Why Open Source????? A White Paper. FLAME away!

[NC Cams]

Carel: agree and understood BUT:

1. BMDC was designed for ISA slot M/B's, these don't exist anymore.
2. BMDC was NOT open source even though the system was elegantly simple/adequate for most machine/CNC operations. Even an engineer like my self could learn to use it easily.
3. Hardinge gives undue grief to anyone who triesto hack or use or improve the old code, no matter how well intended the effort is/was. They don't support it and you can't have it and they won't license/sell it off. Intellectual property protection via harrassment even when the softare is considered obsolete.
4. BMDC won't work on any m/b faster than 133 mhz. So much for using with newer/faster M/B's and/or taking full use of the design intent.
5. DOS is all but abandoned with regard to new product development. Whether it is need, wanted or not, XP is being FORCED upon us...
6. Many DOS programs are not/will not ever be ported over to run on XP based systems - DOS is "obsolete" because other stuff "works better" - not for what this thing does/could do but that's irrelevant.
7. There are DOS backplane CNC programs/O'S's out there BUT they're well hidden under proprietary "management" programs that run proprietary interface cards. So much for open source...
8. I don't know of any "generic" interface cards with the necessary G, M, S code interpreters that are sold for "simple"/legacy system use. The commercial stuff is lemming like driven to work with XP or some other Wintel beast - see item 5 above.

[Carel]

NCCams, in my examples I point to the dividing lines in software. A PC with a video card and a graphical user interface is fantastic for everything but the driving of the machine. A separate driven embedded processor whether driven by ISA, PCI, USB or Com or whatever makes it easier. I would'nt consider reverse engineering, problaby you can't even buy the parts in commercial quantities. I found the G-Code interpreter easy to program, it's easy to specify and test. No, then 3D-CAD programs, I would like to be qualified as "starter, knows 1% of what's possible".

Carel

[NC Cams]

IMO, the technology exists/existed to do open source whatever. Even the BMDC card used standard chips (PROM's, RISC chips, etc). It was the imbedded software that did the "magic".

I know of a "clean room" reverse engineer'd system that could be offered BUT the folks who did it are simply afraid of the hassles involved when the ambulance chasers start on their war paths - whether they have a case or not.

The point is that there is a lot of well intended and doable things that can be done with imbedded code, RISC chips, micro circuits, etc. Who has the time and finances to invest into doing something that labor and code intensive just so it can be "open sourced"??? I don't see how it can/will differ from a "do it for free and give it away" scenario.

Basic, quick basic and god knows how many other languages fell by the wayside as they were replaced by more powerful, capable ones - even when they were free and psuedo "open source" they didn't survive. Ditto that with hard and software.

Ultimately VERY few software code developers give up the source code - heck, I know of situations where they won't even SELL their intellectual property at a "name your price" basis. They won't support it and won't sell it. Talk about "computerized crack cocaine", that's it if there ever was it...

Human nature the way it is will only support/tolerate open source SO FAR. At some point, business sense sets in and it basically has to go commercial to survive/grow/prosper. Free stuff ultimately ends up being worth the price one has to pay for it.... Me thinks that to think otherwise is a pipe dream....

[pminmo]

Interesting discussion, I doubt that the debate over open source will end. it will be one of those look backwards in time and say yes or no to. Personally I didn't think it would last this long, but I would say it's gaining ground. I would argue that the same two that people hate MS/Intel are the foundation that have allowed it to grow. How many people are writing free code for OS2?
Defacto standards promote growth. IBM was clueless when the original PC was put out there, but look at what grew, ISA slots, DOS, Windows, AMD/INTEL and the momentum just keeps growing. Actually I fault MS for making windows too flexable. The should have defined a dozen hardware interfaces, and only expanded those when a technological leap could be made. It would have been less bug prone. Users dont care if the cpu connects to a hard drive via IDE/firewire/USB....the just want to get data to and from, the faster the better.
I keep wondering what you could do with all the horsepower of cpu's and memory that have gone to the landfill. I mean a 60M pentium would run a CNC machine with a nice grapical interface if that was all that was needed. But in reality, people want to be network connected, share files..........look and feel like their desktop pc, so they don't have to learn more stuff.
EMC has been reasonably successfull.
Ultimately if a project were to gain ground, it really needs to be object oriented, and not care what the object is developed in. I could care less what code runs Firefox or IE. But I want to be able to interface tools/objects to it.

[NC Cams]

I can recall when the ONLY computers that existed was a main frame in an A/C'd sealed off secure office. Then came the Apple II and then the PC. The computer staff had fits because they lost control as being the sole source for information.

Then the computers had to "talk" to one another.

Enter networks, protocols, e-mail and god knows what else. As the network had to have an administrator/gate keeper, re-enter the computer staff (now masquerading as IS Dept). They finally regained control of what they'd lost as the conspiracy finally evolved to its "logical and proper" inevitability. My, how the worm turns.

I don't have the latest in equipment in my shop and much of it still runs (just fine, thanx) on DOS. Yet, it still makes state of the art parts. I have some software the won't run on anything above 98SE. Yes, I can spend big bucks going to an XP compatibly system but it still won't design a cam profile ANY better.

