New forum topic - Open Control

C
Hi Joe

Not exactly, and this isn't a position it's an observation. It's not a decision not to mix it up with the status quo, it's simply not possible to interoperate freely with closed systems until the information and especially the legal barriers are lowered. I do quite a bit of talking to proprietary systems in integrating existing machines and old used stuff. It could hardly be described as easy. If I were to publish the stuff I've done or try to sell it,I'm fairly certain I would have legal problems. Modbus is the only proto I would feel safe with and even there, I can't get clear permission to do so. Individuals or companies who own the equipment can do quite a bit or we on their behalf under their license. Trying to be a go between and solving the problem for all is explicitly prohibited by many, many, licenses. That explains some of the reason why I see problems where many don't see any problem at all. Actually trying to accomplish that mixing and merging would require a legal staff larger than the township I live in and a ton of cash until attitudes change. They (big automation) can come our direction and we'll greet them with open arms but there are a lot of very high hurdles for us even trying to meet them half way. That's why it's wonderful to talk about meeting in the middle, but not very realistic. I'm all ears for real world solutions, because we would like very much to be that neutral go between. I have specifically (see the archives) tried to get quite a few entities to give us legal room to do so and have taken great pains to keep our project absolutely neutral. In a way I'm the perfect person to explain why that's a pipe dream because I know of nobody who has tried harder to provide the vehicle.
 
C
I mentioned that there were exceptions and I'm certain we differ on our concept of "open". When I tried to get information from GE on their
latest and greatest Ethernet protocol, I got stonewalled. And we're a GE customer.
I'm sure we can agree that there's quite a ways to go on this. I have recognized publicly that Modicon in particular seems to "get it" They have published much of Modbus and all of Modbus/TCP. They won't give us explicit permission to use it in LPLC but they haven't sicced any lawyers on us either. All the "open" stuff I've seen is still bounded by product lines and/or patents. And being "open" only to closed systems like Microsoft products is pretty much an oxymoron. I think we could help them by identifying which areas are most pressing. For my part, protocols are most important. And I simply can't see the downside for letting people use the protocols you _want_ them to use. Linux tools would be next so I can work with their products. At this stage, they don't have to be OSS, but it would solve the XP problem nicely and save everyone a lot of money and grief by eliminating the forced upgrade march and license hassles Microsoft seems bent on enforcing. A Linux distribution could be tailored to actually support the needs of the automation market.
ONE open fieldbus standard would be nice, but I believe they've already nailed the coffin on fieldbus and that will come from the Ethernet Open Systems side and be forced upon them out of pragmatism just like Ethernet.
That will solve many of the intractable hardware problems simply by having ONE thing in common to build upon. I don't see any likely candidates in the new bunch of "proprietary but on Ethernet hardware" products being released every day, but I could be wrong. Perhaps someone will try to steal a march on the competition and open one up. I am almost sure that the successful one won't require custom silicon.

Really I wish they would simply look at their R&D costs and how much all this balkanization costs them verses standardization. If they do that, I'm pretty sure they'll begin to do the right things. The benefits in a commodity market are even more important for them than for the consumers. Most industries have already gone through this. It's pretty hard to sell nuts and bolts that are incompatible, but that doesn't mean they can't be stronger or higher quality. You don't make a lot of money selling standard PC's, but you don't stay in business long selling non-standard ones. Standards with differentiation is where we need to go.

IMHO

Regards

cww
 
C
Hi Bob

I pretty much agree. But vendors like IBM have shown that the percieved lack of structure and organization is mostly propaganda. They bet a
Billion dollars on Linux and are saying they have recouped their investment.
"http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1106-826983.html":http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1106-826983.html
Nearly all their mainframe revenue from 4Q2001 was from sales of very, very, serious Linux machines to very serious people. In fact the have a new mainframe model that runs only Linux. "http://news.com.com/2100-1001-822771.html":http://news.com.com/2100-1001-822771.html
Now this is from people who are just about as conservative as you can get and they seem quite unconcerned about all the well worn FUD sown by their competitors. On the low end, there is an unbelievable amount of Embedded Linux development
going on including of course my humble projects.
And the FAA is piloting Linux for their new ATC systems. And Oracle is gonna run their whole business on Linux, according to Larry.
"http://www.computerworld.com/storyba/0,4125,NAV47_STO67867,00.html":http://www.computerworld.com/storyba/0,4125,NAV47_STO67867,00.html
I humbly submit that the lack of structure and organization might be killing these guys, but they just don't know it.

