6 ms·

At some point I'd imagine that requiring the source code for such critical components for a long-lived machine is going to be the only sustainable way forward.

At some point I'd imagine that requiring the source code for such critical components for a long-lived machine is going to be the only sustainable way forward. At this point you'd end up reverse engineering device drivers or using 'unsupported' configurations to keep going. Of course the fact that a company that no longer exists can't support such a configuration doesn't matter because they aren't there anymore to care about any of it.

kk6mrp 5y ago
Does management really understand how long the equipment is going to be used when it is purchased? From what I've seen, upper management has done the cost analysis before purchasing but maintenance is going to ultimately going to be be responsible for keeping the equipment running. By this point in time, those that approved the purchase are likely retired.
- stinkytaco 5y ago
  I'm not sure what an acceptable time horizon for these types of things is in an industrial setting, but as a middle aged person in management, I'd consider anything that lasts until after I retire a success. I don't deal a lot in mechanical systems, however, but I can certainly see someone who's not fully versed in a technology thinking 20-30 years is a longer lifespan than almost anything they interact with on a daily basis. What is the expected lifespan of system with a microchip that presumably needs to be updated, secured, etc on a regular basis?
  - liketochill 5y ago
    I am currently working on a power plant control system that has a modicon 984 plc first released in 1991. We expect minimum 20 years from PLCs, and unless parts become unavailable or failures too frequent we would generally go 30 years before replacement. The PLCs are great, it’s the damned computers and their operating systems that keep needlessly changing our working system. So we virtualize and air gap.
    - MisterTea 5y ago
      > The PLCs are great, it’s the damned computers and their operating systems that keep needlessly changing our working system. That's my gripe these days, long term used to be 20+ years. You can still get DL400 series PLC's from Automation Direct (rebranded Koyo) which are from the 90's. Now I see many embedded micros and processors advertised with 10 year long term supply. To me long term is around 20 or more years, basically someones career span. And dont get me started on all this industry 4.0 PC based control crap. Not everything needs millions of lines of Linux kernel to turn a few io points on or off. And the bloated systems that these platforms utilize is nauseating.
MisterTea 5y ago
At work we have a glovebox running DOS. The software is written in MS/GW/Q basic and only works with a specific set of ISA IO cards. The manufacturer is long gone but one of their techs bought out the remainder and now gate keeps the software. He has the source but refuses to update, sell, license or release it. Last we spoke to him he wanted $20000 to write a new control program in visual basic using a PCI card and refused to release source code. We flat out said no. The plan is once there are no more spare parts on the shelf the whole thing is getting gutted and a modern PLC system installed in-house.
- fsflover 5y ago
  Such stories are exactly the reason why Stallman created FSF.
  - drewzero1 5y ago
    I agree. I thought Stallman was a nut (and in most respects I still definitely do) but since working with proprietary systems of the 80s and 90s I've realized his hardline free software stance is a direct response to companies like SCO. I got into free software relatively early in my life and it was like watching a parody film before the original.
  - rbreaves 5y ago
    I really don't think $20k is unreasonable to rewrite something for a manufacturer. Chances are they'd change the scope, make requests and he'd need to modernize it and I can easily see something like that taking 1-2 months.. at which point $20k could be very reasonable vs the time and effort it'd take to find someone completely new to your system. If I was the company though I would make sure that them providing the new source would be part of that $20k though or an agreement that when he no longer offers his services personally, regardless of whether he sells the company or not, that he will also release the source code to them if they are unable to negotiate for it upfront. I think that would be fair and fulfill both parties concerns. I personally prefer open sourced solutions as well, but in business that just isn't always practical.
  - dmz73 5y ago
aspaceman 5y ago
I would find it more likely that old device drivers get decompiled and reverse engineered. Heck I think there's a lot of value in an emulator for old device drivers. Who cares what the source was when you just execute the black box in a highly regulated sandbox? (Note doesn't work for some medical software). I think medicine and astro / aero are the few places that would require full decompilation of an original driver.
rckoepke 5y ago
I have a lot of experience in the industrial SCADA domain. I largely agree with you, but I will say that historically most installations have had all the relevant source code available to them, or owned by them. In most cases, the limiting factors for lifespan were: 1) Inability to get replacement hardware 2) Inability to find anyone who can understand the source code. There's really no way around issue #1. Having the software source doesn't really help that much because most of the time they'll use "migrations" every 10-15 years to rewrite the code using updated understanding of how they want the plant to work. Kicking off a SCADA upgrade is used as a wonderful convenient excuse to drive a lot of meetings/paperwork processes to define "How can we improve safety, improve reliability, make life easier for the human operators, etc?" Nowadays, the thing time-limiting many SCADA installations are licensing for Windows LTSB and PLC/DCS vendor software. Often times newer versions will require new Dell/HPE servers for compatibility. It's expensive, but also not expensive enough to focus on changing. The main point is that while licensing artificially limits "longevity" of a machine, closed-source does not. Instead, unavailable replacement hardware limits "longevity" more than "closed source" does.
- csdvrx 5y ago
  > Instead, unavailable replacement hardware limits "longevity" more than "closed source" does. Just look at the price of used serial consoles with Sixel support. Some hardware can be replaced by software... but not all of it.
  - boondaburrah 5y ago
    My kingdom for a windows terminal emulator that supports both [xyz]modem and sixel and can connect to a physical serial port.
    - csdvrx 5y ago
      If/when Windows Terminal integrates sixel support, any cheap laptop should be able to do that OOB (some of them with a USB to serial adapter of course)

kk6mrp 5y ago

Does management really understand how long the equipment is going to be used when it is purchased? From what I've seen, upper management has done the cost analysis before purchasing but maintenance is going to ultimately going to be be responsible for keeping the equipment running. By this point in time, those that approved the purchase are likely retired.

