On 8/11/2012 8:49 PM, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Davee...@dc9.tzo.com wrote:
I think we are comparing apples and oranges here. If you want to do a
plug in for Mach3, you need a Microsoft C compiler, that will allow you
to alter the homing routine for
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Dave e...@dc9.tzo.com wrote:
You probably have it all installed on_your_
machine anyway, so you don't notice, but for average hobby-cnc
builder, when he decides between say Mach3 and LinuxCNC and whatever
else, LinuxCNC becomes just too complex.
Alex, I'm
While comp is pretty easy to use it does take quite a lot of work to set
up the environment for building components. I think scripting would be a
useful addition and Lua is a very good choice. It is one of the fastest
of the common scripting languages and it has relatively low memory
2012/8/12 Alexey Starikovskiy aysta...@gmail.com:
Dave, right now users of LinuxCNC are mostly insulated from raw HAL
editing by stepconf and pncconf.
I totally disagree.
First of all, I have tried stepconf and pncconf. One time for each of
them was enough for me to understand, that taking
IMHO this suggestion is completely opposite to real life, when
commercial machine builds have some deadlines and have performance
targets to be met, otherwise there is additional cost - directly as
financial penalty or indirectly as customer dissatisfaction which can
lead to unsigned
2012/8/12 Les Newell les.new...@fastmail.co.uk:
And how long did it take you the first time - finding out what packages
you need to download etc? A simple scripting system would reduce the
learning curve significantly.
Not much, approximately the same as any other question that I do not
know
The last time I looked at HAL, it was limited to a very short command
line. If it were possible to supply it with more information, we could
build some truly generic HAL components.
Four decades ago, when I worked at Bristol Division of ACCO (later
Bristol Babcock), I built a HAL-like system.
On 12 August 2012 15:32, Kenneth Lerman kenneth.ler...@se-ltd.com wrote:
The difference is that the logic component and arithmetic component had
(virtually) unlimited inputs and outputs. The configurations for those
components let you say things like:
(For the arithmetic component)
offset =
On Sunday 12 August 2012 11:21:30 Viesturs Lācis did opine:
2012/8/12 Alexey Starikovskiy aysta...@gmail.com:
Dave, right now users of LinuxCNC are mostly insulated from raw HAL
editing by stepconf and pncconf.
I totally disagree.
First of all, I have tried stepconf and pncconf. One time
On 12 August 2012 12:18, Viesturs Lācis viesturs.la...@gmail.com wrote:
First of all, I have tried stepconf and pncconf. One time for each of
them was enough for me to understand, that taking most appropriate
sample config and then hand-editing is the way to go.
This may be true for you, but
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012, andy pugh wrote:
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 16:21:46 +0100
From: andy pugh bodge...@gmail.com
Reply-To: EMC developers emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
To: EMC developers emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] future plannig was: LinuxCNC
On 12 August 2012 16:53, Peter C. Wallace p...@mesanet.com wrote:
There is no thread-based interpretation of net commands, though, so
I don't know if there is any other way to do it.
Do you mean which thread actuates the statement?
What I meant was that there is no code that runs every
2012/8/12 andy pugh bodge...@gmail.com:
On 12 August 2012 12:18, Viesturs Lācis viesturs.la...@gmail.com wrote:
First of all, I have tried stepconf and pncconf. One time for each of
them was enough for me to understand, that taking most appropriate
sample config and then hand-editing is the
Dave, right now users of LinuxCNC are mostly insulated from raw HAL
editing by stepconf and pncconf.
same wizards may be extended to write scripted components. With
current declarative HAL and compilable comp it becomes
too complicated. For example, ATC components mentioned yesterday are
On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 18:13 +, Chris Morley wrote:
... snip
I looked a VFD control on MACH briefly. It seems they have a generic modbus
driver and also specific
drivers for VDFs. I may try my hand at making a general modbus component.
... snip
It's pretty easy to make a VFD/Modbus
On 9 August 2012 21:14, Andy Pugh bodge...@gmail.com wrote:
By a curious coincidence I am in the pub with one of the architects of the
Yocto project, I will see if he has any hints.
