Blackout of 2003

A
Hi Curt,

I'd like to point that in your _very own MAT project_, you already _have_ Modbus TCP and RTU code available. There's a few other open source Modbus implementations on the web too. But if the argument is "I'm not going to write any code, because I'm afraid that there's some chance that possibly sometime in the future someone might sue me", I'm not really sure that anything in the open source world would ever have gotten done. Heck, I'm not sure that any software anywhere would ever get done.

I also think that accusing Modicon or Modbus.Org of some nefarious plan to act like SCO and sue everyone for money is rather inflammatory and a baseless claim. Do you any proof that they have plans to do this? Have you discussed these sorts of issue offlist with representatives of Modbus.org?

Heck, if you're so worried about the Modbus click-thru license, spend a couple minutes and find someone to send you the PI-MBUS-300 paper manual, which has no click-thru or shrink-wrap license. There are numerous other manufacturers who have made their own Modbus variations, and documented them separately. I'm sure you could find a manual somewhere describing a protocol that would interoperate with Modbus devices that had absolutely no legal disclaimers anywhere.

(Lynn will then tell you that all specifications save the latest on Modbus.Org are obsolete, and its true, but most of them still seems to do the job <g>).

Alex Pavloff - [email protected]
ESA Technology ---- www.esatechnology.com
------- Linux-based industrial HMI ------
-------- www.esatechnology.com/5k -------
 
C
Hi Dave.

Of course you have. But what are you doing to change it for the better? It has been demonstrated lately that meek acceptance of one sided business practices isn't the only course available. As I have said before, if everyone reading this were to simply bring the matter up to vendors, we would have products by the end of the year. And, outside of automation, it _is_ changing. People do have real choices in several important areas. This is purely the result of a community working for change rather than waiting. To the benefit of all, except the monopoly.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke

Regards

cww
 
C
For which they should be duly recognized, it's a start.
Unfortunately, the rest of the catalog is quite MS centric. But comms are an important area none the less.

Regards

cww
 
C
Hi Alex

On October 14, 2003, Alex Pavloff wrote:
> Hi Curt,
>
> I'd like to point that in your _very own MAT project_, you already
> _have_ Modbus TCP and RTU code available. There's a few other open
> source Modbus implementations on the web too. But if the argument is
> "I'm not going to write any code, because I'm afraid that there's some
> chance that possibly sometime in the future someone might sue me", I'm
> not really sure that anything in the open source world would ever have
> gotten done. Heck, I'm not sure that any software anywhere would ever
> get done. <

Yes, we do have some code. I have written some as well for private projects. And yes, it can be done with freely available materials. What I am looking for is to set a precedent of using protocols and other necessary IP with the knowledge and blessing of the owner.

> I also think that accusing Modicon or Modbus.Org of some nefarious plan
> to act like SCO and sue everyone for money is rather inflammatory and a
> baseless claim. Do you any proof that they have plans to do this? Have
> you discussed these sorts of issue offlist with representatives of
> Modbus.org? <

Yes, I agree that was a bit ill considered and hereby apologize to Modicon et.al. But the thought behind it was that this is going to be a key issue going forward and by far the best way to resolve it is amicably, up front. What I meant to say is that it exposes us to the same type of antics, which could well be fatal to our project as we
are not blessed with the resources of IBM. It would be truly tragic if the hard work of many volunteers were negated in this manner. I as founder, feel quite a bit of responsibility to protect that body of work freely given. I want only what in the best interest of all. We have the opportunity of setting a wholesome precedent and example.

> Heck, if you're so worried about the Modbus click-thru license, spend a
> couple minutes and find someone to send you the PI-MBUS-300 paper
> manual, which has no click-thru or shrink-wrap license. There are
> numerous other manufacturers who have made their own Modbus variations,
> and documented them separately. I'm sure you could find a manual
> somewhere describing a protocol that would interoperate with Modbus
> devices that had absolutely no legal disclaimers anywhere. <

Yes, but permission and cooperation would be very meaningful. We have no desire to adopt an adversarial position. That would serve no one.

> (Lynn will then tell you that all specifications save the latest on
> Modbus.Org are obsolete, and its true, but most of them still seems to
> do the job <g>). <

That's the wonder of Modbus standards, there are so many to choose from.

