New Coldfire-based Networkable Embedded Laser Controller!

[dream beamz]

Dear Fellow Laserists,


Unfortunately, what began as a friendly post to inform you of new technology has become mush.... I've decided it be best to remove the original and subsequent postings from this thread because it simply got way out of hand and well beyond what it was intended.

So what your saying is the story went a little something like this

You come to the board confused


You got beat around a little bit


Bill and Adam proceded to challenge you to a dual


You got whipped around a bit


Your finished


Now its beating a dead horse


You are thus bowing down before the members of PL


I still think wonderful things of you

[cruch]

Hmm...dejavu?? I know someone else remove all of his posts...

[cruch]

hahaha...
all post on laserfreak is also removed!!!

[dream beamz]

hahaha...
all post on laserfreak is also removed!!!

Its not like pangolin didnt save the entire web page including all the forum post, over and over again, cataloging it with timestamps

[Lampy]

Controversial Post Alert!

But what about this?

http://www.uclinux.org/ports/coldfire/laser/index.htm

Doesn't this show us that even if he did "borrow" some code from the Pangolin website for the translation, which I'm not condoning, maybe he hasn't ripped off the qm.net system? I may be missing something here but isn't lasermame's board a coldfire based micro running a version of linux and some software he wrote and the qm.net is a housing and board providing a slot for a QM board to interface it with a network? Are you saying he has stolen the idea from the .net or the origional QM board? I know that lasermame says his board has a network port but how similar are the two boards? The link above seems to show the early development of the board and software.

Doesn't this give lasermame some credability or is it all lost because of the way he handled the questions about where he got the babel fish code and idea from.

Are we going to see someone who has spent a lot of time developing a laser controller get sued and lose everything over a cock-up on their website, or has lasermame actually got the balls to copy and release someone else's product.

Maybe I'm way-off here and just trying to play devil's advocate but hey-ho.

Lets keep PL a great place to be!

[Banthai]

But the web site is still up

http://www.nightlase.com.au/wildfire/index.html

but i guess not for long

or at least the translation stuff will be removed

.... i did enjoy this thread in a funny sort of way i got the Flu at the moment and its been rather a dull day ... and this brought a bit of excitement,

all the best .... Karl

[Lampy]

http://www.pangolin.com/ubb/showflat...r=975&Main=334

ah, I see. Well, benefit of the doubt and all that.

[Pitts]

YeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeHaaaaaaa !

Don't piss around with the big boys on PL....

Well, it was certainly different but kinda entertaining, all rights and wrongs aside.

Ray
NZ

[Pangolin]

Hi all,

Take a look at this picture:



It was sent to me by one of our clients. This board is a predecessor to what Rodney has now. Rodney has apparently re-packaged it a bit...

Unlike the picture on Rodney's web page, where he has scratched off the part numbers, on this particular picture you can see the part numbers very clearly.

Anybody want to hold their QM2000 board up next to this picture and count the similarities? Anybody want to compare the parts lists of the two boards?

Even things that we did and consider to be stupid in hind sight -- like the "MICTOR" connector that we use for programming (difficult to get and very expensive) is used on this board.

My question is... WHY??? Of all of the ways to make a circuit board to control lasers, why make one that bares such a close resemblance to the QM2000?

Certainly it's not impossible to make a board that can control lasers and NOT look like the QM2000. Look at the developments of RIYA. They don't look like the QM2000. Neither do the developments of JM Electronic, MediaLas, etc. So it is very easy to make a controller that doesn't look and work like the QM2000. Why duplicate the QM2000?

So anyway, as usual, I find myself asking questions. Hmmmm...

Best regards,

William Benner

[DZ]

Take a look at this picture:

Wow, aside from relocating a few components, it looks exactly the same.

Why duplicate the QM2000?

Do you really have to ask this question? Here's the answer, because its the best money can buy. Everything from the hardware to the software that goes with it. You should buy yourself one Bill!

David

PS- What do you bet that the mini-DIN connector is for DMX!