> Trying to make the database optional even after developing its use > sounds hard. Is there opposition to a database? No database ever would > be limiting...
I've been watching this discussion for quite a while. I don't want to derail it, since it's good to have an exchange of ideas. However, since you asked, I'll chime in. I am completely, utterly, and deadly opposed to a database, except as an optional plug-in -- i.e. a separate facility which the remainder of gEDA can run without. If gEDA requires a database for use, then we lose 99% of all gEDA users. A database is a PITA to install, build, maintain, administer, upgrade, and use. It is also a dependency which will make gEDA uninstallable by almost everybody. The beauty of gEDA is that it is (barely) simple enough that rank amateurs can figure it out and produce boards. It is also powerful enough that professionals can produce low to mid-level complexity boards. Don't break that feature! My strongly held opinion is that if somebody wants a database for use with gEDA, what they *really* want is an ERP system (e.g. Sugar or something like that). In that case, they are in a different class of gEDA user than gEDA's target audience of students, educators, hobbiests, etc. Power users should consider paying for professional IT services to put an ERP system into place, and integrate it with gEDA. Indeed, this represents a business opportunity which somebody should grab. However, gEDA should continue to operate on principles of easy installation, easy use, and easy maintainence. Just MHO, Stuart _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user