🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <uig3PB1w164w@Control.Com> ics.ralph@control.com writes: 
> Without marketing there are no sales.  People aren't motivated to buy
> OSI products because of a press release from COS or NM/Forum.  They
> buy products because the salesman that they have ongoing contact and a
> personal relationship with convinces them of it, or the company has a
> strong message and a product strategy that makes sense.

  Marketing ain't the big fundamental problem here people.  The
fundamental problems are 1) cost and 2) interoperability.  I've got
lots of OSI products that have passed "Conformance Testing" and have
COS certificates -- but independent implementations still don't talk
to each other.  Until they do talk with each other, it isn't solving
my network problem.  Also, I get TCP/IP and friends at no incremental
cost with my OS.  I have to pay significant extra chunks of money to
get OSI.  There is no reason to pay more given that TCP/IP and friends
work fine and are interoperable today off the shelf.

> A good example I tried to bring up was the Manufacturing Message
> Specification (MMS - ISO 9506).  This is a good standard that is
> widely supported and offers a wide range of inter- operability.
> These people did not use MMS (and OSI) simply because COS thought it
> was a good idea, they did it because using a vendor independent
> messaging mechanism for their real-time plant floor communications
> saves them money versus trying to make TCP/IP do something that it was
> not intended to do.

Wrong !  

  I am a former employee of one of the firms you cited and I can tell
you that the ONLY reason that those firms implemented MAP and MMS is
that General Motors made it a procurement requirement and GM is the
largest purchaser of real-time controls in the world.  What you wrote
just ain't true.

Ran
atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil