Re: gEDA-user: next PCB release - 1.99za vs 4.0

["David C. Kerber" <dkerber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: geda-user-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:geda-user-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Doty
> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 12:12 PM
> To: gEDA user mailing list
> Subject: Re: gEDA-user: next PCB release - 1.99za vs 4.0
> 
> 
> On Sep 8, 2010, at 7:47 AM, David C. Kerber wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: geda-user-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> >> [mailto:geda-user-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Doty
> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 9:07 PM
> >> To: gEDA user mailing list
> >> Subject: Re: gEDA-user: next PCB release - 1.99za vs 4.0
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Sep 7, 2010, at 6:50 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
> >> 
> >>> But any design that requires you to edit files behind pcb's
> >> back, is bad.
> >> 
> >> You're not thinking "flexible toolkit". You're thinking 
> "inflexible 
> >> integrated tool".
> > 
> > He said "requires", not "allows".  Big difference.
> 
> Yes, but if you read the previous message, DJ assumed that 
> "allows" meant "requires". It's what Gell-Mann called the 

Ok, I missed that when reading the thread.


> "Totalitarian Principle" (Everything not forbidden is 
> compulsory). That is, of course, opposed to the flexible 
> toolkit approach.

Yep.

D


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