On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:53:58 +0900, "Pe, 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