Comparing LinuxCNC to Mach3 is really comparing apples to oranges. They are totally different.
If someone wants to do a xyz mini mill and has no knowledge of Linux but can "sort of run" a Windows PC, why would he want to use LinuxCNC? Assuming he doesn't want to do rigid tapping ( an advanced concept for garage machinist hackers ) I think that Mach3 might work fine if he is using steppers. A lot of Mach3 users get lost when it comes to scaling the axes. And I mean LOST. Pulses per inch per what?? Tell them they need to use the command line and do an apt-get and you might as well be talking Chinese to an English only speaking American.. If he needs to do servos, chances are any Mach3 servo solution will be way over his head also. Most machinists know that servo motors have shafts and go round and round and that is about it. Most machinists are NOT electrically oriented. Software programming for them is Gcode. Tell them they need to tune PID parameters and they will be lost AGAIN. Don't forget that Mach3 is now a static product. Development on Mach3 is done. Mach4 is their future. LinuxCNC is constantly being developed and redeveloped. Do you see any derivation of Mach3/4 being used on 3D printers. No. Its truly Apples vs Oranges. Mach3 will have the simple XYZ market with steppers for computer neophytes as long as Mach3 runs on Windows. Users know what Windows is; Its the "stuff" that comes on every PC they buy. They have to use Google to find out what Linux is. When they Google "Linux" to find out what it is they find this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux .....is a Unix-like <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix-like> and mostly POSIX <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX>-compliant^[8] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux#cite_note-8> computer operating system <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system> assembled under the model of free and open-source software <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software> development and distribution. The defining component of Linux is the Linux kernel <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel>,^[9] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux#cite_note-9> an operating system kernel <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_%28computing%29> first released on 5 October 1991 by Linus Torvalds <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds>.^[10] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux#cite_note-10> ^[11] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux#cite_note-11> If they don't know what Windows is they do a search and find this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows *Microsoft Windows* is a series of graphical interface <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_user_interface> operating systems <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system> developed, marketed, and sold by Microsoft <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft>. Notice any difference? You gotta be a computer geek just to understand the Linux description! While an ordinary human can read the Windows description and likely understand it. Dave On 10/22/2014 12:40 PM, Stuart Stevenson wrote: > Gentlemen, > I guess I was not clearly expressing myself. > This may be a little more direct. > I don't see ANY competition between Mach and LinuxCNC. When you compare the > quality of apple to the quality of oranges any argument fails. > The competition between the "new" youngsters and "old" cnc guys does not > exist either. When the youngsters need the capability of LinuxCNC then they > will learn it and adopt it. > I see service guys (here in Wichita) that will not 'consider' putting a > garden variety PC on a machine tool. That would be heresy. > It is difficult to get some of them to come in and service the commercial > controls they specialize in. > > They will not even look at the LinuxCNC running in my shop. They will not > discuss it with me. History of more than a decade of PC based solutions > here (first with MDSI's OpenCNC installed in 1997 still running and then > multiple LinuxCNC installs) has no sway in the argument. > > One consolation is "they will not consider Mach either". > > All PC based solutions are lumped together in one trash bin. > > I do not mean to ignore progress in all other solutions. We need to improve > the LinuxCNC solution. Not so it is more competitive with another solution > but so the LinuxCNC users are more competitive with their competition. We > can worry about what another solution has but if we don't have solutions > that enhance LinuxCNC we will lose because it cannot be used profitably in > industry. > > If the LinuxCNC community improves the solution then progress is made. The > way I see it we need to show the installed base of users and techs LinuxCNC > is a viable solution. Then we will have more competent people installing > and using LinuxCNC. That will then allow the 'new' blood to learn how to > make a real machine run. > > now this is 4 cents :) > Stuart > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Kirk Wallace <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On 10/22/2014 08:24 AM, Charles Buckley wrote: >> ... snip >> >>> You want people to adopt LinuxCNC? You have to tie it to a new machine >> that >>> is cutting edge, then bill it as open source. Right now, Instructables is >> ... snip >> >> Hows about: >> http://www.tormach.com/product_lathe.html >> >> -- >> Kirk Wallace >> http://www.wallacecompany.com/machine_shop/ >> http://www.wallacecompany.com/E45/ >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> _______________________________________________ >> Emc-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users >> > > --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
