Re: gEDA-dev: [Re: is all EDA as bad as gEDA/pcb?]

[DJ Delorie <dj-at-NOSPAMdelorie_dot_com>]

> Sorry if I sound grumpy too, but I think your buddy is looking for a
> windows bloatware

Unlikely.  Russ is a BIG promoter of Linux and Open Source, and has
been writing free software longer than I have.  I've heard lots of
people on the sci.* newsgroups make similar complaints - the parts are
not integrated enough to be optimally usable.  Even if we keep the
programs separate, we need more automatic communication between the
various parts to make the whole workflow more streamlined.

> Scriptability is a good idea, but...

Me, I think scriptability belongs in Makefiles, not PCB, as far as
footprint generation goes.

> (For pcb I started to write such a plugin, it's currenlty waiting for the
> gadget or wizard GUI)

Yeah, yeah, yeah.  ;-)

> Perosnally I would hate if pcb or gschem asked me such questions or even
> if the binary woudl be able to send footprints or symbols to the
> network. It's ok if it's a compile-time option so users like me, who hate
> bloatware offering millions of useless user-friendliness-functions could
> turn it off. 

Perhaps a separate library manager?  Something to think of in the
context of the heavy/light library discussion.

> Same as above, I wouldn't like if pcb would ask many questions when i
> start instead of using customizable defaults and providing simple ways to
> change settings on the fly.

We have a "new layout" option that nobody uses, which asks you for the
name of the layout.  I think we should expand that to include board
size, layers, and whatever else makes sense; fill in the defaults, and
pop that up whenever we create a board from nothing.  Additionally,
we've talked about being able to have "new" mean "load a template".

> Maybe we should just have a set of alternative defaults? One with 2
> layers, 100 mil, DRC for easy toner transfer and another which is like the
> current default?

That's the template idea.

> I would drop autoscroll too.

Note that I didn't add that to the lesstif HID :-)

> I think it's really about what the user expects.

Yup, and in this context - *we* are *not* "users".  We're biased.

> If he wants a windows-like software with the key/mouse bindings he
> got used to and he refuses to learn a new one, he won't like the
> software.

OTOH, if he expects the bindings to be similar to other GTK
applications, he still won't like it, and he'll be right.

> Anyway there are those bugs in the GTK hid, and usually people
> suggest to use the lesstif hid instead - but I think that would
> scare away my students. Gtk at least looks a bit similar to windows
> so they don't stand up after the first minute ;)

Yup.  I've got some ideas for the Lesstif hid that may make it more
"modern".  We'll see if they work out.

> Actually I would hate to see such integration enforced. Instead, I
> really like the way xgsch2pcb does it. I use Makefiles, my students
> use xgsch2pcb.

Still, back-annotation and easier incremental changes would really
help usability.


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