Re: gEDA-user: Soft and Hard symbols
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:05 AM, Peter Clifton pc...@cam.ac.uk wrote: Connectivity is precisely the kind of thing that should not be in libgeda. I (and all other gEDA developers I've talked to) disagree. That's interesting. Many of my issues with gschem and gnetlist are at some level related to low level of abstraction provided by libgeda. What people expect from EDA tools is not a pretty drawing (that's what they use PowerPoint for), they want these tools to assist them in the design and maintenance process, freeing them from remembering everything and perhaps catch some errrors. This assumes that the tool has some knowledge of the application it is used for. Sure, it is impossible to design a perfect tool (that would mean the designer is no longer needed), but more the tool knows, the better. This is the first time I hear that gEDA developers are even considering changes in this area (or was it simply because of closing down the geda-dev mailing list?). If that indeed is the case, I could do some work on the project without having a feeling of lost effort. The question is, how far would you like gEDA to go in this direction? IMHO this should go rather far (you know, others were doing it for decades). Libgeda (or, what I'd like to call it, the database) should be _the_ way of accessing and interpreting the design data, perhaps even doing some IPC so that different program instances, each linking to libgeda are aware of each other. An open, documented backend (file format) is still valuable as a fallback option (for quick scripting jobs that do not need full knowledge of the design connectivity etc.). The latter option + open API is what distinguishes gEDA from commercial guys - they, in addition to all the engineering purposes, tend to use the database as a lock-in tool. Andrzej ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Soft and Hard symbols
On Jan 19, 2011, at 7:14 PM, Andrzej wrote: Sure, it is impossible to design a perfect tool (that would mean the designer is no longer needed), but more the tool knows, the better. But gEDA isn't a tool: it's a toolkit. In a toolkit, you maximize power and flexibility by having the tools specialize. The less a tool knows about stuff outside its specialty, the more powerful and flexible it can be within its specialty. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ j...@noqsi.com ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: gschem: How to set the margin for printing?
Am 18.01.2011 um 09:42 schrieb Colin D Bennett: it's unfortunate that printers are usually not physically capable of printing on the entire page for the intended paper size. However, given that this is a widespread restriction, there are really only two options for the printer when you ask it to print a document on a particular size page - it has to scale the image or it has to crop it to the printable area. Third option is to simply ignore that restriction and let the printer do the cropping. Actually, that's the easiest one to code, and the one least confusing to the user. What you guys are probably talking about is the imaginable area of a print. That's = paper area, of course, and advertised by the printer. A small excerpt from my printer's PPD: *PaperDimension A4/A4: 595 842 *ImageableArea A4/A4: 12 12 583 830 There's also the term PageRegion - same values as PaperDimension -, but I'm not deep enough into the matter to know the difference between PaperDimension and PageRegion. Markus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl. Ing. (FH) Markus Hitter http://www.jump-ing.de/ ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Soft and Hard symbols
But gEDA isn't a tool: it's a toolkit. I consider gEDA to be a tool. gschem, gattrib, gnetlist - all tools. Thier job is to help engineers automate the design process, to do that, they have to know a lot about electronics design. The less a tool knows about . . . You just said it wasn't a tool. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: FYI [Fwd: [Balloon] Balloon 4]
Peter TB Brett wrote: Or should I fire up gEDA on something smaller and less visible first? Anyone want to hold my hand while I do it? Smaller and less visible, first, I would say, +1 I went from protel to geda. My experience was: Both suites have their specific strengths and weaknesses. Personal work style adjusts as you get used to the tools. Coming from a different suite, the weaknesses are immediately obvious. The strengths need more time to be appreciated. ---)kaimartin( -- Kai-Martin Knaak tel: +49-511-762-2895 Universität Hannover, Inst. für Quantenoptik fax: +49-511-762-2211 Welfengarten 1, 30167 Hannover http://www.iqo.uni-hannover.de GPG key:http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=Knaak+kmkop=get ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: gschem: How to set the margin for printing?
