Re: gEDA-user: Purpose of this list

[Bert Timmerman <bert.timmerman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all,

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:46 -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> Stuart Brorson wrote:
> >
> > I am always pleased by the high level of electronics knowledge
> > displayed by the folks on this list.  The contributions are very
> > interesting and educational.
> >   
> 
> Agreed.  I'm both pleased and very, very grateful.
> 
> > I vote to keep it.  Besides the educational value, the great postings
> > about electronics on geda-user are archived and searchable via
> > Google.  That means that folks who are searching on keywords related
> > to electronics will come across the gEDA project.  The high level of
> > the disucssions on geda-user serve as great advertising for the
> > entire gEDA Project.
> >   
> 
> Agreed!  All exposure is good exposure, and I'd be suspicious of a list
> that discussed EDA topics where there wasn't any discussion of
> electronics at a more general level at least occasionally!
> 
> > FWIW, sci.electronics.* has become a cesspool of spammers and trolls.
> > Other electronics discussion sites tend towards basic electronics.
> > For example, sparkfun is a good site, but the discussions are largely
> > oriented to newbies.  Nothing wrong with that, but I'm glad geda-user
> > serves the needs of newbies as well as experienced engineers.  I'd
> > like to keep it that way.
> >   
> 
> Agreed (sorry for being redundant).
> 
> Once you start laying down traces from your schematic, the line between
> "electronics" and "pcb tool" become kind of blurry because the two
> definitely interact.  So there's no escaping the necessity for *some*
> electronics-related discussion here.  And so long as things aren't
> getting totally off-topic for geda, I say those discussions are welcome
> here.  Lately, I haven't seen anything inappropriate.
> 
> I'm not aware of any non-cesspool sites where people experienced in
> electronics design *and* layout congregate.  I learned a lot about
> electronics early on from sci.* newsgroups, but as NNTP has fallen out
> of favor, those neighborhoods have really gone downhill.  Sad to see.
> 
> 
> b.g.
> 

FWIW, +1 (me too)

I think that for some features to be properly implemented in gEDA tools
some issues on the design and fabrication level have to stated very
clearly and thoroughly, for instance buried vias/components/capacitance,
pad stacks, layer stack up and things for geda-->pcb and even more over
my head stuff for simulation and synthesis.

Obvious this input is coming from users which are designers on various
skill levels.

So I think of geda-user as a channel between developers and designers,
it's a bit like standing in both worlds at the same time.

Keep geda-dev for dev issues like translations, code/string freezes,
release schedules, packaging and coding issues.

Keep geda-user as it is.

Kind regards,

Bert Timmerman.

DJ: if hacking on buzzing pcb boards on this list become an annoyance, I
will let you know :)

I think we all learned from that one.



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