Re: gEDA-user: Blind and buried vias?

[spuzzdawg <spuzzdawg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

   Jon,
   You seem to consistently bring up this argument and I really think
   it's to the detriment of the list. I'm sure that by now, everyone on
   this list is quite aware that in you're opinion, PCB is not part of
   gEDA and not a single question should ever be asked about it. I'm not
   sure why it's apparently irrelevant that the accepted predominant
   workflow is from gschem to pcb or that pcb is a member project of the
   geda project. If member projects and affiliated projects aren't
   considered part of gEDA then I'm curious as to what you define as gEDA
   and what topics you define as appropriate for this list. Someone on
   the list asked for help with blind and buried vias and you're response
   was "pcb is not part of gEDA", I'm sure the OP found this information
   quite useful.
   It might sound a little harsh to say these things but I've noticed
   that you do it quite often. Anyone who brings up a point about how
   geda/gaf/pcb could be more useful, more user friendly etc quickly gets
   shot down by you with the same message, that gEDA is a toolkit, its
   flexibility is its power and problems with pcb aren't problems with
   geda. You use the line about gEDA being a toolkit to justify any of
   its shortcoming despite the fact that gEDA itself doesn't even
   consider itself this way. From the website:
   "Currently, the gEDA project offers a mature suite of free software
   applications for electronics design, including schematic capture,
   attribute management, bill of materials (BOM) generation, netlisting
   into over 20 netlist formats, analog and digital simulation, and
   printed circuit board (PCB) layout."
   My point is that your one man war gEDA terminology doesn't help
   anyone. It serves only to distract meaningful discussions about gEDA's
   shortcomings and ways in which it could be improved as well as
   preventing posters from actually getting their questions answered.
   On Fri, 2009-09-25 at 11:14 -0600, John Doty wrote:

On Sep 25, 2009, at 10:54 AM, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:27:02 -0600, John Doty wrote:
>
>> but some (perhaps many) of us use gschem/gnetlist with other back  
>> ends.
>
> Not so many. See the result of last years poll. 3 out of 32  
> confessed to
> do the layout with PADS. The rest uses pcb.

Hmm, you apparently didn't include *my* response. Did you miss  
anything else?

32 responses is hardly a large sample, and I'd expect it to be biased  
toward pcb: this list is predominantly about pcb despite its name...

>
> ---<(kaimartin)>---
> -- 
> Kai-Martin Knaak
> ffentlicher PGP-Schlssel:
> [1]http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x6C0B9F53
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> geda-user mailing list
> [2]geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [3]http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user

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

References

   1. http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x6C0B9F53
   2. mailto:geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   3. http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
   4. http://www.noqsi.com/
   5. mailto:jpd@xxxxxxxxx


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