PeppyOS: A simpler alternative to ROS 2 (now with containers support)
11–20 of 43 posts
Re: PeppyOS: A simpler alternative to ROS 2 (now with containers support)
#12IIRC, the ROS UR controller runs at 200Hz and we’ve had arms crash when they run much slower than that. The website claims “30hz polling rate”, “2ms latency”. Not sure if that is a best case or just for that demo.
Crash? The software, or physically? A 200Hz as a min control loop rate seems on the fast side as a general default, but it all depends on the control environment - and I may be biased as I've done a lot more bare silicon controls than ROS.
I'm guessing running a 200 Hz command rate on an e-series UR which uses 1 kHz internally will give you a protective stop?
Re: PeppyOS: A simpler alternative to ROS 2 (now with containers support)
#13I will admit I have almost always made the choice to not use ros2. I am trying to use it now for some work, and I can see where/when it would be useful...
But I almost always feel like there is just so much STUFF involved in ros, that really is just better resolved by having really robust controllers, well defined protocols, and everything else.
I wait to pass judgement until I have more information though
Re: PeppyOS: A simpler alternative to ROS 2 (now with containers support)
#14I will admit I have almost always made the choice to not use ros2. I am trying to use it now for some work, and I can see where/when it would be useful... But I almost always feel like there is just so much STUFF involved in ros, that really is just better resolved by having really robust controllers, well defined protocols, and everything else. I wait to pass judgement until I have more information though
As someone who has used ros2, I feel fine passing judgment; it is terrible. If its easier to write your own stack, do it. Your own stack will be easier to add to and maintain long term. The conceptual design (nodes) is great, its just the execution that is awful.
Re: PeppyOS: A simpler alternative to ROS 2 (now with containers support)
#15I've got one of these! Mine is called 'roboflex' (github.com/flexrobotics). It's c++/python, not rust. But similarly born out of frustration with ros. Writing your own robotics middleware seems to be a rite of passage. Just like 'writing your own game engine'. Nothing wrong with that - ros is powerful but has legit problems, and we need alternatives. Although tbh, these days I'm questioning the utility. If I'm the on…
Take a look at github.com/dimensionalos/dimos. We are a team making - not only a replacement for ROS - but one that can be easily vibe coded, and one with compatibility with ros and containers.
Always looking for testers and feedback if you want to influence the design/API.
Re: PeppyOS: A simpler alternative to ROS 2 (now with containers support)
#16I will admit I have almost always made the choice to not use ros2. I am trying to use it now for some work, and I can see where/when it would be useful... But I almost always feel like there is just so much STUFF involved in ros, that really is just better resolved by having really robust controllers, well defined protocols, and everything else. I wait to pass judgement until I have more information though
[deleted]
Re: PeppyOS: A simpler alternative to ROS 2 (now with containers support)
#17This doesnt look open source, so maybe not a good comparison with ROS
I see in their FAQ: > Will PeppyOS be open source? > Yes! PeppyOS will be fully open source under a BSL license before the end of this year. Once the software is mature, everyone will be able to contribute and participate in its development.
BSL is not an open source license. It is a proprietary source-available license that prohibits any "production" use.
Re: PeppyOS: A simpler alternative to ROS 2 (now with containers support)
#18It looks like this is cleaner and simpler than ROS 2, and the API seems nice, but it would be really difficult to diverge from the standard and use an ecosystem with a very small community and no momentum behind it. Does this have any compelling selling points to convince someone to switch other than 'less overhead than ROS 2'?
I'm not trying to downplay that selling point at all. My experience with ROS 2 is limited but that aspect of it was miserable.
This is such a small nit, but landing at the docs page (https://docs.peppy.bot/) and seeing this splash is annoying to me. Just show the docs.
Also it would be nice if I could switch between Rust and Python examples and have all code panes respect that choice, rather than have to switch every pane to Rust.
Re: PeppyOS: A simpler alternative to ROS 2 (now with containers support)
#19One of the only ways I can imagine that would _somehow add even more complexity_ to the disaster that is ROS/ROS2, is to try and make rust a first-class citizen.
You're using ROS2, so you have a problem. You want to add rust to fix it? Now you have 47 problems.
Re: PeppyOS: A simpler alternative to ROS 2 (now with containers support)
#20yet another roll your own ROS...