I asked. The main message was that It's a nightmare and GPL v3 has
really muddied the waters
So, not much help
I think we have at least two discussions going on in the same thread:
- what features should LinuxCNC3 have
- when, how, and after which preconditions ticked off should planning and work
on LinuxCNC 3 start
It is wonderful and lusty to muse on the first item on end, but my point to
start with
On 8/11/2012 9:04 AM, Michael Haberler wrote:
I think we have at least two discussions going on in the same thread:
- what features should LinuxCNC3 have
- when, how, and after which preconditions ticked off should planning and
work on LinuxCNC 3 start
It is wonderful and lusty to muse on
Hallo,
- what features should LinuxCNC3 have
- when, how, and after which preconditions ticked off should planning and
work on LinuxCNC 3 start
To guide these 2 processes I think I should quote something I found in
Edsger Dijkstra, long ago:
The price of reliability is the pursuit of
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 8:21 AM, EBo e...@sandien.com wrote:
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 13:22:58 +0200, Javier Ros wrote:
...
...
I don't know a lot about the internals of LinuxCNC but, as has
already
argued in this list, I want to favor the idea that HAL on itself is a
very
nice piece of
May I remind you about orocos.org project -- they are
linux/xenomai/rt-net/lua based and solve similar problems...
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Javier Ros j...@unavarra.es wrote:
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 8:21 AM, EBo e...@sandien.com wrote:
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 13:22:58 +0200, Javier Ros
Thank you Alexey I sort of forgot a little bit about them.
j.
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Alexey Starikovskiy aysta...@gmail.comwrote:
May I remind you about orocos.org project -- they are
linux/xenomai/rt-net/lua based and solve similar problems...
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 9:50 PM,
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 22:07:04 +0400
From: aysta...@gmail.com
To: j...@unavarra.es; emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] future plannig was: LinuxCNC (EMC2) with RCS
May I remind you about orocos.org project -- they are
linux/xenomai/rt-net/lua based
In my head:
The idea of having HAL separate would be to promote/ease it's use in other
projects,
or ease the experimentation of underlying realtime control / cpu platforms.
By letting our 'teenager' out of the house it has a better chance of learning
something
new which in turn may end
I think HAL main weakness is absence of RT scripting, so you need
something ancient like
classic ladder strapped on for any automation...
Please explain.
Chris M
--
Live
one example, how do you command spindle from with HAL over modbus/RTU?
how do you program tool changer without ladder logic?
homing sequence is hard-coded, so there is no way to implenent systems
with two end switches
without going to sources.
we still have some half-baked solution for
I really need to go back and read this entire thread.. but..
I think HAL main weakness is absence of RT scripting, so you need
something ancient like
classic ladder strapped on for any automation...
The majority of the industrial control engineers in the world would
probably disagree that
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Chris Morley
chrisinnana...@hotmail.com wrote:
actually you can command the spindle over modbus
Any pointer in that direction?
or toolchange without ladder,
same here, please?
and if you mean two end switches for gantry homing you can do that too in HAl.
No, I
well, yes, I'm just using one of the switches, with regular homing.
my point was, that if HAL was scriptable and had a notion of state machine,
all this could be done in a custom script without need for comp.
I guess you think of HAL as netlist, but it does not need to be only netlist.
This
On 8/11/2012 5:04 PM, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Chris Morley
chrisinnana...@hotmail.com wrote:
I mean really isn't a c program a script ?
No, it is not :) It requires linuxcnc-dev to be installed on the
machine, it requires full set of
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Dave e...@dc9.tzo.com wrote:
I think we are comparing apples and oranges here. If you want to do a
plug in for Mach3, you need a Microsoft C compiler, that will allow you
to alter the homing routine for Mach3 via an external program or control.
But you really
I think HAL main weakness is absence of RT scripting, so you need
There is a (userland) scripting capability using haltcl that is available
specifically for configuring from ini files. In addition to aiding ini
configuration, haltcl scripts can be used to make or augment a
hal-based machine.
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 21:17:48 -0500, Jon Elson wrote:
Andy Pugh wrote:
On 9 Aug 2012, at 17:36, Jon Elson el...@pico-systems.com wrote:
We would
not want to
make any changes that significantly slow the block execution rate.
I think that in general the physical layer is orders of magnitude
I did some torture testing for a potential customer a long time ago.
The test was a 2
circle of 1 G01 moves. On a 600 MHz Pentium II (or would that have
been a PIII?)
I got some 780 blocks/second. I have no idea how much of that was due
to the interpreter
and how much in the
Daniel,
I would say that you hit it right on the head here.
I will add to it that CAM operators often are not quite aware of the
relationship between accuracy of the cut and size of program / length of
the individual segments. And so they have not set the CAM parameters
optimally.
Michael is in
From: mai...@mah.priv.at
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:10:03 +0200
To: emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] future plannig was: LinuxCNC (EMC2) with RCS
7. GUI's: porting forward GladeVCP to GTK3 and pyGobject would be clearly a
milestone. I love Axis, but I
Daniel Rogge wrote:
The interpreter is nowhere near the bottleneck that the 1-block lookahead is.