Ultimately this will trickle down to the automation market which is several years behind the times. (Not neccesarily a bad thing). But it's unlikely to be much of a shock. The very long lifetime of solutions in automation will stretch out even the most abrupt changa and give people adequate opportunity to change. I'm simply impatient.

Regards

cww
 
Curt:

My comments were made with industrial control as the focus. However, IBM, imbedded, and specialty applications such as Pixar, are providing the
structure I was mentioning. Some of this structure and organization is part of the application such as workstations, animation and devices with Linux imbedded.

Within the control world Linux open source has the potential of one plant, within a group of plants, being programmed quite differently than the other plants within the same organization. If new personnel take over the operation of that different plant they would have little or no expectation of what to expect. Similarly, most companies strive to have common practices and procedures across the organization such that moving from plant to plant people know what to expect. This common practice, the definition of proprietary software, is quite handy when solutions in one plant are to be instituted in other plants - or when trouble-shooters move from plant to plant. Linux without some type of common structure does not assure that this level of common practice would survive. Therefore, Linux, less expensive in the short term, could become quite costly in the longer term.

My point is, we do pay a rather hefty price to ensure an across the board standard practice. This price is forcing changes upon the industry.

Bob Pawley
www.automating-automation.com
250-493-6146
 
C
Hi Bob

> Curt:
>
> My comments were made with industrial control as the focus. However, IBM,
> imbedded, and specialty applications such as Pixar, are providing the
> structure I was mentioning. Some of this structure and organization is part
> of the application such as workstations, animation and devices with Linux
> imbedded.
>
> Within the control world Linux open source has the potential of one plant,
> within a group of plants, being programmed quite differently than the other
> plants within the same organization.

Actually we intend to look as much like what exists as possible. While we can't for example use the same setup tools, editors, etc. we are
going to support ladder logic, ST, and possibly the next great thing. In this manner it shouldn't be any worse than AB in one building and GE in the rest. If it were legally possible we could come closer than that. I would hope we wouldn't be held to greater standardization than
the status quo, after all, it's they who are preventing it.

> If new personnel take over the
> operation of that different plant they would have little or no expectation
> of what to expect. Similarly, most companies strive to have common practices
> and procedures across the organization such that moving from plant to plant
> people know what to expect. This common practice, the definition of
> proprietary software, is quite handy when solutions in one plant are to be
> instituted in other plants - or when trouble-shooters move from plant to
> plant. Linux without some type of common structure does not assure that this
> level of common practice would survive. Therefore, Linux, less expensive in
> the short term, could become quite costly in the longer term.

Again, you could provide that common structure in the only way possible now, instead of an all AB shop or all GE shop, you could have an all LPLC shop. Or do you see more consistancy between vendors than I do? Or are you really thinking about the advantages of an entrenched position in the market, large installed base, etc.? If the latter is the criteria, there is little hope for change of any kind. Instead I see the structure migrating a step closer to the consumer with the user community providing a level of support and assurance much higher than any corporation can in these troubled times. Witness Honeywell, TI, the users support each other long after the corporation has flown. Try to at least consider that there are other models that would work and might even work better. Communities don't quit or get merged or go out of business. And they don't have to be profitable in the same sense which makes them more likely to help rather than having you jump through hoops..

> My point is, we do pay a rather hefty price to ensure an across the board
> standard practice. This price is forcing changes upon the industry.

There goes that structure :^)

Regards

cww
 
C
Hi Greg

This money thing is the easisest to answer. I'll be brief. You simply have to take a different approach.

