Re: [Emc-users] Path Pilot on LinuxCNC -- Was MachineKit on the BeagleBone Black
MACH3 apparently won't run on 64bit machines without a parallel port. MACH4 was supposed to be the successor and support more of the 64bit machines and external stepper engines. Not only that they have a licensing method that is tied to the hardware and more expensive for commercial systems. In the Tormach case the LinuxCNC variant is probably tied to the motor hardware so replacing the PC and installing Path Pilot can be done without a "Call Home" sequence. AS always. Follow the money. John > -Original Message- > From: Martin Dobbins [mailto:tu...@hotmail.com] > Sent: October-12-17 9:03 AM > To: Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC) > Subject: Re: [Emc-users] MachineKit on the BeagleBone Black > > It was in response to comparisons being made to commercial software such as > Apple, Microsoft, Google and Tormach. Money is not required to make > progress, it sometimes makes it faster, though. > > > The work that is going on right now to make Path Pilot run on any machine that > can run Linuxcnc makes me think of those people who make "hackintoshes". > Apple's operating system is priced low compared to Microsoft's (and arguably > works better), but it is designed to work with Apple's hardware and if someone > wants to put it on a system that isn't Apple they have to think of work arounds > to persuade the software that it is running on Apple hardware. > > > My guess is that Path pilot is probably easier to use than Mach 3 or Mach 4 and > easier for Tormach to support which is why they made the decision to move > away from their previous software offerings. I don't know the facts, but I > would bet that money made Path Pilot happen (relatively quickly) for Tormach. > > > Rather than run up against possible licensing issues, it would be nice to see a > reverse engineer of Path Pilot possibly with changes to make it even better, that > comes as another choice of user interfaces to add to those already available. > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11 October 2017 at 22:30, Martin Dobbins wrote: > > What it needs is money, unfortunately. > > Why do you say that? We have got this far without any money. > > -- > atp > "A motorcycle is a bicycle with a pandemonium attachment and is > designed for the especial use of mechanical geniuses, daredevils and > lunatics." > - George Fitch, Atlanta Constitution Newspaper, 1916 > > -- > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > ___ > Emc-users mailing list > Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users > -- > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > ___ > Emc-users mailing list > Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
Re: [Emc-users] Path Pilot on LinuxCNC -- Was MachineKit on the BeagleBone Black
Tormach says they don't support path pilot on 3rd party equipment. It likely depends on specialized hardware so it would not run without modification and I don't think they have source code available. But what they did should serve as an example of what an open source controller could look like.Mach 4 could serve as a second example. I think it is clear that end users should never have to edit a text file. Doing that makes you a developer. I think this provides us with a way to think about the current state of LinuxCNC and Machinekit. They are systems that requires further development by the user to install. Or they are not-quite complete systems, maybe like a cake mix, the user still has to add water stir and bake. On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 9:49 AM, John Dammeyer wrote: > MACH3 apparently won't run on 64bit machines without a parallel port. > MACH4 > was supposed to be the successor and support more of the 64bit machines and > external stepper engines. Not only that they have a licensing method that > is tied to the hardware and more expensive for commercial systems. > In the Tormach case the LinuxCNC variant is probably tied to the motor > hardware so replacing the PC and installing Path Pilot can be done without > a > "Call Home" sequence. > > AS always. Follow the money. > > John > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Martin Dobbins [mailto:tu...@hotmail.com] > > Sent: October-12-17 9:03 AM > > To: Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC) > > Subject: Re: [Emc-users] MachineKit on the BeagleBone Black > > > > It was in response to comparisons being made to commercial software such > as > > Apple, Microsoft, Google and Tormach. Money is not required to make > > progress, it sometimes makes it faster, though. > > > > > > The work that is going on right now to make Path Pilot run on any machine > that > > can run Linuxcnc makes me think of those people who make "hackintoshes". > > Apple's operating system is priced low compared to Microsoft's (and > arguably > > works better), but it is designed to work with Apple's hardware and if > someone > > wants to put it on a system that isn't Apple they have to think of work > arounds > > to persuade the software that it is running on Apple hardware. > > > > > > My guess is that Path pilot is probably easier to use than Mach 3 or Mach > 4 and > > easier for Tormach to support which is why they made the decision to > move > > away from their previous software offerings. I don't know the facts, but > I > > would bet that money made Path Pilot happen (relatively quickly) for > Tormach. > > > > > > Rather than run up against possible licensing issues, it would be nice to > see a > > reverse engineer of Path Pilot possibly with changes to make it even > better, that > > comes as another choice of user interfaces to add to those already > available. > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11 October 2017 at 22:30, Martin Dobbins wrote: > > > What it needs is money, unfortunately. > > > > Why do you say that? We have got this far without any money. > > > > -- > > atp > > "A motorcycle is a bicycle with a pandemonium attachment and is > > designed for the especial use of mechanical geniuses, daredevils and > > lunatics." > > - George Fitch, Atlanta Constitution Newspaper, 1916 > > > > > > > -- > > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > > ___ > > Emc-users mailing list > > Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users > > > > > -- > > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > > ___ > > Emc-users mailing list > > Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users > > > > -- > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > ___ > Emc-users mailing list > Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users > -- Chris Albertson Redondo Beach, California -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
