Re: New forum topic - Open Control

Guest

The Puffin Projects

PLC Archive

Links
Topics
About Us
Poetry
Home

Applications - Automation Business - Communications - Engineering Practices - HMI - Information Resources - LinuxPLC Project - Motion Control - Open Control - PCs in Automation - Plant Networking - PLCs - Programming Languages - Process Control - Sensors - Software

Return to Home

Return to parent

Re: New forum topic - Open Control
Feb 13, 2002 2:59 pm, by Joe Jansen/ENGR/HQ/KEMET/US
Text :
Doesn't sound like you know the right type of people, then.....

RedHat
Debian
Mandrake
Slackware
SuSE
TurboLinux
FreeBSD

KDE
GNOME
Free Software Foundation

Shall we continue? All of these packages (some are large enough that they fill 6 CD's with software) are available for *FREE* download.

I even suspect that Mr. Woullet is not looking to make his fortune and retire in Jamaica after rolling out ver. 1.0 of the LinuxPLC. Some of us
enjoy what we do enough that we do it for the pleasure, not just because of how much money we can make at it. I realize that doing something without grabbing at cash may be difficult for some to understand, but don't try todeny that it occurs.

--Joe Jansen
Reply

Re: New forum topic - Open Control
Feb 17, 2002 12:54 pm, by Greg Schiller
Yes these are companies today that sell services around the linux kernel that was converted by Linus but largely concepted by AT&T (a fortune 500 company no less). But, none of those companies above have had to deal with physics being connected to their software. Automation comes with a guarantee to work, be on time, or what was the point. The whole underlying message here is who is responsible for it working.

I'm looking at this from my customers needs. I start down a path where I am going to integrate a LinuxPLC into my system. First of all I need something to run it. OK Let's put it into a white box. I can get a Device net card to run IO. Now I need a motion controller. Nothing fancy just a 2 axis point to point stepper controller. How about that 2 axis AT card. Hmmm. Alright now I need an HMI. Wait I'm running Linux so I can use some XLib/Microwin/Nanowin. Now to make it all work. I do have a Linux driver for the AT card but it was made to be put into a standard Linux environment. It has no real knowledge of the RT environment. Guess I better start writing a driver in C to do that.

Then the HMI adds complexity. At the end of the project I have Frankensteined the whole thing together and find out that the NanoX HMI side is causing something in the RT kernel to not make its rounds every time. By the way it only happens every 3-4 days and I'm supposed to ship the machine by Friday. Guess I better start combing the internet for that How 2 make an HMI, Motion controller, RT Linux work in the same box page. (sorry for the embellishment)

Now my customer wants to take what I did, copy it because its all open source and call me when something goes wrong. No way.

What is my point. The only thing that the LinuxPLC has really gotten me in the above scenario is a real-time engine for free with no guarantee's it will work for my scenario. The only place I can see this stuff being of use is in the small to medium embedded dedicated devices. The machines get made, tested, fixed in design, and sold for money. RTLinux, LinuxPLC, and others provide one approach to getting this done just like other proprietary os's like RTos, Qnx, BlueCat. It does allow smaller companies to produce more complex devices. But that is just it, devices. No changes just hardware.

Truly open automation starts with a feature rich programming tools so that I can save huge amounts of time putting my machines together. People like being able to hit ctrl-z and undo the ladder they just did while the machine was live. They like being able to step their way through the code and see the automation as it is actually working. The like being able to hook up to the Ethernet port and run Modbus TCP and get access to all of their data.

I do not envy the hurdle the LinuxPLC folks have. They have to save us all a bunch time before a FreePLC becomes worth the risk.

> I even suspect that Mr. Woullet is not looking to make his fortune and
> retire in Jamaica after rolling out ver. 1.0 of the LinuxPLC.
> Some of us
> enjoy what we do enough that we do it for the pleasure, not
> just because of
> how much money we can make at it. I realize that doing
> something without
> grabbing at cash may be difficult for some to understand, but
> don't try to
> deny that it occurs.

It does occur.

We are not all greedy. Most of us do this for a living. If some one helps me pay my bills I will help them pay theirs.

-Greg Schiller
Reply

Re: New forum topic - Open Control
Feb 17, 2002 12:57 pm, by Greg Goodman
> Automation comes with
> a guarantee to work, be on time, or what was the point. The whole
> underlying message here is who is responsible for it working.

Those guarantees come from the integrator, not from the software vendors. Every commercial automation/SCADA/HMI software product I can lay my hands on at the moment has a user license agreement with some (very minor) variation on the following clauses:

1. THIS SOFTWARE IS LICENSED EXPRESSLY WITHOUT WARRANTY OR CONDITION AS TO ANY STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. In no event shall the manufacturer have any liability to the customer or any third party arising from the failure of the software to meet any standard of performance or to be fit for any particular purpose.

2. In the event that the master copy of the software should prove defective by reason of materials or the coping process, the manufacturer will replace ... the master copy, provided that replacement under such circumstances shall be the sole liability of the manufacturer.

3. In no event shall the manufacturer have any liability to the customer or to any third party or any claims, damages or causes of action other than replacement of the master copy...