> I would agree. People who use technology only want one thing from it. Does
> it work. The next thing they want is if it is broke where can I get a
> replacment. Forklifts do amazing things for our economy.
>
> Totally free, open system can fill niches but no one dedicates real R and D
> dollars to making something they may never own in the future. Imagine it
> from the venture capitalist's viewpoint.

That's assuming that R&D dollars buy you better brainpower. In many cases that researcher also writes OSS. Is the stuff he writes for money better? Is the stuff that Linus writes for Transmeta better than the stuff he writes for Linux? Great products take great people not great money. OSS has some of the best. And they're doing it because they _want_ to.

> I would like to take your money to make this very cool niche product that I
> will then give the rights away to the public. How am I going to pay you
> back? I'm not. I can't. No one has bought my idea from me.

I'm working out the details of truly Open Hardware. The needs are quite modest and the risk is much less than if I did a VC start up to do it. I'm not at all sure it would produce better results to have to answer to money people. On the contrary, spending _my_ money makes for great care and accountability. There isn't a lot of rocket science in this field. Edison said: "Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration" I hope he's right.

> Venture caps and Corporations with money hate backing up this stuff. It goes
> against everthing they were taught about in business school. The only way
> this gets any legs is if it is tagged to hardware sales. But then isn't that
> why we started this whole mess anyway?

So shouldn't we try something different? I don't think VCs would be killing each other to buy into the status quo either. Most of them are warts on the arse of hugely diversified corporations and hardly the bright spots on the annual report. Even with lock-in and pretty generous margins.

> What suffers the most are longterm big payoff ideas that have this type of
> ending. It took our government persuing a distributed information model to
> come up with TCPIP. That is the only invester I know that would underwrite
> large projects for the benifit of all.

It could be argued that the success has more to do with openness and public ownership than the seed money DARPA put up. Indeed the greatest public network the world has known was started with unpaid student labor. A class of folks remarkably similar to the Linux community. In fact, a lot of the same folks.

> Don't take me to far away though. I'm sick too of paying the vender
> manytimes over the original cost of the product. Membership fees...,
> maintenence fees..., buy the hardware and by the way you need to buy our
> software to make our hardware run...

Me too. I think I've got the skills and determination to do something about it. Well, the determination anyway :^)

> Open has been most effective when it is used as communication standard.
> MODBUS RTU/TCPIP, TCPIP, RS232, RS485, USB, Ethernet Etc. Published and then
> practiced.

Yes, it seems to have worked well in all areas where it has been seriously tried. Hmmmmm.

> Greg Schiller
> [email protected]
> www.automatica.biz

Regards

cww
 
M

Michael Griffin

On February 10, 2002 02:30 pm, Bob Pawley wrote:
<clip>
> Within the control world Linux open source has the potential of one plant,
> within a group of plants, being programmed quite differently than the other
> plants within the same organization. If new personnel take over the
> operation of that different plant they would have little or no expectation
> of what to expect. Similarly, most companies strive to have common
> practices and procedures across the organization such that moving from
> plant to plant people know what to expect. This common practice, the
> definition of proprietary software, is quite handy when solutions in one
> plant are to be instituted in other plants - or when trouble-shooters move
> from plant to plant. Linux without some type of common structure does not
> assure that this level of common practice would survive. Therefore, Linux,
> less expensive in the short term, could become quite costly in the longer
> term.
<clip>

I'm not sure I really understand your point. Linux is just an operating system. If you are going to construct a soft logic system, you also need hardware and application software (the actual soft logic software which you program). The hardware and soft logic application software should be an even bigger concern for your maintenance personnel.
If your company's equipment standards specify a particular set of hardware and software, how does this result in different software and hardware between different plants just because it incorporates Linux? Either the various plants are following your equipment standards, or they are not. If they are not following your equipment standards, it doesn't matter whether the systems are proprietary or open - they are going to be different. If this is the case, I'm afraid you are going to find a bigger difference between different brands of proprietary systems than you will between different Linux distributions.

