L
Larry Lawver
In reply to Curt's post, which appears at the bottom of this one:
Use whatever is best for the task at hand. In a lot of cases, that will be a proprietary system. That is my simple message.
Curt's disagreements with me seem to resolve into three categories:
the failure of proprietary systems to be open, the unimportance of cost in the open vs. proprietary discussion, and the superiority of
commodity products over carefully engineered proprietary components.
In the first set of issues, I'll simply concede. We all agree enough on the definitions to agree that a proprietary solution will not be open. If your project criteria include "open" by any definition, then don't use proprietary stuff.
On the cost issue, on the other hand, I'll dig in and reject disagreement.
Cost is brought up every time open systems are discussed, and is central to the advertising of the vendors in the field. Curt brings it up in his discussion, after briefly brushing it off. Proprietary systems involve more PURCHASED components than open systems, and they are probably always more expensive when measured that way. If it wasn't about cost, first and foremost,
there wouldn't even be a discussion here.
A hypothetical: Suppose that I had a proprietary black box for you that met all of the requirements for your next project. What would
you pay for it? If your fixed price contract was for US$1M, and I wanted US$10K, you'd probably buy it. Reductio ad absurdum, of course.
In the practical example I gave in my post, I described a client (an OEM) that prefers a US$7000 open system bill of material to
buying a proprietary system bill of material from me (I am currently a distributor, formerly an integrator, for those that didn't already
know that.) for US$18000. If they get a hard customer specification for my stuff, they use it and have a trouble-free start-up. The open
system takes weeks of set-up in the field, and provides me with lots of anecdotes about using Ethernet for real-time I/O.
In my opinion, this open system is clearly inferior to my proprietary system. I suspect that a few folks from this list could improve the
track record of this particular open system, but that isn't the point. The point is that the solid reliability of proprietary systems,
properly applied, gets compared unfavorably with less expensive open systems that don't work as well. In the case of my client, they claim that their favored system is better because it is
open. Strangely, if I brought my price down to their number, though, they say they would buy it.
(That example is only one of many I have from personal experience. I do not mean to generalize that to all open systems, though. I have personally implemented successful open systems.
I'm defending proprietary, not dismissing open.)
Finally, on leveraging the stuff that has become commodity rather than relying upon proprietary catalog items: Who determines, ten years later, that a certain commodity item is form, fit, and function compatible with the original? Eight-tracks and Betamax are the usual targets to bring up at this point, but for this audience I will
mention pre-IDE disk drives and 256K memory sticks that we were all using ten years ago. Without a brand-name manufacturer and a
believable commitment to spare parts, you can't rely on the market still offering the spare you need ten years from now.
Ten years from now, when a rollercoaster, launch pad, or juice plant in my territory is down due to a component failure, I know that the owner will be able to get a spare part quickly, probably out of local inventory. Can anyone guarentee that a generic ISA Ethernet card will still be available at any price? Curt --- that US$400 price SHOULD include that longterm proprietary support I value so much!
This kind of longterm stability is very important to owners that will keep their systems running indefinitely. It is not marketing hype --- it is the result of a long, consistent track record. It is a reputation that is easily lost, as Westinghouse found out fifteen years ago. Thus, perception is more important than Curt allows.
Generic is a particular problem in tightly configuration managed systems.
When you ride a rollercoaster, would you be satisfied with your safety if you thought that maintenance workers had discretion to
substitute generic components, including software downloaded from the Web? Or, would you rather that the system is only allowed to carry guests if it can be proven that the system is identical to what passed the Acceptance Test Procedure at commissioning time? Doing that requires catalog numbered, proprietary components.
Notice that I am not denying the advantages Curt mentions. Many of you work on projects where the things I bring up are not important. I trust all of you to choose the best solutions for your
clients, and many of those solutions will be proprietary.
Hope this helps!
Larry Lawver
Rexel / Central Florida
Use whatever is best for the task at hand. In a lot of cases, that will be a proprietary system. That is my simple message.
Curt's disagreements with me seem to resolve into three categories:
the failure of proprietary systems to be open, the unimportance of cost in the open vs. proprietary discussion, and the superiority of
commodity products over carefully engineered proprietary components.
In the first set of issues, I'll simply concede. We all agree enough on the definitions to agree that a proprietary solution will not be open. If your project criteria include "open" by any definition, then don't use proprietary stuff.
On the cost issue, on the other hand, I'll dig in and reject disagreement.
Cost is brought up every time open systems are discussed, and is central to the advertising of the vendors in the field. Curt brings it up in his discussion, after briefly brushing it off. Proprietary systems involve more PURCHASED components than open systems, and they are probably always more expensive when measured that way. If it wasn't about cost, first and foremost,
there wouldn't even be a discussion here.
A hypothetical: Suppose that I had a proprietary black box for you that met all of the requirements for your next project. What would
you pay for it? If your fixed price contract was for US$1M, and I wanted US$10K, you'd probably buy it. Reductio ad absurdum, of course.
In the practical example I gave in my post, I described a client (an OEM) that prefers a US$7000 open system bill of material to
buying a proprietary system bill of material from me (I am currently a distributor, formerly an integrator, for those that didn't already
know that.) for US$18000. If they get a hard customer specification for my stuff, they use it and have a trouble-free start-up. The open
system takes weeks of set-up in the field, and provides me with lots of anecdotes about using Ethernet for real-time I/O.
In my opinion, this open system is clearly inferior to my proprietary system. I suspect that a few folks from this list could improve the
track record of this particular open system, but that isn't the point. The point is that the solid reliability of proprietary systems,
properly applied, gets compared unfavorably with less expensive open systems that don't work as well. In the case of my client, they claim that their favored system is better because it is
open. Strangely, if I brought my price down to their number, though, they say they would buy it.
(That example is only one of many I have from personal experience. I do not mean to generalize that to all open systems, though. I have personally implemented successful open systems.
I'm defending proprietary, not dismissing open.)
Finally, on leveraging the stuff that has become commodity rather than relying upon proprietary catalog items: Who determines, ten years later, that a certain commodity item is form, fit, and function compatible with the original? Eight-tracks and Betamax are the usual targets to bring up at this point, but for this audience I will
mention pre-IDE disk drives and 256K memory sticks that we were all using ten years ago. Without a brand-name manufacturer and a
believable commitment to spare parts, you can't rely on the market still offering the spare you need ten years from now.
Ten years from now, when a rollercoaster, launch pad, or juice plant in my territory is down due to a component failure, I know that the owner will be able to get a spare part quickly, probably out of local inventory. Can anyone guarentee that a generic ISA Ethernet card will still be available at any price? Curt --- that US$400 price SHOULD include that longterm proprietary support I value so much!
This kind of longterm stability is very important to owners that will keep their systems running indefinitely. It is not marketing hype --- it is the result of a long, consistent track record. It is a reputation that is easily lost, as Westinghouse found out fifteen years ago. Thus, perception is more important than Curt allows.
Generic is a particular problem in tightly configuration managed systems.
When you ride a rollercoaster, would you be satisfied with your safety if you thought that maintenance workers had discretion to
substitute generic components, including software downloaded from the Web? Or, would you rather that the system is only allowed to carry guests if it can be proven that the system is identical to what passed the Acceptance Test Procedure at commissioning time? Doing that requires catalog numbered, proprietary components.
Notice that I am not denying the advantages Curt mentions. Many of you work on projects where the things I bring up are not important. I trust all of you to choose the best solutions for your
clients, and many of those solutions will be proprietary.
Hope this helps!
Larry Lawver
Rexel / Central Florida