It would me nice to have a link so that I can down/upload from my DOS machines to a central server but, in spite of a "yes it will talk to a DOS machine", we still are relegated to transport by floppy because the "experts" can't make it work (though it should) for god knows what reason. Yes, I won't buy an XP system because it won't work with my machines due to backwards incompatible speed issues.

Why not use CDROM??? Haven't found a rom burner that works with DOS and some programs are getting too big for floppy's.

My peeve is that legacy systems are/were simply abandoned. I suspect DOS code isn't even taught in computer science anymore. Yet, there is/are plenty of machines being scrapped (CNC, PC, whatever) or people are being horribly gouged for orphan technology just because "sorry but ISA m/b's are obsolete..." or you can't buy a motherboard anymore with ISA slots.

What do you think would happen if the power company changed from 120vac to 180 vac and you had to buy all new appliances every so often??? Probably hourly shootings. Growth and advancement with PC's is inevitable. HOwever, when a business (especially a small one) has to spend hard earned capital to buy an all new computer because the new software update isn't backwards compatible to a lesser powered one, SOMEBODY missed the boat and money is being spent unnecessarily on things that don't provide suitable value....

Isn't it amazing that a 2 wire phone system can transmit ungodly amounts of data between your home and a central terminal, even at 28.8 or 53K??? Imagine, 2 simple wires. Yes it isn't DSL or cable speed but its still pretty darn fast all things considered. And I'll bet that they still can do even MORE as technolgy evolves with the same 2 measly wires....

I think the computer guys need to reconsider their strategy and then watch the "Apollo 13" movie again on their laptop DVD strangely enough instead of on a VHS system (more obsolete technology) .

Especially the part where they dumped a bunch of stuff (effectively bailing wire and twine) on the table in front of the engineers and said, effectively, "this is all you have to work with, now figure out how to keep them (the astronaughts) alive with it....".

There's too much stuff going to landfills that still works but "just ain't fast enough any more". I dunno about you but if I screw up an input on a spreadsheet, the screen still updates faster with my 233mhz Pentium after I hit ENTER than I can say "Oh s**t".

At that rate, why do I need one that screws up even faster (asside from being able to run NASCAR simulator which is NOT something that needs to be loaded on computers at work or in my office)???

[ger21]

Originally Posted by NC Cams It would me nice to have a link so that I can down/upload from my DOS machines to a central server but, in spite of a "yes it will talk to a DOS machine", we still are relegated to transport by floppy because the "experts" can't make it work (though it should) for god knows what reason.

Our router at work uses a DOS control, and we can pull files from a windows machine. Not exactly sure, but it uses some Microsoft DOS networkinh stuff to map a shared folder to a drive that it can see. No machines on the network can see the DOS machine, but it can pull files from the others.

[NC Cams]

Ger21: we got a couple of network cards and have Win ME on the main PC and a DOS machine with Win 3.11 on the other.

Although both launch the software, neither can find each other and they are the only p/c's wired to each other and I don't have time to screw with the "its as easy as pie" software that nobody seems to be able to figure out.

Typical computer software - the instructions make NO sense whatsoever if you don't know how to use the program but perfect sense afterwards once you do.....

[WayneHill]

Originally Posted by NC Cams we got a couple of network cards and have Win ME on the main PC and a DOS machine with Win 3.11 on the other. Although both launch the software, neither can find each other and they are the only p/c's wired to each other and I don't have time to screw with the "its as easy as pie" software that nobody seems to be able to figure out. Typical computer software - the instructions make NO sense whatsoever if you don't know how to use the program but perfect sense afterwards once you do.....

The "Sharing" is turned off on the network setup by default. They have to be setup on the same network workgroup or domain.

Are you using a crossover cable or a hub/switch ? - Move this thread to the Network forum,

Another thought. Why go backward compatiable? DOS can talk to NTFS and USB with third party drivers. Have not looked for a DOS CD-ROM burner.

[weimedog]

So what is the next step?

To have enough folks decide that if something like this was to happen..its a good thing!

Then to get a list of those who can and would be willing to focus on a project. We have to define a goal....then ignore the static. Fact is any project like this is possible if there is desire and focus. We can talk around the clock on particulars of other non related but might be similar topics and miss the entire point....maybe thats the goal of some.

I would like to know from those who would like to move on something like this is Cascade is the best choise out there...right now I think its the best I've seen to date.

Then is it something everyone can get their hands on?

Would it be a better thing to re-create something like that from scratch? (My opinion is get some instant gratification first...then tackle something like that)

I wish there was something close to Cascade in true "open source" instead of a quasi open source with hooks type of deal.

If there is another environment out there that is better than Cascade...WHY is it better for a development environment? What does it have that makes it better for building a foundation for CAM software develpment? One thing any prospect would absolutly need is a way to extend the entity types to include a toolpath. As I said before my preference is a "linked list of objects" style of entity. What do you folks think?

[WayneHill]

What is "Cascade"?

Did a Google and found nothing... Not a good start

[lwill]

http://www.opencascade.org/

[WayneHill]

Thank you Iwill.

Wow, 'OpenCascade' is one hugh complex program.

I think we need to start with something basic and go from there.

What is the goal here? To create a CAD to CAM interface to generate G-code?

Or a control software the CNC will use to move the machine using G-Code?