On Sat, Jun 15, 2013, at 04:03 AM, Michael Haberler wrote: > Andy, Jon - > > >> On 14 June 2013 15:03, Matt Shaver <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Should, for > >>> example, the HAL be installable as a stand alone system (without the > >>> CNC part of linuxcnc)? That was John Kasunich's original idea. IIRC > >>> he was going to call it 'BLOCS'. I'm sorry that, at the time, I didn't > >>> push him in that direction. > >>> > > This is what will happen automatically if we follow the machinekit idea > through. > > HAL: usable standalone by definition (and more likely by other automation > projects). Good license boundary. > > The LinuxCNC package would have MachineKit as a package dependency and be in > effect using code. > (snipped a bit)
Yes, a long time ago I was going to split HAL out into a standalone "thing". I did create a Sourceforge project called "BLOCS" (which stood for BLock Oriented Control System"). That was mostly driven by adamant opposition to HAL by certain EMC people. I wanted to make sure that even if HAL didn't wind up in EMC (or it was heavily watered down), the highly modular concept would be preserved elsewhere. Once HAL caught on as part of EMC2, I no longer needed that backup plan, and the BLOCS Sourceforge project has been sitting in stasis for years. I fully support Michael's "MachineKit" idea. And I like his name better too. -- John Kasunich [email protected] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