Re: [Emc-users] Path Pilot on LinuxCNC -- Was MachineKit on the BeagleBone Black
Some folks just want to buy a cake NOW. Microsoft has educated the world that way. Apple doesn't support its OS on non- Apple hardware either, but people still do it. Path Pilot is not an operating system it is a front end user interface, and I believe (as Andy says) that if someone sets themselves up with a generic PC , a Mesa 5i25 , and a copy of Path Pilot from Tormach they would be able to run it. I'll bet that if this setup is being used on anything other than a Tormach mill or lathe, it will need some additional tweaking for different machine parameters too. Martin From: Chris Albertson Tormach says they don't support path pilot on 3rd party equipment. It likely depends on specialized hardware so it would not run without modification and I don't think they have source code available. But what they did should serve as an example of what an open source controller could look like.Mach 4 could serve as a second example. I think it is clear that end users should never have to edit a text file. Doing that makes you a developer. I think this provides us with a way to think about the current state of LinuxCNC and Machinekit. They are systems that requires further development by the user to install. Or they are not-quite complete systems, maybe like a cake mix, the user still has to add water stir and bake. On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 9:49 AM, John Dammeyer wrote: > MACH3 apparently won't run on 64bit machines without a parallel port. > MACH4 > was supposed to be the successor and support more of the 64bit machines and > external stepper engines. Not only that they have a licensing method that > is tied to the hardware and more expensive for commercial systems. > In the Tormach case the LinuxCNC variant is probably tied to the motor > hardware so replacing the PC and installing Path Pilot can be done without > a > "Call Home" sequence. > > AS always. Follow the money. > > John > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Martin Dobbins [mailto:tu...@hotmail.com] > > Sent: October-12-17 9:03 AM > > To: Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC) > > Subject: Re: [Emc-users] MachineKit on the BeagleBone Black > > > > It was in response to comparisons being made to commercial software such > as > > Apple, Microsoft, Google and Tormach. Money is not required to make > > progress, it sometimes makes it faster, though. > > > > > > The work that is going on right now to make Path Pilot run on any machine > that > > can run Linuxcnc makes me think of those people who make "hackintoshes". > > Apple's operating system is priced low compared to Microsoft's (and > arguably > > works better), but it is designed to work with Apple's hardware and if > someone > > wants to put it on a system that isn't Apple they have to think of work > arounds > > to persuade the software that it is running on Apple hardware. > > > > > > My guess is that Path pilot is probably easier to use than Mach 3 or Mach > 4 and > > easier for Tormach to support which is why they made the decision to > move > > away from their previous software offerings. I don't know the facts, but > I > > would bet that money made Path Pilot happen (relatively quickly) for > Tormach. > > > > > > Rather than run up against possible licensing issues, it would be nice to > see a > > reverse engineer of Path Pilot possibly with changes to make it even > better, that > > comes as another choice of user interfaces to add to those already > available. > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11 October 2017 at 22:30, Martin Dobbins wrote: > > > What it needs is money, unfortunately. > > > > Why do you say that? We have got this far without any money. > > > > -- > > atp > > "A motorcycle is a bicycle with a pandemonium attachment and is > > designed for the especial use of mechanical geniuses, daredevils and > > lunatics." > > - George Fitch, Atlanta Constitution Newspaper, 1916 > > > > > > > -- > > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! > > https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsdm.link%2Fslashdot&data=02%7C01%7Ctomaz_ti1%40hotmail.com%7Ce865ce57e8f94fb9461408d511932942%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636434246103662028&sdata=qoEcsljTCpJT4Ag9J6vXN19XwUij45QA57Yx0CtmVOo%3D&reserved=0 > > ___ > > Emc-users mailing list > > Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.sourceforge.net%2Flists%2Flistinfo%2Femc-users&data=02%7C01%7Ctomaz_ti1%40hotmail.com%7Ce865ce57e8f94fb9461408d511932942%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636434246103662028&sdata=8Ln35SZ5QrRqpyO7PD2ibPRNEsK6xcqCnYAD0Oi9RXg%3D&reserved=0 > > >
Re: [Emc-users] Path Pilot on LinuxCNC -- Was MachineKit on the BeagleBone Black
As far as I can tell PathPilot is basically Linuxcnc 2.6 with some minor tweaks and a fancy (and SLOW to load) GUI. I set up PathPilot on my mill the the other day so see how difficult it actually was, and for S&G I even hooked up the onscreen override sliders so they would update appropriately when I changes the position of my hardware pot overrides. All surprisingly straight forward actually, and very few surprises. Pic here: https://i.imgur.com/Sy80xH8.jpg PP runs on Ubuntu 10.06, so I was able to simply transfer my custom HAL comps from my old Ubuntu 10.06 LCNC install and have them work transparently with PathPilot. I used a MESA 5i25, but I don't see any reason why you could not use any other card, or even the Parport if you wanted. So there is nothing in PathPilot that makes it so it can not be used on other machines. BUT, the PathPilot GUI is designed specifically for use with certain machines, and everything is hard coded, and the code it a mess and hard to follow ( though not as bad as Axis :) ) In short, it is a very restrictive interface on top of something that is very configurable, which IMHO kinda defeats the purpose of using LinuxCNC in the first place. Cheers, kurt On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Martin Dobbins wrote: > Some folks just want to buy a cake NOW. Microsoft has educated the > world that way. > > > Apple doesn't support its OS on non- Apple hardware either, but people > still do it. > > > Path Pilot is not an operating system it is a front end user interface, > and I believe (as Andy says) that if someone sets themselves up with a > generic PC , a Mesa 5i25 , and a copy of Path Pilot from Tormach they would > be able to run it. I'll bet that if this setup is being used on anything > other than a Tormach mill or lathe, it will need some additional tweaking > for different machine parameters too. > > > Martin > > > > > > From: Chris Albertson > > Tormach says they don't support path pilot on 3rd party equipment. It > likely > depends on