Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/08/25/10:14:59
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------070103050405070101050304
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 25/08/15 15:18, John Doty wrote:
>> Isn't the whole idea in this thread "let's make gschem/pcb more accessible”?
> Yes, but the answer looks*completely* different depending on whether you’re coming from a pcb (integrated tool) or geda-gaf (toolkit) perspective.
It must be my lack of understanding the English language but I don't
think there is anyone on this list disputing the power, flexibility,
simplicity and usability of the geda-gaf (gschem) toolkit. Well I don't.
If I understand what I have read there is no one that wants to restrict
the functionality of gschem.
If anything I guess there is a bigger change that pcb will move towards
gschem (geda) then the other way around.
All people try to do is find a way to make the combination more
accessible. I don't mind adding the restriction "looking from the
geda-gaf perspective", if that makes us move forward.
Cheers, Robert.
--------------070103050405070101050304
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 25/08/15 15:18, John Doty wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:3FA132D6-A8D9-47C8-8D37-E1962EF4098B AT noqsi DOT com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre wrap="">Isn't the whole idea in this thread "let's make gschem/pcb more accessible”?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Yes, but the answer looks <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>completely<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> different depending on whether you’re coming from a pcb (integrated tool) or geda-gaf (toolkit) perspective.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
It must be my lack of understanding the English language but I don't
think there is anyone on this list disputing the power, flexibility,
simplicity and usability of the geda-gaf (gschem) toolkit. Well I
don't.<br>
If I understand what I have read there is no one that wants to
restrict the functionality of gschem.<br>
If anything I guess there is a bigger change that pcb will move
towards gschem (geda) then the other way around.<br>
<br>
All people try to do is find a way to make the combination more
accessible. I don't mind adding the restriction "looking from the
geda-gaf perspective", if that makes us move forward.<br>
<br>
Cheers, Robert.<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------070103050405070101050304--
- Raw text -