Microsoft .Net's impact to Automation Industry

The easiest way is not to do it at all. You can telnet or ssh into the server machine from the client machine and start the program there. No
networking required - it's all hidden by the OS.


If you do need the networking, you can have nc (netcat) send the data. Depending on what you mean by ``pack up''...

plc_reading_program | nc host port

nc -l -p port | display_thingy


It sounds like something for Hugh Jack's LPC - he's got stuff for network access via telnet/java and e-mail.

(Yes, we really should merge the two projects...)

> None of my controls are PC based. Any critical data is stored in the PLC
> because I know that Wonder-Where? may crap out at any second.

It's amazing what MS managed to do to expectation of reliability of computers. Used to be that an office full of people, rows and rows of desks, could all use the one central computer all day and it'd work.

> Winsock may not be the greatest implementation in the world, but drag,
> drop, punch in some port and IP info, and it is sending my data off into
> the great beyond. At my client end, set my port and IP, connect, and
> viola! Here comes my data.

nc can do that for you - if you still need to do that.

> I am willing to sweat out coding elegance and good design work for a
> machine control. But for a utility that I am going to use for a week or
> two and toss, what can I use in Linux that offers that ease of setup?

The obvious answer is Perl, otherwise known as Unix's ``Swiss Army Chainsaw'', but I'm not sure I should recommend it - as the name suggests,
it is handy and versatile but very very dangerous. It's also not particularly intuitive unless you're already familiar with Unix.

For the problem you mentioned above, like I wrote, just telnet in and run the program on the server.

The VB-equivalent language would probably be python. Being more modern than BASIC, it includes modern concepts like procedures - but I haven't done all that much with it, so I can't speak from experience.

> Let's face it: Not everyone knows C.

OK, we'll have to be careful to keep that in mind as we write the MAT LinuxPLC - for obvious reasons, all of us do know C...

...
> I haven't booted to Linux for months now. Mainly because I cannot get
> anything to run that doesn't install with the distro.

Hmm, I myself don't have that many things that didn't come with the distro; Debian's pretty comprehensive.

> Bottom line is Linux is not a system for someone who doesn't want to
> spend their life doing it.

OTOH, Microsoft is not a system for someone who doesn't want to spend their life doing everything the Microsoft way.

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

 
A
Joe Jansen wrote:
> I am willing to sweat out coding elegance and good design work for a
> machine control. But for a utility that I am going to use for a week or
> two and toss, what can I use in Linux that offers that ease of setup?
> (That, too, is a serious question. If something exists, I'd love to hear).

LabVIEW! It's cross platform on Windows, Linux, Mac, Sun and HP-UX.

> I gave up. I haven't booted to Linux for months now.
> Mainly because I cannot get anything to run that doesn't install with the
> distro. Bottom line is Linux is not a system for someone who doesn't want
> to spend their life doing it.

I installed LabVIEW on a clean RH6.2 installation without a hitch. I use the Linux box solely for LabVIEW development and I upload my executable and shared libraries directly to flash on an embedded Linux controller.

And I can sell the same application to customers who want to run Windows.
Cross platform is wonderful.

Regards,

Alan Brause
Wideband Technologies
(907) 235-7622
(907) 299-0124 Mobile
http://www.widebandtech.com
 
R

Richard Dewees

I have never tried it but there is also Corel Wordperfect Office2000 for Linux

Rick Dewees
Ocean Kayak
 
StarOffice, as lousy as it is, is a good first start. But it doesn't read Word files, and it doesn't like Excel files, and like it or not, MS is there. Now all we need are the HMIs and the SCMs and the CRMs and the FFAs and the ERP integration modules.

If Linux can take over enterprise integration in manufacturing, it will easily win the desktop.

Remember, that is what beat CP/M and M/PM...and Apple. IBM owned business, so when PCs went home, IBM PCs went home.

Please God, somebody besides IBM give the Open Source movement some money and direction.

Walt Boyes
co-author of "e-Business in Manufacturing: Putting the Internet
to Work in the Industrial Enterprise" ISA Press--September 2001 ISBN:
1-55617-758-5
____________________________________________
---------------------------------------------
Walt Boyes -- MarketingPractice Consultants
[email protected]
21118 SE 278th Place - Maple Valley, WA 98038
253-709-5046 cell 425-432-8262 home office
fax:801-749-7142 ICQ: 59435534

"Strategic marketing, sales and electronic
business consulting for the small and medium-sized
enterprise: http://www.waltboyes.com"
---------------------------------------------
 
Is that a recommendation David?