************************
Michael Griffin
London, Ont. Canada
************************
 
M

Michael Griffin

On February 10, 2002 01:17 pm, Greg Schiller wrote:
<clip>
> I would agree. People who use technology only want one thing from it. Does
> it work. The next thing they want is if it is broke where can I get a
> replacment. Forklifts do amazing things for our economy.
>
> Totally free, open system can fill niches but no one dedicates real R and D
> dollars to making something they may never own in the future. Imagine it
> from the venture capitalist's viewpoint.
<clip>

The problem with that argument is that it doesn't conform with what is actually happening. People are doing precisely this.

> Venture caps and Corporations with money hate backing up this stuff. It
> goes against everthing they were taught about in business school.
<clip>
Not exactly. One of the strategies which is taught in most business schools is "give away the razor and sell the blades". This was used by a company who was obviously in the razor blade industry but is always held up as a brilliant marketing strategy which can be emulated by others. Essentially what it means is to give away something which allows you to get your foot in
the door, and make your profit from selling an associated product or service.

I think the argument that "open" means everybody will be building their own home-made soft logic systems from parts they dug out of a junk pile and software they downloaded from the internet is a red herring. It may be possible, but I don't think it will be common.
I think that most people will want to buy something which is already put together and tested by someone else. They will do so for precisely the reasons you said - they just want something that works, and they want to be able to buy a replacement if it breaks. In other words, they want someone who can bundle the various bits together and sell them a complete system together
with service and support.
There is no reason why this package cannot include open systems to greater or lesser degrees. I am not sure why you conclude that this is only possible with completely proprietary systems.


************************
Michael Griffin
London, Ont. Canada
************************


 
D
Steve,

We did this 5 years ago on OpenAutomation.com - in fact the user forums were un-moderated and postings were real-time.

Dave Lillie
Program Manager
Rockwell Software Inc.
 
Bob Pawley:
> It would seem there is a bipolar reality in the control world these days.

> At the south pole are numerous control software packages. Systems that do
> the job, but are so rigid in application that everyone finds some fault.

> At the north pole is Linux, the ultimate open source software, but
> without the structure and organization to instil the confidence and
> acceptance required for mass appeal.

That's where distributions come in - they're the sales departments of the Linux world, and that's where you go when you want a structured, organized
package.

One can modify anything in Linux, but one rarely does. Indeed, I would expect that a plant would standardize on a particular combination of
packages from a particular distribution, perhaps customized, and then refuse to change a thing for years (without good reason). Only the actual
control logic would change.

Obviously, if two such companies merge, there will be two different versions, but it'll be easy for them to interoperate, or the opportunity
can be taken to upgrade both to a common new version of the company-wide standard.

Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[email protected]> http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jirib
MAT LinuxPLC project --- http://mat.sf.net --- Machine Automation Tools
 
Greg Schiller:
> I would agree. People who use technology only want one thing from it.
> Does it work. The next thing they want is if it is broke where can I get
> a replacment. Forklifts do amazing things for our economy.

> Totally free, open system can fill niches but no one dedicates real R and
> D dollars to making something they may never own in the future.

As you say in the first paragraph - does it work?

Once the core of an OSS product exists, people who take advantage of it can extend it in minor ways, add bits and pieces they need, swap the extensions the same way as they swap Lisp functions in the AutoCAD world.

Obviously, for that to work the core must be there; but we (MAT) are well on the way to building it, so it's not ridiculous to suppose it'll appear.

> I would like to take your money to make this very cool niche product that
> I will then give the rights away to the public. How am I going to pay you
> back? I'm not. I can't. No one has bought my idea from me.

No, but the machine now works - and that's worth something.

Most software in the Automation world is epiphenomenal - it has no meaning in itself except as a side-effect of producing something else, something real and useful.

Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[email protected]> http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jirib
MAT LinuxPLC project --- http://mat.sf.net --- Machine Automation Tools
 
J

Joe Jansen/ENGR/HQ/KEMET/US

Bob wrote:

I don't know about others, I speak only for myself.

I came into this open control and open source discussion later than most with no preconceived ideas other than what I have lived with for the last 30 some years.

