Got some email this morning containing the following:

Software tools
------------------------------------------------------------
I may be the only one who doesn't know about Software Toolbox (Matthews,
N.C.), but just in case there are one or two others out there, Software
Toolbox is both a control and automation software developer as well as a
one-stop shop for software from Fisher-Rosemount, GE Fanuc, Honeywell,
Iconics, Intellution, Siemens, Symbol Factory, Think & Do, Westinghouse,
Wonderware, Yokogawa, and more. When I recently visited Software Toolbox's
web site, I found 72 OPC Client/Server toolkits, 84 ActiveX & DLL toolkits,
60 Iconics Genesis toolkits, 111 Intellution Fix toolkits, 107 Wonderware
InTouch toolkits, and 67 GE Fanuc Cimplicity toolkits available. And that
was just a quick look. For more information, visit
http://www.softwaretoolbox.com


Thought you might be interested in the various toolkits. Most likely it's all proprietary but then they may be willing to give to the cause.

We've been following your developments and are quite interested in the whole thing. In fact our current product plans allow only the use of Linux
and we hope to be able to add LinuxPLC to that effort soon. We appreciate what you're doing and what you're going through. Our only concern/worry is that there may be some deviation from the IEC61134 standard which we very much support (prefer structured text as it's self documenting and easy for the less skilled of our clients to catch on to and work with).

David Fischhaber
Design Manager
Southeast Automation Systems, Inc.
"We're Automation Designers, Contractors, and Consultants"

_______________________________________________
LinuxPLC mailing list
[email protected]
http://linuxplc.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxplc

 

I got the same message, and went to take a look. When I saw the prices for the components, all I could say is "I'm in the *wrong* business". $1500 serial drivers. Reminds me why I like open source...

 

> Our only concern/worry is that there may be some deviation from the
> IEC61134 standard which we very much support (prefer structured text as
> it's self documenting and easy for the less skilled of our clients to
> catch on to and work with).

Is it just me or is anybody else vaguely nervous about the claim "<programming language> is self documenting"?

Never met such a beast yet, and it seems irresponsible to advocate less documentation.

(Hmm, not to mention that, really, you don't want a "less skilled" person programming a machine, do you. Ah well...)


Jiri

P.S. could you please indicate quoted material? It's hard to keep track of who said what...
--
Jiri Baum <[email protected]>
"Coffee machine out of paper" (error message missing from Coffee mini-HOWTO)

_______________________________________________
LinuxPLC mailing list
Lin[email protected]
http://linuxplc.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxplc

 

Hi Dave

Yeah, the OPC stuff isn't much help but we have some windows folks I'm sure on the list. I don't have a problem with the actual 1131 languages,
anyone who wants to implement one can surely do so. It's the politics and cluelessness of vendor consortia that I laugh at. We're moving a rocket
speed compared to most of them. I have little preference of one end user language over another, but there are folks who are passionate about them.
(Although not passionate enough to write one :^) ) I am mostly interested that we fully exploit the capabilities and benefits of the Linux platform and stay open and free. We're getting to the point where we need better hackers than I am. You can move lplc in a desired direction by contributing C code, that's what it's about. It's good to hear from you.

Regards

cww

_______________________________________________
LinuxPLC mailing list
[email protected]
http://linuxplc.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxplc