On Jun 25 2013 5:44 AM, Matt Shaver wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 21:16:23 -0600 > EBo <e...@sandien.com> wrote: > >> I just hope the processes does not burn you to a crisp. > > This is a worry, but Seb seems to handle stress in a healthy way so I > think he'll be OK.
that is very good to hear. It also seems that the screaming meanies are history, so maybe we can move forward with a level of congeniality and good will... >> One of the few things I would like to see kept in and taken >> seriously >> is preempt-rt. Im'm just sayin... > > John Morris tried to educate me on this, and what I think he said is > that their "universal binary" idea provides for use of either the > POSIX (the best you can do without changing the kernel), RTAI, > Xenomai, > or PREEMPT_RT real time systems. for myself, there is the issue of "what is good enough for what it is for" against staying up with necessary advances in the kernel and tools. I agree that the techniques used by both RTL and RTAI will likely always beat out PREEMT, but PREEMT is part of the standard kernel and is basically guaranteed to be kept current. > EBo: You know the FSM Labs folks right? Well, I would not put it like that. I worked for them for a total of something like 2 months. They had contracted me specifically to update EMC1 (and the v2.0.0 prototype) to the latest and greatest version of RTL. I have only had 3 or 4 emails/conversations with them since (circa 2004?). > Once the above changes are > integrated, I would think that making RTLinux work again would be > possible. I've just spent two minutes looking this up and have > discovered that RTLinux was acquired by Wind River Systems and then > discontinued, but that FSM Labs has a (possibly) related product > called > TimeKeeper. I guess what I'm saying is that the next time you talk to > these folks you might describe the changes that are being made to > linuxcnc and let them know that an opportunity exists for them to > integrate support for their product if that would help them. The > existence of RTLinux made possible the first Linux based version of > EMC, so they have some "good will" on deposit with the linuxcnc > project > if they need it. While that is good to hear, I remember back in the day the vehement backlash for anything that was "tainted" with FSMLabs RT patent. I am not so sure that the RTAI people have gotten any better, and I have no interest to find out frankly -- I have a wonderful job that eats up a lot of my attention, and a wonderful woman that takes up a lot of the rest ;-) and two cats that tell me every night that I am NOT doing my petting duties! But for the moment lets assume that that is all ancient history. Would TimeKeeper or some other entity want to help out a little to help this forward? Not sure. Who would be motivated? BTW, part of the back story to the earlier debacle was a machine vendor that SO wanted an updated version of LinuxCNC (nee EMC), but when I asked them if they would be willing to support the project by buying 3 or 4 motors and drivers to setup and test their board. I figured that it would have cost them about $1000 out of pocket, and would have allowed me to develop and test the drivers, and have the bones of a machine that as I use I would be able to maintain. The were only willing to loan me a board, and I was expected to develop the drivers for them for free. I ended up declining... From what I understand they had someone in-house. I think it took them 6 months before they got the first working driver, and another 6 months before it seemed that it was stable. I do not know if I would have been more efficient, but I will say that I expect the $1K would have been a wise business decision. One of the huge industrial tiffs is that hardware people often do not respect software people, and software people often do not really respect the hardware people. To come up with a truly superior product you need both -- with decent compromises between the two. There appears to be a decent enough ballance here, we just need to keep it going. Anyway, thems my 2c >> Best of luck to you Seb! > > Ditto. I think at this point we should ask does anyone object? If not, I think the I's have it (but I was not there and there might be a formal procedure I know nothing about...) EBo -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
