John Doty wrote: > On May 9, 2009, at 2:51 PM, Joerg wrote: > >> Stefan Salewski wrote: >>> On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 17:13 -0700, Joerg wrote: >>> >>>> IMHO that is fundamentally wrong. How many successful race car >>>> drivers >>>> these days do you think can disassemble and re-assemble a Ferrari >>>> engine >>>> _and_ tune it properly? >>>> >>> What I heard about Michael Schumacher was that his strength was >>> more his >>> technical understanding about the car, which makes it possible to >>> discuss with the tech team to improve the cat, than his driving >>> skills. >>> >> Sure they know the technology, just like a pilot must know the inner >> workings of a jet engine or like I know how C and assembler is >> written. >> But that does not mean those people can perform the work of an expert >> mechanic or engineer in those fields. > > The best can. When Yeager was test flying the Mig-15, he wired the > pyros on the ejection seat himself. >
Wiring pyros is not designing an ejection seat. >> In fact most can't, and they don't >> have to. > > Just because most people are content with mediocrity does not mean we > should cater to their laziness. And note that this kind of laziness > makes their job harder: master the tools, and the computer becomes an > enormously more powerful device in your hands. > Every sector of a trade has their strengths and weaknesses. Or should I consider engineers who can't design high voltage ICs, RF amps or fix EMC problems in their sleep "mediocre" just because I can do those things? I would never dare to say that, because it's not true. They just have other specialties. >> >>>> I know several fine electronics engineers who are not at all >>>> versed in >>>> fixing a PC, let alone install an OS. In fact, this is the >>>> majority of >>>> top notch engineers that I know. >>>> >>>> >>> It's hard for me to imagine an engineer who can not install an OS, >>> when >>> so many 12 years old school boys can do it. I can imagine other "top >>> notch" people, like (financial) managers, artists, maybe >>> mathematicians >>> -- but that is not out target group. >>> >> Maybe hard to imagine for you but that how life is :-) > > Nope. Life for the first rate is studying a new thing every day, > stretching yourself, learning how to exploit different methodologies > and points of view. > > Von Neummann once recommended a specific vacuum tube to the engineers > working on the early computers. He understood the issues and knew > that this specific new tube had worth characteristics. That's first > rate. > >> >>> Of course gEDA for Windows would mean more users. But would those >>> additional user contribute something to the project? >>> >> Oh yes. Without feedback from lots of folks who do engineering and CAD >> for decades you cannot create a good CAD tool. > > Unless you walk in the developers' shoes, you cannot give truly > effective feedback. And developers who never walk in users' shoes > will never really understand what they need. Fundamentally, gEDA is > better because we don't have that inefficient kind of division of labor. > Not so. For example, in medical electronics we receive the most valuable feedback from the best cardiologists in the country, guys I'd trust 100% if my time on the table came. Yet most don't have the foggiest idea how electronics work. And that's perfectly ok. >> >>> KiCAD was available from the beginning for Windows. Based on your >>> logic >>> the development of KiCad should be very fast, because of all these >>> "top >>> notch engineers" who can use it and who can contribute. ... >> >> It has improved trmendously over the last three years. >> >> >>> ... I do not >>> know >>> much about KiCAD, but it seems to be not too bad, and I know some >>> people >>> who used it on Windows. ... >> >> IMHO it's at a more useful stage right now than gEDA. No flames >> please, >> that's just my personal opinion, as someone who's done CAD quite >> extensively for over 20 years. Kicad is a very good CAD program, >> but has >> some quirks left. > > They won't get fixed by complaining. > Mentioning and explaining details of a bug is not complaining. Papering over stuff like that is what keeps SW in the nerd corner. >> >>> .. But most development seems to be still done by >>> the original author. >>> >> Yes, and therefore even more amazing. But I never understood why the >> Charras team and the gEDA team don't join forces. Very good things >> could >> come out of that. > > We have completely different and fundamentally incompatible visions. > That doesn't mean we can't respect each other, ... Fully agree. > ... but I think joining forces is crazy. > Don't agree :-) -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user