specialized hardware so it would not run without modification > and I don't think they have source code available. > > But what they did should serve as an example of what an open source > controller > could look like.Mach 4 could serve as a second example. > > I think it is clear that end users should never have to edit a text file. > Doing that > makes you a developer. I think this provides us with a way to think about > the current > state of LinuxCNC and Machinekit. They are systems that requires further > development by the user to install. Or they are not-quite complete > systems, > maybe like a cake mix, the user still has to add water stir and bake. > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 9:49 AM, John Dammeyer > wrote: > > > MACH3 apparently won't run on 64bit machines without a parallel port. > > MACH4 > > was supposed to be the successor and support more of the 64bit machines > and > > external stepper engines. Not only that they have a licensing method > that > > is tied to the hardware and more expensive for commercial systems. > > In the Tormach case the LinuxCNC variant is probably tied to the motor > > hardware so replacing the PC and installing Path Pilot can be done > without > > a > > "Call Home" sequence. > > > > AS always. Follow the money. > > > > John > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Martin Dobbins [mailto:tu...@hotmail.com] > > > Sent: October-12-17 9:03 AM > > > To: Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC) > > > Subject: Re: [Emc-users] MachineKit on the BeagleBone Black > > > > > > It was in response to comparisons being made to commercial software > such > > as > > > Apple, Microsoft, Google and Tormach. Money is not required to make > > > progress, it sometimes makes it faster, though. > > > > > > > > > The work that is going on right now to make Path Pilot run on any > machine > > that > > > can run Linuxcnc makes me think of those people who make > "hackintoshes". > > > Apple's operating system is priced low compared to Microsoft's (and > > arguably > > > works better), but it is designed to work with Apple's hardware and if > > someone > > > wants to put it on a system that isn't Apple they have to think of work > > arounds > > > to persuade the software that it is running on Apple hardware. > > > > > > > > > My guess is that Path pilot is probably easier to use than Mach 3 or > Mach > > 4 and > > > easier for Tormach to support which is why they made the decision to > > move > > > away from their previous software offerings. I don't know the facts, > but > > I > > > would bet that money made Path Pilot happen (relatively quickly) for > > Tormach. > > > > > > > > > Rather than run up against possible licensing issues, it would be nice > to > > see a > > > reverse engineer of Path Pilot possibly with changes to make it even > > better, that > > > comes as another choice of user interfaces to add to those already > > available. > > > > > > > > > Martin > >
Re: [Emc-users] Path Pilot on LinuxCNC -- Was MachineKit on the BeagleBone Black
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Chris Albertson wrote: > Tormach says they don't support path pilot on 3rd party equipment. It > likely > depends on specialized hardware so it would not run without modification > and I don't think they have source code available. > As a derivative of a GPL licensed project I thought that they would be required to make the source available. Has anybody asked for the source to see what they say? The little I have dealt with them they always seemed very forthcoming with information and to be straight forward and honest folks. Cheers, Kurt -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
Re: [Emc-users] Path Pilot on LinuxCNC -- Was MachineKit on the BeagleBone Black
On 10/12/2017 12:07 PM, Kurt Jacobson wrote: On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Chris Albertson wrote: Tormach says they don't support path pilot on 3rd party equipment. It likely depends on specialized hardware so it would not run without modification and I don't think they have source code available. As a derivative of a GPL licensed project I thought that they would be required to make the source available. You are correct. Their code links with our GPL code, so they are required to make their source code available. Has anybody asked for the source to see what they say? The little I have dealt with them they always seemed very forthcoming with information and to be straight forward and honest folks. This agrees with my assessment of Tormach's position. In the early days of PathPilot I asked them for their source code, and they snail-mailed me a CD with it. Not my preferred distribution method, but it does satisfy the letter of the law as I understand it. My understanding is that they *must* provide source code (upon request) to anyone that they have distributed their binaries to, and they *may* provide source code to anyone else who asks. They could do a better job of being a citizen in the LinuxCNC open-source community, but that's obviously optional. -- Sebastian Kuzminsky -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
Re: [Emc-users] Path Pilot on LinuxCNC -- Was MachineKit on the BeagleBone Black
Yes, that is true about Apple. I think it is a good analogy. In both cases Neither Tormach or Apple make it easy to run on 3rd party hardware and doing so is only for experts Anyone have a link the PP? Especially PP source code? On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Martin Dobbins wrote: > Some folks just want to buy a cake NOW. Microsoft has educated the > world that way. > > > Apple doesn't support its OS on non- Apple hardware either, but people > still do it. > > > Path Pilot is not an operating system it is a front end user interface, > and I believe (as Andy says) that if someone sets themselves up with a > generic PC , a Mesa 5i25 , and a copy of Path Pilot from Tormach they would > be able to run it. I'll bet that if this setup is being used on anything > other than a Tormach mill or lathe, it will need some additional tweaking > for different machine parameters too. > > > Martin > > > > > > From: Chris Albertson > > Tormach says they don't support path pilot on 3rd party equipment. It > likely > depends on specialized hardware so it would not run without modification > and I don't think they have source code available. > > But what they did should serve as an example of what an open source > controller > could look like.Mach 4 could serve as a second example. > > I think it is clear that end users should never have to edit a text file. > Doing that > makes you a developer. I think this provides us with a way to think about > the current > state of LinuxCNC and Machinekit. They are systems that requires further > development by the user to install. Or they are not-quite complete > systems, > maybe like a cake mix, the user still has to add water stir and bake. > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 9:49 AM, John Dammeyer > wrote: > > > MACH3 apparently won't run on 64bit machines without a parallel port. > > MACH4 > > was supposed to be the successor and support more of the 64bit machines > and > > external stepper engines. Not only that they have a licensing method > that > > is tied to the hardware and more expensive for commercial systems. > > In the Tormach case the LinuxCNC variant is probably tied to the motor > > hardware so replacing the PC and installing Path Pilot can be done > without > > a > > "Call Home" sequence. > > > > AS always. Follow the money. > > > > John > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Martin Dobbins [mailto:tu...