Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #29235 > unrolled thread

Now the Industry is looking for a new, stable, OS. Is Forth able to deliver?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  Now the Industry is looking for a new, stable, OS. Is Forth able to deliver? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-04-01 11:09 -0700
    Re: Now the Industry is looking for a new, stable, OS. Is Forth able to deliver? Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2014-04-02 10:47 +0100
    Re: Now the Industry is looking for a new, stable, OS. Is Forth able to deliver? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2014-04-05 19:20 -0700

#29235 — Now the Industry is looking for a new, stable, OS. Is Forth able to deliver?

Use of Microsoft technologies is creating growing concerns among senior designers and senior architects in control system suppliers. Microsoft technology is widely used as the underlying basis for process control systems, such as supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA), human machine interface (HMI), distributed control system (DCS) displays, historians, manufacturing execution systems (MES), and batch execution systems. Since 1998, when Microsoft Windows 98 was released, the Microsoft Windows platform has been the de facto standard for most control system suppliers.

For the past two decades consumer software has been the driving force in operating system and user interface in manufacturing systems. Control system suppliers have applied consumer technologies as they have become reliable enough for industrial applications. 

However, today is a different situation. This is a period of intense change in consumer products with tablets and smartphones replacing laptops, laptops replacing desktop systems, and new user interface models and services under continual change. 

Continual change is not what control systems need. Many control systems have lifetimes of 20 to 30 years. Some of the systems developed using the 1980-1990 VAX/VMS technology from Digital Equipment Corp. are only now being replaced. 

The concern among architects and designers is that the consumer software may not stabilize for many years and the cost of trying to apply the software to manufacturing is starting to exceed the benefits. The current consumer infrastructures are so complex that there are usually multiple security and safety updates per month. Many process control suppliers are spending more development budget on testing, validation, and distribution of patches than they are spending on new development. Additionally, no one expects this situation to get any better. In fact, it may get worse as infrastructure complexity continues to increase. 

These issues are causing architects and designers to question the 15-year wisdom that you cannot go wrong by picking the Microsoft environment for your process control system. 

6 critical process control needs 

Process control vendors require: 

1. A system with a minimal attack surface, so that biweekly or monthly patches are not required

2. A consistent programming interface that will not change every four to five years, requiring a complete rewrite of their software

3. An environment that can be quickly and safely "locked down" to reduce the risk from hacking

4. A system with limited network access, only through specific ports to reduce the risk of network based attacks

5. Support for priority-based multi-tasking, preferably a real-time operating system (RTOS) that supports hard real-time requirements

6. A robust ecosystem of utilities and tools to make development, installation, debugging, and maintenance as easy as it is on consumer systems.

The process automation market is estimated at about $130 billion, more than large enough to support a dedicated software infrastructure market. Maybe, if the grumbling by architects and designers reaches a tipping point, the process control market can force current suppliers, like Microsoft, Apple, and Google, to develop systems designed for process control, or the process control vendors may collectively move to Linux derived systems. Only time will tell, but watch for movement away from rapidly changing consumer technologies to more stable solutions that will still be valid 5, 10, 15, or even 20 years from today. 

Quoted from Dennis Brandl:
"Are Microsoft technologies still best for process control systems?"
Source: http://www.controleng.com/single-article/are-microsoft-technologies-still-best-for-process-control-systems/eba959613f8b0a8c24ffde31227d768f.html

These 6 points can be delivered by Forth, but is there anybody who is able to deliver?

Looking at the comments, Wonderware, Rockwell, and Siemens are the companies which set the trail.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#29261

visualforth@rocketmail.com wrote:

> Use of Microsoft technologies is creating growing concerns among senior
> designers and senior architects in control system suppliers. Microsoft
> technology is widely used as the underlying basis for process control
> systems, such as supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA), human
> machine interface (HMI), distributed control system (DCS) displays,
> historians, manufacturing execution systems (MES), and batch execution
> systems. Since 1998, when Microsoft Windows 98 was released, the Microsoft
> Windows platform has been the de facto standard for most control system
> suppliers.

There have been others in that time, including OS2, but MSWin seemed to have 
been the main event for a wide range of applications.
 