Regards

cww
 
G
I don't believe that. (Even if we're talking about the end of next year.) If everyone reading this were to bring the matter up to vendors, all that the vendors would know is that there is plenty of interest.

Expressions of interest do not necessarily equate to willingness to buy - especially a willingness to buy version 1.0 on a new platform - and the appropriate vendor response would be to start doing some more market research.

If, on the other hand, everyone were to go to the vendors with the statement, "when you release a version of your product on Linux, I'll buy it," then we might see some different action. But that's not going to happen anytime soon, and you yourself are part of the reason why.

Most of the people using the vendors' wares on Windows aren't anxious to move to Linux. And some of the people most anxious for a market swing toward Linux are Open Source advocates who aren't willing to help make it worth the vendors' while. There is already capable SCADA/HMI and control system software available for Linux. But you're not buying and deploying copies of AutomationX or Scadabase or Performux, and I've not seen you encourage anyone else to do so.

I would contend that actually buying and using their products will do more to further vendors' interest in providing Linux-based tools than any amount of purist Open Source advocacy. When other vendors see market share going to their Linux-based competitors, they'll start
considering ports of their own.

--
Greg Goodman
Linux user, Open Source programmer/advocate, Pragmatist
 
On October 10, 2003, Alex Pavloff wrote:
> Even then, customers on Windows platforms can call up their vendor and
> go "THIS STUFF DOESN'T WORK, FIX IT", while the Linux answer for the
> free software is "fix it yourself". <

Alternately, "get someone who will fix it for you for a fee".

It's a different model, but it seems more sensible, anyway. In the Windows world, you pay an up-front fee, and then you argue with the vendor about how much support will or will not be provided as part of that fee and at what stage you need to pay another fee (i.e., upgrade). In the Linux world, you pay as you go, which means that you for the amount of support you actually require, and only that amount.

The Linux world also has the advantage of integrated support - any one company can fully support all the software, because it has the source to all of it. In the Windows world, problems caused by interaction between
different vendors' pieces of software are a much bigger problem as far as support is concerned.

Since support is not a profit center for the proprietary software vendor, the vendor is tempted to cut corners on it, another problem which is unlikely in the Linux world.

Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[email protected]> http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jirib
MAT LinuxPLC project --- http://mat.sf.net --- Machine Automation Tools
 
G
On September 19, 2003, Curt Wuollet wrote:
> A study in complacency, serious problems are so few and far between that
> they are almost a total surprise. <

That's not so much complacency as a faulty risk analysis. Risk is probability times cost. If serious problems are so few and far between, then assessing true probability or true cost is difficult. When the probability of a catastrophic failure is perceived to be extremely low,
the cost to prevent it may seem significantly greater than the likely benefit.

When the cost includes:

- paying for employees trained and ready to handle an event that might occur perhaps once or twice in a lifetime

- keeping equipment and infrastructure at or near the state of the art

- providing service to a clientele that is notoriously unwilling to pay a dime more than they have to

then it's no surprise that systems are allowed to approach the point of imminent catastrophic failure before the shortcomings get addressed.

People in general (as consumers and as voters) do not like to deal with problems before they manifest. It is axiomatic in business and politics - and it's important to acknowledge that power generation and distribution has feet planted solidly in both arenas - that people will
only demand a solution, or even agree to foot the bill for a solution, when the pain of the problem is already being felt.

Getting a market or an electorate to pay for a solution to a problem that hasn't already killed someone or cost a fortune is nearly impossible. No matter how well the problem is documented, no matter how widely the experts agree on the need to solve it, there will always be an opposition that trots out its own "experts" who claim that the problem is being overstated, or that the proposed solution is more expensive than necessary, or that it should be paid for by somebody else.

This is a recurrent pattern, and one that I suspect is inherent in the functioning of a "democratic" society. Without meaning to start a flame war or take the thread off-topic, I maintain that we could find any number of examples in the news today where the political and economic will is NOT being mustered to avert an imminent catastrophic failure of some system or other, whether it be a natural system, a financial or economic system, or an engineering/infrastructural system.

--
Greg Goodman
Chiron Consulting
http://home.swbell.net/chironsw -- [email protected] -- 713.869.6876
 
C
Hi Greg

You might be right, especially if that were the only force at work. But, those companies who have futurists, and I believe almost all have some form of another, and those who are watching events in Europe, are already formulating a plan (or should be) because the monopoly is unraveling far faster outside the US. At some point, they will either have to accommodate several small markets of important (municipal, government) buyers who have no interest whatsoever in Microsoft hegemony, or give those to our side of spectrum. And comparison on a level playing field, at last, will snowball.

