On 2012-10-09 14:46, rewolff wrote:
> robin_listas;2492704 Wrote:
> Good thinking, robin, exactly. right. We have a whole bunch of drivers
> that were written in the 1996 era, ported to 2.4 in the 2002 timeframe,
> and now there is no money to upgrade everything, we just need a hardware
> This is an industrial PC. There is a mostly passive backplane and a CPU
> card. So: "get a videocard … " doesn’t work. I’m stuck with the
> oldest “cpu card” that they could find. And still the IDE controller and
> video cards are newer than suse7.3 that the system was built on.
Ah, yes, I have worked with them. Or an hybrid: an industrial “box” with a plain motherboard.
IIRC the ones I worked with had separate graphics, or at least a PCI bus in which you usually
plug things like data acquisition boards, but a plain video card is also possible.
Typically industrial PCs are not very “advanced” compared to home/office hardware, I mean, they
don’t use recent cpus and gadgets, and when they do, they are terribly expensive. You could buy
plain 8086 boards from them way into this century, for example. I would not be surprised that
you can still buy boards supported by 7.3
(I miss working with these things)
> Knurpht Wrote:
>> And, I agree, at least go for headless,
> The machine is supposed to control some hardware. Operators need to
> tell the machine (i.e. not the computer!) to start up, shut down, change
> this parameter etc etc. That needs a screen alas…
Yep. And these operators may have their hands full of grease and dirt
However, you could get an hybrid solution: the industrial PC would be text only (that should
work) and a second pc would display the graphics via xserver client/server solutions. Not
something I would like in your situation, though.
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 12.1 x86_64 “Asparagus” at Telcontar)