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 12:57:39 +0100 Markus Hitter m...@jump-ing.de wrote: Am 18.01.2011 um 09:42 schrieb Colin D Bennett: it's unfortunate that printers are usually not physically capable of printing on the entire page for the intended paper size. However, given that this is a widespread restriction, there are really only two options for the printer when you ask it to print a document on a particular size page - it has to scale the image or it has to crop it to the printable area. Third option is to simply ignore that restriction and let the printer do the cropping. Actually, that's the easiest one to code, and the one least confusing to the user. That third option is exactly what I meant by my second option, the printer ... has to crop it to the printable area. What you guys are probably talking about is the imaginable area of a print. That's = paper area, of course, and advertised by the I think everyone might _imagine_ a slightly different area to print! The printer will only be able to _image_ a certain area, however... :-) Regards, Colin ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Soft and Hard symbols
Dj you own a tool box, I've seen you build mechanical things. gEDA is a toolkit (toolbox), with your logic gnu unix is a tool. If I want to clean up the cylinder an engine block I get out an engine block hone, I do not get out a wire brush. Now in gEDA terms. When you want to edit a schematic, you break out gschem, and when you want bulk changes to attributes you get out gattrib. and when you doing something crazy you make a new tool, say in your favorite language for the job. 100% agreement with John; gEDA is a toolkit, not a single tool. being through, Kit: 1. A set of articles or equipment needed for a specific purpose : a first-aid kit. Not the computer science meaning of toolkit like GTK. Steve On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 6:08 AM, DJ Delorie d...@delorie.com wrote: But gEDA isn't a tool: it's a toolkit. I consider gEDA to be a tool. gschem, gattrib, gnetlist - all tools. Thier job is to help engineers automate the design process, to do that, they have to know a lot about electronics design. The less a tool knows about . . . You just said it wasn't a tool. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Soft and Hard symbols
gEDA is a toolkit (toolbox), with your logic gnu unix is a tool. gEDA is more like a design suite, a collection of tools and related stuff. Not the computer science meaning of toolkit like GTK. We're doing computer science, we have to use the CS meanings of things. A toolkit in CS is primarily a library. gEDA is more than just a library. Would you call OpenOffice a toolkit? It has a library. What about Firefox? It has a library. gEDA? It has a library. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Soft and Hard symbols
On Jan 19, 2011, at 12:10 PM, DJ Delorie [1]d...@delorie.com wrote: gEDA is a toolkit (toolbox), with your logic gnu unix is a tool. gEDA is more like a design suite, a collection of tools and related stuff. And before you said it was a tool. Not the computer science meaning of toolkit like GTK. We're doing computer science, we have to use the CS meanings of things. A toolkit in CS is primarily a library. Not quite, a library is a component of a toolkit, but there are many other components of a toolkit. Taking qt as an example. There is the ui designer application, the core libraries, and documentation. Naming the few top level components. gEDA is more than just a library. See above, a toolkit is much more than just a library. Would you call libpng a toolkit? No it is a library. Would you call OpenOffice a toolkit? No, it produces documents that are largely independent. Each application stands on it's own. It has a library. What about Firefox? A single application. It has a library. gEDA? It has a library. And a few other libraries (libgeda, symbols, scheme, ...) Assistant applications that manage those libraries to design circuits. Gschem, gattrib, xgschem2pcb, djboxsym, and many others. Documentation like your excellent tutorials for pcb. Guides on how to do simulation. Just because we are not compiling c code, does not mean that we are not a toolkit. I have now determined that my original statement that not in a computer science meaning is wrong, gEDA meets the compsci meaning of toolkit very nicely. The argument you are using to decrease the value of John's opinion is purely based on semantics. Our users could not care less about the term toolkit verses tool suite vs many applications in a folder. The gEDA developers are doing computer science but our users are not. The gimp toolkit allows it's users to make gimp like applications, the geda toolkit allows it's users to make electronic designs. It's all semantics and context. But in John's defense if geda was treated just as a tool ( note the singular unified meaning of tool ). Then a huge portion of flexibility is lost. And it would become as limited as many of the other tools out there. Such as eagle, kicad, or, other printed circuit design tools. I have seen this in many different projects and designs. An I work at a company with arguably the cream of the crop user interface and user experience designers, Apple. Yet we often drive away power users because things were made too simple, for one flow. Steve ___ geda-user mailing list [2]geda-user@moria.seul.org [3]http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user References 1. mailto:d...@delorie.com 2. mailto:geda-user@moria.seul.org 3. http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Soft and Hard symbols
And before you said it was a tool. It is a tool, and more like a design suite than a toolkit. If you're going to play with words just to make your argument, I'm leaving. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Collaborative Development of Boards
Am 18.01.2011 um 01:56 schrieb John Griessen: I thought about this some more after sleeping last night, and what Markus is probably asking for is a position range sensitive diff or auto- merge. When people make changes in PCB that can be merged, it means they are working in different places, zones, quadrants... IOW if you could say easily *where* you were working was different and not overlapping another's work, an auto-merge would work -- if it only over-rode layout traces and footprints in the limited zone of the change made... That reminds me on an idea discussed here a few weeks ago: drop the current footprint logic and replace it with full fledged circuit layouts. You'd edit the sub-layout in it's own file and insert that into the total layout as a non-editable, but movable block. One possible drawback for both ideas: you can't route tracks through the foreign area/sub-layout, even if there's enough room after assembling the zones. Markus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl. Ing. (FH) Markus Hitter http://www.jump-ing.de/ ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Collaborative Development of Boards