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... ;-)

This sounds like something that might work. A closed source solution for developing software on Linux. You have to pay for it. Hey, at least it has a business model that makes sense!
 
Walt wrote:
> interspersed at @@@@

Let me guess... your mailer doesn't quote properly *and* doesn't have a good enough search-and-replace to let you put a > on every line... s/^/> /

> @@@@Linux is not ready, and automation is only a tiny fraction of what is
> going on here.

Ah, ok.

Jiri:
> > Linux supports many open protocols (and a few closed ones). In
> > contrast, Microsoft provides a single-vendor solution, perhaps more
> > comprehensive, but not greatly so.

Walt:
> @@@@It isn't about Linux vs Microsoft! It is about the Linux contingent
> getting a clue about how the world works. If you want to beat MS, you
> have to do what they do well: provide simple solutions.

Well, I don't know - is it about Linux vs MS or isn't it?

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?

> Remember the joke about Linux Airways, where you can get anywhere you
> need to go, but they only hand you a chair and the manual?

It's a bit out of date - these days there's usually an autopilot with a selection of the most common destinations.

Of course, you can still turn it off and do it yourself instead. Something missing in most MS offerings, I might note. (And where it does exist, for instance editing the registry by hand, it's more obscure than in Linux.)

> If open source wants to really overcome the evil empire, it is going to
> have to do that by marketing products that people want and need.

And those products are ...?

> > > It isn't about automation, or process control. It is about generating
> > > economies in manufacturing and distribution. If Linux or Snoopux or
> > > Charliebrownux can do that, easily and cleanly, it will win.

> > (FWIW, Linux is not named for the Charlie Brown character, but for its
> > original author, Linus Torvalds.)

> @@@@God, don't any of you Linux people have a sense of humor?

No worries - just wasn't clear; it's not important anyway.

> > > And if there are no paybacks, it is doomed. It is about return on
> > > investment, not how cool the OS is.

> > I'm not sure what paybacks you refer to here - from manufacturing or
> > from the OS itself?

> > For the OS itself, the argument is moot: the fact of the matter is that
> > Linux+Apache is already one of the best combinations for Web serving.
> > The economic explanation may be interesting, but only to economists. As
> > far as we are concerned, Linux simply is.

> @@@@I understand that you all believe that Linux simply is. It is a
> matter of faith.

It is a matter of fact. Linux is something I can buy on a CD or download off the net. Its existence is not in question.

> But the fact remains that there is more to automation, and more to the
> issues of manufacturing than what OS you use, and which OS has the best
> support. Yes, Linux+Apache is the best I've found for Web serving. In a
> high maintenance environment, surrounded by techies and programmers, it
> works exceedingly well. It sucks bigtime for small web businesses that
> are started by non-programmers, though. That's why MS is selling lots of
> FrontPage, and why MS is selling lots of server software.

Hmm, I wonder. For equivalent tasks - web serving with default settings, say - I suspect the maintenance burden would be similar.

> People buy what they trust, and they know and trust MS...granted, that is
> becoming rather frayed, but it is still there.

That's neither here nor there as far as Linux's readiness is concerned.

> > For manufacturing, the OS used for control doesn't matter, as long as it
> > provides the services, reliability, flexibility etc required. So - what do
> > you look for in an OS you're going to use for control?

> @@@@First of all, I don't look for an OS that is only good for control.
> I look for an OS that I can use to completely integrate my enterprise. I
> want to look for an OS that leading HMI manufacturers and leading SCM,
> ERP, and factory floor integration software makers write for. I want to
> look for an OS that is all those things, and reliable, flexible, etc.
> When you can show me a Linux with a complete suite of software and
> applications that will allow it to be used to integrate an enterprise as
> easily as I can do it in Windows, I'll say that Linux is _here_.

OK, when can you show me a Windows that is reliable and flexible...

The rest of it you can do - Unix has been used in enterprises long before MS even existed. And, as I wrote above - MS solutions are typically single
vendor, while Linux tends to follow standards.

