Yeah, you can buy a license for gcedit and it turns on tool paths and some other features.
I'm trying to think of a reason to use notepad instead of gcEdit and I just can't. LOL But waaaaaaay down on my list is making the editor changeable.
Seve
Rather vague. Are the feature I specifically referenced 'turned on' in the pro version?whatever the fee is for a 'pro' or equiv version of gcedit, but only if it has the features that I want.
As to comparing gcedit and Notepad . . nobrainer. On the other hand compare Notepad++ to gcedit . . . once again . no brainer . . just in the other direction.
Incidentally, I tried the hack mentioned by PATTON, except with Notepad ++ and it worked. More then just the primary .exe is needed and I don't know exactly what as I just copied the whole Notepad ++ directory and it worked fine after that.
One last comment that will probably get me in trouble . as usual . . is that sarcastic responses to users who are providing feedback as to what is needed in MACH is not going to win you any champions. Judging by recent developments at Tormach, you can't afford to loose to many more.
Whether you like the comments or not, people still spent their time to provide them and some respect for that time would be appropriate, methinks.
But that's just me . . . . 
I was not vague. Some of the other features are not finished yet. The tool path is done. But we really haven't promoted it at this point yet because we don't know what all we will add. So if vague being that "I don't know what else at this point" then I guess so.
No one noticed the "LOL" in the comment? Or was it just you? It was not sarcasm for the sake of anything. It was a joke. That is how I am. I like to joke around. I'm a happy guy. And I refuse to walk around on eggs shells just to keep from accidentally pissing someone off. I will be the first to tell you that I'm not politically correct in any shape, form, or fashion. It is not worth my time. We have precious few minutes to live on this Earth to be wasting them on that kind of stuff.
And I was trying to be honest too. I have that "editor change feature" on my list. But it is way down the list at the moment. Nothing else meant at all.
And now I find myself getting a lecture (on my birthday of all days) from someone that doesn't even bother to look at the editors and see if the other feature that you "specifically referenced" but are being "vague" about (by not mentioning it again) has been implemented. It seems that you would rather just open up a forum and post Negative Nancy comments. Thanks, but no thanks. Just so as not to be vague, I'll throw it out there... Printing. It needed to be done. It took me three weeks to get it in there. I won't get paid a penny for it either as gcEdit is freely available in the Demo. You are welcome!
For the rest of you that post constructive things, I want you to know that I spend MY time trying to make this software the best that it can possibly be. I spend 12 or more hours every day doing that. We listen to your requests and we try to get every one of them in there somehow within reason. We are not going to cater to the 1% on anything though. We are not going to write one person custom software that does EVERYTHING he wants it to do in a niche environment. But yeah... if it is something everyone will benefit from, we try to get it in there. It just takes time. Lots of it.
Terry, to the point of the EMC source code ( a brief history ) :
LinuxCNC is nice. It came from the original EMC code that National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) did. NIST is a government agency that used our tax dollars for the project. The code is public domain. Meaning anyone could use/change it without having to give away the changes (Edin, planet CNC, etc...). Public domain is like that. That is why none of those OEMs, companies, or whatever do not have to release their source code.
Now, somehow someone decided to slap the GPL license on it at a later date. How they could "re-license" something that had already been in the public domain is a point to ponder!!! Personally, I don't think it was legal. I have the original sources from NIST and it is clearly stated in the code that anyone can use it and that it is public domain. This has been stripped and replaced with the GPL in the "new" zip file of the code. The NIST code, not the LinuxCNC code.
Mach3 was derived from that original NIST code. Many changes had to be made in order for it to work on the Windows platform. One would be hard pressed to see any resemblance between the two code bases. The interpreter would be recognizable and that is about it. And the heart of Mach 3 was the parallel port code that was solely Art's baby. Oh and let's not forget about the user interface, which was 100% Art. And let me tell you that is the hardest part. If it were easy, LinuxCNC would have the same thing already! We don't use any of the NIST code anymore in Mach 4.
I had a machine running LinuxCNC. I liked it. But I'm a computer nerd. And I also have the skills to change it and make it do my bidding. Try asking the LinuxCNC group for a feature and see how far that gets you. There is absolutely NO motivation to do it unless one of the LinuxCNC programmers wants to add it because it is useful for him/her. That is the way of the open source world. I know, as I used to program for OpenBSD. Only we gave the code away completely! No GPL. OpenBSD license. Much like the MIT license. Free as in free and no strings attached. Code that I worked on is swimming around in so many commercial products that I can't even begin to fathom how many companies use it. My reward? I know that my work has made many people's lives better. Our motivation for adding needed features in Mach is being able to eat. Yeah... we are dirty capitalist that have families that have an affinity for food. (There I go joking again...)
So for the people that are not C/C++ programmers, we offer Mach. It is your choice on what to use.
Steve
Show Posts
I don't even know a ball park yet.
Guest