Re: the open source 'thing'

Chris,

Long message. Short-er answer.

EMC IS the answer. Free, as open as it is possible to be (but
possible to be closed as to additions made). But it's Linux.
But linux WILL continue to grow,IMO. And as it does, we will reach a
point where: BOOM, the knowledge base explodes and the "regular" guy
windows programmer gets into the act in a BIG way.

I agree. NOW we need a windows controller. Again, its' EMC; as used
by Art in Master, and Carl in DeskNC. And others, working , as yet
unknown. I would LOVE to see the DeskNCrt source! Open that,and I'm a
happy camper...

Or an "open black box" (hardware OR software based, with "good
enough" motion routines). So I can build it the way I think
it "should be", and repair and modify as time goes on...

What's the deal? EMC is a fairly complex program, written by
professional programmers. It's like the difference between the minor
leagues and "the show". There's a lot to understand, and apply. It is
not a trivial pursuit. YET.

Hope this helps.

Ballendo

P.S. Although this is a list for home shops; not everybody here is
thinking of single shop only solutions ;-) And every copy of indexer
costs 300+ bucks...

--- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@y..., Chris L <datac@l...> wrote:
> I am trying to understand really. Please don't think I am pushing
you guys
> into something. I have always heard this "open" thing and just
never got it.
> Sure, I understand the "wants" part. I want this thing added or
that thing....
> Actually, when Flashcut was in its early years I DID get a lot of
things I
> wanted. I can find documents that go back to numerous discussions
about
> Contouring, Letting me have normally open switches instead of
closed for
> limits. Also, putting the Output Lines control on-screen instead of
driving
> thru the menus. Or even the Plasma control that knows it needs to
shut off the
> Torch when I pause it or abandon the job. All these things were
added to the
> existing program. Good current customers did not have to pay for
these new
> features if they really needed them and these additions are only a
few. In
> that respect the cost of it is not that much.
>
> So, in regards "open", that is why I wondered before, if this is a
matter of
> moving "buttons" around on the interface or the technique itself of
> controlling the motors smoothly and correctly. Lets look a little
closer....
>
> I thought that was the whole point behind EMC. All freeware stuff,
people
> could do what they want, when they want and how they want. That
sounds open to
> me, yet, not everyone finds it to be the answer, or just enough
have not taken
> the plunge to find out how great it is. Or, maybe there are just as
many
> "difficult to fix" issues with it that it too, is not exactly a
World class
> control until someone takes time to make it work. I'm not sure
which. I kind
> of grab the idea that because quite a few, even in this group
persue a Windows
> control, that maybe EMC has some issues. Otherwise why really
bother.
>
> I realize that FlashCut is not open because of the unknown language
sent to
> the Box. Beyond that, we do not know what is programmed into the
main chip.
> I assume then, that neither would be CNCPro, Master5, KellyCam, or
DesKams
> product because it is a "canned" program. Unless of course, they
give you the
> ability to disassemble, modify, then recompile the program either
freely or by
> purchase. That is correct, Right? With the ability to re-compile
you then
> could make any change you would want to the program.
>
> Now with Constant Contouring always turning up as a real tricky
issue to get
> to work flawlessly, Do you feel that recompiling any of the above
would bring
> it into that "sweet" spot of excellent Contouring ? Or, would we be
saddled
> with base code issues that would still, even after having full
access to the
> code, be limited in the contouring area ?
> I am assuming the latter.
>
> So, the matter of "changing" things, in order to make this all
worth while,
> really needs a "root" program that is an *awesome* program that
works
> flawlessly, Contours like crazy, has all the I/O anyone could ever
want and
> they GIVE you all of the source code so you can change it.
>
> I'd like to think that when someone gets THAT program developed,
one will not
> need to change it ! Well, Tim Taylor "changes " things for no
reason........
> he undoubtedly would change the "everymans lathe", even though it
does
> everything anyone would want it to do.
>
> The whole topic almost reveals that to date, a really, really good
PC windows
> *or* even Dos controller has not yet been made... otherwise
everyone would
> have a target project to find out how it works, copy it without
ending up in
> court, then give it away in a fashion that anyone can modify it.