It does seem to me that we as an industry have moved from total proprietary systems, to a point where we aren't absolutely required to purchase
hardware and software from the same source.

Joe Replies:

I agree. DeviceNet is a good example of this trend, where I can use Omron, InterbusBT, and many other branded I/O components with my AB
processor/scanner module.

Bob wrote:

The other extreme that has come about because of Linux causes me to note that there is a definite movement toward systems being as open as possible.
This trend will continue regardless of what individuals think.

What I am suggesting is that a totally open system such as Linux - standing by itself - is to much the opposite extreme to have great appeal.

Joe replies:

Could be. However, as I was alluding to in my posting, sometimes you need a group at the far opposite extreme in order to get the mainstream to shift towards where you really want to be.

Bob wrote:

Some boundaries, some anchor is needed so that all concerned have a solid place to stand in order to see what needs to be done or to see what has been done.

Proprietary systems have this solid place upon which everyone, technician to corporate bureaucrat, is comfortable. The fact that this proprietary place
is so vast gives me reason to consider a melding of the two extremes.


Joe replies:

This is where I am getting confused. Is it simply their name that gives everyone a "warm-fuzzy" feeling? If RSLogix were released as a Linux app, would that apply? I don't pretend to think that they would open source it, but what if I could buy it, even at the same cost, for Linux?

Or do you feel there is something more than the names of the providers that provides that solid place? Is it the hardware? If LinuxPLC does manage to get some hardware platform, and a system that provides the stability of a PLC with data collection that isn't a PITA, does that provide the footing that management/others seeks?

Could you clarify a bit more for me what you meant at the end of your post? I feel that I -almost- "get it".

Thanks!

--Joe Jansen
 
G

Greg Schiller

Michael Griffin wrote:
> Not exactly. One of the strategies which is taught in most business schools is "give away the razor and sell the blades". This was used
by a company who was obviously in the razor blade industry but is always held up as a brilliant marketing strategy which can be emulated by others.
> Essentially what it means is to give away something which allows you to get your foot in
the door, and make your profit from selling an associated product or service. <

As a marketing tactic that is correct and longterm viable one. But Open software systems are free. They are by liscence. Any changes and releases to those software systems will be free as well. I think we are in agreement on this that only when we give away the razor (linux, etc.) do we get the blade sales that make a profit. The linux PLC project and others applications
involving linux must have some other form of revenue otherwise how can they provide techsupport for the complexities that arise post sale and pre production.

> I think the argument that "open" means everybody will be building their own home-made soft logic systems from parts they dug out of a
junk pile and software they downloaded from the internet is a red herring. It may be possible, but I don't think it will be common.
> I think that most people will want to buy something which is already put together and tested by someone else. They will do so for precisely the reasons you said - they just want something that works, and they want to be able to buy a replacement if it breaks. In other words, they want someone who can bundle the various bits together and sell them a complete system together
with service and support.
> There is no reason why this package cannot include open systems to greater or lesser degrees. I am not sure why you conclude that this
is only possible with completely proprietary systems. <

I can see your point. I guess that to me proprietary systems means a business owns the whole design. I would agree that you can provide new inovation from more open systems design.

I am looking at all this development and energy being put into making a version of linux that will provide an alternative to the competition in the PLC market. I am looking how I can contibute or benifit by helping develop this technology or by using it. I'm not sure how it would feed me down the road.

Please I'm not negative about this subject. Just insanely curious about how we are all going to be using this technology down the road.
 
My understanding is that what Michael describes is the definition of a proprietary system. I can't think of anyone I have ever known, that would go to the trouble of organizing, testing and distributing this software without a payback. Furthermore if this system is "open sourced" the moment anyone but the distributor touched the code that bundles the package into a standard format, therefore destroying the foundation of "tested by someone else", the distributer has every right to cease supporting the software or charging plenty to fix it.

I am not sure how 'open source', under these conditions, can be cheaper, easier, and prime for a mass market.

Everybody is trying to decrease costs. An "open source" solution, as presently proposed, seems to only increase costs.

