Sorry for the delay ... A Dimecres 05 Novembre 2008, Jan Kiszka va escriure: > Leopold Palomo Avellaneda wrote: [...]
> > but someone is working on this? > > do you know if someone of fsf is looking on it? > > FMTC and Beckhoff people are said to work on resolving the issue. I > don't know any details nor news, but someone just asked again for an > update on ethercatmaster-users. well, to me it's and strange issue. I will ask to some people that know more than me about this kind of issues > >>> Powerlink, but I have understood that someone in the list > >>> have no good opinion. > >> > >> ??? > >> > > :-) > >> > >> There is no [L]GPL'ed stacked for Powerlink yet, but at least some > >> BSD-licensed code. > > > > well, there are some the code, bsd licensed. Are you saying that there is > > a functional code? Well, probably I didn't understand the answer. > > I haven't looked into details, but they claim its functional. And as > long as the stack can live in user land, the otherwise unfortunate > license should also be no problem. But I think to recall that they also > had kernel bits. And, a part of that the license is too permissive, what's the problem? > >>> So, someone knows if exists industrial devices that could be controlled > >>> by rtnet? or someone could give some opinion about all this mess of > >>> "open" protocols? > >> > >> RTnet is not directly comparable to "full-blown" industrial RT Ethernet > >> approaches. RTnet is an open stack that can even be used to implement > >> some of those protocols. > > > > So, someone could implement this kind of protocols "over" rtnet, no? > > As far as no special requirements (e.g. too demanding timing for a > GPOS/RTOS system) prevents it, yes. One example is EthercatMaster over > RTnet. Ok, it was the implementation of the ethercat from FMTC. And etherlab? > >> But it does not come with its own abstraction > >> of industrial devices (drives, I/O clamps etc.). Ie. there are no > >> "RTnet-compliant" industrial device definable due to this undefined > >> highest layer (industrial applications). > > > > Have you think about it? To promote some kind of standard protocol for > > industrial using rtnet? > > Defining and promoting such a protocol takes orders of magnitude more > time than a single person can spent. :) > Seriously, such things requires a broad user base that wants to drive it > or simply contribute to it. So, please correct me if I'm wrong. RTNet would be the low level part (connects to the OS and the devices, driver, etc) and powerlink or would use this to implement _over_ its own protocol, no? if yes, it would be nice, because they could share the driver part and all of us would benefit about it. > >> If your task is to attach industrial devices that talk a fixed protocol > >> (or set of protocols), those will dictate the wire. > > > > Sure, but for example now I can choose if I buy a canbus card or use a > > ethernet card. The manufacturer offers the two options. > > The interesting question is, which protocol they speak over these > commodity media, and if you can find (ideally) open sourced > implementations for them. in theory yes ... Thanks for all, Leo -- -- Linux User 152692 PGP: 0xF944807E Catalonia
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________ RTnet-users mailing list RTnet-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rtnet-users
