it's called the knack.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmYDgncMhXw
:-)
On Jan 15, 2009, at 8:50 PM, Steve Meier wrote:
or in DJ's case I
think he just can't help but be creative
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
it's called the knack.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmYDgncMhXw
Yup, that's me, although my social skills have improved over the
years.
My mom tells this story about when I was a little tike... We had two
TVs in the house, one working, one broken. One night she heard noises
When I was 4 my parents gave me a real screwdriver set for
Christmas.
I took apart the telephone in the basement 2 or three times before
they found out I was taking it apart and putting it back together.
They only found out that I was taking it apart, when i decided to use
dad's wire
Steve Meier wrote:
Do either of you think that one size shoe should fit all peoples feet?
No, but it seems this thread shows two different sizes. The rest would
mostly be in between :-)
The market place of jobs will have opportunities for specialists and for
generalists and for ranges in
On Jan 16, 2009, at 1:46 PM, Joerg wrote:
Steve Meier wrote:
Do either of you think that one size shoe should fit all peoples
feet?
No, but it seems this thread shows two different sizes. The rest would
mostly be in between :-)
gEDA belongs to the software user's tradition, not to the
The generalist will be at a disadvantage when faced with a task
that pushes state of the art for a specific field.
Absolutely not. The generalist has a huge advantage, because at the
cutting edge there is no specific field, only a problem to be
solved. To truly push the state of the art
On Friday 16 January 2009, Steven Michalske wrote:
it's called the knack.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmYDgncMhXw
:-)
Chuckle, I was wondering when somebody would make a video out of that classic.
Thanks for the link, bookmarked for future use. :)
On Jan 15, 2009, at 8:50 PM, Steve
I think this discussion has gone on for long enough without input from
the core developers. As one of them, I add this, hoping to appease
both sides and not scare away any potential users/contributors...
gEDA/PCB should be flexible for those who need flexibility, and easy
to use for those who
On Jan 16, 2009, at 3:00 PM, der Mouse wrote:
The generalist will be at a disadvantage when faced with a task
that pushes state of the art for a specific field.
Absolutely not. The generalist has a huge advantage, because at the
cutting edge there is no specific field, only a problem to be
John Doty wrote:
On Jan 14, 2009, at 6:43 PM, Joerg wrote:
But I can only say it from the position of a user, not as a
programmer because that's the domain of the experts here.
Back in 1969, I was taught that the purpose of Fortran was to erase
this distinction, putting the power of the
On Jan 15, 2009, at 7:56 AM, Joerg wrote:
Back then we had much more time to be a generalist than today.
Thinking that way is a trap. You turn easy problems into difficult
ones because you perceive you need a team for even a very simple job,
if it crosses your completely arbitrary
On Jan 15, 2009, at 7:56 AM, Joerg wrote:
Feedback I give in groups like this is meant to relay to the program
architects how the other end of the line works.
Ah, but the architects also are users. They know how the other ends
of their lines work.
If the gEDA goal is to
achieve some kind
John Doty wrote:
On Jan 15, 2009, at 7:56 AM, Joerg wrote:
Back then we had much more time to be a generalist than today.
Thinking that way is a trap. You turn easy problems into difficult
ones because you perceive you need a team for even a very simple job,
if it crosses your
On Jan 15, 2009, at 9:21 AM, Joerg wrote:
Thing is, my jobs aren't simple.
They are simpler than you think. A team of specialists can take weeks
to do a 20 minute job.
I cannot possibly build a whole
ultrasound machine or a complete aircraft all by myself.
No, but remember that every big
John Doty wrote:
On Jan 15, 2009, at 9:21 AM, Joerg wrote:
Thing is, my jobs aren't simple.
They are simpler than you think. A team of specialists can take weeks
to do a 20 minute job.
Most of my assignments are around 1/2 year, from spec discussions to
finished design. The shortest
Do either of you think that one size shoe should fit all peoples feet?
The market place of jobs will have opportunities for specialists and for
generalists and for ranges in between.