Bob Pawley
www.automating-automation.com
250-493-6146
 
Joe

I don't know about others, I speak only for myself.

I came into this open control and open source discussion later than most with no preconceived ideas other than what I have lived with for the last 30 some years.

It does seem to me that we as an industry have moved from total proprietary systems, to a point where we aren't absolutely required to purchase hardware and software from the same source.

The other extreme that has come about because of Linux causes me to note that there is a definite movement toward systems being as open as possible. This trend will continue regardless of what individuals think.

What I am suggesting is that a totally open system such as Linux - standing by itself - is to much the opposite extreme to have great appeal. Some boundaries, some anchor is needed so that all concerned have a solid place to stand in order to see what needs to be done or to see what has been done.

Proprietary systems have this solid place upon which everyone, technician to corporate bureaucrat, is comfortable. The fact that this proprietary place is so vast gives me reason to consider a melding of the two extremes.

Bob Pawley
www.automating-automation.com
250-493-6146
 
J

Joe Jansen/ENGR/HQ/KEMET/US

Bob Pawley wrote:

I don't know about others, I speak only for myself.

I came into this open control and open source discussion later than most with no preconceived ideas other than what I have lived with for the last 30 some years.

It does seem to me that we as an industry have moved from total proprietary systems, to a point where we aren't absolutely required to purchase hardware and software from the same source.

Joe Replies:

I agree. DeviceNet is a good example of this trend, where I can use Omron, InterbusBT, and many other branded I/O components with my AB processor/scanner module.

Bob wrote:

The other extreme that has come about because of Linux causes me to note that there is a definite movement toward systems being as open as possible. This trend will continue regardless of what individuals think.

What I am suggesting is that a totally open system such as Linux - standing by itself - is to much the opposite extreme to have great appeal.

Joe replies:

Could be. However, as I was alluding to in my posting, sometimes you need a group at the far opposite extreme in order to get the mainstream to shift towards where you really want to be.

Bob wrote:

Some boundaries, some anchor is needed so that all concerned have a solid place to stand in order to see what needs to be done or to see what has been done.

Proprietary systems have this solid place upon which everyone, technician to corporate bureaucrat, is comfortable. The fact that this proprietary place is so vast gives me reason to consider a melding of the two extremes.

Joe replies:

This is where I am getting confused. Is it simply their name that gives everyone a "warm-fuzzy" feeling? If RSLogix were released as a Linux app, would that apply? I don't pretend to think that they would open source it, but what if I could buy it, even at the same cost, for Linux?

Or do you feel there is something more than the names of the providers that provides that solid place? Is it the hardware? If LinuxPLC does manage to get some hardware platform, and a system that provides the stability of a PLC with data collection that isn't a PITA, does that provide the footing that management/others seeks?

Could you clarify a bit more for me what you meant at the end of your post? I feel that I -almost- "get it".

Thanks!

--Joe Jansen
 
Hi Joe:

Let me try to unmuddy the waters.

When an organization purchases software, the corporate cost effective strategy is to have as standard a set of programs as can be arranged throughout a single plant or throughout a complex of plants. This especially true with today's trend of multi-national corporations. The person responsible to implement this strategy feels a lot more comfortable with a system that operates the same everywhere - everytime.

It would be very uncomfortable, for him, to have a software system whose core components, the parts that make it work as it does, could be changed at anyone's whim. With this software, any time someone came in from outside to troubleshoot or to upgrade he would need to check, not only the various programs that make up the control itself, he would also need to check how the core bits and pieces were operating. This is extra time and money.

With a proprietary system the trouble-shooter knows the fundamental nature of the program can not be changed so he is perfectly comfortable standing on that knowledge. Not so with an open source system.

One of the posts indicated that Linux is structured and organized by the distributor and the core programs are not touched unless absolutely necessary. Who makes this decision, The guy on the site?, His supervisor? The president of the company 5,000 miles away? How is this software structured by the distributor and never touched, so much different from proprietary software?

Of course, once this distributor structured and tested software has been changed by others in the field, the distributor no longer warrants it and full price will be charged to return it to the structured, tested version.