@hotmail.com] > > > Sent: October-12-17 9:03 AM > > > To: Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC) > > > Subject: Re: [Emc-users] MachineKit on the BeagleBone Black > > > > > > It was in response to comparisons being made to commercial software > such > > as > > > Apple, Microsoft, Google and Tormach. Money is not required to make > > > progress, it sometimes makes it faster, though. > > > > > > > > > The work that is going on right now to make Path Pilot run on any > machine > > that > > > can run Linuxcnc makes me think of those people who make > "hackintoshes". > > > Apple's operating system is priced low compared to Microsoft's (and > > arguably > > > works better), but it is designed to work with Apple's hardware and if > > someone > > > wants to put it on a system that isn't Apple they have to think of work > > arounds > > > to persuade the software that it is running on Apple hardware. > > > > > > > > > My guess is that Path pilot is probably easier to use than Mach 3 or > Mach > > 4 and > > > easier for Tormach to support which is why they made the decision to > > move > > > away from their previous software offerings. I don't know the facts, > but > > I > > > would bet that money made Path Pilot happen (relatively quickly) for > > Tormach. > > > > > > > > > Rather than run up against possible licensing issues, it would be nice > to > > see a > > > reverse engineer of Path Pilot possibly with changes to make it even > > better, that > > > comes as another choice of user interfaces to add to those already > > available. > > > > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11 October 2017 at 22:30, Martin Dobbins wrote: > > > > What it needs is money, unfortunately. > > > > > > Why do you say that? We have got this far without any money. > > > > > > -- > > > atp > > > "A motorcycle is a bicycle with a pandemonium attachment and is > > > designed for the especial use of mechanical geniuses, daredevils and > > > lunatics." > > > - George Fitch, Atlanta Constitution Newspaper, 1916 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > > > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! https://nam03.safelinks. > protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsdm.link%2Fslashdot&data=02%7C01% > 7Ctomaz_ti1%40hotmail.com%7Ce865ce57e8f94fb9461408d511932942% > 7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636434246103662028&sdata
Re: [Emc-users] Path Pilot on LinuxCNC -- Was MachineKit on the BeagleBone Black
I think it is clear that end users should never have to edit a text file.<< What! Why ?? So we get rid of Gcode entirely since they are text files?? When my Mom sends me an email she creates and edits a text file. She's 87. Why would we want to restrict users to "point and click"? Dave On 10/12/2017 1:01 PM, Chris Albertson wrote: Tormach says they don't support path pilot on 3rd party equipment. It likely depends on specialized hardware so it would not run without modification and I don't think they have source code available. But what they did should serve as an example of what an open source controller could look like.Mach 4 could serve as a second example. I think it is clear that end users should never have to edit a text file. Doing that makes you a developer. I think this provides us with a way to think about the current state of LinuxCNC and Machinekit. They are systems that requires further development by the user to install. Or they are not-quite complete systems, maybe like a cake mix, the user still has to add water stir and bake. On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 9:49 AM, John Dammeyer wrote: MACH3 apparently won't run on 64bit machines without a parallel port. MACH4 was supposed to be the successor and support more of the 64bit machines and external stepper engines. Not only that they have a licensing method that is tied to the hardware and more expensive for commercial systems. In the Tormach case the LinuxCNC variant is probably tied to the motor hardware so replacing the PC and installing Path Pilot can be done without a "Call Home" sequence. AS always. Follow the money. John -Original Message- From: Martin Dobbins [mailto:tu...@hotmail.com] Sent: October-12-17 9:03 AM To: Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC) Subject: Re: [Emc-users] MachineKit on the BeagleBone Black It was in response to comparisons being made to commercial software such as Apple, Microsoft, Google and Tormach. Money is not required to make progress, it sometimes makes it faster, though. The work that is going on right now to make Path Pilot run on any machine that can run Linuxcnc makes me think of those people who make "hackintoshes". Apple's operating system is priced low compared to Microsoft's (and arguably works better), but it is designed to work with Apple's hardware and if someone wants to put it on a system that isn't Apple they have to think of work arounds to persuade the software that it is running on Apple hardware. My guess is that Path pilot is probably easier to use than Mach 3 or Mach 4 and easier for Tormach to support which is why they made the decision to move away from their previous software offerings. I don't know the facts, but I would bet that money made Path Pilot happen (relatively quickly) for Tormach. Rather than run up against possible licensing issues, it would be nice to see a reverse engineer of Path Pilot possibly with changes to make it even better, that comes as another choice of user interfaces to add to those already available. Martin On 11 October 2017 at 22:30, Martin Dobbins wrote: What it needs is money, unfortunately. Why do you say that? We have got this far without any money. -- atp "A motorcycle is a bicycle with a pandemonium attachment and is designed for the especial use of mechanical geniuses, daredevils and lunatics." - George Fitch, Atlanta Constitution Newspaper, 1916 -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
