Microsoft .Net's impact to Automation Industry

L
[email protected] wrote:
> You have to pay for it. Hey, at least it has a business model that makes
> sense!

Some people just can't wrap their minds around the Open Source concept...

You don't *need* a business model for something to make sense. Witness gcc and apache - best of breed for what they do.

The reason is that collecting money for usage is so expensive - both tangibly and intangibly - that it turns out to be better overall not to.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I would suggest that if there isn't some strategy for collecting some revenue, somewhere, somehow, then you are merely dabbling in a hobby. Not
that a hobby is a bad thing, but I'm guessing that most of the folks who would develop or use open source in automation are not financially
independent and expect to use their automation skills to put bread on the table. They may not need to collect revenue directly from the open source stuff, but they do need to have a plan or model for paying for the investment they make into it in terms of time and skill. I suspect most people are still trying to figure out how to justify something so non-traditional and counterintuitive. Perhaps some of the linux evangelists would be more effective if they clarify this new paradigm rather than just shoot down the old one. What honestly motivates you to contribute to open source?

Cheers!

Lou Heavner
(My personal opinion and not necessarily that of my employers or affiliates.)
 
A

Alex Pavloff

Once again Curt, READ what .NET is. Its a compiler and toolset. Its not a GIVE ALL YOUR INFO TO MICROSOFT ploy. It's Microsoft's equivalent to Java. If you're going to lambaste Microsoft, at least understand what the hell
they're doing. Besides, if you're going to lambaste Microsoft for creating a programming language and doing everything they can to maintain control of it, you'd better include Sun in that diatribe too.

You are NOT objective. You've got an axe to grind and we're all covered with sparks.

> I never said that everything they do sucks. I have mentioned that
everything
> they do benefits them a great deal more than it benefits you and I and the
> public. And turning over control of even more of the basis of our new
economy
> to them is simply a bad idea. What they do suits their purposes very well.
> Soon they will be getting a regular check from _almost_ everybody. Even
1984
> didn't go that far.

In the past, monopolies have risen -- monopolies have fallen. This is no different.

Alex Pavloff
 
B

Bob Peterson

> No, we can't even imagine what Microsoft's uses for our data might be.
> I wouldn't allow this type of exposure even with someone who could be
> trusted. I wouldn't even do it with Linux and I can be sure what that
> does.

I think this is one point we can agree on. There is no reason whatsoever to allow someone else to store your data for you, even if it is secure. Its your data, and you should keep control of it.

Quite frankly I can see no real benefit to storing your personal financial data in anyone's database. It just make it all that much easier for someone to misuse it. I would prefer to see a code wallet type application running on your own machine that can supply the data only when you tell it to. Then your data is always under your control, and not someone else's.

Bob Peterson
 
B

Bob Peterson

Cringely cracks me up. He really does. Read his "Death of TCP/IP" column.

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010802.html
It's got so many technical mistakes and misconceptions, its not even funny. He's bought Steve Gibsons (www.grc.com) "raw sockets" spiel hook,line, and sinker and keeps running with that. In fact, most of his articles are just
repeating what Steve Gibson says. I think Steve Gibson is another person long on writing ability and very short on technical ability.

http://www.vmyths.com/search3.cfm?id=gibson&page=0 has some good articles.

The Register, a good UK source for tech news, also pointed out the holes in his arguments.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/19623.htmlhttp://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/19925.html
Do a search on The Register for "Gibson" also...

Not even Microsoft can pull a replacement for TCP/IP out at this point. Why? Because you wouldn't be able to get enough companies on line with a Microsoft-compatible OS, causing the death of everything online. What's Amazon.com running?

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?mode_u=off&mode_w=on&site=www.amazon.com
Well, lets see, if you buy Windows .NET XP 2003 Professional, you can't go to Amazon.com.

That'd go over well. Microsoft's power over the rest of the world (and the economy) is limited by its inability to penetrate beyond the midrange server market. Everyone knows Microsoft stuff can't hack it when the going gets REALLY tough.
 
Hi all;

First ,,, I fully support an "open" project or product. I follow the growth of many open products, in hope of finding an application for it. I like competition, it encouraged growth in our industry.

HOWEVER ...... here is exactly why I continue to use and support the MS product line.

Yesterday I "clean installed" a complete MS network of 2 Win2K Workstations and 2 WinXP Pro Workstations. This included 4 X NIC's, 2 X CDRW's, 2 network printers, LAN Ethernet hub, and a Cable and dialup modem with firewalls and anti-virus software. I also installed Office 2K on the Win2K platforms and OfficeXP on the Office XP platforms. I then setup my email and newsgroup accounts. Everything is up and running !! In fact, this post is coming from one of the Win2K Workstations.

