Luke Graham
3/10/2005 2:38:00 AM
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:53:58 +0900, "Peña, Botp" <botp@delmonte-phil.com> wrote:
> Luke Graham [mailto:spoooq@gmail.com] wrote:
>
> //I think gnu scada systems are unlikely for a few reasons.
> //Customers want support more than anything, costs for a broken
>
> if you know something, you can support it yourself. i think that is the
> spirit of gnu.
Customers know nothing. The spirit of gnu is not with them.
> //scada can be calculated in wheelbarrows of cash per minute.
>
> scada's architecture is very simple. One only has to understand and
> demistify...
The devil is in the details.
> //Scada is boring.
>
> i disagree since if that is the case so is serial progg, smtp, snmp...
> even plc programmers here are not bored with their small world...
Maybe I just need a new job ;)
> on the one hand, i am bored in accounting sw,.. you become an accountant
> more than a programmer :-)
Exactly. And neither scada nor accounting is cool to talk about at
parties ;)
> //Scada is hard.
>
> that is where i want ruby to come in... and enjoy..
Ruby does make hard things easier, thats for sure.
> //The cost of integration can
> //be more than the cost of the software anyway. Finally, anyone
>
> ruby will simplify integration.
Possibly. But its just as likely to be yet-another-language that
needs yet-another-binding to some existing tool.
> //who knows anything about it is probably already doing it for
> //a living. Would you run your control systems on some kids
> //part-time experiment?
>
> you have the code, luke :-)
How did you know my name was Luke? :D
> //
> //One last thing.. ruby is fine for the windows end, all the
> //protocols can be implemented.. but its just not going to work
> //on the embedded end.
>
> scada is not embedded :-)
No, but it talks to embedded code all the time.
I love gpl-software, even most gnu software, but I dont think its the
answer to all questions.
--
spooq