Microsoft .Net's impact to Automation Industry

Jiri:
> > As for how the world works - those who participate in linux steer it in
> > directions where they want to see it. Those who don't participate get
> > to watch and stay out of it. What's difficult about that?

Ralph:
> My observation (reinforced by the cynical comment above about those who
> are watching instead of participating)

Yeah, sorry about that, I should have put that better. The only apology I can offer is that anyone is invited to participate - whether with coding, or with writing specifications and stuff, feature requests, documentation, testing, debugging.

> is that several well-meaning posts to help identify the requirements for
> Linux in IA are not being accepted by the Linux participants at face
> value.

A lot of the time it's frustrating for us, too, because many of the requests are vague, out of our hands or otherwise problematic.

> Recently, a comment about the lack of tools to extract data from a server
> was responded to with a discussion of some arcane Linux commands that
> could be used to telnet into the server.

That was Joe Jansen's post? He said that with VB, he'll drag, drop, punch in some port and IP info, and it'll do what he want. I countered that with
linux scripting, you put in the command (nc - netcat), punch in some port and IP info, and it'll do exactly the same thing.

I also pointed out that you probably wouldn't bother, because there's easier ways of doing it.

> This completely missed the point
...
> average potential Linux/IA user who does not want to be a developer.

Joe was posting as a VB developer.

> 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.

Hmm, well apart from ``forget it and use Windows instead'', what exactly direction is Walt pointing us in?

He wants leading HMI manufacturers and leading SCM, ERP, and factory floor integration software makers to support it, but that's rather out of our
hands;

He wants ease of integration, which is better with Linux than with Windows to begin with;

He wants to make 5 billion dollars out of Linux;

Anything I've missed? (I think I've got most of the thread saved, just point me to a keyword or Message-ID.)


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

 
C
Hi David, Sam

David Wooden Omron wrote:
>
> 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.

Actually there are quite a few, including even Code warrior. IBM has ported many of their WebSphere products as well, and Top Page for html. I am not well versed in these as I do mostly systems programming and I like the
command line tools. A search on Freshmeat gets a lot of hits, but Kylix is the first RAD system from a familiar PC development tools house. Oracle
and SAP have linux products as well and all the major databases except, of course Microsoft. The picture has changed dramatically in the last two
years. And most have some provision for respecting the Open Source nature of Linux. And there's Glade and other interface builders. I don't think it would be hard to duplicate the day to day automation tools on Linux.

> > 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... ;-)

It was a landmark product. The first affordable programming environment for PC's. I did a lot of stuff with TP and IEEE488 for Control Data.
Life is still simple if you can live without GUI's. And there's 90% less code. By the way, Linux has a Pascal to C translator if you want to see your old stuff run again. Kinda cool.

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

I like Pascal and it has been used as the basis for automation tools like Karal. They kinda lost me with OOP but that's mostly because of the type of work I do. I wish I had time to check all this stuff out.

Regards

cww

--
Free Tools!
Machine Automation Tools (LinuxPLC) Free, Truly Open & Publicly Owned
Industrial Automation Software For Linux. mat.sourceforge.net.
Day Job: Heartland Engineering, Automation & ATE for Automotive Rebuilders.
Consultancy: Wide Open Technologies: Moving Business & Automation to Linux
 
C
Ranjan Acharya wrote:
>
> <clip>
> The theory of a vast Microsoft conspiracy is as ludicrous as the vast
> right-wing conspiracy. You may as well be saying that GE thrust it's own
> conspiracy on us by wanting "light bulbs everywhere" or GM has cooked it's
> own back-room plots to put a "car in every garage." (or minivan)
> </clip>

Actually there was quite an interesting fight for the light and power distribution monopoly in the early days. Edison lost out.

> >From what I have read there may have been a conspiracy between Firestone and
> General Motors (in the United States at least) in the early 1900s to "elect"
> local councillors in key cities who were motor-car friendly rather than
> tram-car or street-car friendly.

GM provided Buses to the MTC at way below cost in Minneapolis to hasten the end of the streetcar in the 50's. The cars were stacked and burned and
the tracks torn up. And now they are spending billions to install light rail. Hmmm.