> For the past two decades consumer software has been the driving force in
> operating system and user interface in manufacturing systems. Control
> system suppliers have applied consumer technologies as they have become
> reliable enough for industrial applications.
> 
> However, today is a different situation. This is a period of intense
> change in consumer products with tablets and smartphones replacing
> laptops, laptops replacing desktop systems, and new user interface models
> and services under continual change.

At the recent "Nuclear Engineering for Safety, Control and Security" 
organised by the IET, the main speakers spoke about the need for new 
innovation in the industry in place of the rather conservative and staid 
"we've always done it that way" mentality. This lays out a number of 
challenges to the industry and, if taken on-board, will attract bright 
engineering minds into the industry. Smart Instruments are starting to make 
their way in, Unix based SCADA is likely to be selected above MS 
environments (fortunately) and the Office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR), the 
UK's Regulatory body, will still make the Site Licensee's prove that their 
systems and plant operation will remain safe.
 
> Continual change is not what control systems need. Many control systems
> have lifetimes of 20 to 30 years. Some of the systems developed using the
> 1980-1990 VAX/VMS technology from Digital Equipment Corp. are only now
> being replaced.

There is nothing wrong with change so long as such change can be properly 
managed. I know that changing out the underlying processor base can be 
daunting for some organisations but, adopting a component based methodology, 
changes can be managed quite well. Some of the benefits of the changing 
environment is that the newer Smart Instruments will provide more than the 
usual measurands, but provide diagnostic detail also. Such additional 
information can be very useful to assisting in planning plant maintenance. 

> The concern among architects and designers is that the consumer software
> may not stabilize for many years and the cost of trying to apply the
> software to manufacturing is starting to exceed the benefits. The current
> consumer infrastructures are so complex that there are usually multiple
> security and safety updates per month. Many process control suppliers are
> spending more development budget on testing, validation, and distribution
> of patches than they are spending on new development. Additionally, no one
> expects this situation to get any better. In fact, it may get worse as
> infrastructure complexity continues to increase.

The system architectures across industries are becoming very similar these 
days and all process and automation industries can learn lots from each 
other and should share experience more widely. The whole of the Process and 
Automation Industry is quite small in comparison to the consumer market and, 
unless Industrial System Architects want to continue to look at bespoke 
long-lived systems they need to get on board and have development and 
operational processes that manage design change soundly and securely enough 
to adapt up and coming technologies to their own ends. 
 
> These issues are causing architects and designers to question the 15-year
> wisdom that you cannot go wrong by picking the Microsoft environment for
> your process control system.

When was that ever wisdom? I thought it was quoted as "Nobody ever got fired 
for buying IBM equipment". That was even when IBM was not the fastest kid on 
the block but still companies bought IBM PC's for their business rather than 
the faster newer offerings.
 
> 6 critical process control needs
> 
> Process control vendors require:
> 
> 1. A system with a minimal attack surface, so that biweekly or monthly
> patches are not required
> 
> 2. A consistent programming interface that will not change every four to
> five years, requiring a complete rewrite of their software
> 
> 3. An environment that can be quickly and safely "locked down" to reduce
> the risk from hacking
> 
> 4. A system with limited network access, only through specific ports to
> reduce the risk of network based attacks
> 
> 5. Support for priority-based multi-tasking, preferably a real-time
> operating system (RTOS) that supports hard real-time requirements
> 
> 6. A robust ecosystem of utilities and tools to make development,
> installation, debugging, and maintenance as easy as it is on consumer
> systems.
> 
> The process automation market is estimated at about $130 billion, more
> than large enough to support a dedicated software infrastructure market.
> Maybe, if the grumbling by architects and designers reaches a tipping
> point, the process control market can force current suppliers, like
> Microsoft, Apple, and Google, to develop systems designed for process
> control, or the process control vendors may collectively move to Linux
> derived systems. Only time will tell, but watch for movement away from
> rapidly changing consumer technologies to more stable solutions that will
> still be valid 5, 10, 15, or even 20 years from today.
>
> Quoted from Dennis Brandl:
> "Are Microsoft technologies still best for process control systems?"
> Source:
> http://www.controleng.com/single-article/are-microsoft-technologies-still-best-for-process-control-systems/eba959613f8b0a8c24ffde31227d768f.html
> 
> These 6 points can be delivered by Forth, but is there anybody who is able
> to deliver?
> 
> Looking at the comments, Wonderware, Rockwell, and Siemens are the
> companies which set the trail.

