M
Michael R. Batchelor
> >There doesn't
> >appear to be any companies the likes of Intellution doing the same thing on
> >Linux. There doesn't appear to be companies like Software Toolbox selling
> >drivers for Linux. Most of the big automation companies are going with
> >Windows CE for their embedded HMI needs.
>
> And which of those will give their "product" away for free, which will be
> open? Given two nearly functionally identical products, but one whose price
> is "free" and whose architecture is "open", it doesn't take a psychic to
> figure out which will be used more often. We just need some time to work on
> that that open option before it can be proved to you.
This is true, but see below for a little bit of analysis about why this is such a touchy subject. And feel free to point out where I'm wrong. I've been wondering about this for a long time.
> >I don't think anyone is going to blame me for not being the first one to
> >jump in the pool here on the promise of "lots of people are going to
> >follow you."
>
> I suppose that all comes down to whether you prefer action or reaction.
> There's risk either way, if you don't get warm and fuzzies for helping a
> common interest, then I probably wouldn't do it if I were you.
Years ago, before my hair turned gray, I hammered my boss to send a yearly donation to a little outfit know as the Free Software Foundation, aka Richard Stallman. I was, and still am, a big
proponent of free software. But there's a difference in the discussion here that most people don't realize. (Frankly I hadn't
figured it out, either, until I started thinking about this thread. And some may be willing to say I still haven't figured it out.)
Back in the old days when we were all contributing stuff to the yet to be named "Open Source" movement we weren't contributing anything that was "the company product." We were contributing time and expertise to help other poor suckers stuck in the same boat. In other words, the free stuff that got contributed was a
"tool" we built to accomplish a task we needed performed in our own organization. Unsurprisingly other people in other companies with the same jobs had to perform the same tasks and the tools
were handy for them, too. Since software isn't like a wrench, i.e. if I give you my wiz-bang gizmo I still have it for myself, but if I give you my 11mm wrench I do without, we all shared
freely, and we all were happy.
But, here, we're not talking about sharing a tool to solve a problem we have internally, we're talking about giving away our flagship product.
If you look at the OS community it's done a tremendous job of building tools, but the only real word processor with a prayer of unseating MS Word from the driver's seat is Sun's Open Office. And that's strictly a calculated maneuver to stab a competitor in the back without hurting their own market position. (OK, sure there is some altruism, but if Star Office was going to *HELP*
Microsoft in Intel hardware at the expense of Sparc hardware, do you think they'd do it? If MS would port MS Office to Solaris and thereby *INCREASE* Sparc sales Open Office would get dropped like a hot potato.) And the reason is that a word processor is a finished good, not a tool or component to build a finished good.
DING, DING, DING!
OPEN SOURCE LICENSING WORKS WELL FOR TOOLS OR COMPONENTS, BUT IT'S AN AWKWARD FIT FOR FINISHED GOODS!
Now, the System Integration market is mostly about one thing. As an SI, my company can take all this "stuff" and make it solve the customer's "problem." Well frankly, the customer buys the "stuff" irrespective of whether it's free or a million bucks. I don't absorb any of the cost unless it's a calculated maneuver to
increase my customer base one way or another, like grumbling about the cost of RSLogix when I write the check.
So, the logical place that Open Source solutions will be beneficial is in the machine builder side where the customer doesn't care what's inside the box, because he doesn't buy the "stuff" inside the "box." He buys the "box" and expects it to
work. The machine builder wants to cut costs on producing a bunch of "boxes" so he uses OS tools to lower his cost of the "stuff" inside those boxes. So far this isn't a "real" scenario. but I think it's how things are going to pan out.
Comments?
MB
--
Michael R. Batchelor - Industrial Informatics & Instrumentation, Inc.
Linux is like a wigwam...
No windows, no gates.
Apache inside.
> >appear to be any companies the likes of Intellution doing the same thing on
> >Linux. There doesn't appear to be companies like Software Toolbox selling
> >drivers for Linux. Most of the big automation companies are going with
> >Windows CE for their embedded HMI needs.
>
> And which of those will give their "product" away for free, which will be
> open? Given two nearly functionally identical products, but one whose price
> is "free" and whose architecture is "open", it doesn't take a psychic to
> figure out which will be used more often. We just need some time to work on
> that that open option before it can be proved to you.
This is true, but see below for a little bit of analysis about why this is such a touchy subject. And feel free to point out where I'm wrong. I've been wondering about this for a long time.
> >I don't think anyone is going to blame me for not being the first one to
> >jump in the pool here on the promise of "lots of people are going to
> >follow you."
>
> I suppose that all comes down to whether you prefer action or reaction.
> There's risk either way, if you don't get warm and fuzzies for helping a
> common interest, then I probably wouldn't do it if I were you.
Years ago, before my hair turned gray, I hammered my boss to send a yearly donation to a little outfit know as the Free Software Foundation, aka Richard Stallman. I was, and still am, a big
proponent of free software. But there's a difference in the discussion here that most people don't realize. (Frankly I hadn't
figured it out, either, until I started thinking about this thread. And some may be willing to say I still haven't figured it out.)
Back in the old days when we were all contributing stuff to the yet to be named "Open Source" movement we weren't contributing anything that was "the company product." We were contributing time and expertise to help other poor suckers stuck in the same boat. In other words, the free stuff that got contributed was a
"tool" we built to accomplish a task we needed performed in our own organization. Unsurprisingly other people in other companies with the same jobs had to perform the same tasks and the tools
were handy for them, too. Since software isn't like a wrench, i.e. if I give you my wiz-bang gizmo I still have it for myself, but if I give you my 11mm wrench I do without, we all shared
freely, and we all were happy.
But, here, we're not talking about sharing a tool to solve a problem we have internally, we're talking about giving away our flagship product.
If you look at the OS community it's done a tremendous job of building tools, but the only real word processor with a prayer of unseating MS Word from the driver's seat is Sun's Open Office. And that's strictly a calculated maneuver to stab a competitor in the back without hurting their own market position. (OK, sure there is some altruism, but if Star Office was going to *HELP*
Microsoft in Intel hardware at the expense of Sparc hardware, do you think they'd do it? If MS would port MS Office to Solaris and thereby *INCREASE* Sparc sales Open Office would get dropped like a hot potato.) And the reason is that a word processor is a finished good, not a tool or component to build a finished good.
DING, DING, DING!
OPEN SOURCE LICENSING WORKS WELL FOR TOOLS OR COMPONENTS, BUT IT'S AN AWKWARD FIT FOR FINISHED GOODS!
Now, the System Integration market is mostly about one thing. As an SI, my company can take all this "stuff" and make it solve the customer's "problem." Well frankly, the customer buys the "stuff" irrespective of whether it's free or a million bucks. I don't absorb any of the cost unless it's a calculated maneuver to
increase my customer base one way or another, like grumbling about the cost of RSLogix when I write the check.
So, the logical place that Open Source solutions will be beneficial is in the machine builder side where the customer doesn't care what's inside the box, because he doesn't buy the "stuff" inside the "box." He buys the "box" and expects it to
work. The machine builder wants to cut costs on producing a bunch of "boxes" so he uses OS tools to lower his cost of the "stuff" inside those boxes. So far this isn't a "real" scenario. but I think it's how things are going to pan out.
Comments?
MB
--
Michael R. Batchelor - Industrial Informatics & Instrumentation, Inc.
Linux is like a wigwam...
No windows, no gates.
Apache inside.