Regards

cww

--
Free Tools!
Machine Automation Tools (LinuxPLC) Free, Truly Open & Publicly Owned
Industrial Automation Software For Linux. mat.sourceforge.net.
Day Job: Heartland Engineering, Automation & ATE for Automotive Rebuilders.
Consultancy: Wide Open Technologies: Moving Business & Automation to Linux.

 
R

Ralph Mackiewicz

Jiri,

> Yeah, sorry about that, I should have put that better. The only
> apology I can offer is that anyone is invited to participate -
> whether with coding, or with writing specifications and stuff,
> feature requests, documentation, testing, debugging.

No need to apologize to me. I got a thick skin and I tend to be cynical and sarcastic myself anyway.

> > is that several well-meaning posts to help identify the
> > requirements for Linux in IA are not being accepted by the Linux
> > participants at face value.
>
> A lot of the time it's frustrating for us, too, because many of the
> requests are vague, out of our hands or otherwise problematic.

Its just an observation of mine that those espousing Linux don't seem to take the criticism from skeptical potential users seriuosly. Vague
input, asking for the unreasonable results, etc. are all very typical of the kinds of requests that you get from any potential user. Buried
inside of all this "noise" is the key to understanding why they will or won't use something. Rarely will anyone just come out and tell you. Probably because most people don't spend that much intellectual effort trying to determine why they won't do something. They don't really know. So they offer vague and impossible directions. But the message is there.

> > Recently, a comment about the lack of tools to extract data from a
> > server was responded to with a discussion of some arcane Linux
> > commands that could be used to telnet into the server.
>
> That was Joe Jansen's post? He said that with VB, he'll drag, drop,
> punch in some port and IP info, and it'll do what he want. I
> countered that with linux scripting, you put in the command (nc -
> netcat), punch in some port and IP info, and it'll do exactly the
> same thing.
>
> I also pointed out that you probably wouldn't bother, because
> there's easier ways of doing it.

I don't remember the poster but that is the message. This was once again a nugget of info that is telling anyone who cares what it will
take for Linux to be attractive to someone who is currently not using it. Offering a simple Linux script in response is not going to swing
anybody over. The concern has to be addressed. I'm not saying that you personally can address it but there is good information in there about what is lacking in Linux. If there is an easier way, that is the information that Joe needs.

This kind of illustrates a problem with open source: the incentives to address the concerns that get raised are made vague by some OSS
supporters who seem to think that any model involving the profit motive is poisonous to OSS. I personally don't believe that. But this
constant anti-economic message creates an atmosphere of confusion for some people that keeps them from taking OSS seriously.

> > This completely missed the point
> ...
> > average potential Linux/IA user who does not want to be a
> > developer.
>
> Joe was posting as a VB developer.

Yes, but from the tone of his post and what he was saying it is obvious that he does not consider himself to be a developer from a
computing perspective. He thinks VB is so high-level that any control/automation engineer with just a rudimentary knowledge of computers can accomplish signficant work without becoming a highly knowledgeable developer. Whether you think he is a developer is irrelevant. He thinks he is not a developer.

> > 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.
>
> Hmm, well apart from ``forget it and use Windows instead'', what
> exactly direction is Walt pointing us in?
>
> He wants leading HMI manufacturers and leading SCM, ERP, and factory
> floor integration software makers to support it, but that's rather
> out of our hands;
>
> He wants ease of integration, which is better with Linux than with
> Windows to begin with;
>
> He wants to make 5 billion dollars out of Linux;
>
> Anything I've missed? (I think I've got most of the thread saved,
> just point me to a keyword or Message-ID.)

You missed the whole point. The message from Walt was subtle and there was an element of sarcasm to it that I'm sure will get your hair standing up. I enjoy sarcasm but its not conducive to understanding. I don't think that his message is anything close to forget Linux and use MS (which he calls Microstupid). I don't know if I can state his intent accurately and briefly but I'll give it a go.

Linux is driven by technology. Widespread deployment of technology is driven by marketing. By marketing I don't mean misleading ads or pushy
sales people. That is a simplistic and ignorant view of marketing. Marketing is the process of identifying the needs of users and guiding
the development of produts and services (technology) to address those needs. Linux development is driven by the needs of the developers of Linux. In those areas that Linux is successful (such a web servers) who are the users? They are essentially people with a great deal of overlapping needs with the Linux developers: web site developers and operators. I suspect that in many cases they are one in the same.

