A
Alex Pavloff
Once more into the breach!
Curt, I'm not doing this because I think Linux is a bad platform by any means -- I just think that some of your statements are wrong, and others
don't really convey the whole story.
> From: Curt Wuollet [mailto:[email protected]]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: INFO: automationtechies.com column for December is up
>
> That, Bob, is exactly what we are attempting to do. Exactly! But because
> of lack of familiarity, misperceptions and a good deal of FUD,
> the feedback I get is that something hosted on Linux can't possibly be
> easy to use.
Linux can be easy to use. That's a matter of software. At this point, Linux is only easy to use for techies like you and I. To make something easy to use, you need to have a GUI interface. The quality of the GUI apps available out there for various tasks is varied. Some apps (like The Gimp, an excellent and free alternative to Photoshop) are pretty good. But they're rare, and overwhelmed by the applications designed by programmers, for programmers. There aren't a lot of programmers in the world -- and most of them aren't in the automation industry.
> And any software that someone is willing to give to you
> can't have any value. And that Windows is somehow important
> to, and good for, automation and control when it's the least reliable,
> most problematic OS ever offered and has been for it's history.
Curt, I've been using Windows since 3.1. It's gotten a hell of a lot better. Windows 2000 and XP are, in my experience as both a developer and network administrator for my small company, the most solid desktop operating systems I've ever seen. Heck, I compare my Windows NT workstation to the Mandrake 8.1 workstation sitting right next to it, and as a desktop OS, I'd say they're running neck and neck in reliability, with Windows getting the nod for usability.
> And lately they are bent on exploiting their monopoly to greatly increase
cost.
In 1995, a Windows 95 upgrade cost $95 and I believe a "full version" cost $195. Today, a Windows XP Home upgrade costs $99 and a full version of XP Home costs $199.99.
Where's the great increase in cost?
> Fortunately, some companies most notably IBM, see this and are busy
> porting their crown jewels to Linux to offer least cost, Openness
> and reliability. Their reasoning is that, if given a choice between a
> Free, Open and reliable OS or an expensive,kinda good enough,
> but very popular OS, people will do the sensible thing.
The analogy doesn't work. IBM is in the solutions & support industry. IBM jumped on the Linux bandwagon because it means they don't have to spend as much development time/money on AIX (their version of Unix). They go to Linux and can then offer their customers lower cost packages running on x86 hardware, while still signing them up for a nice service contract. The money comes on the service contract.
Besides, when you get to large installations, whether they be in the automation or IT industry, the cost of the software is but a mere fraction of the entire machine.
> Bearing the fresh scars of that battle, I think they overestimate people
> in general. I have been hoping that engineers and technical people are
> more likely candidates. It's an indirect sell because most folks here
> use Windows for editing and peripheral functions but use PLCs
> for control.
That is correct. Now, I don't want to be mean here, but if you've got a SoftPLC that's open source and feature laden, then by all means, give it to us. The LinuxPLC project has been pre-alpha for a long time now, and you've been telling us how great it will be to have an open source control package. I know that you & Jiri & the other contributors don't have a lot of time to work on it, but if you think there's a market for open source Linux automation, then go after it, make a pile of money, and then climb to the top of this pile of money and taunt us Microsoft-using peasants before driving off in your brand new Ferrari.
Don't tell us -- show us.
> The combination is "good enough".
Yup. Good enough -- job gets done. Why should anyone switch?
> And they address the Openness issue by simply folding and having all
<vendor> shops
> and simply not doing what <vendor> doesn't want them to do. That leaves
cost. Cost
> is what is responsible for the slump. Cost is responsible for putting out
quotes
> and losing the jobs. And cost isn't very important until no one is doing
any capital
> investment or improvements because it costs too much. Now it's important.
How much
> can you charge people before they say no? How much off the bottom line
before you
> get the job? Would taking all the licenses and software costs off do it?
Would
> commodity networks do it? Would generic hardware do it? Wouldn't charging
what
> was left plus your billable hours do it? And wouldn't _your_ profit be the
same?
> Seems like an idea worth supporting to me.
Curt, arguing that the current economic slump is due to the increased cost of software is ludicrous.