The generalist will be at a disadvantage when faced with a task that
pushes state of the art for a specific
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 10:33 +, Peter Clifton wrote:
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 20:45 -0500, Bob Paddock wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:57 PM, DJ Delorie [1...@delorie.com wrote:
It only has to live a couple of hours
I've made circuits like that. Not always intentionally,
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 20:45 -0500, Bob Paddock wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:57 PM, DJ Delorie [1...@delorie.com wrote:
It only has to live a couple of hours
I've made circuits like that. Not always intentionally, though.
You can buy parts from Vishay that do rapid
On Jan 13, 2009, at 1:47 PM, Joerg wrote:
John Doty wrote:
Then we are working in different worlds.
And that is my point. gEDA has to be flexible to accommodate the
needs of different worlds, rather than some specific narrow channel.
But at least we both worked
with CCD imagers :-)
On Jan 13, 2009, at 5:12 PM, r wrote:
BTW, analog IC guys long since have given up using implicit power
connections
Another sweeping statement from a narrow point of view, I think. A
counter-example is in order:
http://research.kek.jp/people/ikeda/openIP/
If you can't read Japanese, just
John Doty wrote:
On Jan 13, 2009, at 5:12 PM, r wrote:
BTW, analog IC guys long since have given up using implicit power
connections
Another sweeping statement from a narrow point of view, I think. A
counter-example is in order:
http://research.kek.jp/people/ikeda/openIP/
If you
On Jan 13, 2009, at 5:12 PM, r wrote:
Believe it or not, gEDA actually strongly focuses on the PCB flow.
It supports PCB flow, but it's not intended to be focused on any
specific application. That is part of its strength. I've designed
ASICs with it, so it's hardly restricted to PCB.
On Jan 14, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Joerg wrote:
John Doty wrote:
On Jan 13, 2009, at 5:12 PM, r wrote:
BTW, analog IC guys long since have given up using implicit power
connections
Another sweeping statement from a narrow point of view, I think. A
counter-example is in order:
John Doty wrote:
On Jan 14, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Joerg wrote:
John Doty wrote:
On Jan 13, 2009, at 5:12 PM, r wrote:
BTW, analog IC guys long since have given up using implicit power
connections
Another sweeping statement from a narrow point of view, I think. A
counter-example is in order:
On Jan 14, 2009, at 1:49 PM, Joerg wrote:
John Doty wrote:
On Jan 14, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Joerg wrote:
John Doty wrote:
On Jan 13, 2009, at 5:12 PM, r wrote:
BTW, analog IC guys long since have given up using implicit power
connections
Another sweeping statement from a narrow point of
John Doty wrote:
On Jan 14, 2009, at 1:49 PM, Joerg wrote:
John Doty wrote:
On Jan 14, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Joerg wrote:
John Doty wrote:
On Jan 13, 2009, at 5:12 PM, r wrote:
BTW, analog IC guys long since have given up using implicit power
connections
Another sweeping statement from a
Stefan Salewski wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 13.01.2009, 13:11 -0800 schrieb Joerg:
I started out with Futurenet Dash-2 in 1986, then Dash-4, then
self-employed with Orcad as my tool, later through several versions of
that and a few years ago switched to Eagle. That's what I am using right
now
Am Mittwoch, den 14.01.2009, 16:40 -0800 schrieb Joerg:
Eagle is IMHO pretty good but it does have one major disadvantage: No
hierarchy support. That pretty much restricts it to smaller projects. To
my surprise Cadsoft has never picked up on suggestions to fix that,
version 5 doesn't have
Stefan Salewski wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 14.01.2009, 16:40 -0800 schrieb Joerg:
Eagle is IMHO pretty good but it does have one major disadvantage: No
hierarchy support. That pretty much restricts it to smaller projects. To
my surprise Cadsoft has never picked up on suggestions to fix that,
On Jan 14, 2009, at 6:43 PM, Joerg wrote:
But I can only say it from the position of a user, not as a
programmer because that's the domain of the experts here.
Back in 1969, I was taught that the purpose of Fortran was to erase
this distinction, putting the power of the computer into the
John,
That was eloquently said.
I would suggest that geda/gaf users at a minimum should attempt to
understand the scripting language scheme and its interface to gaf.
