Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Interface options, headless boxen, and remote control ...

Weyland wrote:

> Okay ig'nant guy question -
> What's the diff between RS-232 and RS-422?

RS-422 is essentially RS-232 with differential voltaging (usually
for long distance cabling).

> And if you put in add-in parallel port boards, can you
> give EMC more output options?

Er, if you mean by "output options," you mean printers? I guess.
But that wasn't my focus. I'm talking about using parallel ports
for actual _control_ of components.

> May-be, but I've a like ten sound card/game port ISA cards
> laying around here and know where I can pick up about 30-35
> more pretty cheaply.

Unfortunately, there are some "issues" with that.

1) Most MIDI/gameports are fixed to the 200-201h default, which
means only one can be used per system.

2) Mainboards with ISA slots are slowly becoming extinct. It might
be fine to consider them today, but I'm looking towards the future.

> Now knowing abso-frigg'n-lutely *nothing* about PCB's or
> designs, wouldn't it be possible for some of those that do
> make them to make some that slip in an ISA slot and have a
> game port interface? Remember, I completely dumb about this.

Yes, there _are_ PCI-to-ISA "bridge chips" (and PCI boards with
external ISA chassis). But its much, much cheaper to just use a PCI
multiport serial card IMHO.

> Actually, I know a guy that I just found out his daily job is
> to do nothing but write drivers (wrong word in LinuxLand?)

Drivers, modules, same thing. Actually, a driver is a type of Linux
kernel module -- so all loadable drivers are loadable kernel
modules, but not all kernel modules are drivers. ;-PPP Damn
semantics!

> for Linux at the company he works.
> He might be interested in writing something for us.
> I can ask after we get the details sorted out, I suppose.

All I know is that USB is a bitch that I have nightmares about
writing drivers for. There were so many existing "universal serial"
interfaces out there already, but Intel-MS had to create their own
and boy did it suck. Even Apple's serial bus would have been a
better choice IMHO -- let alone 10-year-old DECstations!

No, USB was _specifically_designed_ to be minimal effort for
Intel-MS.

> WOW~! I like this idea.

I suspect many people are already doing this. I just feel this
approach, with a pre-built distro designed for this, would limit the
amount of Linux "configuration" that Windows users would have to
"endure". God knows I _love_ UNIX/Linux, especially for networks
(IMHO, from longterm sysadmin/network experience, Microsoft doesn't
know crap about networks/enterprise systems), but that doesn't mean
everyone agrees with me. ;-PPP

> But you'd still have to have *some* controls at the machine, no?

Headless Ethernet User Interface
EMC System ========== PC System
|| ||
RS-232 || ||
MIDI || ||
Other || ||
|| ||
CNC Mon/KB/Mouse
Components User

*REMEMBER*, unlike Windows systems, UNIX/Linux is a _true_
multiuser, _network-aware_ operating system. That means when you
SSH in via terminal or use VNC (Virtual Network Computing) to pull
up a Linux desktop on your Windows box, for all intents and
purposes, you are _on_ the Linux box (even if its your Windows
monitor you use to view it, and your Windows KB/mouse that you use
to command it).

> Like jog buttons, E-stop, pause and start (next), etc...

You can put any physical switches you want on the EMC/CNC
components. As far as "on-screen controls", again, via SSH/VNC, you
can pull up the "Linux Desktop" on your User Interface PC System
(regardless of whatever OS it runs).

I know the concept of "remote access/display" is a bit difficult for
Windows users to grasp, but it'll become clear to you once you use
it a couple of times. ;-PPP

-- TheBS

--
Bryan "TheBS" Smith mailto:b.j.smith@... chat:thebs413
Engineer Absolute Value Systems, Inc. http://www.linux-wlan.org
President SmithConcepts, Inc. http://www.SmithConcepts.com