> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] 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: [email protected] > >> [mailto:[email protected]] 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 [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
