# Marv Klotz's Utilities



## deverett (Jul 24, 2008)

I cannot open any of Marvin Klotz's utilities. www.myvirtualnetwork.com/mklotz/

I have tried to follow his instructions to the letter without success.

I am running Windows Vista on a Sony Viao computer. The DOS Command Prompt opens with 
C:\Users\Julan> and I am not able to change directory, no matter what I try to do. 
So I put the unzipped utility in that directory but then I get a message:
"keyway.exe is not recognised as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file"
And another problem, when trying to alter the properties to uncheck the 'Close on exit' property, I get the message:
"The properties for this program are not available"

Can any of you Computer whizzkids help this Computer Dunce, please.

Frustrated in Saudi-Arabia-On-Sea
Dave


----------



## Cedge (Jul 24, 2008)

Dave
Marv has a posted pretty detailed disclaimer on his site about the programs being written in and for true DOS operating environments. Thank Bill gates for removing all but the barest portions of DOS from Windows since the days of DOS 5.0. In fact, I believe Windows Vista was to have finally removed the last usable vestiges of legacy support. 

The disclaimer was written to address the issue, as it became more common. Marv's recent responses to this have leaned heavily to the "Read the Disclaimer First". As popular as his proglettes have become, i suspect he gets quite a bit of mail on the subject.

Steve


----------



## tattoomike68 (Jul 24, 2008)

I think it would be sweet to have marvs software re-written to run in flash so it would run in a web browser. even package them for download for offline use like thay are now but in flash.

I bet I can work some of them over in basic and compile them into stand alone .exe files with printer output of data and the whole works.

I do think flash or java would be the way to go, something that would run on any mac, windows or linux box with no hassles.

Im not dogging marvs programs im just saying I would like to rework some of them to be a bit more user friendly and cross platform.


----------



## deverett (Jul 24, 2008)

Thanks to you both, Steve & Mike for your replies.

And Mike, if you are able to make Marv's utilities available to those with modern (obviously not better!) operating systems, then I'm sure there would be quite a few happy chappies out there, not least me.

Dave
Saudi-Arabia-On-Sea


----------



## mklotz (Jul 24, 2008)

Vista, huh? No wonder it won't run. Vista is not designed to run any useful programs.

I doubt that your problem has anything to do with my code although you may want to check by attempting to run one of my other simpler programs, e.g., CHORD or BOLTCIRC. KEYWAY doesn't do anything convoluted - it's simple computation with output directly to the screen.

If you need an answer immediately, PM me the input parameters and I'll run the case for you.


----------



## deverett (Jul 24, 2008)

I have heard many tales of woe about Vista, but for a Computer simpleton like me, I don't know enough about these things to find anything wrong with it - until now that is!

When I posted my query, I used 'Keyway' as an example. In fact I downloaded about 12 of your utilities that I thought might come in useful some time. But many thanks for your offer, just the same.

Dave
in Sunny Saudi


----------



## mklotz (Jul 24, 2008)

I don't want to cast any aspersions on your computer skills but I will say that I've never had anyone complain to me that one of my programs didn't run on Vista.

I suppose that it's possible that you're the first Vista user to try one of my programs but, given the length of time Vista has been around to confound us, I sort of doubt it.

The sequence that works on XP is:

Start - Run - Cmd

which opens a window in which the programs will run normally.

I keep a shortcut to Cmd on my desktop and from it can run a small batch file that makes the folder containing the programs available.

@echo off
prompt $L$P$G 
SET PATH=C:\Documents and Settings\HP_Administrator\Desktop\CCC\

where CCC is the folder containing the programs.

Perhaps some of the guys who use Vista can translate this procedure into something that works on that abortion. I'm pleased to report that I can't.


----------



## CrewCab (Jul 24, 2008)

I've always been a bit laid back about folks knocking Microsoft and just got on with using it, as far as XP is concerned I find it "pretty much" fine ........ then again, as there ain't a lot of competition readily available (as far as I know) .....etc etc ...