Other than the run time cost of today's proprietary software, I don't see much advantage in open source as it has been presented to me, at this time. I do see a lot more time and cost involved just to ensure the core components are still as they were when the software was purchased.

Bob Pawley
www.automating-automation.com
250-493-6146
1-800-573-7703
 
M

Michael Griffin

I can give you one good example here. I am aware of several companies which make machinery controlled by their own proprietary soft logic systems. These are more or less standard machines which are customised for each application. The soft logic system allows easy customisation by either the OEM or the customer.
The problem is that each of these companies has their own system which they wrote themselves. You can't apply your knowledge and experience of one system to another, except in the most general sense. The documentation they provide is also usually fairly poor. However, a customer isn't going to base their equipment purchase decision upon the qualities of these soft logic systems unless everything else about the machines was equal.
These companies don't sell soft logic systems, they sell complete machines which happen to include soft logic systems. However, they have to provide support for these soft logic systems now in conjunction with the machines they sell. Why couldn't they do the same if they used a common open source system on their machines?

This is a "give away the razor and sell the blades" strategy in that these companies are not in the soft logic business, they are in the OEM machinery business. The value of the soft logic system is insignificant compared to the cost of the machine and there are no special features or technology bound up in the design of their proprietary software.
They've apparently decided for business reasons not to use a soft logic system purchased from a third party. However, if they were to all use a common open software system everyone (including the customer) would benefit. The benefit to the customer would come from not having to learn a unique system from inadequate or non-existant documentation for each OEM's machine. The benefit to the OEM would come from having to provide less support (the customer can apply existing knowledge) and from the greater credibility of using a widely available system (no questions about whether their particular system is debugged yet).

> Please I'm not negative about this subject. Just insanely curious about how
> we are all going to be using this technology down the road.
<clip>
Another example is from something which is an existing product. Sixnet sells RTUs, and they have a new product out which they call the "Linux RTU". This is proprietary RTU hardware which uses a Linux operating system. You're still buying an RTU from them, but it happens to use an open operating system.
I think this would be the model for a general purpose "open" PLC. You are still buying a complete PLC package from a company which sells PLCs. However, if they all used the same software, we would have the compatability which we hoped for with IEC-61131-3, but never achieved.


--

************************
Michael Griffin
London, Ont. Canada
************************
 
J

Joe Jansen/ENGR/HQ/KEMET/US

Doesn't sound like you know the right type of people, then.....

RedHat
Debian
Mandrake
Slackware
SuSE
TurboLinux
FreeBSD



KDE
GNOME
Free Software Foundation

Shall we continue? All of these packages (some are large enough that they fill 6 CD's with software) are available for *FREE* download.

I even suspect that Mr. Woullet is not looking to make his fortune and retire in Jamaica after rolling out ver. 1.0 of the LinuxPLC. Some of us
enjoy what we do enough that we do it for the pleasure, not just because of how much money we can make at it. I realize that doing something without grabbing at cash may be difficult for some to understand, but don't try todeny that it occurs.


--Joe Jansen
 
R

Richard Higginbotham

Who of those people testing, distributing, etc. the software wouldn't want bug fixed and features added that they don't have to pay for? As the tester, distributer you already have a job to do, if you can get the development(some/all) done for FREE, why in the world wouldn't you jump at the chance. The pay back comes from the services you offer, not the software itself. Testing, warranty, support, etc. Its the same as those big fees "sers pay yearly for support (patches, updates, etc.) to any of the vendors out their now. But instead of the vendors having a small group of developers with limited amount of equipment you have a huge group of developers who are all interested in bettering the software because most of them actually use it. It will make a big difference to them that it actually works, and since their code will be seen potiently by everyone using the software, they are far more likely to do things right. All you have to do is test, certify the software being released (same as now, although some vendors seem to skip this step) and charge money for your value additions. Its all gravy.

RedHat, etc. stay afloat because they DONT have to pay for all those development hours.


Richard Higginbotham

speaking for me
 
Top