Companies are not giving back the the Linux community

C

Thread Starter

Castlerock

I'm seeing a disturbing trend among companies who proudly display Tux and sometimes "Powerd by Linux" on their web pages because the hardware they produce runs Linux at its core.

The "trend" I'm talking about is this: Companies using Linux to drive their hardware, putting Tux up front and center for all to see, only for people like myself to find out that the software to program these devices requires Windows to run.

I'm sure there are some kernel hackers who appreciate the contributions to the kernel code and I'm not saying that this is entirely a bad thing. But for the community at large, I feel this is a slap in the face.

For me it goes like this:
Do a google search for "Linux PLC", see quite a few listings, get excited, go to the web pages, find out the programming software only runs in windows, get disappointed.

With the cross platform programming tools available today there is simply no excuse for this. I consider this taking from the community and not giving anything back.

Hat tip to two companies that I feel have done it right:

http://www.automationx.com
http://www.softplc.com

These are two companies that I know of that have actually given back to the linux community. Yes, are expensive. But they allow the user to use linux exclusively with no dependance on Windows... even for programming software.

If any of you know of other companies that give people like me this freedom, please share them.
 
F

fergenheimer

I will second this. What also disturbs me is that some of the companies also do not live up to the GPL and post source as required. I frequent http://www.linuxdevices.com and purchase products that use and support linux. In some cases the products that were developed and tested under linux are distributed with WinCE installed. One thing that is nice is that manufacturers are USING TUX. These are not just PLC and embedded devices. The current Siemens TXP control system DCS are using Linux for the operating consoles. Whereas SCO was used in the past for both engineering and operator stations. Hopefully they will do away with SCO altogether. I did a quick search at www.sea.seimens.com for both linux and GPL and found no GPL and only generic mention of linux as supported under their LOGO line. The Turbine Doctor has a line of GT controls using Redhat RTlinux. They are pretty open about the OS but I have yet to find the GPL or source on their website either. FWIW, I liked the turbine doctors control system and non propriety hardware. Dishnetwork's 721 PVR is linux and source is available. The 921 has mention of linux and GPL in the owners manual but I was unable to find anything on that reciever. TIVO's are also linux and are well documented and hacked. A lot of the tools developed are again windows based but can easily be tweaked using standard linux boxes. The list grows on and on.

We can only keep pushing forward and soon using linux for all interfaces in the industry will be common place. Remember that manufacturers that use windows have to jump hurdles as well as incur unnecessary costs.
 
M

marc sinclair

Hi,
A CDROM with all GPL source code is supplied with Siemens operator panel TP177.

As for the LOGO! - the programming software is a java app. and runs perfectly in Linux, Mac. and MS.
 
S
Linux and GPL are non synonymous. Just because they are selling products for use under Linux doesn't necessarily mean they used GPL code in their development. How do you know there is anything the companies are required to post?
 
C

Curt Wuollet

Yeah, I try to cut people some slack if they are transitioning or if they are open source, but some companies simply want to use the free stuff to enhance their profit on a closed proprietary product which sorta defeats the whole purpose. The community is usually diligent in letting these guys know the score. I suppose there is some genuine confusion and misunderstanding but it's pretty hard to misunderstand what the intent is.

Something else that misses the mark is Windows software that is made to run on Linux. This can be more awful than the same product on Windows. I ran one package that wanted DOS pathnames and another that required Windows also be on the machine. This will likely end when native products show up that actually take advantage of Linux features.

Windows versions won't be competitive once this happens. The big hangup is what you can and can't do to make a closed product on Linux using OSS
libraries and tools. As soon as somebody gets their thinking straight and grasps what a community of happy users can do for support and
development, the light will shine in for the rest. Free software would do nothing but help PLC sales and they would get stuff done they could never afford to do in house.

Regards
cww
 
F

fergenheimer

I am not sure if there is an easy way. The GPL requires derivitave works to be provided back to the community. The way I understand it is that if you used the tools provided to you under the GPL to produce and compile a new work, then the new work should be covered under the GPL. In the case where it is a product that is written and complied independent of the GPL tools provided in need not be GPL'ed. NVidia provides graphics drivers that are not GPL'ed. They are provided in binary only and the sourse is not available. These were developed independent of the GPL software and are not required to be GPL'ed. I do not know how one would determine this unless you saw both products side by side and compared them. Even then that would not be proof unless you also disassembled the binary and could compare line for line. This would be a violation of most EULA's which prohibit dissassembly of code. My thought is the spirit of GPL is to share. If a company is using the GPL and not providing at least some GPL tools in return, they are missing an opportunity since hiccups can be fixed by the end user and returned to them. If a product is buggy and not open, we cannot fix it to our liking but must wait for an "upgrade". An Open program can be repaired and no wait is required.

As for Linux and GPL not being synonymous... I have seen GPL'ed windows programs. The Linux kernel uses the GPL so does the GNU Hurd a huge repository of Linux programs are GPL. GPL is not required for Linux.
Regards
ASF
 
That's not quite what I meant though you do have a point. I'm seeing companies use the linux kernel in things like PLCs. Great, a free kernel to power their hardware and a reduced cost for us. But... the tools required to program these same devices runs in Windows only.

In essence they are taking the free linux kernel to drive their product but not giving any linux programming tools to program that same product.

I just think there is something very wrong with that.
 
S
Ah, I see your point. I misunderstood your objection the first time I read your post. And I agree with your conclusion, though from a slightly different perspective. Seems like if they're smart enough to realize some of their customers want Linux based hardware, why can't they figure out that those same customers might want Linux tools as well. Boneheaded business decision.
 
Hello,
No, it's not really "very wrong"...

Such companies cost the linux community nothing, they give nothing back. Not
the best deal one could hope for, I suppose, but certainly fair enough.

They are required to ship the linux source (with the PLC or separately), and
many of them forget to do that, but that's a separate issue. If they use
off-the-shelf linux, there's nothing interesting in it anyway, so nobody
really cares. (If they customised it, then the source would be interesting.)

The fact that the programming tools are proprietary may be a loss to them
and/or their customers, but that's their call to make, not mine.

Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[email protected]> http://www.baum.com.au/~jiri
MAT LinuxPLC project --- http://mat.sf.net --- Machine Automation Tools
 
Top