Re: gEDA-dev: DBUS in external hid?

[John Griessen <john_g-at-NOSPAMcibolo_dot_com>]

Peter TB Brett wrote:
> On Sunday 08 October 2006 18:05, John Griessen wrote:
> 
>> Please remember that pcb and gschem are used for real life 
>> economic gain, and need to keep that focus while adding education features
>> that do not break the present real-life-tool functions.
> 
> Most people using pcb & gschem for real economic gain will very likely be 
> using Makefiles to do their netlisting and PCB updating, not a flashy GUI 
> tool.

[jg]Chip design is more regimented than board design, and it still involves
a lot of trial and error work during the simulate and testbench phases
and that goes to change layout often too, and when I did it, I liked to have 
lots of windows open...  For niche market boards, it's a lot of GUI using to get 
there via schematics and layout with notes to help review it for sanity with 
little simulating going on.

> 
> Secondly, our patch doesn't remove or break *any* "present real-life-tool 
> functions".  So your entire comment is something of a non sequitur, I'm 
> afraid.

[jg] You just need more background for understanding my logic...  That last 
sentence sounds like the logic of programming as usual: If it just barely 
started to work, it's golden! (TM)

DBUS sure adds a lot of weight.  I am sure it could cause trouble -- maybe even 
lock up X-windows.

Let's keep it detachable... so
users can leave it off that don't want it.  It's just normal for users of design 
tools to customize their tools and methods and normal for them to disagree about 
what's best.  DBUS could be nifty and fun.  Until it breaks.  It could be a nice 
quick-look way to see how many people want how much IPC.


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