> Understand me, I am not shooting at Linux, and I am NOT supporting MS. I
> am commenting as an analyst on the situation as I see it. Open Source is
> not addressing the issues that won Microsoft the war. And I don't mean
> the monopoly, either. They won the war before they lost the peace.

Hmm, it's been a long time since MS wasn't doing something dubious in re its monopoly. The rest of it they rode on the back of the PC clones.

At this point, no major computer manufacturer will sell dual-boot machines (gee, I wonder why), with the result that before using Linux, a user must first undertake the task of installing it from scratch. Obviously, progress is slow.

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

Dan L. Pierson

Caveat: The following based on Delphi, the predecessor to Kylix. I believe that it's true for Kylix as well.

It's a Pascal development environment in the same sense that Visual Basic is a Basic development environment. I.E.:

- It's really a fancy GUI development environment with a lot of tools and libraries. Most programming is done by drawing interfaces and
writing little event routines for them.

- The base language is Pascal.

- Their Pascal is heavily extended in their own ways.

Good things:

- The Pascal is object oriented.

- There is an underlying class library that is useful and well designed (as opposed to MFC). The class library is implemented in Kylix and the source code for it is available. IMHO, the source code is required. I could never have survived six or so years of MFC development without the source -- there are too many bugs you'll never track down without it.

- IMHO, it has much better facilities for managing large programs than Visual Basic.

- Delphi has good COM support these days. Don't know how Kylix handles this since COM is a Windows thing (though there are Linux copies such
as the XPCOM that Mozilla is based on).

> This sounds like something that might work. A closed source solution for
> developing software on Linux. You have to pay for it. Hey, at least it has
> a business model that makes sense!

Their Linux marketing approach is rather interesting. You can get one of two versions:

- The full commercial version that you can develop commercial programs in.

- A cheap version (free if you download it) with GPL'd libraries that you can only use to develop GPL'd applications. The libraries are actually identical between the two versions, but the licenses are different.

Despite all of the above, I'd be more likely to use Python for quick and dirty code that doesn't require a fancy GUI. Much higher level language means much less code to write means shorter development time. Also has a huge library. Also cross platform, for a much wider range of platforms than Windows and Linux. But then I don't need a fancy GUI to drag and drop in (and I am a C programmer so don't listen to me :)).

Dan Pierson
 
C
Walt wrote:
> No, Curt, it will be bought because none of Microsoft's competitors,
> including the open source movement can market their way out of a torn wet
> paper sack.

The Open Source community _is_ made up of very generous people. We're software rich, but we don't have an extortion racket pouring cash in the
coffers like MS does. You are probably right here, a monopoly has every advantage in maintaining the status quo. And the exclusive agreements with system vendors eliminates the best marketing weapon, getting the OS preloaded. Haven't you ever wondered why nobody offers a dual boot? But, IBM is helping and quality speaks very loudly. The people who care about uptime are already well aware of Linux.

> There is a huge market for turn-key, plug-and-play non-Microsoft computer
> operating systems. There is a huge market for an office suite that doesn't
> report to Mother Redmond every ten minutes. Watching Windows and Office try
> to get through my firewall is hysterical.

StarOffice is a good start. The problem is that people want every single detail to be exactly like Microsoft's product or it's junk. My problem with that is that if it is exactly like Microsoft's product, you really haven't
accomplished anything. When people approach Linux wanting to change, it's everything they need. We switched our whole company and life goes on.

> But most people aren't programmers. Even many systems integrators don't
> like doing custom programming. It raises the bar to attract new customers.
> The more "function blocks" that are already written, the cheaper each job
> becomes.
>
> There is an analogy in the back office there too.

I agree completely. If you are a programmer, Linux offers vastly more prefab building blocks than anything else. If your're not, the problem
is that your trickle of data activates thousands of times more software than it needs to with typical Windows programming and it only goes where
someone else says it can go and does only what someone else says it can do. This is particularly bad for me as I usually need to do things the
vendors frown upon like integrating stuff and interoperating. It's simple on the surface but horrendously inefficient. When folks say they can't service a serial port often enough with a 1.5 Ghz processor, something's drastically wrong. Perhaps we as a gruop should do more programming and accept less "lowest common denominator" tools.

