Re: Re: Interface options, headless boxen, and remote control ...
Posted by
Ray
on 2001-08-19 13:20:27 UTC
(comments mixed in)
From: "Larry Edington" <ledington@...>
govt., their product is free for you to use. IMHO - The intent of NIST and
your tax dollars at work (if a US taxpayer) is to develop a standard API for
motion control software. It is not that far removed from standard weights
and measures. It was not NIST's intent to support a groundswell of HSM's
making their own. That's our job.
have done and are doing. That's what many of us are talking about
designing.
Ray
From: "Larry Edington" <ledington@...>
>As I understand it, EMC was developed by engineers working for the NationalRight on! But since they are employees of a non-sensitive agency of the US
>Institute for Standards and Technology. As such, it WAS paid for by US tax
>dollars. It wasn't done "for free".
govt., their product is free for you to use. IMHO - The intent of NIST and
your tax dollars at work (if a US taxpayer) is to develop a standard API for
motion control software. It is not that far removed from standard weights
and measures. It was not NIST's intent to support a groundswell of HSM's
making their own. That's our job.
>Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing NIST develop some hardware to go alongAnd this is exactly what Jon Elson, Don McLane, and a number of other folk
>with the software. But, if a person spends the time to develop the
>hardware, and it won't be a trivial amount of work for any hardware
>interface, then they deserve to get paid for it.
have done and are doing. That's what many of us are talking about
designing.
Ray