With all the advantages that would accrue to _them_ using a more reliable, easier to integrate, far less costly platform that can be customized and tailored specifically to automation needs, it simply can't be lost on them (the major international vendors) that they could quickly become irrelevent by slavish devotion to Redmond. It will come to pass that they have to decide if they intend to be world class or US only. A demonstrated interest here in the US for better, more Open solutions, will bring that tipping point closer, even if it doesn't provide the push.

And no, I honestly can't say I would be ecstatic with the status quo with the only difference being that the closed, proprietary, non-interoperable, ball of goo runs on Linux. It would be a vast improvement, but the availability of Open Standards could do so much more to sunder the Tower Of Babel that OSS _must_ have a place so competition can work it's magic. One monotonic model replacing another wouldn't be anywhere near as effective in solving the artificial issues that are inhibiting the growth of automation. So forgive me if I don't shill for non-Open solutions, there are no shortages of folks who do.

If this hurts those who mix proprietary apps with OSS Linux, they can take to heart that their time is coming and many folks will be more comfortable with the devil they know.

Regards

cww
Ad Hoc futurist with a very good track record, Ask my previous employers :^)
 
Using a proprietary package on Linux negates many of the advantages of moving to Linux in the first place. True, you're now locked in to one less vendor than before; but you're still locked in.

I don't think Curt is speaking so much of the software vendors as of the hardware vendors who only supply configuration utilities for Windows, for instance. Those config utilities have absolutely no sale value; they are prime candidates for open-sourcing.

Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[email protected]> http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jirib
MAT LinuxPLC project --- http://mat.sf.net --- Machine Automation Tools
 
B
This is an inherent problem with any political system. People who know how to use the system are able to manipulate it to their own ends, and usually do not care much about anything else, as long as their own constituency does not gripe too much about it.

But I am not sure I would consider the recent blackout a catastrophic failure, so much as a widespread nuisance failure. Power failures due to weather related situations are very common, and we don't consider it a catastrophe. I don't have any figures to support my guess, but I would guess that the cost of weather related power failures is probably much higher than that due to equipment (or in this case system) failure.

And in this case, we really did not have a single piece of equipment that failed, rather whole networks of systems designed primarily to provide power, rather than protect the power network failed because the focus was on the wrong thing. Someone needs to have the political will to say its acceptable to shutoff power to a few people to avoid shutting it off to far more, and setup the grid along those lines.

I would hazard a guess that if the focus was on protecting the grid, and isolating problems to a local area, as opposed to avoiding power shutdowns, this situation would have been localized and probably contained without incident, and with little or no news coverage, except for the few thousand people that were affected.
 
A
Jiri:

Have you used a program like RSLogix 500 recently? It'd a little more than a "configuration utility". Move up to RSLogix 5000 and I'm sure it's acquired a few billion new features that allow it to brew coffee in the morning for the plant workers or something.

As a hardware vendor who's configuration software runs on Windows, I'm going to have to point out that not _one_ of my customers has ever said "I'll buy your stuff if the configuration software runs on Linux." Not a one. Curt said once that "he'd look at my stuff" if the software ran on Linux, but I don't think that can be transformed into lots of sales.

It'd be a huge time commitment for me to move my configuration software to Linux, and to make it worth my while, I'd probably need to have a piece of paper ordering a thousand or so units in hand before even starting. Linux has a tiny share of the desktop market, smaller even than Macs. Don't hold your breath for small hardware companies like mine to redo their configuration software for Linux. I think I can get a lot more customers by making my software and hardware better, rather than porting it to a boutique desktop OS.

Alex Pavloff - [email protected]
 
G
Hi, Jiri.

> Using a proprietary package on Linux negates many of the advantages of
> moving to Linux in the first place. True, you're now locked in to one
> less vendor than before; but you're still locked in.

No argument from me.

> I don't think Curt is speaking so much of the software vendors as of the
> hardware vendors who only supply configuration utilities for Windows,
> for instance. Those config utilities have absolutely no sale value; they
> are prime candidates for open-sourcing.