Walt is trying to point out that if someone desires to get Linux into the mainstream of IA then the development of Linux has to be guided in
a way that addresses the needs of the people who are the potential buyers of it (who are not necessarily the users) and not the developers of it. In the IA industry the developers of IA technology have little in common (from a requirements perspective) with the people that purchase and use IA technology. In these cases (unlike with web site developers as the buyers) marketing is needed to act as the bridge. Most of the things that Walt has pointed out are his
opinions as to those issues that the Linux efforts are not addressing. I don't think he actually expects the developers of Linux to do
anything about SCM and ERP manufacturers. But IA won't be mainstream until these people adapt it. They won't adapt it until they can see a
business model that allows them to show a return on the investment that they will have to make in order to adapt it.

As someone posted recently, without the ability for the mainstream IA participants to develop a profitable business model around Linux they
will consider the activity to be a hobby. I don't claim that it is your responsibility to provide this business model to them or that you are responsible to overcome any of the technical objections either. But I think that these issues are the primary reasons why Linux has not made the inroads into IA that it might deserve from a purely technical point of view.

The very first engineering manager I had when I got out of school told me something that I think was the most important thing I learned from
him: "People don't buy anything...they are sold". In other words, if you build a better mousetrap nobody is going to beat down your door to
buy it. You have to go out and beat down their door and sell it to them. That requires marketing. The Linux effort just does not have any
signficant marketing efforts addressing the IA industry. It won't be mainstream until there is.

Best Regards,

Ralph Mackiewicz
SISCO, Inc.

 
A

Anthony Kerstens

The deeper truth of dealing with customers.
It could be applied to just about anything.

Thanks.

Anthony Kerstens P.Eng.

.....
> Its just an observation of mine that those espousing Linux don't seem
> to take the criticism from skeptical potential users seriuosly. Vague
> input, asking for the unreasonable results, etc. are all very typical
> of the kinds of requests that you get from any potential user. Buried
> inside of all this "noise" is the key to understanding why they will
> or won't use something. Rarely will anyone just come out and tell you.
> Probably because most people don't spend that much intellectual effort
> trying to determine why they won't do something. They don't really
> know. So they offer vague and impossible directions. But the message
> is there.
....
 
A
Hailstorm and Passport are Microsoft services built with .NET. You can build your own services with .NET, so that people's personal information and credit card numbers and whatnot are all sent to you, as opposed to Microsoft.

I'm just pointing out that you can divorce the .NET technology from the .NET services that Microsoft will be providing.

From the Mono FAQ -- this needs to be posted because I don't think anyone here actually understands what .NET is.

----- BEGIN CUT & PASTE FROM http://www.go-mono.com/faq.html
Question 1: Is Mono the same as Microsoft's .NET initiative?

It is not.

.NET is a company-wide initiative at Microsoft that encompasses many
different areas. The .NET development framework, Passport, Biztalk, new
server products, and anything that is remotely connected to .NET gets the
".NET-stamping" treatment. Some components of Microsoft's .NET initiative
have been announced and some others are in the works.

Mono is a project to implement several technologies developed by Microsoft
that have now been submitted to the ECMA Standards Body.

Question 17: If applications use Mono, does that mean that I have to pay a
service fee?

No. Mono is not related to Microsoft's initiative of software-as-a-service.

Question 18: If you implement .NET, will I depend on Microsoft Passport to
run my software?

No. The .NET Framework is a runtime infrastructure and collection of class
libraries. Passport may be required to access certain web services written
for that framework, but only if the programmer chooses Passport as the
authentication mechanism.

------ END CUT & PASTE

Now, once Mono gets going, guess what? It becomes a no-brainer to port apps from Windows to Linux (and vice-versa). If you want to use Passport authentication, you could. This isn't an open and shut case for Microsoft here.

Alex Pavloff
Software Engineer
Eason Technology


 
M

Michael Batchelor

On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Jiri Baum wrote:
> Michael:
> > Unless I can cover the entire cost of the development on the front end, I
> > can't let the solution become freely distributable.
>
> Jiri:
>
> At worst, it's a simple technology exchange: your code for GPL'd.
>
> You have to decide whether the advantage of being able to use GPL'd code
> outweighs the disadvantage of (possibly) having to license yours on the
> same terms.