> What is needed is somebody to package an opensource OS/office suite and sell
> it. And all the Linux purists need to get on board with it instead of
> sitting back and taking shots at Microstupid and everybody else who has a
> clue.

StarOffice is that package. I prefer WordPerfect and separate functions myself. Look for IBM to push something in the near future. I don't think
the Koffice stuff is all that bad, but I, admittedly, am not a wordsmith.

I am still wondering why every comparison bwtween Linux and Wxxx ends up talking about Office software rather than automation software. Of course, .NET has very little concieveable value to automation.


Regards

cww
 
[email protected] wrote:
> You have to pay for it. Hey, at least it has a business model that makes
> sense!

Some people just can't wrap their minds around the Open Source concept...

You don't *need* a business model for something to make sense. Witness gcc and apache - best of breed for what they do.

The reason is that collecting money for usage is so expensive - both tangibly and intangibly - that it turns out to be better overall not to.


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

Donald Pittendrigh

HI All

I have a (somewhat dated) copy of Linux office suite 99 which I have never used so can't comment on its usability but I bought it as it claims to have import filters for word. word perfect EPS, HTML, XLS, etc.etc.etc. The package consists of word processor, spreadsheet, database, graphics,
desktops, email & browser and includes a complimentary version of SuSe. Sounded to me like it had all the answers, I just stopped my Linux learning curve as too many other things were going on. Package was bought from

http\\www.suse.com

Cheers
Donald Pittendrigh
 
Some people realize open source makes sense for niche software. In that environment you can't make money. There is no business model because there is no business to be made from it. Things like gcc were partially funded by direct grants and things. In other cases the work was paid for by university employees so our tax dollars paid for it.

Have your niche and enjoy it.
 
Don't need a business model? Don't need a business model??? Ah. All the dot.gone dotcoms will certainly agree with you.

The name of the game in the New Economy is the same as it was in the Old Economy. In order to do what you want, you have to get people to pay you.

Income minus outgo equals money you made.

Walt Boyes
co-author of "e-Business in Manufacturing: Putting the Internet
to Work in the Industrial Enterprise" ISA Press--September 2001 ISBN:
1-55617-758-5
____________________________________________
---------------------------------------------
Walt Boyes -- MarketingPractice Consultants
[email protected]
21118 SE 278th Place - Maple Valley, WA 98038
253-709-5046 cell 425-432-8262 home office
fax:801-749-7142 ICQ: 59435534

"Strategic marketing, sales and electronic
business consulting for the small and medium-sized
enterprise: http://www.waltboyes.com"
---------------------------------------------
 
C
That's not FUD that's the "advantage" that was offered to me by the sales force. I do admire their sales force, it's absolutely no fun to call on me about buying Windows. They ignore the laughter and keep right on pitching.

Does Office phone home? Did they tell you it would?

> Just because .NET happens, does that mean that suddenly Wonderware's
> historical logger is going to start streaming process data to Microsoft?
> Does that mean that RSSQL will only connect to Microsoft Corporate SQL
> Servers and that you won't be able to install a SQL server in your own
> facility? Does that mean that we'll never need our own hard drives again?

I wouldn't expose any mission critical machine to the internet that was running a .NET capable OS. Many more people share my concern than share your confidence in the descretion of Microsoft. And, as totally objective sources report every week, even if they don't peek, any average teenager
with a grudge can destroy it. Ludicrous, simply ludicrous. How hard would it be to mail data rather than simply replicate?

> No, that's not the Microsoft vision. Sun's vision, maybe - but not
> Microsoft.

No, we can't even imagine what Microsoft's uses for our data might be. I wouldn't allow this type of exposure even with someone who could be trusted. I wouldn't even do it with Linux and I can be sure what that does.

Regards

cww
 
C
I'm objective, I think it's a bad idea there too, and not remarkably germane to automation and control. Giving up this whole spectrum to any proprietary interest is something we'll have a lifetime to pay for and regret.

Step back and examine _why_ they are doing this.