Alex Pavloff
Software Engineer
Eason Technology
Curt, I'm not doing this because I think Linux is a bad platform by any means -- I just think that some of your statements are wrong, and others
don't really convey the whole story.
> From: Curt Wuollet [mailto:[email protected]]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: INFO: automationtechies.com column for December is up
>
> That, Bob, is exactly what we are attempting to do. Exactly! But because
> of lack of familiarity, misperceptions and a good deal of FUD,
> the feedback I get is that something hosted on Linux can't possibly be
> easy to use.
Linux can be easy to use. That's a matter of software. At this point, Linux is only easy to use for techies like you and I. To make something easy to use, you need to have a GUI interface. The quality of the GUI apps available out there for various tasks is varied. Some apps (like The Gimp, an excellent and free alternative to Photoshop) are pretty good. But they're rare, and overwhelmed by the applications designed by programmers, for programmers. There aren't a lot of programmers in the world -- and most of them aren't in the automation industry.
> And any software that someone is willing to give to you
> can't have any value. And that Windows is somehow important
> to, and good for, automation and control when it's the least reliable,
> most problematic OS ever offered and has been for it's history.
Curt, I've been using Windows since 3.1. It's gotten a hell of a lot better. Windows 2000 and XP are, in my experience as both a developer and network administrator for my small company, the most solid desktop operating systems I've ever seen. Heck, I compare my Windows NT workstation to the Mandrake 8.1 workstation sitting right next to it, and as a desktop OS, I'd say they're running neck and neck in reliability, with Windows getting the nod for usability.
> And lately they are bent on exploiting their monopoly to greatly increase
cost.
In 1995, a Windows 95 upgrade cost $95 and I believe a "full version" cost $195. Today, a Windows XP Home upgrade costs $99 and a full version of XP Home costs $199.99.
Where's the great increase in cost?
> Fortunately, some companies most notably IBM, see this and are busy
> porting their crown jewels to Linux to offer least cost, Openness
> and reliability. Their reasoning is that, if given a choice between a
> Free, Open and reliable OS or an expensive,kinda good enough,
> but very popular OS, people will do the sensible thing.
The analogy doesn't work. IBM is in the solutions & support industry. IBM jumped on the Linux bandwagon because it means they don't have to spend as much development time/money on AIX (their version of Unix). They go to Linux and can then offer their customers lower cost packages running on x86 hardware, while still signing them up for a nice service contract. The money comes on the service contract.
Besides, when you get to large installations, whether they be in the automation or IT industry, the cost of the software is but a mere fraction of the entire machine.
> Bearing the fresh scars of that battle, I think they overestimate people
> in general. I have been hoping that engineers and technical people are
> more likely candidates. It's an indirect sell because most folks here
> use Windows for editing and peripheral functions but use PLCs
> for control.
That is correct. Now, I don't want to be mean here, but if you've got a SoftPLC that's open source and feature laden, then by all means, give it to us. The LinuxPLC project has been pre-alpha for a long time now, and you've been telling us how great it will be to have an open source control package. I know that you & Jiri & the other contributors don't have a lot of time to work on it, but if you think there's a market for open source Linux automation, then go after it, make a pile of money, and then climb to the top of this pile of money and taunt us Microsoft-using peasants before driving off in your brand new Ferrari.
Don't tell us -- show us.
> The combination is "good enough".
Yup. Good enough -- job gets done. Why should anyone switch?
> And they address the Openness issue by simply folding and having all
<vendor> shops
> and simply not doing what <vendor> doesn't want them to do. That leaves
cost. Cost
> is what is responsible for the slump. Cost is responsible for putting out
quotes
> and losing the jobs. And cost isn't very important until no one is doing
any capital
> investment or improvements because it costs too much. Now it's important.
How much
> can you charge people before they say no? How much off the bottom line
before you
> get the job? Would taking all the licenses and software costs off do it?
Would
> commodity networks do it? Would generic hardware do it? Wouldn't charging
what
> was left plus your billable hours do it? And wouldn't _your_ profit be the
same?
> Seems like an idea worth supporting to me.
Curt, arguing that the current economic slump is due to the increased cost of software is ludicrous.
Alex Pavloff
Software Engineer
Eason Technology