Again, I thought the same about Vista, even after I installed it and used it for a while :

Then it began to ask me if I really wanted to "do that" almost every time I pressed a button, and it's a persistent little beggar ............. as I progressed with the installation I found several programs that I had previously bought were "not compatible" ....... or whatever the Microsoft slang is for that, 


After that I uninstalled it and the disc was consigned to the bin ??? ........... It seems to me that an operating system that I paid hard earned £'s for, which then does it's best to second guess my every other move, then attempts to empty my bank account by having me upgrade software which has served me well for many years is not a major step forward, unless you sell software that is.

Marv, can I apply to join your Vista appreciation society  .............. it appears I may have to investigate Linux, not that I particularly want to, to me a computer is a useful tool, not something I should have to wrestle with every day 

If anyone has a simple solution please shout up, my "small son" has recently bought a new laptop which has Vista pre-installed, he's not computer literate at all, he just wants to use it, Vista is driving him potty :'(

CC


----------



## Twinsquirrel (Jul 24, 2008)

Dave,

I've tried everything to replicate your problem on Vista x64 ultimate (spit) to no avail. i.e giving myself the lowest access rights etc etc

Now don't shoot me down in flames, I have to ask....... You have unpacked the zip file haven't you? 

for example you should have the following files in whatever folder you are trying to run "keyway.exe" from:

keyway.exe
keyway.c
keyway.jpg

Just a thought

David

BTW I can't stand Vista either but I have it dual booting on my laptop along with Ubuntu linux and XP just so I can support the family when they ring up in a panic. If I had my way they would all be running OS/2 :big:


----------



## rake60 (Jul 24, 2008)

Patience guys.

DOS is an operating system that Bill Gates used to start his Microsoft multi billion dollar
empire with. He didn't own it or even know what it was at the time, but he DID buy the
rights to it the day AFTER he sold it!

It's a tired old way of using a computer processor, but well worth the efforts of unlocking it's
mystery's to be able to use Marv's Utilities!

Rick


----------



## deverett (Jul 25, 2008)

David

Yes, I have unpacked the various Utility programs and they are each in their own folder.

I first of all used the Start>Programs>Accessories>Command Prompt to try and open 'Keyway' (or any of the other Utilities).

Then I read Marv's response so I tried Start>Run>keyway.exe (with all the folder preamble before it)
A flash on the screen and then the screen went back as if nothing had happened.

Talking of batch files 
@echo
prompt $L$P$G
etc. means nothing to me. It might as well be Chinese for all the sense it makes! 

A still confused and frustrated Dave


----------



## shred (Jul 25, 2008)

I've used both Vista and XP with Marv's programs without trouble-- except having to drop to DOS to use them of course.

Funny story-- Microsoft took a bunch of longtime XP die-hards and showed them the new 'Mojave' OS. They liked it. Turned out it was Vista with a different theme... anyway..

It may be important where you put the programs-- Vista gets whiny about where executables can live (which is good from a security perspective, but a pain in the rear otherwise).  Here's what I do on Vista:

First download the zip and extract the 3 files to somewhere like YourUserName\Downloads\Keyway

Then go to Start->All Programs->Accessories->Commmand Prompt, right-click it and hit 'Run As Administrator'
Once in the Command Prompt, CD c:\Users\YourUserName\Downloads\Keyway
and then run KEYWAY.EXE

---alternatively---

Another thing you can do if you don't want to go muck around in DOS is to unpack the files to \YourUser\Downloads\Keyway, then open that folder (click on your name on the start menu, then open Downloads, then Keyway), right-click on keyway.exe and hit 'create shortcut'. Then right-click the new shortcut and hit Properties. On the Program tab (there should be a goofy MS-DOS logo on that page, if not, let us know), uncheck 'close on exit' and hit 'Ok'. Double-click the shortcut to run it.


----------



## pmerritt (Jul 25, 2008)

I had a similar problem when first using Marv's programs on a machine running XP. I think the program finishes running and therefore thinks you are done without showing the results! A setting needs to be changed and IIRC I found the fix on Marv's site. Hopefully this will help, I can't check it out now since I'm at work using my Mac 

Peter

Shred beat me to the punch. That was the fix I was thinking of.


----------



## deverett (Jul 25, 2008)

Shred

Many thanks for your explanation. I've finally managed to get the Utilities to work.

Still can't do it through DOS, but via the shortcut. Never mind how, at least I can get into them now.

End of frustration!

Dave
Saudi-Arabia-On-Sea


----------



## mklotz (Jul 25, 2008)

My thanks to Shred for detailing the procedures he uses.