Re: [Emc-users] Path Pilot on LinuxCNC -- Was MachineKit on the BeagleBone Black
I would much prefer to edit a well thought out and documented config file than use pretty much any Grunt n' Click interface. People who come from Win and OSX are not used to that, so it seems crude to them at first, but they soon learn to wield the powerful text editor with the best of them. At least in my somewhat limited experience with several Mach3 to LCNC converts. Cheers, Kurt On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Dave Cole wrote: > I think it is clear that end users should never have to edit a text file.<< >>> >> > What! Why ?? > > So we get rid of Gcode entirely since they are text files?? > > When my Mom sends me an email she creates and edits a text file. She's 87. > > Why would we want to restrict users to "point and click"? > > Dave > > > > On 10/12/2017 1:01 PM, Chris Albertson wrote: > >> Tormach says they don't support path pilot on 3rd party equipment. It >> likely >> depends on specialized hardware so it would not run without modification >> and I don't think they have source code available. >> >> But what they did should serve as an example of what an open source >> controller >> could look like.Mach 4 could serve as a second example. >> >> I think it is clear that end users should never have to edit a text file. >> Doing that >> makes you a developer. I think this provides us with a way to think about >> the current >> state of LinuxCNC and Machinekit. They are systems that requires further >> development by the user to install. Or they are not-quite complete >> systems, >> maybe like a cake mix, the user still has to add water stir and bake. >> >> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 9:49 AM, John Dammeyer >> wrote: >> >> MACH3 apparently won't run on 64bit machines without a parallel port. >>> MACH4 >>> was supposed to be the successor and support more of the 64bit machines >>> and >>> external stepper engines. Not only that they have a licensing method >>> that >>> is tied to the hardware and more expensive for commercial systems. >>> In the Tormach case the LinuxCNC variant is probably tied to the motor >>> hardware so replacing the PC and installing Path Pilot can be done >>> without >>> a >>> "Call Home" sequence. >>> >>> AS always. Follow the money. >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- From: Martin Dobbins [mailto:tu...@hotmail.com] Sent: October-12-17 9:03 AM To: Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC) Subject: Re: [Emc-users] MachineKit on the BeagleBone Black It was in response to comparisons being made to commercial software such >>> as >>> Apple, Microsoft, Google and Tormach. Money is not required to make progress, it sometimes makes it faster, though. The work that is going on right now to make Path Pilot run on any machine >>> that >>> can run Linuxcnc makes me think of those people who make "hackintoshes". Apple's operating system is priced low compared to Microsoft's (and >>> arguably >>> works better), but it is designed to work with Apple's hardware and if >>> someone >>> wants to put it on a system that isn't Apple they have to think of work >>> arounds >>> to persuade the software that it is running on Apple hardware. My guess is that Path pilot is probably easier to use than Mach 3 or Mach >>> 4 and >>> easier for Tormach to support which is why they made the decision to >>> move >>> away from their previous software offerings. I don't know the facts, but >>> I >>> would bet that money made Path Pilot happen (relatively quickly) for >>> Tormach. >>> Rather than run up against possible licensing issues, it would be nice to >>> see a >>> reverse engineer of Path Pilot possibly with changes to make it even >>> better, that >>> comes as another choice of user interfaces to add to those already >>> available. >>> Martin On 11 October 2017 at 22:30, Martin Dobbins wrote: > What it needs is money, unfortunately. > Why do you say that? We have got this far without any money. -- atp "A motorcycle is a bicycle with a pandemonium attachment and is designed for the especial use of mechanical geniuses, daredevils and lunatics." - George Fitch, Atlanta Constitution Newspaper, 1916 >>> >>> -- >>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users >>> >>> -- >>> Check o
Re: [Emc-users] Path Pilot on LinuxCNC -- Was MachineKit on the BeagleBone Black
> >>I think it is clear that end users should never have to edit a text file.<< > > What! Why ?? > > So we get rid of Gcode entirely since they are text files?? > > When my Mom sends me an email she creates and edits a text file. She's 87. > > Why would we want to restrict users to "point and click"? The text may be produced by a computer which is great, order of execution is also clear as well as the numbers. It might be a good idea to have both text and graphical path available at the same time. -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
Re: [Emc-users] Path Pilot on LinuxCNC -- Was MachineKit on the BeagleBone Black
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 15:17:09 -0400 Kurt Jacobson wrote: > I would much prefer to edit a well thought out and documented config file > than use pretty much any Grunt n' Click interface. Agree. > People who come from Win and OSX are not used to that, so it seems crude to > them at first, but they soon learn to wield the powerful text editor with > the best of them. I made software with mathemtical formulas in graphical form, it had been simple to write them in text form and they are also easier to read in text form. -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
Re: [Emc-users] Path Pilot on LinuxCNC -- Was MachineKit on the BeagleBone Black
> I would much prefer to edit a well thought out and documented config file > than use pretty much any Grunt n' Click interface. > People who come from Win and OSX are not used to that, so it seems crude to > them at first, but they soon learn to wield the powerful text editor with > the best of them. At least in my somewhat limited experience with several > Mach3 to LCNC converts. > > Cheers, > Kurt > >From the Xylotex.ini file. Like this? Comments totally don't match the actual parameter settings. Well thought out documented text config files are a dream and not reality. [AXIS_0] # # Step timing is 40 us steplen + 40 us stepspace # That gives 80 us step period = 12.5 KHz step freq # # Bah, even software stepping can handle that, hm2 doesnt buy you much with # such slow steppers. # # Scale is 200 steps/rev * 5 revs/inch = 1000 steps/inch # # This gives a maxvel of 12.5/1 = 12.5 ips # # these are in nanoseconds DIRSETUP = 1000 DIRHOLD= 2 STEPLEN= 500 STEPSPACE = 4000 I prefer a well thought out dialog with confirmation parameters and