Now,,,, how many "open" enthusiasts can do that in one (albeit very long) day ??

Seems to me that I'd still be searching for drivers and compiling code to make this work under a *nix OS.

Regards
Mark Hill
Microsoft Associate Expert
Wizcon Distributor
Rugid Distributor

 
W
Probably none, the first time. cww could probably get it done, though, and still have time to write a self-tuning PID module for Puffin during the breaks.

>Seems to me that I'd still be searching for drivers and compiling code to
>make this work under a *nix OS.

If you got the computers in a box of junk at a swap meet, that's probably true. I can't imagine it being true for a careful user buying new machines.

Regards,

Willy Smith


Q. How many NT=AE programmers does it take to change a light bulb? A. Thirty-one to rough out the idea and 29 to write tech notes revising the
process.
Q. How many Microsoft=AE Help Line engineers does it take to change a light bulb? A. Just one-but then there's no one left to answer the phone.
Q. How many LINUX=AE users does it take to change a light bulb? A. Just one-but the bulb has to be free.
Q. How many NT=AE engineers does it take to change a light bulb? A. At least two-one to change it and one to add security holes.
Q. How many Windows=AE engineers does it take to change a light bulb? A. Sorry, they can't help you-you have to wait for "Light Bulb 2002" (release date-October, 2003).
Q. How many Windows=AE engineers does it take to change a light bulb? A. None-Windows engineers fear change.
Q. How many Microsoft=AE ad writers does it take to change a light bulb? A. None-it's their job to turn darkness into a "feature."
Q. How many Windows=AE users does it take to change a light bulb? A. Change it? Why? They're used to things not working.
Q. How many Windows=AE networking vendors does it take to change a light bulb? A. None-it's not a high enough priority during a system crash.
Q. How many NT=AE ISPs does it take to change a light bulb? A. Three-one to change the bulb and two to get the press releases out.
 
W
Like Jeff says above, Sun shot themselves in the foot. The fact is that if Microsoft had some intelligent competitors, they wouldn't be a monopoly in the first place.

Walt Boyes
co-author of "e-Business in Manufacturing: Putting the Internet
to Work in the Industrial Enterprise" ISA Press--September 2001 ISBN:
1-55617-758-5
____________________________________________
---------------------------------------------
Walt Boyes -- MarketingPractice Consultants
[email protected]
21118 SE 278th Place - Maple Valley, WA 98038
253-709-5046 cell 425-432-8262 home office
fax:801-749-7142 ICQ: 59435534

"Strategic marketing, sales and electronic
business consulting for the small and medium-sized
enterprise: http://www.waltboyes.com"
---------------------------------------------
 
C

Curt Wuollet

Hi Mark

Lots. We wouldn't need to load most of the functionality, it comes with the OS. And we wouldn't need to buy and install antivirus software or a firewall RedHat Linux includes world class firewall facilities. NICS are autodetected as are CDRW's. Lpr is the standard for network printing. The cable modem might present a challange if the ISP only supports Microsoft but selecting a good ISP will fix that too. Could the average casual user do either of
these? Probably not. But anyone you pay to do it could. The major differences here would be the thousands of dollars and the Windows compatibility. But they would be functionally equivalent. Of course, even if it took a couple of days the cost would still be far less and the stability greater. And there is no license tracking or forced upgrades. I am writing this on a Linux box I set up in half an hour. It hasn't been booted since. I don't see anything exceptional in your task, that's all pretty much
standard functionality. All in one box for $50.00 for Linux. And if I add 100 more stations to the network, it's still $50.00. I could do it for free but I don't begrudge RedHat the $50.00 for one boxed distribution.

For the cost difference you could hire a LUG for a couple of days and drink coffee. In the 100 case you could easily hire a full time Linux
guy and he'd show you the tremendous advantage in the other thousands of applications included at no cost. Like a Fax server, Web server, several mail servers and agents,a dozen or so languages, thin clients, routers, IPV6, intranet facilities, messaging, web cacheing and lots of handy stuff Windows doesn't have. Oh, and we could do it on the last generation of hardware that you replaced or upgraded so you could run W2K or WinXP. And you won't have to ever mail a subscription check to anyone. What would it cost for you to provide all that?


