of your position. If you travel the road to Hell,
> you'll wind up in Hell, even if you're not arguing that Hell is where you
> want to go.

My contention that it's reasonable *to discuss* databases necessarily
leads to Hell?  Wow-- your church is much more strict than mine.


>> Perhaps my memory is limited, but the only "workable flow" that I can
>> recall you acknowledging is your own.
>
> Which flow? I have a different one for each project. Again, good
> engineering allows the ends to dictate the means. The genius of gEDA is
> that its flexibility supports this.

"Your own," i.e., whichever one you're working on.  I never even implied
that you had a single inflexible flow-- I said quite the opposite, in
fact.


> I'm sorry your thin skin has forced you to bash me. This is about EDA, not
> about personality.

I have a thick skin.  That's why I stepped into the conversation in the
first place: to call you out when you almost sequentially posted four
uncalled for, almost bullying messages to other members of the list.  I've
done so before, and if you can't keep it civil, I *will* call you out on
it again-- whether or not I agree with you about the EDA portion of the
discussion.

You personally directed the discussion from one about engineering to one
about personality when you switched from criticizing ideas to insulting
the people who made them.  This conversation is the natural consequence.



> Of course. Didn't I just yesterday praise Edward's work, and offer a
> solution to one of his problems? Didn't I suggest plug-ins to gnetlist as
> a another possible approach? But my notion of a "database" is different
> from yours (and actually achievable): a project-specific mapping of
> schematic symbols to physical components.

You have been helpful at times; I went out of my way to acknowledge that
already.  But that doesn't give you license to bully people the rest of
the time.  (Actually, you can be mean to people all you like; you'll just
get into another one of these very unproductive conversations as a
consequence.)

Besides gEDA, I also use a commercial ($$$$, not $) EDA system with a
database where many standard parts can be pulled "off the shelf" as it
were, with symbol and footprint.  Yeah, I still spend a lot of time
drawing and modifying footprints and so forth, but the database does save
me a huge amount of time.  Approaches like this are neither foolproof nor
un-achievable.


> No it is not. Engineering is about *consequences*.

You really think that insulting community members without provocation has
no consequences?  That's sloppy engineering.



> Engineering is about consequences. A consequence of your plan is that gEDA
> becomes more toy-like, regardless of how you wish to describe it.

No. My plan is that we can have civil conversations about the future of
gEDA on this mailing list, regardless of how you wish to describe it.

How you get from that to "toy-like" is beyond me.


> Delusions are common in engineering, even for perfectly sane engineers. If
> you can't have bad ideas, you won't have good ones either. That's why
> designs need review. It's also why you shouldn't be so emotionally
> invested in your ideas that you're personally insulted by criticism of
> them.

I haven't been insulted at all by your engineering arguments, nor by your
criticism of any proposals about gEDA.  I'm really not sure what orifice
you're pulling all this out of.  (You keep making strange assumptions
about my position. As I've said before, I mostly agree with you on matters
of engineering.)  However, I *am* invested in gEDA and the health of the
community, which is why I stepped into this in the first place.

If you feel a need to insult someone, you can continue to do so to me
rather than to the rest of the community.


> That's life for a scientist. You need a thick skin.

I am a scientist and I have a thick skin.  Maybe you should pay attention.


> No, you're selling an approach that will damage the toolkit. I ain't
> buying. I guess to a salesman, that counts as an insult. I'm sorry you're
> so invested in your ideas that you consider criticism of them a personal
> insult. If you're going to have ideas, you'd better get used to criticism
> of them.

My assertion that you should stop behaving like a jerk => Damage will
occur to the toolkit?  Really?

Come off of it already:  I'm not trying to sell you on any position except
that your abusive behavior is counterproductive.  I haven't considered
anything that you've said about engineering principles as an insult to me
or to anyone else. And criticisms aren't insults-- You know the difference
perfectly well.

You are one of our valuable community members, with experience and skill
to guide your contributions.  If you would listen for just a second you'd
understand that I'd be perfectly happy to have you on the list arguing the
exact same positions, so long as you can keep it civil.


> For you. For me, it has *everything* to do with it.

If you want to get back to talking about EDA, we can make a deal: you stop
making baseless insults against our community members and I'll stop
harassing you about it.  More productive for everyone, right?




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