On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Bruce Layne <linux...@thinkingdevices.com>wrote:
> > LinuxCNC was initially conceived to directly control machine motion in > realtime using a parallel port, and it does a very good job of that, but > it now supports a number of commercially available I/O and motion > control hardware products such as Mesa, Opto 22, etc. > This is not true, parallel port control came to EMC years after hardware based options. That's still fairly evident in the structure of LinuxCNC. I'm reasonably certain that you could make a higher performance parallel port only version of LinuxCNC than the current system. But you lose too much of the power of LinuxCNC to motivate anyone to do that. We never really had a coprocessor version of linuxcnc because there was no hardware that really demanded it. Seems like people are doing it now, but it isn't compelling for the main project. It still seems to me that the way to go is to have a headless PC doing the real time and another system doing the user interface. I see no reason to trade the ease of development of a pc environment for some sort of embedded system hanging off the pc just because some people want to use old, cheap PCs. The truth is, a new, cheap PC will do the job all by itself. Eric ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