The Consumer Electronics Market is stated to be about $1.3 trillion with a 
CAGR of 5.4%. This though, misses inclusion of the intelligent white goods 
and automotive electronics industries as well (shouldn't these be included 
in the evaluation). It is because this consumer market is so much larger 
that the industrial sector is going to have to get used to continual 
changes. The components being developed now may need to be adopted in the 
next Smart Instrument your Process Industry or Nuclear Systems Engineer will 
select. This requires adequate evaluation and assessment against System 
Design Goals and Safety and Security Requirements. This all needs better 
engineering people to make such assessments and where the skills gap is 
growing wider. Forth and Forth style can help some but in the end it is good 
engineering knowledge and method that is needed.

-- 
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett IEng MIET.....<email://Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy.............<http://www.hidecs.co.uk>
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 (0)1235-510979
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
********************************************************************

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29308

On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 11:09:02 AM UTC-7, visua...@rocketmail.com wrote:
> Use of Microsoft technologies is creating growing concerns among senior designers and senior architects in control system suppliers. Microsoft technology is widely used as the underlying basis for process control systems, such as supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA), human machine interface (HMI), distributed control system (DCS) displays, historians, manufacturing execution systems (MES), and batch execution systems. Since 1998, when Microsoft Windows 98 was released, the Microsoft Windows platform has been the de facto standard for most control system suppliers.
> 
> 
> 
> For the past two decades consumer software has been the driving force in operating system and user interface in manufacturing systems. Control system suppliers have applied consumer technologies as they have become reliable enough for industrial applications. 
> 
> 
> 
> However, today is a different situation. This is a period of intense change in consumer products with tablets and smartphones replacing laptops, laptops replacing desktop systems, and new user interface models and services under continual change. 
> 
> 
> 
> Continual change is not what control systems need. Many control systems have lifetimes of 20 to 30 years. Some of the systems developed using the 1980-1990 VAX/VMS technology from Digital Equipment Corp. are only now being replaced. 
> 
> 
> 
> The concern among architects and designers is that the consumer software may not stabilize for many years and the cost of trying to apply the software to manufacturing is starting to exceed the benefits. The current consumer infrastructures are so complex that there are usually multiple security and safety updates per month. Many process control suppliers are spending more development budget on testing, validation, and distribution of patches than they are spending on new development. Additionally, no one expects this situation to get any better. In fact, it may get worse as infrastructure complexity continues to increase. 
> 
> 
> 
> These issues are causing architects and designers to question the 15-year wisdom that you cannot go wrong by picking the Microsoft environment for your process control system. 
> 
> 
> 
> 6 critical process control needs 
> 
> 
> 
> Process control vendors require: 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. A system with a minimal attack surface, so that biweekly or monthly patches are not required
> 
> 
> 
> 2. A consistent programming interface that will not change every four to five years, requiring a complete rewrite of their software
> 
> 
> 
> 3. An environment that can be quickly and safely "locked down" to reduce the risk from hacking
> 
> 
> 
> 4. A system with limited network access, only through specific ports to reduce the risk of network based attacks
> 
> 
> 
> 5. Support for priority-based multi-tasking, preferably a real-time operating system (RTOS) that supports hard real-time requirements
> 
> 
> 
> 6. A robust ecosystem of utilities and tools to make development, installation, debugging, and maintenance as easy as it is on consumer systems.
> 
> 
> 
> The process automation market is estimated at about $130 billion, more than large enough to support a dedicated software infrastructure market. Maybe, if the grumbling by architects and designers reaches a tipping point, the process control market can force current suppliers, like Microsoft, Apple, and Google, to develop systems designed for process control, or the process control vendors may collectively move to Linux derived systems. Only time will tell, but watch for movement away from rapidly changing consumer technologies to more stable solutions that will still be valid 5, 10, 15, or even 20 years from today. 
> 
> 
> 
> Quoted from Dennis Brandl:
> 
> "Are Microsoft technologies still best for process control systems?"
> 
> Source: http://www.controleng.com/single-article/are-microsoft-technologies-still-best-for-process-control-systems/eba959613f8b0a8c24ffde31227d768f.html
> 
> 
> 
> These 6 points can be delivered by Forth, but is there anybody who is able to deliver?
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at the comments, Wonderware, Rockwell, and Siemens are the companies which set the trail.

freebsd
netbsd
archlinux
oh my!

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web