4. The customer and any other party using or relying upon the software agrees that he will perform such checks and verifications of the operation of the software as may be reasonably necessary to insure its proper functioning, and that he will exercise due diligence in the application of the software and the review of the results of the use of the software to avoid loss, injury or damage.

5. The customer and any other party using or relying upon the software agrees to indemnify and save harmless the manufacturer from all claims, actions or suits...

6. In no event shall the liability of the manufacturer to the customer or any other party extend to consequential damages.

It all boils down to this:

All the vendor guarantees is the physical integrity of the copy you received; not the quality of the software, not the soundness of its design or the freedom from bugs, not even that the package is an appropriate tool for the task it's supposedly being marketed for (much less whatever task you put it to use doing).

If you want to build a system using the software, it's on your head to satisfy yourself that it does what you need it to do. (According to the license quoted above, it's on your head to verify that it even does what the manufacturer claims it does.)

If you hire an integrator to build a system using this software, and he guarantees it, then it's on his head; if it doesn't work right, or if it fails and kills somebody, you can sue the integrator, but the buck stops short of the software vendor.

I challenge you to find a single vendor of commercial off-the-shelf software who is willing to assume liability for any loss of life, limb, or your profits that results from your installation, configuration and use of software you bought from them.

Regards,

Greg Goodman
Chiron Consulting
Reply

Re: New forum topic - Open Control
Feb 19, 2002 11:46 am, by Greg Schiller
You are 100% correct. Even integrators are not legally responsible for damage done. We all have seen the same lawyers and signed the same contracts. Liability has to almost always be proven then collected upon. Different forum.

The key difference between what is being said about being responsible for the system working is they guys who sold me commercial technology are doing their best effort to make sure I buy their services again. That in effect is why I am really buying all those keys or software licenses. They provide me service after the point of sale. The help me when my stuff does not work the way I want it too. But they are at least there waiting for me. Now granted the techsupport isn't always what it is cracked up to be. But I would be willing to bet that most of the time they do a heck of a job. And yes they limit what you are supposed to do with their hardware. They have to much like if I push the FreePLC technology past its window. I have to call its authors and pay money to talk.

Open systems are produced on a program today and consult tomorrow model. Which is fine. They serve a purpose. For those of us who want to take that risk and take the open system as my own. But if I get into trouble and need any assistance I have to call the authors where every they may be and pay them (sounds like an annuity to me.). Much like hiring the folks at red hat to answer my questions about Linux IT technology. This is where I actually end up paying for this product. And because the authors do not get paid per installation they charge me by the hour. One simple phone call and I can exceed the enter cost of a Koyo PLC plus the $500.00 program them all software package. The free plc is free if you can get it to work by yourself. This is a very large risk to short term (1 month) projects like installing production machines.

The Linux RT OS for long term projects like designing a product is awesome. But the product designer is still setting up his or her business to take tech support calls.

AB, Modicon, GE, Seimens, Automation Direct, all sell logic boxes. There are very slight differences between the technologies. But they all have staff that backs what they sell. That is the only reason why people buy off the shelf PLCs. A free PLC OS cannot stand all by itself to the end user market. If people really wanted to make a free PLC they could have bought a Z-World controller and programmed the whole thing themselves. Or used openDOS with a device net card.

On top of it all you have over 100000 sales folks stepping into the design meetings every day plugging a product. Having been one I would almost guarantee you that the first line out of their mouths will be about the lack of tech support for this product. The web you say? Who on the web. The people they are selling to do not have vast C programming knowledge and have better things on their hands to do then hope someone answers their email for free. Finally if the system they selected is not working for their application then they go and purchase another one from another vender.

The only thing that can replace the established PLC as a true mass scale alternative is another PLC/Automation company.

So go team FreePLC. Program for us the next gen open logic system. We need more competitors. Then maybe someone will box it up and support it with a business. I will bet though that after the first 10 calls about how the customer hooked up the unit to a 3 phase welding transformer the price will go up.

Regards all.

Greg Schiller
Automatica Inc.
Reply

Re: New forum topic - Open Control
Mar 18, 2002 10:04 am, by Jiri Baum
Greg Schiller:
> The key difference between what is being said about being responsible for
> the system working is they guys who sold me commercial technology are
> doing their best effort to make sure I buy their services again.
...
> They have to much like if I push the FreePLC technology past its window.
> I have to call its authors and pay money to talk.

Of you can call someone else and pay money to talk. Competition (generally) lowers prices. That's an important difference.

Another important difference is that these would be competing on tech support directly. This contrasts with commercial vendors, where tech support is not a profit center and therefore tends to be somewhat poor.

> On top of it all you have over 100000 sales folks stepping into the
> design meetings every day plugging a product. Having been one I would
> almost guarantee you that the first line out of their mouths will be
> about the lack of tech support for this product.
...
> Finally if the system they selected is not working for their application
> then they go and purchase another one from another vender.

They can go and purchase just the support from another vendor. Typically, this will be a much smaller disruption than switching between PLC makers, because the existing investment can continue to be used, both hardware and software.