Isn't it mind-boggling that such complicated machinations are needed to run some dead-simple programs that do nothing more than take a few inputs, make some computations, and output a few answers? It really highlights just how ridiculous Microsoft's ideas of how to manage a computer have become.

If I write a program that has only a small amount of output (e.g., TRIANGLE or KEYWAY or CSEG), I write the output to the screen during execution and then terminate the program. If the window is set to "close on exit", the information disappears before you have a chance to read it. This is why the "close on exit" option has to be disabled.

Programs that produce prodigious output (e.g. CHANGE) or a chart meant to be printed and carried to the shop (e.g. BALLCUT) will write their output to a file in the parent directory and then terminate with a message indicating the name of the output file. These ouput files, regardless of their extension, are pure ASCII and can be viewed (and edited) in any editor.


----------



## sparky961 (Jul 25, 2008)

I had a laptop for a while with Vista installed, and no drivers to "downgrade" it to XP. Can't really say I enjoyed using it. I turned off as much of the "idiot-proofing" as possible, and it constantly complained that my computer wasn't "secure". I know that I'll have to use it again some day. I just hope that by then they've made it a bit more usable.

Let me first applaud Marv for providing these utilities free of charge, and apparently providing a reasonable amount of free support on top of that!

That said, if there's to be an effort to port these utilities to another language/platform, I'd be more than willing to help out the cause. I'm skilled in a number of programming languages including: BASIC, Java, Pascal, C (and variants), Python, PHP, JavaScript, and god knows what else I've had my fingers into...  Chances are, if I haven't already seen it, it wouldn't take me long to pick it up.

So, the offer is there. If anyone wants to take me up on it or put forth a team effort, just PM or email.

-Sparky


----------



## shred (Jul 26, 2008)

What I've been doing lately with my DOS programs is having them run continuously to avoid the dreaded close-on-exit-- the first input will have an exit option like so "data size? [0=exit]:" and then it runs in a loop over and over until it gets the exit value. My programs are usually a little different than Marvs, though I often run through his a number of times each when playing with the numbers.


----------



## deverett (Jul 26, 2008)

Quoted from Marv's last reply:

Isn't it mind-boggling that such complicated machinations are needed to run some dead-simple programs that do nothing more than take a few inputs, make some computations, and output a few answers? It really highlights just how ridiculous Microsoft's ideas of how to manage a computer have become.

 If the window is set to "close on exit", the information disappears before you have a chance to read it. This is why the "close on exit" option has to be disabled.

[end quote]


This brings to mind the famous retort from GM's boss about a dig by Bill Gates at their products:

General Motors 

At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated: "If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving twenty-five dollar cars that got 1000 mile to the gallon."

In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release stating, (by Mr. Welch himself) "If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics:

&#8226; For no reason whatsoever your car would crash twice a day.

&#8226; Every time they repainted the lines on the road you would have to buy a new car.

&#8226; Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason, and you would just accept this, restart and drive on.

&#8226; Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart. In which case you would have to reinstall the engine.

&#8226; Only one person at a time could use the car, unless you bought "Car95" or "CarNT." But then you would have to buy more seats.

&#8226; Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, reliable, five times as fast, and twice as easy to drive, but would only run on five percent of the roads.

&#8226; The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would be replaced by a single "general car fault" warning light.

&#8226; New seats would force everyone to have the same size body. The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going off.

&#8226; Occasionally for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key, and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.

&#8226; GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a deluxe set of Rand McNally road maps (now a GM subsidiary), even though they neither need them nor want them.

&#8226; Every time GM introduced a new model car, buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.

&#8226; You'd press the "Start" button to shut off the engine.

Dave
in sunny Saudi


----------



## mklotz (Jul 26, 2008)

I can't tell you how many people have emailed me and told me that they were going to convert my programs to some more "modern and wonderful" format. I've blessed and encouraged every one of them in their aspirations. To date I've never been informed of A SINGLE PROGRAM that has been so converted.

Since the source code for every program I've written is included in the distributions, this absence of accomplishment can't be attributed to difficulty in understanding how the program works. By definition, the source code is a completely unambiguous description of the program's operation - after all, a machine can understand it. So, what's wrong?