Not sure how
> many are lining up for that project.
>
> That is why I wondered about Indexer. I would have thought long ago
that it
> would have been a model for some of the fellows who like to develop
the
> software end or at the very least set up an Interface to run G-
Code. 90,000
> pulses per second on each axis X's 6 axis ?
>
> I would like to hear some stories from Indexer Users, who can tell
us what it
> "can not" do for them other than Interface issues. I dragged out
the manual
> for the old version and counted almost 60 ASCII commands that can
be sent to
> it. I have heard of machines that have had there own interfaces
that cut
> optical lenses, and even a Doctor who after spending a lot of time
using
> controls that did not work finalized happily on Indexer making some
kind of
> human body parts or something.
>
> So, your right. Maybe I just don't see the issues about
just "changing" things
> because I can. I could be too old for that. (Might be why my Astro
Van does
> not have that Big Block in it yet.)
>
> The way I see it, we need a really good Windows Control. It has not
been
> introduced yet. When someone finally does go thru all the effort
and expense,
> I don't think they will give it away or let you modify it. If it is
really
> good, I'll just use it the way it was made.
>
> Chris L
>
>
> ccs@M... wrote:
>
> > Chris L,
> >
> > It seems you "don't get" the open source thing. That's okay - not
> > everyone is bothered by having to accept that things they dislike
are
> > unchangeable, and in fact many things that are theoretically
> > changeable about even open source packages are beyond the
capabilities
> > of most of their users to change - but the possiblity is always
there
> > if one wants to learn how or seek help from someone who already
knows how.
> >
> > Let me try to construct an analogy.
> >
> > Suppose a company started offering an "everyman's lathe" which was
> > reasonably priced and reasonably featured. We'd all want it,
right?
> > But there is a catch - almost all of the machine is a single
casting.
> > The screw and bearings inserted at the factory, and then end
blocks
> > are welded on. And it is all made of a material so hard that even
> > carbide can't cut it (yet somehow the bed abrades at a normal
rate ;-)
> >
> > You are free to machine any part you like with this machine (you
can
> > even use any cad package to design it, hire any operator you
like, and
> > swear at it in the language of your choice) as long as you do it
in a
> > way the manufacturer planned for. Because you can't change
anything
> > about the machine - you can't retrofit better screws, put a VFD
on the
> > motor, take off the chuck and switch to collets, fit a dro, or
hang a
> > stepper or servos on it for CNC.
> >
> > It's still a decent machine... and may get the job done quite
well for
> > many people who are content to work within its designed
abilities... at
> > least as long as the company that made it stays in business.
> >
> > Now look at my South Bend lathes... they have their limits,
sure. But
> > they are made out of nice stuff to drill mounting holes in (cast
> > iron), they come with good manuals and diagrams, they are designed
> > with the assumption that users will maintain them, and just about
> > everything comes off by undoing bolts, and parts (both original
and
> > adaptations from other suppliers) are available 40-50 years after
they
> > were made. I could, if I wanted to badly enough, change anything
> > about that machine (indeed, I keep thinking of making a native 5C
> > headstock for the 9-incher, and I am converting both of them to
CNC in
> > a way that still permits manual operation) up to and including
> > replacing the entire thing bit by bit.
> >
> > That is what open source means to me. It may not mean a thing to
you,
> > and that is fine.
> >
> > Chris Stratton
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------
> > Christopher C. Stratton
> > Engineer, Instrument Maker, and Horn Player
> > ccs@m... 617 628 1062
> > http://web.mit.edu/~stratton/www/brassbuild.html
> >
> > Addresses:
> > FAQ: http://www.ktmarketing.com/faq.html
> > FILES: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO/files/
> >
> > Post messages: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@y...
> > Subscribe: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-subscribe@y...
> > Unsubscribe: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-unsubscribe@y...
> > List owner: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-owner@y..., wanliker@a...
> > Moderator: jmelson@a... timg@k... [Moderator]
> > URL to this page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO
> > bill,
> > List Manager
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/