testing on out of range parameters any day of the week. The StepConfig program that comes with MachineKit on the Beagle doesn't even recognize the beagle and is set for 1 or two parallel ports. The problem is often skilled people in one area are very inept in others. That's across all disciplines so this is a generalization of course. Skilled people often forget what they didn't know. Unskilled people don't know what they don't know. And then there are the few expert visionaries who recognize what it's like to not know anything and can create systems that are easy to set up and use and later be exploited for the incredible power lying latent behind the curtain. The MachineKit Install for the Beagle does not fall into that category for the various reasons that have surfaced in this discussion thread. I have my Y axis running. Now I have to put together two more of the HP_UHU servo driver kits, draw and create patterns and castings for the X axis. Handle limit switch installs etc. For now the motor drive has been removed from the Y axis so the mill is workable with the DRO to mill the next bits and pieces. Hopefully that won't be another 8 years. For now the stuff is all back in a box. Thanks for everyone's help. John -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
Re: [Emc-users] Path Pilot on LinuxCNC -- Was MachineKit on the BeagleBone Black
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 3:17 PM, John Dammeyer wrote: > > I would much prefer to edit a well thought out and documented config file > > than use pretty much any Grunt n' Click interface. > > People who come from Win and OSX are not used to that, so it seems crude > to > > # This gives a maxvel of 12.5/1 = 12.5 ips > # > # these are in nanoseconds > DIRSETUP = 1000 > DIRHOLD= 2 > STEPLEN= 500 > STEPSPACE = 4000 > Agree. Yes the above is a perfect example of the worst possible user interface design I can't see any place there the four parameter names are described. And there is zero enforcement of any rules or even basic sanity checking. At the very least this could have been implemented with an HTML form where clicking on the parameter name brings up a pop-up wit the parameter's definition and clicking on the value allows either direct entry or a calculator. Then a validation is run to see that all values are valid and self-consistant. The text editor allows the user to do things like DIRSETUP = 1w4r Which is just about the poorest user interface design possible as it fails to catch even basic syntactical errors until AFTER the user has canceled out of the form. Seriously, who ould design an interface that tell you about simple typo only AFTER closing out the screen where you enter the data? A reasonable design would at least catch an obvious error when the user clicks "submit" or "save" A better design would not allow bad data to be entered. Curent bast practice is to inform the use as soon as it is logically possible. Point is you do NOT have to give up flexibility for correct and modern design you can have both and all it takes is a simple HTML form and some javascript. Of it you don't like that Java/Swing or whatever. A correctly design interface would allow exactly the same amount of flexibility but would also provide information about what neds to be entered, have links to a reference text and then validate the user's entry. -- Chris Albertson Redondo Beach, California -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
Re: [Emc-users] Path Pilot on LinuxCNC -- Was MachineKit on the BeagleBone Black
On 13 October 2017 at 00:31, Chris Albertson wrote: > At the very least this could have been implemented with an HTML form > where clicking on the parameter name brings up a pop-up wit the parameter's > definition Except that the INI file entries are entirely free-form, and are used entirely unpredictably in the HAL file. The HAL file can do pretty much the same thing as Simulink does. Simulink and LabVIEW are the two "graphical" interfaces that most closely relate to the function of the HAL file, and if you have ever used them (I have) you would realise that that is just as much "programming" as editing a text file. Chris Morley did try to make PnCConf do exactly what you are describing, but the complexity inherent in all the different ways that Mesa cards can be connected together, along with the constant trickle of new hardware from Mesa made that a Sisyphean task. For a simple parallel-port based system Stepconf comes close to what you describe. Except that you still do need to know what you want to do. -- atp "A motorcycle is a bicycle with a pandemonium attachment and is designed for the especial use of mechanical geniuses, daredevils and lunatics." — George Fitch, Atlanta Constitution Newspaper, 1916 -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
Re: [Emc-users] Path Pilot on LinuxCNC -- Was MachineKit on the BeagleBone Black
Hi Chris, It's even simpler than that. Free XML editors are all over the place. Even on Windows. The application should know ahead of time which parameters like "DIRSETUP" are required. So a form or series of forms for all these parameters that do range checking. And what's really cool, if you hover the mouse over the field you get a "hint" that says "Time in nano-seconds required for the DIR signal to be recognized by external hardware". Click into the field and hit F1 and get a full paragraph explanation with examples. When you click CANCEL on the form, all the parameters (which are copies of the original) are discarded. If you click SAVE, the parameters are verified and copied into the original values and a call is done to update the XML file. If you don't want to use the form, then load the XML editor and the file and tab down and change the values directly. Not sure why you'd want to but it's possible. Especially if some sort of code upgrade doesn't update the user interface. But a code upgrade of parameters in something as fundamental as an ini file should generate updated forms. This isn't rocket science since I've been writing software like that for users for more than 25 years. Probably longer but I don't want to do the math. The copout for Linux has always been that in depth user manuals etc. aren't needed because you can just read the source code. Of course often that source code is commented like this: localInt = 5; // Put 5 into localInt. Duh! The Xylotex.ini file is just another of the many examples of incomplete or simply incorrect information that requires far more than what is required for a system designed for users. I apologize. I've once again allowed myself to get pulled into this world and started complaining. I'm probably bringing my work frustrations to the forum because I've got a junior Mechanical Engineer In Training who's been able to convince management that he's perfectly capable of setting up a complete source code control system for a micro processor not supported by Microsoft Visual Studio and once done he can check out files, make changes and recompile. Apparently 10 years ago in school he took a couple of software courses. The questions I get are mind boggling. John > -Original Message- > From: Chris Albertson [mailto:albertson.ch...