Regards

cww
 
M

Michael R. Batchelor

Ralph Mackiewicz wrote:
> If the participants in Linux who are steering the bandwagon want
> others to jump on they would be well advised to heed Walt's
> suggestion and start steering it in the direction that the people who
> have reasons to not use it are pointing you. If you don't care if
> anybody else jumps on then fine, steer it anyway you like.

I've got to agree here. Altruism aside, those of us not independently wealthy have to earn a living, and the GPL makes it hard to do sometimes.
I've seen very few customers (one actually, and they bought the copyright from me to make sure it never went to any competitor) willing to take on
the entire cost of developing a completely new and unique solution to something. They are not interested in what it costs me to develop an idea,
they are interested in what benefit it provides them. (Hey, sounds like a business plan.)

We have done several jobs where we spent more time and effort developing the solution than the actual job warrants, then recover the cost by reapplying the solution to multiple customers without having to re-do the bulk of the work. Linux and the GPL make this very difficult to do.
(Put down the flame throwers. I snarfed my first linux kernel in '93. I'm not an MS fan.)

And as much as I like all the "neat" features in the various Linux distributions, if I want to develop a solution package based on a "UNIX-like" OS, then I'm almost bound to use OpenBSD just because the license is designed to allow me to protect or give away my work as I desire.

MIchael
 
D

David Wooden

Sam Moore wrote:
> Is that a recommendation David?

Not so much a recommendation as just noting that there is a development environment out there for Linux that is more than just a command line C
compiler.

> From what I could gather this is a PASCAL development environment for
> Linux. It has been a while since I used PASCAL. I believe it was Turbo
> PASCAL v1.0. That brings back fond memories. Back when life was
> simple... ;-)

Pascal is not that much harder to learn than Basic. If you could use VB well, I'm sure you could figure out Kylix.

> This sounds like something that might work. A closed source solution for
> developing software on Linux. You have to pay for it. Hey, at least it
> has a business model that makes sense!

If you're developing open source products, you don't even have to pay for it.

David Wooden
Senior Software Engineer, Systems Integration
Automation and Enterprise Solutions Group
TAS Division of Omron Electronics LLC
Office: (847) 884-7034 Extension 432
Fax: (847) 884-9383
E-mail: [email protected]
 
J

Joe Jansen/ENGR/HQ/KEMET/US

I have to disagree here.... Despite my earlier posting, I have set up a linux server on Macintosh hardware, loaded SAMBA from the distribution disks, and tied it into a WinNT4.0sp6a network in 1 *morning* (as in start
about 9, done by noon). This included setting up filesharing and print sharing, as well as using the NT server as PDC for password authentication
and cinfiguring SAMBA to report itself as a WinNT 4.1 server <grin>. Setting up a network of 4 machines hardly seems difficult. Most of your
install time is spent sleeping through the disk thrashing anyway.....

--Joe Jansen
 
Having someone else house your data and you ERP system does make sense. For small companies or startups it may not make sense to invest in the ERP infrastructure in the early stages of the companies life. The ASP model can be a good arrangement that makes sense.

Housing auotmation information would normally be the role of an MES. I don't really see another company housing your MES, but it may work for
someone.
 
C

Curt Wuollet

Hi Alex

.NET is a vision where MS controls much more of the structure for commercial data exchange by leveraging their desktop monopoly to the server room and thence across the net. Since "everyone" uses Windows it will be as difficult to unseat or even run alongside as their desktop dominance is. Once a majority is using their means, they have the power to exclude competitors by "enhancing" the products with proprietary extensions and jiggling things just enough to keep competitors broken and ISV's in their pocket. If their position and tactics wouldn't give them exclusive control of the technology and if they hadn't repeatedly demonstrated that they will exploit that control to devastate competitors and exclude
other solutions, I might think more of the idea. We've handed them a lock on intrabusiness computing in the name of "standards" and now they are looking for the same lock on interbusiness computing. And as surely as their lock on the desktop will result in almost everyone paying protection money periodically, letting them achieve the same with commercial data interchange will yield them tribute whenever data crosses the wires. The first tidbits may appear harmless
but because of their monopoly position you can never stuff the genie back in the bottle. I prefer chaos to a Roman peace as should regulators
and those who might like to retain the Internet as a public resource. This is purely based on extrapolation of their behaviour to date and their vision statements for the .NET vaporware.
I'd be happy to discuss any part you see as implausible or out of character for the company. Please tell me this is not what they have in mind and please tell me they won't do this just as easily as their universal private tax. All they need is complacency. I'm sorry, equal opportunity and democratic access to the vast future market that B2B and cooperative computing represents are far too important to our future to give away at this early stage of the game. I don't have any problem with them having a share but we must prevent them having a monopoly in this area at all costs.