Good point, and one I can't fault. Hardware vendors' config utilities
and device drivers are good examples of what we *should* be asking for
on Linux. To the extent that Curt is talking about those items, I
agree. And there's no question he includes those items in his discussion:

> The drivers for the thousands of different peripherals are written for MS but seldom for Linux. This is changing as Linux becomes an important market, but making it important to have Linux drivers can only be accomplished by the community.

I wrote what I did about market forces because Curt responded with the
same answer to several posts in which list members said they'd consider
using Linux when the PLC programming tools and HMI software they use are
available for Linux.

[a response from Curt early in the thread, talking about programming tools]

> I want a port that runs native on Linux. And at times it's damn difficult to get the Simatic manager and Step 5 programming package to run on Windows

[Curt's response to Ranjan, on the subject of SCADA application tools]

> I'm not suggesting that you rewrite Citect. I'm suggesting that, if you would like to see a Linux version, it's more helpful to demand a Linux version from Citect (or name your favorite vendor here) than to simply wait for it to magically happen

[another response about SCADA tools]

> Like I say, I'd be happy with RSLogix for Linux 1.00 even if it doesn't run any better than the Windows version.

By the way, I do understand that this last quote does not represent
Curt's most-desired outcome. He (and I) would infinitely prefer that
RSLogix (or some functional equivalent) be released as Open Source.
Curt, however, seems to believe that Rockwell's best interests in the
long term would be served by doing so. I'm not convinced that they
would, and I'm certain that Rockwell doesn't believe that they would.
(While I firmly maintain that an Open Source business model is workable
for certain types of company, I'm not at all certain that a software
vendor is one of them. Especially a software vendor whose consulting
business competes directly with almost 100% of its software license
customers.)

In any case, I'm looking forward to the availability of open source PLC
programming tools; I just don't expect them to come from the currently
entrenched players in the automation software marketplace.

To close, I'll reiterate what I consider to be the fundamental point in
this thread, and one on which Curt and I agree:

> If the community makes it important to vendors, it will happen. They will release Linux drivers for your hardware, they will port their products to Linux


Greg Goodman
Chiron Consulting
 
R

Ralph Mackiewicz

For a good description of why power systems can become unstable see:

http://utilipoint.com/issuealert/article.asp?id=1858

A weather related outage that affects 30 million people would also be considered catastrophic even if it only happens infrequently. I don't think the harm done by outages is proportional to the total number of people involved only. 1,000 outages each involving 100 people is a lot less disruptive than a single outage involving
100,000 people. Those 100 people can go a few blocks to get warm, cool, water, toilets, etc. Where do 100,000 people go?

Regards,
Ralph Mackiewicz
SISCO, Inc.
 
J

Joe Jansen/TECH/HQ/KEMET/US

Alex,

Is the configuration software a profit center for your company? If not, why not simply release the spec publicly, and let Curt, Jiri, or whomever wants to write the software for you instead? You get it done for free, so you aren't out anything, and with the spec published, the configurator software could improve on several different platforms. You could potentially even reduce overhead expenses by not having to write the entire application yourself, although depending on that may not be 100% reliable.

Obviously, if you use the software as a revenue stream, then it probably wouldn't make sense at this point.

--Joe Jansen
 
On October 23, 2003, Alex Pavloff wrote:
> Have you used a program like RSLogix 500 recently? It'd a little more
> than a "configuration utility". <

RSLogix is perhaps a class higher than that; but many pieces of hardware do come with what is nothing more than a configuration utility, and often quite an uninspiring one.

> It'd be a huge time commitment for me to move my configuration
> software to Linux, <

Mind you, I did say "open-sourcing" - not porting to Linux. Putting the GPL on it and letting people download it, on the grounds that it's not much use without your hardware so they'll probably come back and buy it.

Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[email protected]> http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jirib
MAT LinuxPLC project --- http://mat.sf.net --- Machine Automation Tools
 
A
The software is not a profit center.

Releasing "the spec" assumes that there is a spec. There is now one programmer on this project -- me. I'm rather confident of my ability to get things done, and so are the people that run the company, so there really isn't a "spec" of any sort. Design docs, feature lists, bug lists, yes.

I also wonder what the point of running on several platforms is when the only platform that any of my customers have ever cared about is Microsoft Windows. As I've said before -- not one of my customers has ever complained that my software runs only on Windows.