Steve Meier
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 20:30 -0700, John Doty wrote:
On Jan 14, 2009, at 6:43 PM, Joerg wrote:
But I can only
Stuart Brorson wrote:
Hi Joerg --
It's fun to see that you're back on the geda e-mail lists! Welcome
back! We thought you had defected to Kicad. :-(
To be honest I don't think I'll switch to gEDA. The refdes and slot
mix-ups are certainly surmountable but I found over the last couple
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 06:56 -0800, Joerg wrote:
Stuart Brorson wrote:
Hi Joerg --
It's fun to see that you're back on the geda e-mail lists! Welcome
back! We thought you had defected to Kicad. :-(
To be honest I don't think I'll switch to gEDA. The refdes and slot
mix-ups are
John Griessen wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Thanks, Stuart, that's all I really wanted to do, bringing some feedback
based on what I see in industry. As a consultant I get around a lot,
seeing all kinds of CAD systems and habits of people. Some of this is
very different from what many in this
On Jan 12, 2009, at 4:05 PM, Joerg wrote:
John Doty wrote:
Take a device with multiple parts in there such as the 74HC14 and
handle
it like Eagle and Orcad do: None of them has power symbols. Then if
you
must connect it to some special power net you can invoke the power
symbols along
John -
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:54:21PM -0700, John Doty wrote:
It seems you want gEDA to cater to your unwillingness to master new
skills, learn better ways to do things. But gEDA's power is that it
frees you to use the better way, not constraining you to inefficient
ways of doing
On Jan 13, 2009, at 1:01 PM, Larry Doolittle wrote:
John -
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:54:21PM -0700, John Doty wrote:
It seems you want gEDA to cater to your unwillingness to master new
skills, learn better ways to do things. But gEDA's power is that it
frees you to use the better way, not
Sure, but I don't think that's what gEDA was meant to do.
But geda *was* meant to be able to hook in other sources of data.
Ok, if gEDA is geared towards ASIC/FPGA that's different.
It's not - *his* work is geared towards it, and he had a way to make
geda work smoothly with his data needs.
DJ Delorie wrote:
Sure, but I don't think that's what gEDA was meant to do.
But geda *was* meant to be able to hook in other sources of data.
Ok, if gEDA is geared towards ASIC/FPGA that's different.
It's not - *his* work is geared towards it, and he had a way to make
geda work smoothly
Well ~25 years ago, you didn't need no stinkin layout program you just
wire wrapped from the net list which was hand generated. I still have
holes in my fingers from those bloody pins.
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 16:00 -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
Sure, but I don't think that's what gEDA was meant to
Well ~25 years ago, you didn't need no stinkin layout program you
just wire wrapped from the net list which was hand generated. I
still have holes in my fingers from those bloody pins.
I still have my wire wrapping tool. Still use it too, especially the
wire stripper - handy for wire fixing
On Jan 13, 2009, at 2:00 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
Each geda user is going to
have a preferred way of doing things,
*A* preferred way. Actually, I have several. Depends on the project
and customer.
John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
j...@noqsi.com
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Joerg joerg...@analogconsultants.com wrote:
The backplanes in our ultrasound systems are
usually north of 4000 pins and I have never seen a case where there was
not a schematic for that.
In analog IC design it's fairly easy to get schematics even bigger
than
Joerg wrote:
I started out with Futurenet Dash-2 in 1986, then Dash-4, then
self-employed with Orcad as my tool, later through several versions of
that and a few years ago switched to Eagle. That's what I am using right
now until I find something better. Eagle won't handle hierarchies,
Dan McMahill wrote:
Joerg wrote:
I started out with Futurenet Dash-2 in 1986, then Dash-4, then
self-employed with Orcad as my tool, later through several versions of
that and a few years ago switched to Eagle. That's what I am using right
now until I find something better. Eagle won't
r wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Joerg joerg...@analogconsultants.com wrote:
The backplanes in our ultrasound systems are
usually north of 4000 pins and I have never seen a case where there was
not a schematic for that.
In analog IC design it's fairly easy to get schematics even
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 12:53 AM, Joerg joerg...@analogconsultants.com wrote:
Yes, because you guys don't have to pay 2-3c for each additional
transistor or 5c per FET :-)
At least not for those working. :-)
But it'll electromigrate itself to death in less than a year ... It
only has to
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:57 PM, DJ Delorie [1...@delorie.com wrote:
It only has to live a couple of hours
I've made circuits like that. Not always intentionally, though.