And yes it is just a compiler and a toolkit. Hell, it's all just software.

Regards
cww
 
Mark Hill:
> >Everything is up and running !! In fact, this post is coming from one
> >of the Win2K Workstations.

> >Now,,,, how many "open" enthusiasts can do that in one (albeit very
> >long) day ??

Willy Smith:
> Probably none, the first time.

It's only four machines, not that much of a problem.

Actually, anyone who's ever helped out in an installfest will probably have more impressive numbers already, and most of those would be dual-boot setups with pre-existing installations of another OS to complicate things.

> >Seems to me that I'd still be searching for drivers and compiling code
> >to make this work under a *nix OS.

> If you got the computers in a box of junk at a swap meet, that's probably
> true.

Probably much the same for Windows, too - if you get junk at a swap meet, that's what you get.

Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[email protected]>
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jiribvisit the MAT LinuxPLC project at http://mat.sf.net
 
C

Curt Wuollet

Hi Lou

You're absolutely right and I have tried through various articles and posts to explain that OSS or Commercial software is mostly irrelevent to what most of us get paid for. A solution is a solution is a solution. I get paid to solve problems with Linux and free software just as surely as anyone here gets paid to solve them with proprietary products. Our core competancy is solving problems with hardware and software tools. Some people use AB and some GE, etc. I use Linux. We aren't getting paid for the means we are getting paid for the end. And if that means is much cheaper and more flexible and faster to implement that can only mean that we keep more of the pie and get more jobs with a lower quote. I have never maintained that anyone should give their "value added" away. If you sell a solution based on the LPLC, for example, who owns the solution code is strictly between you and the customer. If you add something new to the LPLC itself, it should go back to the project but, the solution is what you're selling. Hardware and the commercial software that many are so vigorously defending seldom add much to your bottom line because it's already marked up to the max. It's the knowlege and skill and time that constitute the bulk of most projects. I fail to see how that would change if you use OSS rather than proprietary products.

I'm glad you asked.

Regards

cww
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Some people realize open source makes sense for niche software.

Actually, most of the analyses I've read say it makes most sense for commodity software...

It's the economies-of-scale thing, taken to an unprecedented extreme, because of the extremely low cost of additional copies. Obviously that still leaves the problem of the fixed costs.

> Have your niche and enjoy it.

Actually, it's in niches that money is reasonably to be made: most commonly in the form of custom programming (in-house or consultant), corresponding to a niche of one customer.

That's where most people on this list make their living, after all.

Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[email protected]>
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jiribvisit the MAT LinuxPLC project at http://mat.sf.net
 
Walt:
> Don't need a business model? Don't need a business model??? Ah. All the
> dot.gone dotcoms will certainly agree with you.

"Yet there it is..."

Software has the nice feature of low copying cost, low enough to be effectively zero in many circumstances. Zeroes wreak havoc in any theory.

> The name of the game in the New Economy is the same as it was in the Old
> Economy. In order to do what you want, you have to get people to pay you.

Certainly - but that's a different question. The mere existence of the software doesn't require it, it can arise in other ways.

For instance, as a hobby - if I play with model trains and make a neat layout (at a cost of thousands of dollars and countless manhours), I have a neat layout. If I play with virtual model trains and make a neat layout (at a cost of a few dollars and countless manhours), everyone can have a copy.


Drats, now I've made software an epiphenomenon.

Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[email protected]>
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jiribvisit the MAT LinuxPLC project at http://mat.sf.net
 
F

Frank Iwanitz

Hi,
I think there are a lot of people that try to make good products for customers. By making this they use technology which fits best. The goal is to make money by selling good products and not to use or not to use Microsoft over Linux (which one ;-)) or vice versa.
Regards,
Frank
 
M

Michael Griffin

Alex Pavloff wrote:
<clip>
>C# the language is aimed right at Java. It's a COM based (or whatever
>they call COM nowadays) language with that looks like C++, but more
>closely tied to a Microsoft platform. It's easier to make Windows
>applications with it, but don't count on it being useful for anything
>else (which I why it won't replace C++).
<clip>

I believe that I read in the news (CBC) a few weeks ago that Microsoft doesn't intend to include Java support in their future products (including their web browser). The only explanation given was that it was "for business reasons". They likely will (or may already have) change their mind about this for now because I expect it to go over like a lead balloon with their major customers. It is however an interesting indication of their future intentions with Windows and dot NET.
Has anyone heard anything else about this? I only read about it in one news report and haven't seen anything about it since.



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