To satisfy my own curiosity I wrote a 1000-line long program (1000 lines is
the default interpreter lookahead, set in emccfg.h) that started with M3
S500, ended with S1000, and consisted
On 8/10/2012 7:33 PM, Chris Morley wrote:
(Michael wrote:)
whale of a plan.. this will years of coexistence of v2 and v3. But I agree
it is time to consider that cut.
It seems to me the timing is right - considering upcoming library changes.
I really can't see a down side. linuxcnc is stable
Michael Haberler mai...@mah.priv.at wrote recently:
- is it time to think about, and start a future LinuxCNC version
which - for the sake of an upside - breaks with some old habits and
components
- is it a good idea to link this 'cut' with an effort to address
licensing issues
I'd like to
Chris,
Am 09.08.2012 um 06:00 schrieb Chris Morley:
..
While a lot of the details are over my head the ideas your talking about are
important.
We are not so good at long time planning in linuxcnc but it has seemed to
work up to this point never-the-less.
I see a few things coming in the
Just listening to this interesting conversation.
I just would like to comment on this
1) is the dealbreaker IMO - redoing the HAL, RTAPI, component
infrastructure basically for license purposes is out of reach IMO. Is that
doable?
Assume this can be achieved, a first great milestone would
Even I cannot find fault with this argument! [?]
Cheers,
j.
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Javier Ros j...@unavarra.es wrote:
Just listening to this interesting conversation.
I just would like to comment on this
1) is the dealbreaker IMO - redoing the HAL, RTAPI, component
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 13:22:58 +0200, Javier Ros wrote:
...
1) is the dealbreaker IMO - redoing the HAL, RTAPI, component
infrastructure basically for license purposes is out of reach IMO.
Is that
doable?
do you have to redo it? Can HAL be negotiated to be the same license
(whatever that
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Javier Ros j...@unavarra.es wrote:
[...]
Another issue, may be a bit out of context, is the entering into the scene
of low price PC like platforms (beagle, raphsberry,...). I dream of such a
plaform combined with a FPGA. For example a platform similar to
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 08:21 AM, EBo wrote:
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 13:22:58 +0200, Javier Ros wrote:
...
1) is the dealbreaker IMO - redoing the HAL, RTAPI, component
infrastructure basically for license purposes is out of reach IMO.
Is that
doable?
do you have to redo it? Can HAL
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:03:41 -0400, Kent A. Reed wrote:
On 8/9/2012 3:10 AM, Michael Haberler wrote:
Chris,
Am 09.08.2012 um 06:00 schrieb Chris Morley:
..
While a lot of the details are over my head the ideas your talking
about are important.
We are not so good at long time planning in
On 8/9/2012 9:47 AM, EBo wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:03:41 -0400, Kent A. Reed wrote:
On 8/9/2012 3:10 AM, Michael Haberler wrote:
Chris,
Am 09.08.2012 um 06:00 schrieb Chris Morley:
..
While a lot of the details are over my head the ideas your talking
about are important.
We are not so
On Thu, 2012-08-09 at 09:10 +0200, Michael Haberler wrote:
Chris,
Am 09.08.2012 um 06:00 schrieb Chris Morley:
..
While a lot of the details are over my head the ideas your talking about
are important.
We are not so good at long time planning in linuxcnc but it has seemed to
work up
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 08:08:27 -0700, dave wrote:
As a longtime user(1) I'm going to butt in here. My main worry is
that
this will break most of the GUI's. I use TkEmc and Mini most of the
time. As a user I'm not going to complain as long as things just
work.
Interp and motion need to
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:41:45 -0400, Kenneth Lerman wrote:
On 8/9/2012 9:47 AM, EBo wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:03:41 -0400, Kent A. Reed wrote:
On 8/9/2012 3:10 AM, Michael Haberler wrote:
Chris,
Am 09.08.2012 um 06:00 schrieb Chris Morley:
..
While a lot of the details are over my head
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:34:19 -0400, John Kasunich wrote:
I would suggest that this be GPL (some version, probably with
or later to avoid future pain) combined with LGPL for interfaces
where we want to allow the possibility of proprietary modules.
