John Doty wrote: > The interesting idea so far in this discussion has been to let the > BOM be source rather than product. > > Dang, That was the idea I intentionally left out of my last diatribe. And you cut right to it. I agree, that the world being bom specific as opposed to schematic specific is interesting even if i havn't got a clear vission oh what being bom specific means. I was going to ask, that does being bom specific mean.... that we build new designs with an a bias to the components we already have?
Seems like the purchasing department/ inventory management groups might like the idea? I would rather find a way to describe a problem economically... The cost of using one component over another as long as the availability and capability of the componet doesn't become an issue, should determine the selection of the component. Or, should the potential future cost of a component be includded in the selection of what goes into the new design? You have heard the joke that if you took all the economists in the world and lined them up head to foot they would not reach a conclussion? Hey add hardware engineers debating the meritts of languages to that last thought ;) Steve Meier _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user