Steve Meier wrote: > 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?
That we do engineering always conscious of cost vs. performance is all it means to me. > > Seems like the purchasing department/ inventory management groups might > like the idea? Sure. > > 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? don't forget the incremental cost of making a change of any kind... John G -- Ecosensory _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user