Post an enhancement request on the dev mailing list. There are lots of
developers out there that would like to contribute to linuxcnc but don't
because a lot of the required work requires in depth knowledge - ini file
enhancements should be a simple standalone task. Ini file access should be
thro
Another area of usefulness is in the custom machine market. I get a lot
of request to design a custom controller that might not justify the
space of a complete pc and might have some very specific function.
Having the power of LCNC to configure with is absolutely interesting.
On 2014-02-13 14:0
Yes, the main advantage of a BeagleBone is cost and size. Cost really
only applies for buying new, and apparently not everywhere in the world
(not a huge surprise). Even a _really_ old PC is going to me more
powerful than a BeagleBone, easier to expand, and can be had for little
or no cost in man
On 2/13/2014 2:44 AM, Marius Liebenberg wrote:
> Charles
> I made the changes to the scripts as you suggested but I not able to ad
> the comment after the file name entry. It seems like the script does not
> read it into the JUNK variable.
> Sorry to bug you with this but I am not well versed wit
A german Gleichrichter is an english rectifier, both derived from a
latin rectificator ("straight maker").
Peter
Am 12.02.2014 13:55, schrieb Daniel Duesentrieb:
> I just tried. it works like a charm.
>
> from the 80VAC transformer into a "flow straightener" (is this the right
> word for the par
Where I am located the BBB solution is a whole lot more expensive than
an Atom for instance. Although it is a great idea for small printers
that need the space, I cant see it taking over the large or custom
machine market.
Having said that I am looking forward to giving it a try on some machine
On 13 February 2014 06:55, Gregg Eshelman wrote:
> It's looking more and more as if a BBB will be what I should use to run
> my big knee mill.
Why? I can see the attraction if cheapness and portability are
important, but why not use a standard PC which has PCI sockets, SATA
hard-drive, proper gr
Ok Russell, I concede, the make file is much better and robust. I will
be using that for now I think. The main reason that I say this is
because it is very easy for me to now store stuff in related directories
and then just retrieve them with paths set up in the make file :)
And I understand mak
All true as you said. I am sure that makefile will work as well I just
thought the script will be very easy for non programmers to use.
I will test the make file route as well and see what is the easier
solution to use. Or offer both.
On 2014-02-13 11:36, Russell Brown wrote:
> Quoth Marius Li
Quoth Marius Liebenberg.
>Sorry to bug you with this but I am not well versed with the scripting
>stuff.
Aren't all these scripts just reinventing the wheel?
Make(1) has existed for decades so put sommat like the following into a
file called 'makefile':
>#
>#My Makefile for INI files
>#
>IN
Charles
I made the changes to the scripts as you suggested but I not able to ad
the comment after the file name entry. It seems like the script does not
read it into the JUNK variable.
Sorry to bug you with this but I am not well versed with the scripting
stuff.
On 2014-02-12 22:43, Charles Ste
11 matches
Mail list logo
