January 2006 - Bdi4emc-help - lists.ourproject.org

emc live cd
by William Baker 29 Jan '06

29 Jan '06

It appears that a recent "Live CD" is not available? Pages on the old web site seem to indicate that there is no interest in reviving/continuing it. bbaker

2 1

madwifi drivers
by Paul 24 Jan '06

24 Jan '06

Hi Folks, and Doug in particular. Added a new section to the BDI-4 repository for madwifi for those that want to try wireless networking. If you add non-free to the end of the two BDI mirrors and run "apt-get update", the new packages available are: madwifi-ng-modules-2.6.12.6-rtai madwifi-ng-tools madwifi-ng-dev madwifi-ng-source The modules & tools packages are all that most will need to get up and running with the supported cards (full list can be found at http://madwifi.org/wiki/Compatibility ). As I don't have any WiFi cards, I can't test, so please let me know if they work, or if there are any problems. The new packages will hopefully filter through to the repositories by about 09:00 GMT tomorrow. Regards, Paul. -- From the Klingon book of C: Klingon function calls do not have 'parameters' - they have 'arguments' - and they ALWAYS WIN THEM.

1 0

Re: Where is the source code for the versions of emc and axis on bdi 4.30 and 4.38?
by Paul 20 Jan '06

20 Jan '06

On Monday 16 January 2006 22:14, jepler(a)unpythonic.net wrote: > Where is the source code for the versions of emc and axis that appear on > bdi 4.30 and 4.38? Jeff apt-get source emc Will get you the most recent tarball. Check with viewcvs at SF for the last tag - This will be most recent checkout from which the emc package was compiled from. Regards, Paul. -- From the Klingon book of C: Klingon function calls do not have 'parameters' - they have 'arguments' - and they ALWAYS WIN THEM.

2 9

Running EMC2 on BDI 4.38
by Martin Ullrich 13 Jan '06

13 Jan '06

Hi, today I wanted to install EMC2 on a BDI 4.38 installation, but when I tried to get the Kernel, the programm didn't find it. On a BDI 4.30 installation, I had success, but now with 4.38 I fail :( Can somebody help me? Greeting Martin

2 7

Re: Bdi4emc-help Digest, Vol 2, Issue 4
by Kent A. Reed 10 Jan '06

10 Jan '06

Paul wrote: >Message: 1 >Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 09:29:30 +0000 >From: Paul <bdi-emc(a)ntlworld.com> >Subject: [Bdi4emc-help] BDI-4.38 package list >To: "Help and advice for BDI-4 users." > <bdi4emc-help(a)lists.ourproject.org> >Cc: Abdul R Rafiq <arafiq(a)vitalsystem.com> >Message-ID: <200601070929.31054.bdi-emc(a)ntlworld.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > >Hi Folks > >Updated the wiki with a new page listing *ALL* the packages on the BDI-4.38 CD >at http://ourproject.org/moin/Package_list - Note: Although both the kernel >and rtai sources are included, they are not needed for compilation of emc or >any other third party kernel modules (see the Nvidia page for details). > > Over the next few months, I'd like to see discussion on package candidates >for the BDI-4.40 release, perhaps even debate on what to drop to free up >space.. > > >Regards, Paul. > > > Thanks, Paul. Recall my mindset that the BDI is all about EMC1/2 and making chips fly. The first packages I would vote 'off the island' are those related to document preparation. These include packages such as and related to aspell, dictionary-common, kdict, kghostview, koffice, kword, gs, etc. Regards, Kent

1 0

BDI-4.38 package list
by Paul 07 Jan '06

07 Jan '06

Hi Folks Updated the wiki with a new page listing *ALL* the packages on the BDI-4.38 CD at http://ourproject.org/moin/Package_list - Note: Although both the kernel and rtai sources are included, they are not needed for compilation of emc or any other third party kernel modules (see the Nvidia page for details). Over the next few months, I'd like to see discussion on package candidates for the BDI-4.40 release, perhaps even debate on what to drop to free up space.. Regards, Paul. -- From the Klingon book of C: Klingon function calls do not have 'parameters' - they have 'arguments' - and they ALWAYS WIN THEM.

1 0

Re: BDI suggestions
by Kent A. Reed 03 Jan '06

03 Jan '06

So then Gene wrote: >On Thursday 29 December 2005 15:21, Kent A. Reed wrote: > > > <yada yada yada> > >Following up on this train of thought, rather than provide the srcs, >provide instead a script that will download a known stable version of >a script to build emc or emc2, which probably is not the current >cvs/svn. That way, if a given snapshot builds and runs, then the 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. >>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. 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. 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. >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! >>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. 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. >>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! 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. >>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. Regards, Kent

3 3

Re: subversion etc.
by Kent A. Reed 01 Jan '06

01 Jan '06

So then Paul replied: > >Hi Kent & Gene > >On Thursday 29 December 2005 20:21, Kent A. Reed wrote: > > >>At least on paper, subversion looks great. If Source Forge is going to >>migrate to it from CVS, then it sounds like your hand will be forced >>soon enough. >> >> > >If the EMC developers decide to switch to subversion, I fear they will be >shooting themselves in the collective foot. Quite a few users and developers >are running RH-7.x systems, and there are a considerable number of RH-6.x >installations to boot. Whilst there are subversion.rpm packages available for >RH-7.x, you have to go digging for them. For the many running RH-6.x boxes, I >suspect the situation will be much worse. > > > "Gee,' I thought, "even Cygwin offers subversion, so how hard can this be?" Then I did some digging at sourceforge and elsewhere and decided you are right. Yikes. I'm in agreement with Gene, though. I wouldn't want to let an older RH system near the Internet. I guess the folk who do are using firewalls and NAT, etc., and hoping that between that and the lesser status of Linux vis-a-vis Windows, hackerwise, they'll achieve "security through obscurity." My experience at work, where we have something on the order of 10000 computers and pretty good resident packet-police, suggests this approach isn't good enough, but everyone has to do the cost/benefit analysis for their own situation. Maybe I lean too heavily toward security because I've had too much experience cleaning infected machines. >I've not done any significant work with the old EMC tree for the best part of >two years now. Most of my efforts have been in a branch of emc2 - The EMC >version found on the BDI-4 disk is the result. Although both head and bdi-4 >branches share much code in common, most of the user space code is identical, >as are core parts of the RT modules, the bdi-4 branch does not use the HAL >layer. Think of the BDI-4 build as a staging platform for the time when >(if ?) emc2 becomes stable enough for widespread use. Although from what I >hear, emc3 may be just round the corner. > > > And the payoff for me is that you've already done this so I don't have to, just as you've already worked out the details for merging the RTAI with the Debian distribution. One of life's lessons for me has been to stop saying immediately "I can do that" and start asking "who's done it" so I don't have to. When I made my comment, I wasn't thinking about the different branches, only about EMC vs EMC2 as nominally fixed vs. still evolving applications. I confess it isn't clear to me what achieving a stable EMC2 would mean for the BDI. Do you mean you could retire all EMC1-specific code and build EMC2 strictly from the sourceforge head branch, and/or something else? I really like the people who are developing EMC, but your last two sentences in the above quote worry me. I've been involved in a number of major IT standards developments where core developers could not resist starting a new version before the ink was dry on the current version's release candidate (futureware is always more fun than presentware). As long as the EMC developers continue to use their evolving product to make chips fly, this probably will be ok, but if they let the perfect become the enemy of the good, it could end badly. The marginalization of the perfect ISO/OSI communications protocols by the wart-covered TCP/IP protocols is a good example of what I mean. Regards, Kent

2 1