Re: gEDA-user: why some skip KiCAD and gEDA

[Ross Bernheim <rossbernheim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

There is a problem that seems to occur often with open source software. Since it is created by 
programmers to scratch their particular "itch", they are more concerned with the programming and
getting it working to solve their problem. Other than bug fixes that affect their use of the program, their
motivation to fix bugs and do documentation, release management, etc. is somewhat less.

Consider Apple, their motivation is a bit different. It is user oriented so that they can extract the maximum
amount of dollars from said customer, (Disclaimer, I am one.) This changes a number of priorities. Since
Apple must provide support, in various forms to include documentation, customer phone support, in-store 
support and training, minimizing these costs is important. 

Apple has a yearly version cycle for many of its programs. This allows them to concentrate on bug fixes and 
interface and documentation before release. Open source with irregular updates will always have problems 
keeping documentation in sync with the program.

Apple concentrates on a 'slick', graphical interface on their programs. However, a better place to look is at OS
X itself. OS X is a Unix underneath the graphic interface. The command line is available and works for those rare
instances when you need to go beyond the 98 percent of tasks that are usually done and covered by the graphic
interface.

I have used a couple of EDA tools over the last few years. Most had horrible interfaces. They won't change because
so many people have invested so much time learning them and don't want to learn any new changes, let alone a new
interface how ever much better it is and no matter how much easier and more productive it will make them. As a new and
or occasional user, I want that new and easier, more productive interface. 

(Rant Off!)


Ross


On Sep 10, 2011, at 8:35 AM, Jared Casper wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 4:35 AM, Stefan Salewski <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Consider the toys from the big company with the damaged fruit: A reason
>> for the success of the toys is that documentations seems to be not
>> needed.
>> 
> 
> I agree with the idea, but the thing is, the Apple software that
> doesn't need documentation doesn't do a whole lot.   I don't know of
> any sufficiently powerful tool, especially CAD, that doesn't require
> some time learning how to use the thing.  Try to sit down in front of
> SolidWorks and pump out a widget without first reading some
> documentation; build a 3d animation in 3d Studio or Maia; pump out a
> board in Orcad.  Sufficiently powerful tools need learning.  People
> build careers out of being very good at using just one of these tools.
> 
>> A lot of documentation can make people think that it is very
>> complicated.
>> 
> 
> IMHO, it _IS_ very complicated (relatively), and necessarily so.
> There are a lot of options that need considered, a lot of details to
> get right, a lot of workflows to support, etc..  But complicated
> doesn't have to mean hard to use and not intuitive.
> 
>> For gEDA/PCB we have collected a lot of documentation over the years --
>> some is obsolete/outdated/redundant now or covers details, which most
>> people are not interested in -- at least not when starting with
>> gEDA/PCB.
>> 
> 
> For me, there is no such thing as too much documentation.  The problem
> is when there is too much obsolete and just plain wrong documentation
> and not enough of the right kind of documentation.
> 
> Jared
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> geda-user mailing list
> geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
> 



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