Perhaps these people finally realize just how big a task such a conversion would be and are overpowered by the effort once they look at it closely. Remember, to do the conversion properly you not only need to write the new code but you need to debug it properly. (You can depend on the fact that I'll be checking the new program and I understand the relevant mathematics well enough to construct test cases that will really stress the new code.)

Then there's the matter of the user interface. I'm a real stickler for the idea that the code should do ALL the work for the user. It should request only the most essential input data and do that in the most natural form - the form in which it would present itself from the problem. Output should also be in a natural, easy to comprehend format that is directly usable in the shop environment. Any deviations from these dicta that do not improve usability are going to receive severe criticism.

Finally, there's the question of the basic value of the (conversion) process. These are very narrow application programs written for a comparatively tiny niche market. It might be worth converting a major general purpose program (such as a CAD program) but is it worth converting a tiny utility that computes which wires to use when measuring threads? You can't simply forego converting the simpler programs. Remember, the collection is meant to address the needs of the innumerates and mathophobes as well as the more mathematically sophisticated folks.

Plus, Microsoft being what it is, who is to say that the next idiocy that comes out of Renton will be able to run the converted programs? I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it's part of Microsoft's business model to make programming impossible on their computers for all but professional users - thus ensuring that they would never have competition from amateurs like me.

Maybe spending a half hour to learn how to run legacy DOS programs on your computer isn't such a bad tradeoff after all.


----------



## sparky961 (Jul 26, 2008)

mklotz  said:
			
		

> Maybe spending a half hour to learn how to run legacy DOS programs on your computer isn't such a bad tradeoff after all.



All quite true - even the parts I didn't quote above. I'm not suggesting that a conversion is necessarily the best thing to do, just that I'd be willing to help if there were a bunch of capable people who wanted to undertake the effort. Chances are that I wouldn't be interested in doing it alone because of many of the reasons you bring up.

I think the main reason why I'd be interested in doing so would be for those poor unfortunate people that use those incompatible - yet superior - operating systems and architectures.

What I envision is something that includes the logic of each program, but has it organized into a very simple menu structure so that you can see everything that's available (for the less-than-computer-savvy folks). I'm a big fan of "text in, text out" programs for doing simple things and would propose to keep that same spirit.

I didn't actually realize that you provide all of the source as well. I'll have to have a look.

It seemed to me that there was some desire to have some ports, and since I have the ability to help, I thought it would be nice to offer. If there's no demand, it would make no sense for me to expend the effort.

-Sparky


----------



## mklotz (Jul 26, 2008)

Sparky,

I have no problem with what you propose and, as always, I encourage you to make the attempt. 



> What I envision is something that includes the logic of each program, but has it organized into a very simple menu structure so that you can see everything that's available (for the less-than-computer-savvy folks). I'm a big fan of "text in, text out" programs for doing simple things and would propose to keep that same spirit.



I guess I don't quite understand what you're getting at here. The multi-function programs that need menus - DRILL is an example - already have them. Even the complete computer illiterate should be able to look at:

-------------------

D  find Drill designation given hole size
S  find hole Size given drill designation
T  find Tapdrill for any tap and dot
F  find tapdrill for thread-Forming tap
X  step drilling calculations
H  display this Help/Menu
M  display this Help/Menu
Q  Quit (Esc also)
(D,S,T,F,X,H,M,Q) ?

---------------------

and realize that he needs to press the appropriate letter to execute the associated function.

The single-function programs require no function menu and generally provide instructions about how to proceed - TRIANGLE is representative.

---------------

SOLUTION OF PLANE TRIANGLES

Number the sides of your triangle 1-3 and answer the questions to follow.
Input whatever data you know; press return if not known.
You need three data items (at least one side) to solve a triangle.

side 1 [0] ?

------------------

Additionally, many of the programs written by me are accompanied by a text file that discusses the program and its use. (Of course, there's nothing I, or you for that matter, can do about cretins who refuse to RTFM.)

Frankly, I don't think the programs need porting. What I think is needed, perhaps, is a meta-utility that a computer illiterate can use to download and unzip the file and install it on his system. It should also provide a portal for accessing and using the programs. This would be specific to an operating system but with one version for each of XP, Vista, you'd have 90% of users covered.


