Talk:ODB++: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:24, 26 September 2011

Need help

Please help by adding info about ODB++. In particular, does anyone know what ODB stands for? DB is database I guess. Is O objects? Woz2 (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK self nomination

EDA companies

Dear Woz, If you want to include a list of companies that support ODB++ in and/or out, please list them all, not just a few or one in each category. Why one and not another? This smells of commercial bias. Furthermore, it does not contribute to understanding ODB++, it just opens controversy. If one wants to know of XYZ supports ODB++, one should check with XYZ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.10.66 (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I rolled back your third edit and tagged it as vandalism using the WP:3RR rule. If you want to add missing companies, that is fine. Woz2 (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. I cannot provide a complete list. This is not a reason to have a partial list with commercial companies. This is biased, or may be biased. The article is fair without it, biased with it. But this is not the main point. The section does not contribute anything to understanding ODB++. It does not prove use of ODB++ in the market either, nor about its qualities and deficiencies. The article is IMHO better wihtout it. With it, you will always be suspected of a hidden commercial agenda. The articles about other formats in PCB, or elsewhere, also are without such lists.

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 Dear Woz, If you want to include a list of companies that support ODB++ in and/or out, please list them all, not just a few or one in each category. Why one and not another?  This smells of commercial bias. Furthermore, it does not contribute to understanding ODB++, it just opens controversy. If one wants to know of XYZ supports ODB++, one should check with XYZ.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/203.117.10.66|203.117.10.66]] ([[User talk:203.117.10.66|talk]]) 12:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 : I rolled back your third edit and tagged it as vandalism using the [[WP:3RR]] rule. If you want to add missing companies, that is fine. [[User:Woz2|Woz2]] ([[User talk:Woz2|talk]]) 12:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
+: Come on. I cannot provide a complete list. This is not a reason to have a partial list with commercial companies. This is biased, or may be biased. The article is fair without it, biased with it. But this is not the main point. The section does not contribute anything to understanding ODB++. It does not prove use of ODB++ in the market either, nor about its qualities and deficiencies.  The article is IMHO better wihtout it. With it, you will always be suspected of a hidden commercial agenda. The articles about other formats in PCB, or elsewhere, also are without such lists.