Obviously, if the whole product ain't working and can't be made to work, they'll have to go through the pain of switching to another PLC vendor. Even there the FreePLC will have an advantage in that interoperability with other vendors is a priority rather than a grudging afterthought.

> So go team FreePLC. Program for us the next gen open logic system. We
> need more competitors. Then maybe someone will box it up and support it
> with a business.

Yup - we hope so.

> I will bet though that after the first 10 calls about how the customer
> hooked up the unit to a 3 phase welding transformer the price will go up.

Not sure how this follows - I've yet to hear of any commercial vendor that would take any action on this beyond adding it to the fortune cookie file.

Replace the hardware, load the same software. No problem.

Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <jiri@baum.com.au> http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jirib
MAT LinuxPLC project --- http://mat.sf.net --- Machine Automation Tools
Reply

Re: New forum topic - Open Control
Feb 20, 2002 2:46 pm, by Curt Wuollet
You are measuring us with their yardstick again. With closed software you have to talk to the authors and bring a Visa card. With Open Source projects the number of folks that can help you out is greatly expanded. And while there is the potential for consulting for the authors, I don't think anyone is depending on your dollars down the road. As the user base expands there will be a community of users that can help each other. It's kinda like this list, you say "how do I do such and such" and other users can help you out. I would say at least in the early stages, there will be a high percentage of users who understand the source as well as the authors. There is no reason not to tell you whatever you want to know. OSS people tend to be eager to help from my experience so far. And the community will be waiting 24x7x365, no credit card needed.

> Open systems are produced on a program today and consult tomorrow model.
> Which is fine. They serve a purpose. For those of us who want to take that
> risk and take the open system as my own. But if I get into trouble and need
> any assistance I have to call the authors where every they may be and pay
> them (sounds like an annuity to me.).

Who has mentioned money?

> Much like hiring the folks at red hat
> to answer my questions about Linux IT technology. This is where I actually
> end up paying for this product. And because the authors do not get paid per
> installation they charge me by the hour. One simple phone call and I can
> exceed the enter cost of a Koyo PLC plus the $500.00 program them all
> software package. The free plc is free if you can get it to work by
> yourself. This is a very large risk to short term (1 month) projects like
> installing production machines.

I have been very impressed with the help I get on OSS projects and I have never been hit up for money, although I did trade a card once to get a driver written. You still don't get it, this is not a business. Most of us have a job we do for money, I do LPLC stuff to accomplish a goal and make the automation world a better place for me and others to work in.

> The Linux RT OS for long term projects like designing a product is awesome.
> But the product designer is still setting up his or her business to take
> tech support calls.
>
> AB, Modicon, GE, Seimens, Automation Direct, all sell logic boxes. There are
> very slight differences between the technologies. But they all have staff
> that backs what they sell. That is the only reason why people buy off the
> shelf PLCs. A free PLC OS cannot stand all by itself to the end user
> market. If people really wanted to make a free PLC they could have bought a
> Z-World controller and programmed the whole thing themselves. Or used open
> DOS with a device net card.

You will have a community that backs you up. And you can back yourself up If it's broken you can fix it. If an executable gets corrupted you can recompile. If software that once worked stops working that should fix it. Hardware problems on PC platforms can be economically fixed by putting the drive in another machine or swapping cards. This is ususally much faster than the commercial alternatives. And no muzak on hold or dialog with someone who asks you how many wires are sticking out the back and tells you you need the latest version.

> On top of it all you have over 100000 sales folks stepping into the design
> meetings every day plugging a product. Having been one I would almost
> guarantee you that the first line out of their mouths will be about the lack
> of tech support for this product.

I agree with this, the loss of control over you scares the hell out of them. But, if you believe everything a salesman says........

The web you say? Who on the web.

The Mat project of course, specifically the users list.

> The people they are selling to do not have vast C programming knowledge and have
> better things on their hands to do then hope someone answers their email for
> free.

Yeah, like hoping you will get a meaningful helpful answer when you pay for it. Instead of "we don't support that version anymore, you need the latest and the 15 in between. What was that Visa number?"

>Finally if the system they selected is not working for their
> application then they go and purchase another one from another vender.
>
> The only thing that can replace the established PLC as a true mass scale
> alternative is another PLC/Automation company.

I think the last thing we need is more functionally identical closed systems.

> So go team FreePLC. Program for us the next gen open logic system. We need
> more competitors. Then maybe someone will box it up and support it with a
> business. I will bet though that after the first 10 calls about how the
> customer hooked up the unit to a 3 phase welding transformer the price will
> go up.

Hardware sales would be enhanced, but I don't see where there would be a software problem.

> Regards all.
>
> Greg Schiller
> Automatica Inc.

Regards

cww
Reply

The man who sets out to carry a cat by its tail learns something that will always be useful and which never will grow dim or doubtful. - Mark Twain

Your use of this site is subject to the terms and conditions set forth under Legal Notices and the Privacy Policy. Please read those terms and conditions carefully. Subject to the rights expressly reserved to others under Legal Notices, the content of this site and the compilation thereof is �1999-2006 Control Technology Corporation. Powered by Python, Zope, and Squishdot, inspiration by Slashdot. (Vers.ZSQ1.0) -va-