X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:content-type;
	bh=RF5p009fV3w/4BIzyuj8fgkbKnxK+wQStsEDCChe7Ks=;
	b=pGMZd1qonq6xQ+kSFqbgVD4EDxX54rb+ttfAFAgSifory9ZjZYijYLW1JmuOBaXoU3
	ZcpdtSeAZtfyzX5gTJ7tPZG5v1AzFs3ICUBrhbFVB1UjeE5Uuyc2IIXRZJfcLuYpUD7k
	oClWd4jsXi0SYc6ymlvwSmcDaHmJevpp1oJRHfqyCUbRsR22q6E+cY1xvCc3XXk406g6
	udoIkAIu8FGwBXAYty/0iscpdaWMRQ9hQeCXHAmwVKhGDmLWZzcrczz2sag7Ba9SZh6G
	b695ITs/3BD1wIdCrUOMryTSoejSiLJVP0u6rom6BJUzCxcRYtjsBsOrdG+gCbOxL6Rq
	9g7Q==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.194.133.101 with SMTP id pb5mr8496792wjb.40.1423027676751;
	Tue, 03 Feb 2015 21:27:56 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To:	<20150204054256.Horde.Pm1JV8RJbICk9SHvIGwZ7A3@webmail.in-berlin.de>
References:	<1420499386 DOT 3521 DOT 3 DOT camel AT cam DOT ac DOT uk>
	<20150202152654 DOT GA13336 AT cuci DOT nl>
	<54CFD589 DOT 9040702 AT xs4all DOT nl>
	<CAHBYzfRkn-nJb4JfrDYyaD0WwPrpZvAgi0QdHCusgz185iNoHA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CAGde_xN-iNZUvHh-E47kx1EyoPRt1018wWiDwHhYQ9+od+cJwA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<20150203112631 DOT 3507a0c1 AT Parasomnia DOT thuis DOT lan>
	<20150204054256 DOT Horde DOT Pm1JV8RJbICk9SHvIGwZ7A3 AT webmail DOT in-berlin DOT de>
Date:	Tue, 3 Feb 2015 21:27:56 -0800
Message-ID:	<CAOP4iL2stWVCy3WK0=SNu2zAbs8t6B0uyAgFuOnzG8v_MrYNfw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] FOSDEM
From:	Ouabache Designworks <z3qmtr45 AT gmail DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

--089e011771f32dadf0050e3c735a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>
> So let us start to bring the Idea of a common platform for EDA to reality.
> I don't like vaporware :-)
>
>
>
I read a very interesting databit from a eda blogger (Daniel Payne) who
cited a report that for every $1 we spend on EDA tools
(Synopsys,Mentor,Cadence etc) that we spend $3 on supporting
those tools and getting them to work together. Everybody is spending a huge
amount to create their very own custom tool flows that does basicly what
everybody elses tool flows do.

This is the ideal problem for an open source solution. We all need to do
the same thing. We are all currently spending a huge effort to create our
own unique solutions. The problems are really not that hard. Our toolflows
and scripts are not critical IP that we cannot share. If you wanted to
create a tool flow that was better than 75% of all the toolflows out then
then that is not hard to do.

If we could get all the eda teams currently supporting their own tool flows
to contribute to a single open source solution then we would all be a lot
better off.

It is time for EDA users to realize that big EDA can not and will not solve
this problem for us. We need a grass roots effort to rally around and
support an open source EDA tool flow solution
with a completely free  tool set.

We got to start talking to each other and sharing ideals and problems.
There is no money in this for Big EDA so don't expect any help from them
but we need this. This could be the "Linux" of
the EDA world.


Is there anything like FOSDEM  in the USA? Can we add some BOF sessions to
any of the conferences or conventions>?


John Eaton

--089e011771f32dadf0050e3c735a
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex">
So let us start to bring the Idea of a common platform for EDA to reality.<=
br>
I don&#39;t like vaporware :-)<br>
<br><span><font color=3D"#888888"></font></span><br></blockquote><div><br><=
/div><div>I read a very interesting databit from a eda blogger (Daniel Payn=
e) who cited a report that for every $1 we spend on EDA tools (Synopsys,Men=
tor,Cadence etc) that we spend $3 on supporting<br></div><div>those tools a=
nd getting them to work together. Everybody is spending a huge amount to cr=
eate their very own custom tool flows that does basicly what everybody else=
s tool flows do. <br><br></div><div>This is the ideal problem for an open s=
ource solution. We all need to do the same thing. We are all currently spen=
ding a huge effort to create our own unique solutions. The problems are rea=
lly not that hard. Our toolflows and scripts are not critical IP that we ca=
nnot share. If you wanted to create a tool flow that was better than 75% of=
 all the toolflows out then then that is not hard to do. <br><br></div><div=
>If we could get all the eda teams currently supporting their own tool flow=
s to contribute to a single open source solution then we would all be a lot=
 better off.<br><br></div><div>It is time for EDA users to realize that big=
 EDA can not and will not solve this problem for us. We need a grass roots =
effort to rally around and=C2=A0 support an open source EDA tool flow solut=
ion <br></div><div>with a completely free=C2=A0 tool set. <br><br></div><di=
v>We got to start talking to each other and sharing ideals and problems. Th=
ere is no money in this for Big EDA so don&#39;t expect any help from them =
but we need this. This could be the &quot;Linux&quot; of <br></div><div>the=
 EDA world.<br><br><br></div><div>Is there anything like FOSDEM=C2=A0 in th=
e USA? Can we add some BOF sessions to any of the conferences or convention=
s&gt;?<br><br><br></div><div>John Eaton<br><br><br></div><div><br><br><br><=
br><br></div><div><br><br><br>=C2=A0</div></div></div></div>

--089e011771f32dadf0050e3c735a--

- Raw text -