stinkytaco 5y ago
I'm not sure what an acceptable time horizon for these types of things is in an industrial setting, but as a middle aged person in management, I'd consider anything that lasts until after I retire a success. I don't deal a lot in mechanical systems, however, but I can certainly see someone who's not fully versed in a technology thinking 20-30 years is a longer lifespan than almost anything they interact with on a daily basis. What is the expected lifespan of system with a microchip that presumably needs to be updated, secured, etc on a regular basis?
- liketochill 5y ago
  I am currently working on a power plant control system that has a modicon 984 plc first released in 1991. We expect minimum 20 years from PLCs, and unless parts become unavailable or failures too frequent we would generally go 30 years before replacement. The PLCs are great, it’s the damned computers and their operating systems that keep needlessly changing our working system. So we virtualize and air gap.
  - MisterTea 5y ago
    > The PLCs are great, it’s the damned computers and their operating systems that keep needlessly changing our working system. That's my gripe these days, long term used to be 20+ years. You can still get DL400 series PLC's from Automation Direct (rebranded Koyo) which are from the 90's. Now I see many embedded micros and processors advertised with 10 year long term supply. To me long term is around 20 or more years, basically someones career span. And dont get me started on all this industry 4.0 PC based control crap. Not everything needs millions of lines of Linux kernel to turn a few io points on or off. And the bloated systems that these platforms utilize is nauseating.

MisterTea 5y ago

At work we have a glovebox running DOS. The software is written in MS/GW/Q basic and only works with a specific set of ISA IO cards. The manufacturer is long gone but one of their techs bought out the remainder and now gate keeps the software. He has the source but refuses to update, sell, license or release it. Last we spoke to him he wanted $20000 to write a new control program in visual basic using a PCI card and refused to release source code. We flat out said no. The plan is once there are no more spare parts on the shelf the whole thing is getting gutted and a modern PLC system installed in-house.

fsflover 5y ago
Such stories are exactly the reason why Stallman created FSF.
- drewzero1 5y ago
  I agree. I thought Stallman was a nut (and in most respects I still definitely do) but since working with proprietary systems of the 80s and 90s I've realized his hardline free software stance is a direct response to companies like SCO. I got into free software relatively early in my life and it was like watching a parody film before the original.
- rbreaves 5y ago
  I really don't think $20k is unreasonable to rewrite something for a manufacturer. Chances are they'd change the scope, make requests and he'd need to modernize it and I can easily see something like that taking 1-2 months.. at which point $20k could be very reasonable vs the time and effort it'd take to find someone completely new to your system. If I was the company though I would make sure that them providing the new source would be part of that $20k though or an agreement that when he no longer offers his services personally, regardless of whether he sells the company or not, that he will also release the source code to them if they are unable to negotiate for it upfront. I think that would be fair and fulfill both parties concerns. I personally prefer open sourced solutions as well, but in business that just isn't always practical.
- dmz73 5y ago

aspaceman 5y ago

I would find it more likely that old device drivers get decompiled and reverse engineered. Heck I think there's a lot of value in an emulator for old device drivers. Who cares what the source was when you just execute the black box in a highly regulated sandbox? (Note doesn't work for some medical software). I think medicine and astro / aero are the few places that would require full decompilation of an original driver.

rckoepke 5y ago

I have a lot of experience in the industrial SCADA domain. I largely agree with you, but I will say that historically most installations have had all the relevant source code available to them, or owned by them. In most cases, the limiting factors for lifespan were: 1) Inability to get replacement hardware 2) Inability to find anyone who can understand the source code. There's really no way around issue #1. Having the software source doesn't really help that much because most of the time they'll use "migrations" every 10-15 years to rewrite the code using updated understanding of how they want the plant to work. Kicking off a SCADA upgrade is used as a wonderful convenient excuse to drive a lot of meetings/paperwork processes to define "How can we improve safety, improve reliability, make life easier for the human operators, etc?" Nowadays, the thing time-limiting many SCADA installations are licensing for Windows LTSB and PLC/DCS vendor software. Often times newer versions will require new Dell/HPE servers for compatibility. It's expensive, but also not expensive enough to focus on changing. The main point is that while licensing artificially limits "longevity" of a machine, closed-source does not. Instead, unavailable replacement hardware limits "longevity" more than "closed source" does.

csdvrx 5y ago
> Instead, unavailable replacement hardware limits "longevity" more than "closed source" does. Just look at the price of used serial consoles with Sixel support. Some hardware can be replaced by software... but not all of it.
- boondaburrah 5y ago
  My kingdom for a windows terminal emulator that supports both [xyz]modem and sixel and can connect to a physical serial port.
  - csdvrx 5y ago
    If/when Windows Terminal integrates sixel support, any cheap laptop should be able to do that OOB (some of them with a USB to serial adapter of course)