[Bdi4emc-help] Re: BDI suggestions

[Gene Heskett]

On Saturday 31 December 2005 15:58, Kent A. Reed wrote:
>So then Gene wrote:
>>On Thursday 29 December 2005 15:21, Kent A. Reed wrote:
[...]
>> repo is frozen long enough to fine-tune the script, the script is
>> added to the wiki, and then the repo is opened up again, what, a 
>> day down the log?
>
>Sure. That's why including source was way down my list.

Sp we are on the same page there I think.

>>>5) provide a running copy of EMC/EMC2 "out of the box."
>>
>>Nice for absolute gnubies, but really, by the time someone comes
>>looking for emc, can we not assume they know the basics of building
>> an app?  The script itself should be able to handle the
>> dependencies.
>
>I was thinking more of the folks who'd like to invest the minimum
> effort required to take EMC for a test drive. Maybe the BDI-Live is
> still the answer for them., or maybe just exercising the different
> user interfaces in a scripted test harness would suffice.

Well, for newbies just wanting to see how it corners, you are probably 
correct.

> I'm old 
> enough to have learned to drive when only stick-shift cars were used
> by the testers. I was all hands and feet, so to speak. With
> experience, complicated things, like hand signalling, downshifting,
> braking, and turning became easy. I think the combination of Linux,
> EMC, controller hardware, and the machine tool itself presents
> similar challenges even for folks who have either software or
> hardware experience but not both. It's comforting to know that major
> parts of the system already work.

Automatic transmissions came after me too.  But I probably built the 
first 'stick shifted' hydromatic in eastern Iowa way back when 49 
Oldsmobiles were stil pretty fresh used cars.  Impressive when you 
goto pass someone, and when you lift your foot out of the detent at 85 
mph cause the valves are about to float, and the tires let out a 2 
second howl as 4th locks in. :)  A bit hard on motor mounts too I 
might add, as we found out later that day after I'd coaxed a box stock 
49'er into a 16 second 1/4 mile, while it was vapor locking cause the 
temps were in the low 100's that day.  We chewed on the edge of the 
radiator shound rather obviously.  That 324 cid olds v8 was healthy.

>Judging from the questions I've seen posted to some of the
> cnc-oriented groups and to cnczone, I don't believe we'll ever go
> wrong by assuming the least. I'll bet most parties get interested in
> EMC because they want to drive a machine tool and not because
> they're Linux-heads looking for a cool application, so there's no
> basis for assessment of their computer skills.

Humm, I suppose thats right too Kent, but in the linux business plan, 
isn't this where they buy a canned solution from an experienced 
integrator who IS being paid for his knowledge?

>>Or am I chasing rabbits and barking barking at the moon here?
>
>So what's wrong with that? Surely you've noticed the smile on the
>hound's face!

Humm, yes, there is that.  Old coon hunters have been known to shoot at 
the moon & miss, but when the 22 is looking right into the left eye, 
and you pull, and the coon falls out of a tree 25-40 feet behind you, 
it does get certifiably spooky.  We hit the mother lode one night and 
got 8, but none of them fell out of the tree we were shooting at.  We 
never went near that place again for obvious reasons.

>>>Item 1 is the most important for me because I made up my mind early
>>>on that I don't want to get tangled up in the real-time kernel
>>>issues and debates.
>>
>>Neither do I, generally speaking, although this box is always
>> running the latest kernel from Linus that will run on this box,
>> currently 2.6.15-rc7.  Does that place me a cut above the average
>> emc user?  I doubt it...
>
>I do doubt it. I've seen lots of experienced Linux users never
> upgrade the kernel that came with their distro even when they
> religiously run up2date or its equivalent.

They're afraid of 'make'?  Sheesh.  OTOH, I first used make probably in 
1979, so its an old friend of mine.

> There's an unspoken fear 
> that they'll screw up the works if they start playing with the
> kernel. In the old days, this was a realistic fear. These days, the
> upgrade tools are so well integrated and automated that it seems
> like a no-brainer to override the default setting not to upgrade the
> kernel.

Really, once the initial config to a working kernel has been achieved, 
building new ones is pretty simple.  I could start by downloading the 
next patch in sequence, unpack it, and then edit 2 scripts for the new 
numbers, fire them off and have a newly built kernel installed in 
about 20 minutes here, build time on this box runs around 9-10 minutes 
depending on what else I may have it slaving away at.

The real, bites everybody behind the short hair problem is that the 
distros do not make it the least bit easy to discover the .config that 
built the kernel thats actually running.  But once thats done, its as 
simple as copying the current .config into the directory tree that 
unpacking the next version makes, running 'make oldconfig' and 
answering any questions it may ask sensibly, followed by a 'make 
xconfig' to see what is being built thats not applicable to your 
hardware and fix that as you like.  I have a script that does all that 
so I won't waste any more time on a blow by blow here.

>>>As for editors, I had no problem coping with your solution when I
>>>installed my BDI. I just downloaded and installed the editor I
>>>wanted. Between me, my staff, and various visiting professors and
>>>students, we've tried them all on my systems at work. I never met
>>> an editor I couldn't complain about :-)
>>
>>Neither did I, which I guess is the reason I tend to stick with what
>> I know on linux, vim.  Or occasionally gvim.  I'd like to see the
>> last version of CygnusEd that was published for the amiga ported to
>> linux, that was to me, the ideal editor of all editors.  The
>> vi/emacs debate would be noise I could cheerfully tune out were
>> this to happen. Unforch, a quick check with google fails to even
>> find it for sale to run on an amiga today.  Sad state of affairs
>> indeed.
>
>Well, I wrote but then deleted a long section in my first reply that
>argued for inclusion of a vi-compatible editor because of its
> "greatest common denominator" status over the decades I've played
> with various Unices and Linux. It's hard to teach an old dog new
> tricks!

Yippers!  And for exactly those reasons.  They are good ones even if it 
is throwing yet another log on the fire of the vi/emac debates.  The 
only comment I'd make is that the emacs learning curve is considerably 
steeper than vi/vim, at least to me.

>If you're a true Amiga fan, why not install "Amiga Forever" on your
>Linux box to emulate the Amiga OS so you can run CygnusEd :-) I never
>got into the Amiga fan club but I've got a colleague at work who
> still hasn't gotten over the forced retirement of his Amiga video
> toaster.

They want too much money, and the interface hardware is enough diff to 
make a working system a lot of work to actually achieve.  I have the 
other freeware emu kit (uae, last release) here, but haven't run it 
since I discovered it couldn't use my dds2 drive to recover the last 
full backup of the amiga that I made about 2 weeks before the 30GB 
drive in it ate itself for lunch.  I did get the data on the tapes 
back, but I used dd and linux to do it.

>>>Just my 2 cents worth. I am already on record as being completely
>>>satisfied with the effortless install of BDI-4.30 on several
>>>different cpu/motherboard combinations so all this is in the nature
>>>of counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
>>
>>Humm, now thats a question I never felt it was our lot to know the
>>answer thereto. :-)
>
>That's what makes the argument so much fun. Nobody can ever win.

No, but we can sure have a lot of fun with the what ifs...  And 
occasionally, as they say in Nashville on 16th avenue, you hit a lick 
with one of those what ifs and you "go in style, for a while, on 16th 
avenue."  Rosanne Cash I think that was.

>Regards,
>Kent

Have a better 2006 Kent, later.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word
'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's
stupid bounce rules.  I do use spamassassin too. :-)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2005 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.