You can buy parts from Vishay that do rapid spontaneous disassembly
by design:
Exploding/Magic Smoke
On Jan 12, 2009, at 12:36 PM, Joerg wrote:
When you place the first instantation it'll be pins 1,2,3, the next
one
5,6,7 and so on. But all are supplied via the common supply pins 4 and
11. In gschem you only have two choices. Either you create a library
model that repeats those pins 4
John Doty wrote:
On Jan 12, 2009, at 12:36 PM, Joerg wrote:
When you place the first instantation it'll be pins 1,2,3, the next
one
5,6,7 and so on. But all are supplied via the common supply pins 4 and
11. In gschem you only have two choices. Either you create a library
model that
On Monday 12 January 2009 20:50:49 Joerg wrote:
Thanks, but it says useless with gschem, whatever that means. In the
telephone.sch file I could only see a mike and a speaker with coil, but
no power pins.
In the end it's important that a decent power pin handling is inside the
program
On Jan 12, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Joerg wrote:
John Doty wrote:
On Jan 12, 2009, at 12:36 PM, Joerg wrote:
When you place the first instantation it'll be pins 1,2,3, the next
one
5,6,7 and so on. But all are supplied via the common supply pins
4 and
11. In gschem you only have two choices.
John Doty wrote:
On Jan 12, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Joerg wrote:
John Doty wrote:
On Jan 12, 2009, at 12:36 PM, Joerg wrote:
When you place the first instantation it'll be pins 1,2,3, the next
one
5,6,7 and so on. But all are supplied via the common supply pins
4 and
11. In gschem you only
On Jan 12, 2009, at 2:36 PM, Joerg wrote:
John Doty wrote:
On Jan 12, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Joerg wrote:
John Doty wrote:
On Jan 12, 2009, at 12:36 PM, Joerg wrote:
When you place the first instantation it'll be pins 1,2,3, the
next
one
5,6,7 and so on. But all are supplied via the
All,
Oh no, not again... We have already had this _exact_ same endless
discussion a couple of months ago. People, please go back into the
archives and re-read the previous discussion and take all follow up
offline. Please?
[ snip everything cause it has been hashed out before ]
Joerg,
Am Montag, den 12.01.2009, 14:54 -0700 schrieb John Doty:
Sounds miserably complex and inflexible. While with gEDA, you break
the physical device up however you choose, into as many symbols as
you want, and there's nothing magical about power pins.
Indeed, I think handling of power
John Doty wrote:
On Jan 12, 2009, at 2:36 PM, Joerg wrote:
John Doty wrote:
On Jan 12, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Joerg wrote:
John Doty wrote:
On Jan 12, 2009, at 12:36 PM, Joerg wrote:
When you place the first instantation it'll be pins 1,2,3, the
next
one
5,6,7 and so on. But all are
Ales Hvezda wrote:
All,
Oh no, not again... We have already had this _exact_ same endless
discussion a couple of months ago. People, please go back into the
archives and re-read the previous discussion and take all follow up
offline. Please?
[ snip everything cause it has been hashed
I don't see why the slotdef attribute can't have a grammar such as
slotdef=2:1~v,2~v,13~v,7~h,14~h which says show pins 1, 2 and 3 but
hide the fourth and fifth pin following pins.
I don't see how this type of change would reduce flexibility.
Ales,
Where on http://geda.seul.org/wiki/geda:faq
[snip]
Where on http://geda.seul.org/wiki/geda:faq is the word goal even used?
The word is approach is only used to argue against monolithic
programs. So I dispute that the goals/approaches are clearly documented
I edit the page and spell it out even more clearly when I get
a chance.
Hi Joerg --
It's fun to see that you're back on the geda e-mail lists! Welcome
back! We thought you had defected to Kicad. :-(
Ok, I don't want to diss the Linux way of doing things here, just want
let you guys know how most circuit design engineers out there work.
*snip!*
I think that
61 matches
Mail list logo