I agree completely that the value of what I've taken out of the Open Source movement far outweighs the value of what I've put in.
I'd wager pretty heavily that the same is true for everyone on this list. The common pool isn't like a pool of water where the resource gets consumed with use. As you point out, it only grows. It never shrinks.

But the fact remains that regardless of how advantageous in the long run it may be for me to contribute "X" to the common pool, I've got to make payroll on Friday. In this circumstance a BSD style license for the O/S platform does better job of covering my butt.

MB
--
Michael R. Batchelor - Industrial Informatics & Instrumentation, Inc.
Linux is like a wigwam...
No windows, no gates.
Apache inside.

 
E

Enrico Guasco

Hi everybody,
I was thinking how to put in my (bad) english an answer to all the crap about .NET when I came to this email and I can only add "that's exactly what i wanted to say".

I agree with Curt 100%.

enrico guasco

Tex.El. di Guasco Enrico
Borgata Ricca, 6
13822 - Mosso (Bi)

Tel.+39015702972
Fax.+390152548911
cell 3482644838
 
Of course - and if you can do that by grabbing stuff off the net somewhere, adding a few lines and configuration files and sending copies of the result to your customer and back onto the net, then why not?

As the old joke goes - $1 for the work, $99 for knowing where to hit. (Add zeroes as appropriate.)

> In this circumstance a BSD style license for the O/S platform does better
> job of covering my butt.

The licence of the OS platform itself is a different issue altogether; there's no problem developing BSD or even closed-source on linux.

The above is when you decide to base your solution directly on an existing, GPL-licenced package. Any modifications you make to that package must be GPL and must be offered to anyone who gets the binary.

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

David McGilvray

This convulsion process is described very clearly by Clayton M. Christensen, Harvard Business Professor, in his 1997 book, The Innovator's Dilemma. Recommended by Andrew S. Grove, former CEO, Intel Corp.

David McGilvray, P. Eng.
 
J

Joe Jansen/ENGR/HQ/KEMET/US

I touched on this in my other reply. eWeek, August 13. Page 20. Jim Allchin (VP, MS platforms group) describes what info goes into Passport. He specifically mentions an email address and credit card details.

--Joe Jansen
 
J

Joe Jansen/ENGR/HQ/KEMET/US

To quote Jim Allchin group Vice president of MS Platform Group. From an interview with eWeek Senior Editor Peter Galli, in the August 13, 2001
issue of eWeek, page 20, starting at the bottom of the second column. Emphasis added.

"You don't have to give any personal detail *OTHER THAN* an e-mail address or credit card details..."

Also from yours:

Sites that offer the Passport service must display their own privacy statements and are bound by rules that require them to disclose how they use your Passport information.

How many privacy statements have you read? According to another eWeek article (yes, I read pretty much everrything in each issue), If you agree to share your info (and note that you choose which info to share, but not WHO to share it with. Once shared, it is free for ANY passport enabled site to use) Any passport enabled site can take the shared info and do
whatever they want with it. Including sell it to marketing companies. As long as somewhere on there site, buried in a 10 page privacy statement,
they say "we will sell all your info to anyone willing to pay a buck", they are well within their rights to do so. Also, don't expect your minimum list to get you very far once Hailstorm rolls out.

And, of course, there is always the issue that if My info (including, for example, Wallet, containing my credit card info) is on someone else's server, it is outside my control. Tell you what: Give me your credit card info. I'll keep it real safe for you. Really, I promise. And I can even truthfully say that I have been hacked less than Microsoft, so My server should be more secure, right? I don't think so.

The interview is a good read. Quite funny, actually, when Allchin tries to convince us that MS is fighting for user choice. "If anything, we're fighting for user choice and pushing hard for that." Good humor!

--Joe Jansen
 
C
Hi Mark

Forgive me if I'm not swayed by the MS privacy statement. I find their credibility somewhat suspect after the phony federal court evidence incident. Some of the recent FUD hasn't helped either. Or the Office scandal. Not a good track record for truth or privacy.

Regards

cww
 
M

Michael Griffin

I thought I should perhaps mention that if someone is trying to avoid any GPL issues, they aren't safe just because they are not using
Linux. GPL existed before Linux was created and can apply to code running on any operating system, including Windows.