@gmail.com] > Sent: October-12-17 4:31 PM > To: Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC) > Subject: Re: [Emc-users] Path Pilot on LinuxCNC -- Was MachineKit on the > BeagleBone Black > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 3:17 PM, John Dammeyer > wrote: > > > > I would much prefer to edit a well thought out and documented config file > > > than use pretty much any Grunt n' Click interface. > > > People who come from Win and OSX are not used to that, so it seems crude > > to > > > > # This gives a maxvel of 12.5/1 = 12.5 ips > > # > > # these are in nanoseconds > > DIRSETUP = 1000 > > DIRHOLD= 2 > > STEPLEN= 500 > > STEPSPACE = 4000 > > > > > > Agree. Yes the above is a perfect example of the worst possible > user interface design I can't see any place there the four parameter names > are described. And there is zero enforcement of any rules or even basic > sanity checking. > > At the very least this could have been implemented with an HTML form > where clicking on the parameter name brings up a pop-up wit the parameter's > definition > and clicking on the value allows either direct entry or a calculator. > Then a validation is run to see that all values are valid and > self-consistant. > > The text editor allows the user to do things like > DIRSETUP = 1w4r > Which is just about the poorest user interface design possible as it fails > to > catch even basic syntactical errors until AFTER the user has canceled out > of the > form. Seriously, who ould design an interface that tell you about simple > typo only AFTER closing out the screen where you enter the data? > A reasonable design would at least catch an obvious error when the user > clicks "submit" or "save" A better design would not allow bad data to be > entered. > > Curent bast practice is to inform the use as soon as it is logically > possible. > > Point is you do NOT have to give up flexibility for correct and modern > design > you can have both and all it takes is a simple HTML form and some > javascript. > Of it you don't like that Java/Swing or whatever. > > A correctly design interface would allow exactly the same amount of > flexibility > but would also provide informat
Re: [Emc-users] Path Pilot on LinuxCNC -- Was MachineKit on the BeagleBone Black
there are several ways to handle this. (1) When an internal object needs a config file entry it defines the entry along with a validation method. Later the configuration form is created dynamically from all the parameter definitions. ou can embed the parameter definitions right inside the files where they are used. (2) ROS uses an XML file to define parameters then you could have both the HAL and configuration form generator read the XML. If you don't like XML pick JSON or whatever. Basically a place where parameters are defined. (If a parameter can be used in two places then you need a common place to define them. #1 about won't work.) (3) Parameter servers are another good idea. You include a process who's job it is to manage parameters. It can accept and store both parameter's metadata (type, validation rules and access controls ) as well as the value. Then you might add a GIU so the values could be manly changed. These are much nicer then config files. These can be as simple as just using Berkeley DB. More ways I'm sure but, point is you don't have to give up flexibility for better design. One important goal of getting user input is always to detect errors as soon as it is logically possible to detect them and then of course have some way for the user to correct them right away. The way this happens is the software that is accepting input has to "know" a little bit about what is being input. On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 4:40 PM, andy pugh wrote: > > On 13 October 2017 at 00:31, Chris Albertson > wrote: > > > At the very least this could have been implemented with an HTML form > > where clicking on the parameter name brings up a pop-up wit the parameter's > > definition > > > The HAL file can do pretty much the same thing as Simulink does. > Simulink and LabVIEW are the two "graphical" interfaces that most > closely relate to the function of the HAL file, and if you have ever > used them (I have) you would realise that that is just as much > "programming" as editing a text file. > > Chris Morley did try to make PnCConf do exactly what you are > describing, but the complexity inherent in all the different ways that > Mesa cards can be connected together, along with the constant trickle > of new hardware from Mesa made that a Sisyphean task. > > For a simple parallel-port based system Stepconf comes close to what > you describe. Except that you still do need to know what you want to > do. > > -- > atp > "A motorcycle is a bicycle with a pandemonium attachment and is > designed for the especial use of mechanical geniuses, daredevils and > lunatics." > — George Fitch, Atlanta Constitution Newspaper, 1916 > > -- > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > ___ > Emc-users mailing list > Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users -- Chris Albertson Redondo Beach, California -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
Re: [Emc-users] Path Pilot on LinuxCNC -- Was MachineKit on the BeagleBone Black
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:51 PM, John Dammeyer wrote: > Click into the field and hit F1 and get a full paragraph explanation with > examples. Think how long EMC or Linux CNC has been around and figure it might be around thatch longer. OK so it is not 2025 Problem: There is no F1 key. Tim Cook was right and anyone not using AR glases is irrelevant. Users expect to just "one finger point" to a value that is floating in space and say "5" and it changes to a 5. OK so I might be wrong. Point is that if the software is to have a long life, you want to de-couple the interface the user sees from the implementation. If the data is stored in XML the user should never see XML unless he goes digging. No matter what you do, it will look silly and archaic at some point in the future I like parameter servers. They provide a high level of isolation and would allow some one later to implement to silly AR glasses interface without need to change even one line of code in the machine tool app. In the end. I think you have to decide who the target users are and what you are building for them. Currently