----------



## sparky961 (Jul 26, 2008)

I think we're talking about the same thing here as far as what you're calling a "meta-utility".

I'm not sure how many people who would be willing to take on machining and engine building as a hobby wouldn't be able to figure out a simple command-line program, but from reading a few of the related threads, it seems to have been an issue in the past.

-Sparky


----------



## mklotz (Jul 26, 2008)

sparky961  said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how many people who would be willing to take on machining and engine building as a hobby wouldn't be able to figure out a simple command-line program, but from reading a few of the related threads, it seems to have been an issue in the past.



Never underestimate the power of human ignorance. It's far worse than you can imagine and I have had the emails to prove it. 

Example: I had a guy ask me to write a program to lay out coordinates for a (rectangular) grid of holes. (No lie!) I pointed out that, with the DRO he said he had, he didn't really need a program. He could simply use a calculator to develop the coordinates. Nevertheless, he insisted. Finally, to get rid of him, I wrote a program for him. (No, I never put it on my site.) When he received it, he wrote back and asked me what he was supposed to do when it asked for the "x increment between holes".

Since I don't answer emails that contain three or more egregious grammar/spelling errors in the first sentence, I never responded. He's probably still staring raptly at the command line prompt while furiously rubbing the mouse in hope that the genie will appear and give him another neuron to rub against the lonely one rattling around in his cranium.


----------



## sparky961 (Jul 26, 2008)

It seems as though I'm getting a bit away from the original topic here, so I'm not sure if this would be considered "thread hijacking"... but since we're still sort of talking about Marv Klotz's Utilities here, I suspect I'm still ok... 

Anyway, it's funny that you mention the bolt rectangle thing. Although I agree 200% that the person you were dealing with probably wasn't worth your time, the bolt rectangle can be a bit challenging to get just right without having a bunch of "toys" like a DRO.

I presently have rudimentary 2-axis (no Z yet) NC with my setup. I also have a huge amount of backlash that rears it's head from time to time. So, I wrote up a simple program to help me drill a few accurate bolt rectangles a while back. It's written for TurboCNC, but there's nothing complicated about it.

Perhaps someone might find this useful in some other context. I wrote it as a "throw away" program, so be warned that you get what you pay for here. 

Oh, and sorry for the caps... the keyboard I use for the dedicated NC computer sucks, so I just leave Caps Lock on.

-Sparky

-------

;2008-06-20
;
;DRILL A RECTANGULAR BOLT PATTERN CENTERED
;ON A DIFFERENT-SIZED RECTANGLE
;THAT HAS ONE CORNER ALIGNED AT 0, 0
;
;*** NOTE: APPROACH IS ALWAYS FROM SAME
;     DIRECTION TO AVOID BACKLASH ERROR
;
; USES CALCULATED ABSOLUTE COORDINATES

G90

;STOCK RECTANGLE
#1000 = 87.950 ;WIDTH
#1001 = 136.90 ;LENGTH

;BOLT RECTANGLE
#2000 = 75 ;WIDTH
#2001 = 120 ;LENGTH

G00 X0 Y0

;BOTTOM LEFT
G90 G00 X[(#1001-#2001)/2] Y[(#1000-#2000)/2]
G91 G00 X-2 Y-2
G00 X2 Y2
M00 (DRILL)

;BOTTOM RIGHT
G90 G00 X[#1001-((#1001-#2001)/2)] Y[(#1000-#2000)/2]
G91 G00 X-2 Y-2
G00 X2 Y2
M00 (DRILL)

;TOP RIGHT
G90 G00 X[#1001-((#1001-#2001)/2)] Y[#1000-((#1000-#2000)/2)]
G91 G00 X-2 Y-2
G00 X2 Y2
M00 (DRILL)

;TOP LEFT
G90 G00 X[(#1001-#2001)/2] Y[#1000-((#1000-#2000)/2)]
G91 G00 X-2 Y-2
G00 X2 Y2
M00 (DRILL)

G90 G00 X0 Y0

M30


----------



## mklotz (Jul 26, 2008)

Sparky,

I wasn't talking about a gcode program to actually drive a CAM machine. This guy wanted a program to calculate the (x,y) coordinates of the holes given a start point and an increment in x and an increment in y.