People seem to associate GPL with Linux because Linux itself uses GPL, but this is really two separate issues. GPL would still exist even if
Linux didn't. What this means in practice is that if you are trying to avoid using (or re-using) GPL code, you need to take care regardless of the
operating system being used.



**********************
Michael Griffin
London, Ont. Canada
**********************
 
Out of the borrough for a short period....
Star Office does read .doc files and .xls files upto Office 2000. All old formats are supported.
I have not used office XP so don't know about that.... But I believe that Office XP files can be saved in older formats and used in Staroffice.. that is in case the format has changed. StarOffice can save in DOC and XLS format 95 as well as 97/2000 . So "mafi mushkila" (no problem) my friend. I once did a jig with Excel 95 in a 486 machine with vlookup and hllokup
and some macros and a large maintenance database loaded into the spreadsheet and it would take fifteen minutes to start excel as I put the file in Xlstart directory. But I doubt if we are ever going to use spreadsheets and document files beyond simple uses. Uses that can be resolved by gnumeric or gedit.

Anand
 
You can probably do this:

If you have some sensitive processing you can't possibly release, you can modify the GPL code to accept messages (or some other interprocess
communication) and do the special processing your application needs. Release the source code to the message handling interface, but keep your proprietary application to yourself.

Rufus
 
J

Joe Jansen/ENGR/HQ/KEMET/US

Curt,
You should love this one then:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2001-08-31-hotmail-security.htm
I especially like this quote:

"It took just three lines of code for Grossman to breach Hotmail filters and access Passport ID and credit card data."

He beat this though, by returning after MS 'fixed' it, and regained access with one line of code. *One Line*! At this point, the privacy statement is pretty meaningless if someone can just ride right in and take the data away from them.

MS security is an oxymoron. Heavy on the Moron.

--Joe Jansen
 
cww,

I ABSOLUTELY AGREE !!

Even though I'm a MSAE and a long term Beta Tester, there's no way I'd place my financial information on their servers.

However, I'm supporting their Passport technology, not Wallet.

Mark

 
P
I am compelled to add my 2 cents worth here.
Having worked in the control industry for 15 years now, I am fascinated with all the banter about Microsoft. Put simply, Mircrosoft is not interested in Industrial Automation. Rather, they have chosen to make their money in the consumer end of things. Therefore, it is logical for them to put all of their eggs in the .whatever, connect wirelessly from everywhere, get email on your toaster marketplace. Windows, in it's current forms, will never be a good platform for any type of serious, mission critical machine control. That is by design. Yes, I am aware that there are plenty of machines out there running under PC control on Windows, but I don't see it becoming commonplace in the near future unless Microsoft gets serious about removing all of the consumer gizmos from the operating system itself. In my opinion, the future of Industrial computing lies with Linux or some variation thereof. Yes, you do need to be a serious geek to use it correctly (I'm not), but isn't that the point? If I want to pass data from 1 device to another, do I really need the Office Assistant?

Regards,
Pete Arthur
 
C
Actually Joe I'm not really pleased by the fact that the majority of the computing public has suffered and continues to suffer from security
problems. The enormous cost of Code Red and the outages and slowdowns caused by millions of Windows boxes merrily mailing each other viruses
and billions in lost time and productivity are a major cause of the tech market tanking and are the feet of clay that hold back many of the things
that we need to support the revised "new economy" It doesn't really help Linux much because the public doesn't discriminate. They have no way of
knowing that it is manageable and preventable simply by platform divesity. Now, if they were clamoring for legislation that made Microsoft
responsible for those billions, I would say it is a gain. But, rightly or wrongly, with some spin from the Redmond crew, they assume it's the same
all over and unavoidable. If half the boxes ran Linux and ignored the virus of the week it would break the exponential infection chains and delay things long enough that they could be stopped or at least controlled. Far better would be a high security default on Windows installs but that would break a lot of the cool features like Rich Spam and embedded whatnot and singing greeting cards and is thus unlikely to happen. The antivirus firms would collapse. The part that is totally inexplicable to me is the acceptance of this high level of disruption and destruction with no reflection on the security structure of Windows. Another case of "simplicity at any cost". Simplicity does seem to be the only thing that matters to a lot of people. Contrast this with the safety standards on other consumer products. What a paradox.

Regards

cww
 
Top