Re: New forum topic - Open Control
Feb 13, 2002 11:40 am, by Joe Jansen/ENGR/HQ/KEMET/US
Text :
Bob Pawley wrote:

I don't know about others, I speak only for myself.

I came into this open control and open source discussion later than most with no preconceived ideas other than what I have lived with for the last 30 some years.

It does seem to me that we as an industry have moved from total proprietary systems, to a point where we aren't absolutely required to purchase hardware and software from the same source.

Joe Replies:

I agree. DeviceNet is a good example of this trend, where I can use Omron, InterbusBT, and many other branded I/O components with my AB processor/scanner module.

Bob wrote:

The other extreme that has come about because of Linux causes me to note that there is a definite movement toward systems being as open as possible. This trend will continue regardless of what individuals think.

What I am suggesting is that a totally open system such as Linux - standing by itself - is to much the opposite extreme to have great appeal.

Joe replies:

Could be. However, as I was alluding to in my posting, sometimes you need a group at the far opposite extreme in order to get the mainstream to shift towards where you really want to be.

Bob wrote:

Some boundaries, some anchor is needed so that all concerned have a solid place to stand in order to see what needs to be done or to see what has been done.

Proprietary systems have this solid place upon which everyone, technician to corporate bureaucrat, is comfortable. The fact that this proprietary place is so vast gives me reason to consider a melding of the two extremes.

Joe replies:

This is where I am getting confused. Is it simply their name that gives everyone a "warm-fuzzy" feeling? If RSLogix were released as a Linux app, would that apply? I don't pretend to think that they would open source it, but what if I could buy it, even at the same cost, for Linux?

Or do you feel there is something more than the names of the providers that provides that solid place? Is it the hardware? If LinuxPLC does manage to get some hardware platform, and a system that provides the stability of a PLC with data collection that isn't a PITA, does that provide the footing that management/others seeks?

Could you clarify a bit more for me what you meant at the end of your post? I feel that I -almost- "get it".

Thanks!

--Joe Jansen
Reply