> >From the Mono FAQ:
> > Question 8: You guys should innovate instead of copying.
> >
> > In this particular case, we see a clear advantage in the platform
> > and we are interested in using the features of the CLI on open source
> systems.
>
> Your hatred for everything Microsoft blinds you to the fact that not
> everything they do (technically) sucks. It's like the converse of the Not
> Invented Here syndrome... the "It Better Not Be Invented There" syndrome.

I never said that everything they do sucks. I have mentioned that everything they do benefits them a great deal more than it benefits you and I and the public. And turning over control of even more of the basis of our new economy to them is simply a bad idea. What they do suits their purposes very well. Soon they will be getting a regular check from _almost_ everybody. Even 1984
didn't go that far.


Regards

cww
 
R

Ralph Mackiewicz

> Has anyone heard anything else about this? I
> only read about it in one news report and haven't seen anything
> about it since.

Here is a link to the best MS conspiracy theory I have seen in a long time that explains exactly why MS is dropping Java and doing C# and .NET. I have no idea if it is true or not but it does sound plausible.

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010816.html
Regards,

Ralph Mackiewicz
SISCO, Inc.
 
V
Same formula results in money you loose, it only depends upon a small minus sign on the result.

Vitor

TANSTAAFL (there ain't no such thing as a free lunch).
 
R

Ralph Mackiewicz

<pre>
> > @@@@It isn't about Linux vs Microsoft! It is about the Linux
> > contingent getting a clue about how the world works. If you want to
> > beat MS, you have to do what they do well: provide simple solutions.
>
> Well, I don't know - is it about Linux vs MS or isn't it?
>
> 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?

I think you missed the point. No one is disputing the fact that those who participate are steering it the way it is in fact going. But, on this list there are some who complain repeatedly that nobody other than those currently steering the Linux bandwagon seem eager to jump on it. I think Walt's observations are 100% correct: Linux is not
lacking in technology...it is lacking in the area that good marketing addresses: a focus on customer requirements (not developer requirements). Currently, the only market for Linux in IA is with those that are steering it. My observation (reinforced by the cynical comment above about those who are watching instead of participating) 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. Sometimes, these helpful posts are responded to in a mocking way. 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. This completely missed the point (although this was not one of the mocking responses). Although this command might be elegant simplicity to a Linux developer it is more like an ugly jagged scar on the face to the average potential Linux/IA user who does not want to be a developer. This criticism of Linux presents three choices of action:

1. Ignore it, 2. Argue with it, or 3. Accept it and address the concern. Only one of these choices will result in Linux being accepted by those people who currently object to it: #3.

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.

+-------------------------------------------------+
Ralph Mackiewicz |If it's there & I can see it...it's REAL |
SISCO, Inc. |If it's there & I can't see it...it's TRANSPARENT|
Sterling Hts, MI |If it's not there & I can see it...it's VIRTUAL |
www.sisconet.com |If it's not there & I need it...it's INTERMITTENT|
no spam please |If it's not there & I can't see it...it's GONE |
+-------------------------------------------------+
</pre>

 
C
Hi Sam

Thank you. It's getting to be a very, very, big niche and commercial software vendors are completely missing the boat. The latest survey InfoWorld survey indicates that half the CTO's surveyed are willing to trust their business
with OSS applications and tools. Leading reason was the odious licensing and "charge for the time of day" attitude of commercial software vendors. It will be in everyone's interest if Open Minded and cooperative suppliers get a chance to redefine the value equation. Automation will be 5 years behind the curve but even in this last bastion of proprietary excess there will come a
time where you meet the demand for reasonable openness and the benefits of common formats and protocols or simply be overrun by smarter, more customer oriented competitors. The anti-customer licensing and terms belong properly in the last century not the new one. Fortunately, the installed base revenue will give vendors a chance to adapt.

The big thing that proprietary software vendors are forgetting is that the customer likes a profitable business model also.

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/08/27/010827tcintro.xml
Regards

cww
 
T

Tom Tuddenham

I don't think .NET is a particularly scary ogre. There are some great ideas coming out of .NET that J2EE (or other solutions) has to catch up
on. Even if much of .NET is vapourware, is still sets a benchmark we can aspire to.

For my part, I'm looking forward to the XML-OPC spec when it's finally delivered to the general public. In my job I have to think about how to integrate plantfloor and business systems and anything that promotes the XML "glue" technology is a good thing from where I stand.

Cheers
Tom
 
Top