Non-GPL licenses will have a much bigger hill
Michael Haberler wrote:
4. interpreter: I'd say the current *structure* had its day (NB: I dont mean
cradek's work) and it would be fair to reconsider whether C++ is actually
needed or one could go to, say, a Python-based interpreter to start with; if
C++ were the decision, I would consider
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:36:06 -0500, Jon Elson wrote:
Michael Haberler wrote:
4. interpreter: I'd say the current *structure* had its day (NB: I
dont mean cradek's work) and it would be fair to reconsider whether
C++ is actually needed or one could go to, say, a Python-based
interpreter to
On Thu, 2012-08-09 at 12:54 -0400, EBo wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:36:06 -0500, Jon Elson wrote:
Michael Haberler wrote:
4. interpreter: I'd say the current *structure* had its day (NB: I
dont mean cradek's work) and it would be fair to reconsider whether
C++ is actually needed or one
Am 09.08.2012 um 18:54 schrieb EBo:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:36:06 -0500, Jon Elson wrote:
My only concern would be that a Python interpreter might be slower
than
the c++, but I
don't know enough about it to know whether that could be true. We
would
not want to
make any changes
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 19:38:48 +0200, Michael Haberler wrote:
Am 09.08.2012 um 18:54 schrieb EBo:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:36:06 -0500, Jon Elson wrote:
My only concern would be that a Python interpreter might be slower
than
the c++, but I
don't know enough about it to know whether that
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:12:55 -0700, dave wrote:
On Thu, 2012-08-09 at 12:54 -0400, EBo wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:36:06 -0500, Jon Elson wrote:
Michael Haberler wrote:
4. interpreter: I'd say the current *structure* had its day (NB:
I
dont mean cradek's work) and it would be fair to
I'm back again.
Maybe the cart is creeping ahead of the horse. ... just visualize that!
Re' the post by Peter about MW525's being limited to 1.25 KHz cycle rate
and this seems to be a trend in intel processors being less and less
suited to rt maybe it is time to find a new architecture
Am 09.08.2012 um 16:41 schrieb Kenneth Lerman:
On 8/9/2012 9:47 AM, EBo wrote:
...
I believe that if we can, we should use some pre-existing license,
rather that writing our own. Among my requirements:
1 -- It should prevent people from hi-jacking our code and creating a
closed
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:08 AM, dave dengv...@charter.net wrote:
Hi all,
As a longtime user(1) I'm going to butt in here. My main worry is that
this will break most of the GUI's. I use TkEmc and Mini most of the
time. As a user I'm not going to complain as long as things just
work.
I hate
folks, I guess you are hunting ghosts.
I am not talking about a massive influx of changes to the existing LinuxCNC
code base, and my god, X will break.
The way I see it panning out:
- linuxcnc2 will continue for the foreseeable future, likely years.
- a *parallel* linuxcnc3 effort can address
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Michael Haberler mai...@mah.priv.at wrote:
folks, I guess you are hunting ghosts.
I am not talking about a massive influx of changes to the existing
LinuxCNC code base, and my god, X will break.
I wasn't either, maybe I shouldn't have started out about the
On 9 Aug 2012, at 08:10, Michael Haberler mai...@mah.priv.at wrote:
Actually I think LinuxCNC kindof 'misses a market' - I see use for HAL-only
applications with GUI.
I have played about with a laser rastering config doing this, it seems
workable.
I think that WillemCMD on the IRC is
Am 09.08.2012 um 17:34 schrieb John Kasunich:
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Kenneth Lerman wrote:
Fortunately, the git (and previous) change logs can give us a list of
the contributors. As one step along the way of getting things done, I
suggest that we ask contributors to sign
With regards to the bits I have written, is it any more complicated than
submitting a patch with the new license?
I am probably not the only one to have randomly used the same license as the
module I was using as a template with no real understanding of the
ramifications.
By a curious
On 9 Aug 2012, at 17:36, Jon Elson el...@pico-systems.com wrote:
We would
not want to
make any changes that significantly slow the block execution rate.
I think that in general the physical layer is orders of magnitude slower than
the software.
EBo wrote:
Other than that Python is nice for development and portability, but at
the cost of speed. And before we get to far down the speed wagon
discussions -- define just how much speed you have to have instead of
demanding that it always be as fast as it can be.
I did some torture
Andy Pugh wrote:
On 9 Aug 2012, at 17:36, Jon Elson el...@pico-systems.com wrote:
We would
not want to
make any changes that significantly slow the block execution rate.
I think that in general the physical layer is orders of magnitude slower than
the software.
You mean
...
mhaberler:sorry to bug with a licensing question. I consider zeromq as
candidate for linuxcnc.org which is GPLv2 only. I assume I am stuck with
'not license compatible' in column 1, row 6 of
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility ?
I don't understand. Why
69 matches
Mail list logo
