[Info-vax] VMS and the Internet of Things (IoT)

[Jan-Erik Soderholm]

Den 2016-09-11 kl. 14:43, skrev David Froble:
> Simon Clubley wrote:
>> I've seen a number of posts recently about VMS and it's possible role
>> in an Internet of Things (IoT) environment.
>>
>> However, it appears to me that people are talking at cross-purposes
>> when talking about the IoT because the term itself is so vaguely
>> defined and as such people appear to have their own differing and
>> unstated assumptions about what the IoT actually is.
>>
>> As such, it might be a good idea if people state what they mean by
>> the IoT and how they see the role that VMS has in it, because right
>> now I am not seeing a major role for VMS.
>>
>> Here's my initial pass at defining what I think the IoT is all about
>> when I hear that phrase and why I think the above about VMS:
>>
>> I think of the IoT as being a three level architecture with sensors
>> on devices at the lowest level, some kind of coordinator or
>> controller within the facility at the medium level, and remote
>> servers (if needed) at the highest level.
>>
>> At the lowest level, the sensors on devices level, there's absolutely
>> no role for VMS at all. Most of these are going to be Cortex-M0/M4
>> level CPUs if even that as in some cases these might just be small
>> 8-bit devices or even dumb sensors wired directly into the facility
>> controller.
>>
>> The medium level facility controller is where things may start to get
>> more interesting but I don't see a role for VMS here either even if
>> you ignore that fact that VMS will not currently run on the
>> architectures typically in use here.
>>
>> This facility controller is going to be a small low power box which
>> can probably be wall mounted; think something the size of a Beaglebone
>> Black or a Raspberry Pi with a box and little LCD/touch panel wrapped
>> around it.
>>
>> It's unlikely to be some desktop sized PC box with fans going and
>> consuming greater than a couple of hundred watts. Something like the
>> Cortex-A8 may even be overkill for many of these controllers. Regardless,
>> this is RTOS or embedded Linux territory where you can quickly put
>> together a BSP for the specific SBC in use (assuming one doesn't
>> already exist).
>>
>> Only at the highest level, the remote server level, can I begin to see
>> a viable role for VMS. However, I am not seeing what VMS would bring
>> to the table here over the other existing options (and please don't
>> say security).
>>
>> Security on the IoT devices is a joke and is a joke in ways that
>> changing the remote server operating system will have very little
>> effect on. Some of the security issues appear to be occuring because
>> of the mindset which is sometimes present when writing the software
>> for these devices.
>>
>> So that's my take on the IoT. What's yours and where do you see a
>> possible place for VMS within the IoT world ?
>>
>> Simon.
>>
>
> As usual, I know nothing ...
>
> :-)
>
> My first questions are, what are the purposes of having this
> computerization in regular household appliances and such?

Agree with you there. A lot of this IoT hype is just, hype.

In my case it is more about professional garden and forest equipment
that gets more and more "intelligent". Think of automatic lawn-movers,
they today have GPS satnav and cellular "phone-home" features. Even
"simple" chainsaws today have processors in the carburators that are
individualy programmed and callibrated. All this information has to
be handled in a way so that service and repair shops can access it.

I do not see that all this is techinicaly anything new. And it doesn't
have anything particular to do eith any specicific operating system.



> If it's to
> monitor the devices and be helpful, yes, that can be a good thing.  Then
> the question becomes, for whom is it helpful?  If it is for the likes of
> Google to track what I'm doing, screw that idea.  If it's for some central
> system in my home to track some data, such as the temperature in my freezer
> and refrigerator, that can be a good thing, warning me if I got or might
> soon have problems.  Also doing things such as controlling lights, and
> other things remotely.  Cameras to see if the MaCaws are behaving.  (Yeah,
> right, as if that will ever happen.)
>
> The information could help with remote diagnostics before a repairman makes
> a service call.  As an example, I got a new refrigerator last year.  Wasn't
> keeping things from going bad.  So I placed a service call, under the
> warranty.  Service guy comes out, checks the info, says it's working.  Then
> looks and says "I've seen this before, you're blocking the path from the
> freezer, cold air cannot get in".  Well, duh, dumb Dave strikes again.
> Then he says "I don't know why the manufacturers don't strongly suggest
> keeping the top shelf more open".
>
> So, two points.  First, me being able to monitor the problem would have
> saved throwing out lots of Milk and such.  And second, the service call
> could have cost much less if an on-site visit wasn't required.
>
> So, yeah, lots of potential.
>
> And yeah, lots of questions.
>
> However, I'm not sure the question of how VMS fits into all this is
> relevant. The real question is what applications will be useful.  If some
> run on VMS, and VMS is available for the minimal HW, sure, it could be
> used.  In the past VMS was targeted at some process control and such.  Not
> so much, or at all, more recently.  Sort of hard to beat the cost of free
> *ix that isn't going to need any support contracts.  VMS would need to be
> free for such use.  I don't see that helping VMS all that much, but, what
> do I know?