Machinket seem to be a product targeted at developers who want to build a machine controller. Those users are happy to edit all kinds of files (C++ included) But if you want to build a machine controller and the target user is some one who knows very little about computer exalt maybe how to send emails and work a web browser then you This is what the people at Tormach did. They used one product, LinuxCNC to build another product, Pathpilot. This is the best way to go, to have several layers of abstraction > > When you click CANCEL on the form, all the parameters (which are copies of > the original) are discarded. If you click SAVE, the parameters are verified > and copied into the original values and a call is done to update the XML > file. > > If you don't want to use the form, then load the XML editor and the file and > tab down and change the values directly. Not sure why you'd want to but > it's possible. Especially if some sort of code upgrade doesn't update the > user interface. But a code upgrade of parameters in something as > fundamental as an ini file should generate updated forms. > > This isn't rocket science since I've been writing software like that for > users for more than 25 years. Probably longer but I don't want to do the > math. > > The copout for Linux has always been that in depth user manuals etc. aren't > needed because you can just read the source code. Of course often that > source code is commented like this: > > localInt = 5; // Put 5 into localInt. > > Duh! > > The Xylotex.ini file is just another of the many examples of incomplete or > simply incorrect information that requires far more than what is required > for a system designed for users. > > I apologize. I've once again allowed myself to get pulled into this world > and started complaining. I'm probably bringing my work frustrations to the > forum because I've got a junior Mechanical Engineer In Training who's been > able to convince management that he's perfectly capable of setting up a > complete source code control system for a micro processor not supported by > Microsoft Visual Studio and once done he can check out files, make changes > and recompile. Apparently 10 years ago in school he took a couple of > software courses. The questions I get are mind boggling. > > John > > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Chris Albertson [mailto:albertson.ch...@gmail.com] >> Sent: October-12-17 4:31 PM >> To: Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC) >> Subject: Re: [Emc-users] Path Pilot on LinuxCNC -- Was MachineKit on the >> BeagleBone Black >> >> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 3:17 PM, John Dammeyer >> wrote: >> >> > > I would much prefer to edit a well thought out and documented config > file >> > > than use pretty much any Grunt n' Click interface. >> > > People who come from Win and OSX are not used to that, so it seems > crude >> > to >> > >> > # This gives a maxvel of 12.5/1 = 12.5 ips >> > # >> > # these are in nanoseconds >> > DIRSETUP = 1000 >> > DIRHOLD= 2 >> > STEPLEN= 500 >> > STEPSPACE = 4000 >> > >> >> >> >> Agree. Yes the above is a perfect example of the worst possible >> user interface design I can't see any place there the four parameter > names >> are described. And there is zero enforcement of any rules or even basic >> sanity checking. >> >> At the very leas
Re: [Emc-users] Path Pilot on LinuxCNC -- Was MachineKit on the BeagleBone Black
I have a source code CD that I paid $10 for to cover shipping and other costs. Tormach says they don't support path pilot on 3rd party equipment. It likely depends on specialized hardware so it would not run without modification and I don't think they have source code available. As a derivative of a GPL licensed project I thought that they would be required to make the source available. Has anybody asked for the source to see what they say? The little I have dealt with them they always seemed very forthcoming with information and to be straight forward and honest folks. Cheers, Kurt -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
Re: [Emc-users] Path Pilot on LinuxCNC -- Was MachineKit on the BeagleBone Black
I assume it is redistributable. Can you place the data some place where others can see it? On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Marius Liebenberg wrote: > I have a source code CD that I paid $10 for to cover shipping and other > costs. > > > Tormach says they don't support path pilot on 3rd party equipment. It > >> likely >>> depends on specialized hardware so it would not run without modification >>> and I don't think they have source code available. >>> >>> >> As a derivative of a GPL licensed project I thought that they would be >> required to make the source available. >> Has anybody asked for the source to see what they say? The little I have >> dealt with them they >> always seemed very forthcoming with information and to be straight forward >> and honest folks. >> >> Cheers, >> Kurt >> >> -- >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot >> ___ >> Emc-users mailing list >> Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users >> > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > -- > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > ___ > Emc-users mailing list > Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users > -- Chris Albertson Redondo Beach, California -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
Re: [Emc-users] Path Pilot on LinuxCNC -- Was MachineKit on the BeagleBone Black
Not sure what the conditions are but I dont remember any restrictions. Please PM me for the link. -- Original Message -- From: "Chris Albertson" To: "Marius Liebenberg" ; "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)" Sent: 2017-10-13 20:52:23 Subject: Re: [Emc-users] Path Pilot on LinuxCNC -- Was MachineKit on the BeagleBone Black I assume it is redistributable. Can you place the data some place where others can see it? On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Marius Liebenberg wrote: I have a source code CD that I paid $10 for to cover shipping and other costs. Tormach says they don't support path pilot on 3rd party equipment. It likely depends on specialized hardware so it would not run without modification and I don't think they have source code available. As a derivative of a GPL licensed project I thought that they would be required to make the source available. Has anybody asked for the source to see what they say? The little I have dealt with them they always seemed very forthcoming with information and to be straight forward and honest folks. Cheers, Kurt -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users -- Chris Albertson Redondo Beach, California -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