I also have little hope that Curt, Jiri, or any other volunteer programmers would be able to spend the time needed to actually do open source configuration software. I work on this project full time, and have been doing this for a couple years. I've got around ~110,000 lines of code here -- which is small potatoes compared to some projects, but not insubstantial. The entire MAT project consists currently of ~81,000 lines of code, and that's been done in about the same timeframe. It's still in alpha, also, and hasn't been deployed to the field yet (correct me if I'm wrong).

I also know that Curt, Jiri, et al, _wouldn't_ want to do my configuration software. Understandably, they're not going to participate in any project that isn't 100% open source. They're not going to do the work that I'm getting paid for free. Besides, we're not AB or a major company. We don't have thousands of units sold every month.

I roll down every project listed in www.linuxincontrol.org, which is a great summation of all the various projects going on. A few of the websites don't appear to be there, some of those projects haven't been updated in years, and the most successful project on that list (in terms of people actually using them to do things) is the very cool linuxcnc.org project, and it appears to be mainly used by hobbyists. But that's PC-based motion control, which isn't really related to what I'm doing.

If I thought I could make all my software open source and cooperate with a few developers to get more drivers or more things done than I can on my own, I'd do it. I just haven't seen any solid output from any developers so far that makes me reconsider the choice to do most all the automation-specific software in-house. I have used a couple libraries that were useful and contributed all my minor changes to those pieces of software back. The software was there, and I adapted it, and it works fine. However, there's currently no must-have software for Linux automation that I can't write myself in a couple days and make it fit my application better.

Alex Pavloff - [email protected]
ESA Technology ---- www.esatechnology.com
------- Linux-based industrial HMI ------
-------- www.esatechnology.com/5k -------
 
A
> From: Jiri Baum
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: BUSN: Blackout of 2003
>
> On October 23, 2003, Alex Pavloff wrote:
> > Have you used a program like RSLogix 500 recently? It'd a
> little more
> > than a "configuration utility". <
>
> RSLogix is perhaps a class higher than that; but many pieces
> of hardware do come with what is nothing more than a
> configuration utility, and often quite an uninspiring one.

Oh, this I know.

> > It'd be a huge time commitment for me to move my configuration
> > software to Linux, <
>
> Mind you, I did say "open-sourcing" - not porting to Linux.
> Putting the GPL on it and letting people download it, on the
> grounds that it's not much use without your hardware so
> they'll probably come back and buy it.

If its no use without my hardware, why would people download it in the first place? In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really _do_ anything besides let a user program something else to do something. If you want to look at the software, go download the demo. How would making it open source help my user? They still couldn't do anything with it anyway, seeing as how they don't have the hardware.

Not to mention that most complicated pieces of Windows software take advantage of third party components, which can't be distributed. I use a few in mine, some of which could be stripped out, but some of which are integral to my code. They're great components, saved lots of time, look nice, and don't require any runtime royalties or anything, but I can't give them to anyone.

Waving the magic open source wand isn't going to make anything better. It takes people writing code to make things better, and there just aren't enough of them writing open source code right now for automation to provide the critical base needed to bring about the revolution.

I've said it before, I've said it again -- if you want to make linux and open source feasible in automation, you can't sit around and wait for companies, large or small, to cater to a boutique desktop OS. You're going to have to show that you can get better results with Linux and open source first.

Alex Pavloff - [email protected] ESA Technology ---- www.esatechnology.com
------- Linux-based industrial HMI ------
-------- www.esatechnology.com/5k -------
 
I totally agree with you Alex:

The open source world compared to the Windows world comprises a smaller market share (yes that is what makes this world work, or at least this automation world) than Apple. I don't know about you but I actually work for a wage and the only way that wage works is if there is a demand for my services.

Why are we in automation, to make better, faster, products so that we can SELL them. We are not making better, faster, products so that we can give them away.....

I am sorry but there is no demand for the services of OSS right now, there are extremely small pockets of demand. In actuality it is as you say "just a hobby" and if it had the users pounding it, and the hackers attacking it in any where near the numbers that are using and pounding and attacking Windows based products, it would quickly fall under the pressure of not enough time to repair (especially when no pay was involved), there are not enough "volunteer" programmers in the world to make it work for all the issues that would come up when it was pounded by these numbers and I do not want to write the source code, nor do ANY of my customers.

Others have tried it, Socialists, we all share the land for the common good, Communists, for the good of the state, etc. But we live in a world whereby you get paid for the work you do, and no-one is willing to pay you unless you have a service that they want. And if they will pay you, they demand the security of knowing your competence and not the "fix of the week", here you test it for us.