Markus Hitter m...@jump-ing.de writes: Am 18.01.2011 um 01:56 schrieb John Griessen: I thought about this some more after sleeping last night, and what Markus is probably asking for is a position range sensitive diff or auto- merge. When people make changes in PCB that can be merged, it means they are working in different places, zones, quadrants... IOW if you could say easily *where* you were working was different and not overlapping another's work, an auto-merge would work -- if it only over-rode layout traces and footprints in the limited zone of the change made... That reminds me on an idea discussed here a few weeks ago: drop the current footprint logic and replace it with full fledged circuit layouts. You'd edit the sub-layout in it's own file and insert that into the total layout as a non-editable, but movable block. One possible drawback for both ideas: you can't route tracks through the foreign area/sub-layout, even if there's enough room after assembling the zones. Why do you need that limitation? Markus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl. Ing. (FH) Markus Hitter http://www.jump-ing.de/ ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user -- Stephan Böttcher FAX: +49-431-880-3968 Extraterrestrische PhysikTel: +49-431-880-2508 I.f.Exp.u.Angew.Physik mailto:boettc...@physik.uni-kiel.de Leibnizstr. 11, 24118 Kiel, Germany ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Soft and Hard symbols
On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:08 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: But gEDA isn't a tool: it's a toolkit. I consider gEDA to be a tool. gschem, gattrib, gnetlist - all tools. gschem, gattrib, gnetlist are tools. gEDA is a toolkit. Thier job is to help engineers automate the design process, to do that, they have to know a lot about electronics design. Collectively, yes. Separately, no tool needs to know more than its specialty. That's modular, factored design. The less a tool knows about . . . You just said it wasn't a tool. The toolkit is composed of tools. The tools are specialists, the kit isn't so much. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ j...@noqsi.com ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Soft and Hard symbols
On Jan 20, 2011, at 5:10 AM, DJ Delorie wrote: gEDA is a toolkit (toolbox), with your logic gnu unix is a tool. gEDA is more like a design suite, a collection of tools and related stuff. Not the computer science meaning of toolkit like GTK. We're doing computer science, we have to use the CS meanings of things. A toolkit in CS is primarily a library. Did you ever read Software Tools by Kernighan and Plauger? Absolutely brilliant book on software engineering, dated only in the fact that they were using FORTRAN as their foundation. Their tools were separate utility programs. That's the sense I mean. gEDA is more than just a library. Would you call OpenOffice a toolkit? It has a library. What about Firefox? It has a library. gEDA? It has a library. gEDA fundamentally has a file format. You don't have to use the library, and many of the simpler gEDA tools, e.g. djboxsym, don't use the library. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ j...@noqsi.com ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Collaborative Development of Boards
Am 19.01.2011 um 22:27 schrieb Stephan Boettcher: Markus Hitter m...@jump-ing.de writes: Am 18.01.2011 um 01:56 schrieb John Griessen: I thought about this some more after sleeping last night, and what Markus is probably asking for is a position range sensitive diff or auto- merge. When people make changes in PCB that can be merged, it means they are working in different places, zones, quadrants... IOW if you could say easily *where* you were working was different and not overlapping another's work, an auto-merge would work -- if it only over-rode layout traces and footprints in the limited zone of the change made... That reminds me on an idea discussed here a few weeks ago: drop the current footprint logic and replace it with full fledged circuit layouts. You'd edit the sub-layout in it's own file and insert that into the total layout as a non-editable, but movable block. One possible drawback for both ideas: you can't route tracks through the foreign area/sub-layout, even if there's enough room after assembling the zones. Why do you need that limitation? Without that limitation, a zone is no longer a zone and conflicts can happen. Doesn't apply for tracks drawn to the main layout, of course. Also doesn't apply to sub-layouts of undefined size, but then the idea of sectoring a board for different contributors becomes a bit limited. That said, I could use such sub-layouts right now, and they'd save quite a bit of work :-) Markus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl. Ing. (FH) Markus Hitter http://www.jump-ing.de/ ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Collaborative Development of Boards
Markus Hitter m...@jump-ing.de writes: Am 19.01.2011 um 22:27 schrieb Stephan Boettcher: Markus Hitter m...@jump-ing.de writes: Am 18.01.2011 um 01:56 schrieb John Griessen: I thought about this some more after sleeping last night, and what Markus is probably asking for is a position range sensitive diff or auto- merge. When people make changes in PCB that can be merged, it means they are working in different places, zones, quadrants... IOW if you could say easily *where* you were working was different and not overlapping another's work, an auto-merge would work -- if it only over-rode layout traces and footprints in the limited zone of the change made... That reminds me on an idea discussed here a few weeks ago: drop the current footprint logic and replace it with full fledged circuit layouts. You'd edit the sub-layout in it's own file and insert that into the total layout as a non-editable, but movable block. One possible drawback for both ideas: you can't route tracks through the foreign area/sub-layout, even if there's enough room after assembling the zones. Why do you need that limitation? Without that limitation, a zone is no longer a zone and conflicts can happen. Doesn't apply for tracks drawn to the main layout, of course. Also doesn't apply to sub-layouts of undefined size, but then the idea of sectoring a board for different contributors becomes a bit limited. Why? If everybody sticks to a sublayout, at least the VCS merges will not conflict. If the drawn copper conflicts, that's what needs to be cleaned up after the merge. For efficient collaboration there should be some aggrement about who draws where, but technically there should not be any limits how sublayouts overlap. -- Stephan ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
