On Dec 26 2015 5:03 PM, Neil Whelchel wrote: > Hello EBo, > My comments are in-line below... > > On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 3:15 PM, EBo <e...@sandien.com> wrote: > >> Dear Neil, >> >> No worrier here. I was jut really trying to gauge if you were >> trying >> to be so or if I was just being overly sensitive. I think it was >> the >> latter, so think noting of it. The folks here put a lot of sweat, >> tears, and occasionally even a little blood into their work. There >> is >> also a bit of history with at least 4 different companies that I >> know of >> engaging us in one way or another over the decades, and most of the >> interactions ended with less than pleasant memories so there are >> sensitive places here and there. Like I said, it was not >> intentional so >> no worries. >> > > I understand, it is also hard to judge the intent when you are typing > instead of talking, so much inflection is lost. Also, I am guilty of > going > straight to the point, so that is sometimes abrupt. What I will say > is that > the Linuxcnc project and the associated people are a really fantastic > thing! HAL is a true masterpiece of work, it is far superior to any > other > approach I have ever seen. And behind great work like that are great > people, otherwise it would not be possible, so thank you to everyone > that > contributed to this project!
Yes, HAL is a fine piece of work, and no worries about the early confusion. We are all in the same boat. >> You have a nice vision of things. It is different than many of us, >> and >> if you are willing to roll up your sleeves and help (which it sounds >> like you are) then we can either find a way to integrate it or to >> help >> with a fork. Even that is likely to cause some grumbling because >> inevitably someone reaches out for help from us on one of these >> off-shoots, and it ends up draining time and resources we would >> otherwise use to focus on our own projects. > > When I mentioned fork, I was only talking about forking Gmoccapy and > closely related things within the same project. (Not forking > Linuxcnc.) All > I am really pushing for is a new UI that works properly in an > embedded > system, that is optional to use like any other UI. > Any changes made to anything outside of the UI would be done in a way > that > it does not disturb anything existing. > Basically, I was thinking that I would copy the gmoccapy directory to > another name, and move in a different direction. > I am stuck on names, so far, I have called it "embedded". If anyone > has any > objections to this, or a better name, I am all ears. There have been a number of complete forks of EMC/LCNC over the years. The best that seems to have garnered traction is MachineKit. One of the naming confusions before is that when you say UI, we often talk about separate apps on top of the system, and by "the system" I typically mean LCNC on top of the RT OS subsystem. We'll sort out a mutual naming convention. >> One of the key things we need to discuss is if your approach to >> things >> (like different OS, new interfaces, etc.) will integrate into the >> existing infrastructure, or if you are going to try to convince us >> that >> something else is better. We are all open to new things, but for us >> to >> uproot any underlying assumptions will take a lot of effort on your >> part >> to get the ball rolling and to convince us of any benefits. >> > > The idea here is to be as non disruptive as possible. The whole idea > of > running it under my distro is completely optional. By the way, my > distro is > called LinuxInside. I normally do not release it as a general purpose > OS. I > include it on appliances, and the source and packages are available > from > the websites of the products. Fair enough. I have some Gentoo based projects like that. EBo -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