The theory is being tested by "off shoring" and "outsourcing" to low wage countries to do IT type work and you want to take it a step further and have it be "Free" instead of low wage. And then will you give the products that you build with this "Free, open, project" because after all, if the software should be free and open, why not the products developed with it, give away the cars so the many "open source car testers" can use and improve them for the rest of us instead of having to count on the "Rich Car Makers" ....etc.

In reality, the OSS movement is a noble plan, but is doomed to failure, wish I was wrong, but so far (past 3 years), I am right..........

But try to tell that same thing to a MAC user, prepare to fight.

I think this list needs to create a separate list for this endless rant on OSS vs. Microsoft and let the rest of us get on with solving "REAL WORLD" problems for each other.

Time is such a hard thing and we are all so short of it, I propose we get back to the intention of this list, helping others solve real world day to day issues and let the "Futurists" banter with each other in their own web space.

I respect the right to their opinions, but am getting tired (as I am sure many others of you are) with this endless babble with the result of neither side giving an inch (in over 2 years).

We all are extremely aware of each others opinion ........... Lets get on with it.

You Win and you Win, now lets talk about productive issues..............

Dave
 
M

Michael Griffin

On October 25, 2003 14:20, "Dave" wrote:
<clip>
> I totally agree with you Alex:

> I am sorry but there is no demand for the services of OSS right now, there
> are extremely small pockets of demand. In actuality it is as you say "just
> a hobby"
<clip>

Mr. (Alex) Pavloff (whom you totally agree with) includes in his signature the phrase "Linux-based industrial HMI". No doubt his employer will be dismayed to discover that he has really been secretly building these as a hobby instead of selling them. He has, or so I hear, been using them to panel his basement.


> and if it had the users pounding it, and the hackers attacking it
> in any where near the numbers that are using and pounding and attacking
> Windows based products, it would quickly fall under the pressure of not
> enough time to repair
<clip>

So the Internet (which runs on OSS) has "fallen under the pressure" from the
hackers? How sad. We'll miss it.


> Others have tried it, Socialists, we all share the land for the common
> good, Communists, for the good of the state, etc. But we live in a world
> whereby you get paid for the work you do,
<clip>

Your tale of woe goes on and on with communists, low wage foreigners, and Apple Computer as targets for your spleen. Would you feel happier if I told you that yes indeed, the communist foreigners with Macintosh computers really are all out to get you?


> I respect the right to their opinions, but am getting tired (as I am sure
> many others of you are) with this endless babble
<clip>

"Dave", let me tell you something that might help. If you see a message that doesn't happen to interest you, then you really don't have to read it. Just skip over it. Nobody will mind, I promise. Nobody will even know.

The moderators will ensure there is no spam or offensive language in any of the messages. They can't however guaranty that you'll find them all
interesting.




--

************************
Michael Griffin
London, Ont. Canada
************************
 
A
On October 25, 2003, Dave wrote:
> I totally agree with you Alex: <

Well, I'm sorry Dave, but I totally disagree with you.

> I am sorry but there is no demand for the services of OSS
> right now, there are extremely small pockets of demand. In
> actuality it is as you say "just a hobby" and if it had the
> users pounding it, and the hackers attacking it in any where
> near the numbers that are using and pounding and attacking
> Windows based products, it would quickly fall under the
> pressure of not enough time to repair (especially when no pay
> was involved), there are not enough "volunteer" programmers
> in the world to make it work for all the issues that would
> come up when it was pounded by these numbers and I do not
> want to write the source code, nor do ANY of my customers. <

OSS works extremely well. My 5000 HMI uses Linux. The OSS programs that are currently used on the Model 5000 HMI are:

Linux Kernel
Busybox
Xfree 86
GTK+ 2.0
GTKMM 2.0
Common C++ libraries
(and a small raft of other libraries).

They are all of extremely high quality, and they let me get the work that helps my customers done. My bone of contention with Jiri, Curt, et al, is just that there isn't yet the necessary base of programmers writing open source code for automation to make it worth it for people
like me to start helping push the bandwagon.

Alex Pavloff - [email protected]
ESA Technology ---- www.esatechnology.com
------- Linux-based industrial HMI ------
-------- www.esatechnology.com/5k -------
 
Top