Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apache PLC4X announcing end of community support due to missing funding

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 162 posts

Re: Apache PLC4X announcing end of community support due to missing funding

#61

Post by p_l »

jpfr wrote: post #28

There's quite a bit of OPC UA bashing across this project. So let me chime in to keep the "balance in the universe". OPC UA is a protocol to interact with an object-oriented information model. Basically CORBA done right to use object-oriented principles and reuse software components in industrial automation. Since OPC UA is a protocol, its performance depends mostly on the implementation. Some PLCs may be crappy. But…

First, a bit of off-topic, but do you know we keep #open62541 open for you on Libera.Chat? :D

I think the biggest issue I encountered with OPC-UA is the rather random nature of implementations from vendors.

For example, I had S7-1500 PLC deployed on a project, and we used OPC-UA to talk to it as well as to expose internals of the program that was talking to it.

We also had WinCC HMI, and while it could do basic read-write access to OPC-UA, we couldn't attempt to go for Method Calls, which would have considerably simplified a bunch of things for us.

Meanwhile, FreeOPC-UA (python) turned out to be a bit buggy ;)

It's a quite nice system, and I really like the object-oriented nature of it and support for modeling instead of random soup of PLC tags that appears to be the norm. Standard industry models for various components help extra there.

Currently I'm looking into implementing a wrapper around open62541 for Common Lisp and Ada, and possibly a CORBA & DDS translator for it. Originally I missed PLC4X completely, and we needed to talk to S7-1500 as soon as possible and kinda got stuck with Python, now I wish I could do it in Lisp or Ada and get it done probably much faster :)

Re: Apache PLC4X announcing end of community support due to missing funding

#63

Post by cesarb »

progbits wrote: post #18
pabs3 wrote: post #13

It seems like something that should be backed by an industry consortium; member companies pay money to the foundation and that employs the author and other folks to work on the code etc.

I'm probably missing something but why would the industry back this? This makes it easier to combine and switch between manufacturers while they probably prefer vendor lock-in. Once a factory starts using your PLC it will continue buying replacements and upgrades forever. I only had brief exposure to this domain years ago, working on a single Siemens PLC control project. The whole software stack was utter garbage (GU…

> I'm probably missing something but why would the industry back this?

One possible reason: to "commoditize your complement" (https://www.gwern.net/Complement). These industries make hardware, making the software side better makes that hardware more useful.

Re: Apache PLC4X announcing end of community support due to missing funding

#65

Post by p_l »

pjc50 wrote: post #46
CaptainJustin wrote: post #9

This is dangerously close to being off-topic but it would be good to hear from people interested in PLC4X: I would really like to see home appliance manufacturers extend their products with a simple 2.n IO pin interface at the back. Absolutely minimal. For example: a kettle could have an input pin to turn it on/off and an output pin that just writes whether it is on or not. A simple 4-pin interface on the back in thi…

The industry equivalents are probably something like MODBUS or CAN. But a kettle which has enough electronics in it to support an isolated waterproof low-voltage control connection instead of the cheap mechanical system would be significantly more expensive. Also, nobody wants a wiring loom for their kitchen. If you have to do it, do it over zigbee or something.

A lot is being done on Zigbee/Z-wave plus MQTT

Re: Apache PLC4X announcing end of community support due to missing funding

#66

Post by ilaksh »

This is not really as much about open source as it is a larger issue: people are sheep. That includes developers and especially managers and executives. Few people are capable or willing to make decisions based on technical merit. They generally follow trends mindlessly or make decisions about tools based on political expediency or following whatever their local hers leader is doing.

This has caused me quite a lot of frustration over the years because I like to make tools and solve problems. But often building a tool or coming up with a framework for solving a problem, even if it's technically really challenging, is only a fraction of the battle. It's getting any of the sheep to pay attention, notice, or decide your solution can benefit them in their sheep power struggles that is actually the biggest challenge.

Re: Apache PLC4X announcing end of community support due to missing funding

#67

Post by MrBuddyCasino »

LadyCailin wrote: post #60
MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxes. You invented taxes.

Government grants for open source software would probably be a good thing though, now that this is mentioned. Just like the arts get public funding due to public good, open source software would make sense as well. Even better than most of these things, because by definition, open source is free for the public, whereas grants for arts and even things like research are often locked behind a paywall of sorts.

The EU already does this. I'm sympathetic, but once you have witnessed how their research grants program works, or what the results are when bureaucrats fund "art", you might not be as excited. These things have a way of becoming something different than what was originally envisioned.

Re: Apache PLC4X announcing end of community support due to missing funding

#68

Post by wiremine »

> On the one side there’s no point in convincing the IT folks that what you’ve got to offer is awesome, if the OT folks don’t know about it. The OT folks are the ones doing the decisions. Everything in the OT world is pay-to-play. You’ll never get an article posted in an OT magazine, if you don’t pay for it. In the OT world there are also almost no conferences, like in the IT world. Everything is about industrial fairs with extremely expensive booths. The budgets the big players have at their disposal are simply unbelievable. As an open-source project you have no chance of being noticed at all.

This is a key lesson. Open Source has not won in this part of the technology world, and it's a HUGE walled garden.

Re: Apache PLC4X announcing end of community support due to missing funding

#69

Post by daudmalik06 »

Guys this is just beggining, I am working in cyber security since 2013, After the discovery of log4shell, almost whole internet is at risk of supply-chain attacks, Hackers are continuously targeting open-source packages because it's really easy way to hack big organization. We literally track 100's of attack on daily basis. Services like vulert.com can play a vital role, let me know what do you think.

Best

Re: Apache PLC4X announcing end of community support due to missing funding

#70

Post by trasz »

drran wrote: post #41
keewee7 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>code you wrote for free >for free How much open source code is actually written by hobbyists working for free? Most of the Linux code is written by paid engineers employed by big tech companies.

Yes, it's because of GPL restrictions: if you use my code, then I can use your (to some extent), so proprietary developers are forced to cooperate, which everyone job easier. Linux is used by whole planet, but it's not a burden for Linus Torvalds. Same for KHTML -> WebKit/WebCore -> Blink (LGPL), which is used even by such GPL haters as Apple and M$.

Same for Postgres and multitude of other liberally-licensed software.
Post reply on HN