Think xi = xo + i*dx for 0<=i<=n.


----------



## Bogstandard (Jul 26, 2008)

Leave poor Marv's proggies alone, I have been using them for a few years and have never had a real complaint. Get the job done, and thats all that is required. No cartoon screens or flashy techniques, input in, output out.

Rather than spending hours writing code, debugging plus anything else you modern day whizkids get up to, why not try my solution. A lot cheaper in the long run.

Go out to what you call garage sales, and I am sure you can pick up an old PC for a few bucks, here in the UK, go to the local tip and there are hundreds of the things. You will also most probably get '95 or '98 pre loaded, plus thousands of DOS games.
It might also teach a few of the Vista Kids how real computers run. Most of these old machines will take XP if you push them a little, and if needs must.

I have even been given 2 year old laptops running XP, the old owners thought they were upgrading when they went to Vista (they have more money than sense). I just clean them up, cleanse the drives and donate them to needy kids. They usually run a lot faster than the new ones the old users have bought.

Use those for running Marv's proggies. In fact if you are a whiz whiz kid, you could also use it to run your new fangled CNC jobbies, as I think the better sofware required doesn't like the new Vista system.

Problem totally solved.

Bogs


----------



## sparky961 (Jul 26, 2008)

"Thanks for offering, Sparky, but there's just no real demand for this right now."

-Sparky


----------



## Cedge (Jul 27, 2008)

Sparky
The sheer number of Marv's children would make full rewrites a daunting task, even with a team of dedicated Marv fans. However... maybe there is another idea which would sharpen Ocam's razor. 

Don't take me as any expert... but would an "environmental library" where his stored DOS versions could run within a JAVA interface be possible? Basically a Java(?) version of a DOS friendly environment with a selectable menu of Marv's magical offerings being called and used by the user. 

One clean download... a total Marv program collection able to run on any platform seems more programmer and user friendly than the 1000 proglett rewrite. Future programs need only be added to their new world and renumbered as upgraded versions.

Like I said... no expert here.... just the twinkling of an incomplete idea.

Steve


----------



## kvom (Jul 27, 2008)

I looked at the source code for one of the programs (BOLTCIRC). This is not really an issue with DOS per se, but with the Command Prompt window. 

While Microsoft may decide to make some native DOS programs inoperable under Vista, it is most unlikely that they will do away with the Command Prompt. As long as a program uses standard MSC libraries and stdin/stdout as input and output devices, the program will work. Otherwise millions of command-line programs written in C and other languages would cease to be runable.

Rather than use the start/run/cmd sequence to launch the window, I prefer to create a shortcut icon on my desktop. Doing so allows modifying the properties of the window (color, buffer size, font, etc.) rather than relying on the default values.


----------



## sparky961 (Jul 27, 2008)

I understand that there's no reason why these programs won't run under a properly-configured command prompt. That's not the point. The point here is that the vast majority of people turn white and freeze up when presented with a command prompt, even if you make something that works extremely well with it. This is the reason why you no longer see "C:/>" after your computer boots up. Hell, even the most die-hard Linux fans out there usually run GUIs.

I agree with Cedge that it would be more efficient to wrap the existing code somehow, rather than totally re-write each module. However, it has been said in this discussion that there have been a number of offers for help in the past, and yet there still isn't any effort to that extent. Perhaps the reason, as I now see it, is that the effort simply wouldn't be appreciated.

Respectfully, I have plenty of things to keep me occupied, and I don't just give away my time to things that will go unappreciated. Not to mention that I have absolutely no problems running the programs as they stand - Vista, XP, or Windoze '95.

-Sparky


----------



## shred (Jul 27, 2008)

I keep thinking they would be cool linked to a live web page that would run them for you, so all you'd have to do is surf on over and pick the one you wanted, but alas my web server is a Linux box, like 99.9% of them, making prototyping such a thing difficult.


----------



## bhjones (Aug 2, 2008)

If I remember correctly, most if not all of those utilities come with the source code. One could either tweak these to compile on a unix/linux system or better yet for web use, grab the math out of the c code and rewrite them as php scripts.


----------



## mklotz (Aug 2, 2008)

The source code is available for all of the programs written by ME - which is most of them. Folks who submit programs to the site have the option of not including source code if that is their preference.


----------

