> >You may prefer but the vast majority if people responding do not want
> >another mail list it seems...
>
> Mr. Wilson, we know, is allergic to new lists and only accepts them with
> difficulty. However, there will need to be a *lot* of detailed discussion,

I don't think a new list is needed to handle PCB footprint message traffic.
After all, aren't we all using Protel?  The footprints being distributed
would be in Protel data format.  Therefore, it's a Protel EDA Forum issue,
right?  The Protel EDA Forum is not just about workarounds and software
bugs, right?

I think a "lib for everyone" is a great concept, but it will always be an
unfinished work.  I would prefer if there was a web page we could download
PCB footprints from.  Not a huge library that may or may not have what we
are actually looking for, but individual footprints in their own little
files.  For example, if I am looking for an Amp RJ-45 footprint, I should
not have to download the entire AMP library before I find out the footprint
I want isn't in it.  If possible, the footprints should be in Protel ASCII
format so they could be used with older (pre-99SE) versions of Protel.

If we don't get a web page, we can still ask others in this list for
footprints.  I did so 2 weeks ago and got several responses that were
exactly what I needed - thanks to all who responded.  But if we do get a web
page for footprints, we could proactively contribute footprints.

As far as "verification" of parts goes, I oppose any bureaucratization that
would hinder or slow down the footprint distribution process.  This sounds
like more "total quality management" business school bullsh*t.  The buyer
beware - free stuff may only be worth what you pay for it.  Check the
footprint yourself before you use it.  I do.

Best regards,
Ivan Baggett
Bagotronix Inc.
website:  www.bagotronix.com


----- Original Message -----
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] a lib. for everyone


> At 07:10 PM 7/25/01 +1000, Ian Wilson wrote:
> >On 08:55 PM 24/07/2001 -0700, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax said:
> >
> >>As I stated, I do prefer that we move this discussion to the new list,
> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >You may prefer but the vast majority if people responding do not want
> >another mail list it seems...
>
> Mr. Wilson, we know, is allergic to new lists and only accepts them with
> difficulty. However, there will need to be a *lot* of detailed discussion,
> I expect, and we will need polling tools (if large numbers want to get
> involved, otherwise it could be done more informally).
>
> There are already more subscribers to the new list than there are people
> responding in this thread, so Mr. Wilson's comment about "vast majority"
> may be a bit biased. I know that I'm now suppressing my own responses
here.
> Obviously, I can't stop users from discussing the issue here, but, if past
> discussions are a guide, there will be a lot of talk and little or no
> action coming out of it. We will need *ratified* standards or we will end
> up with a library that many designers won't want to use; I want to
maximize
> consensus on the standards so that they will truly represent the
collective
> wisdom of our fellow users.
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Abdulrahman Lomax
> P.O. Box 690
> El Verano, CA 95433
>

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*                      - or email -
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to