You can buy milk with cream on top. You buy "whole" milk, they sell it
in the grocery store. (at least around here they do) Let it stand in
your refrigerator for a day or so and you get the cream.
But while milk is a victim of the "health nut crowd" who have carried
on a tirade against anything with fat in it for so long that normal
people nowadays don't even know how milk is supposed to taste and spit
out the whole milk if served it. That's why it occupies a corner of the
grocery store refrigerator and the tasteless milk occupies a whole shelf.
NUT cannot speak the APC new protocol even though apcupsd now has
support for it and NUT could take that open source support if it wanted.
Ted
On 6/11/2015 2:55 AM, Carsten Burkhardt wrote:
Many Thanks for your explanation, Ted!
All the necessaries to produce (and live from) new UPS-Equippment I
understand. Because of this I decided years ago to sell MGE-UPS. MGE did
have the greatness to pay Arnaud Quette to improve the Metasoftware NUT.
So we have one Software for brand new models and over 20years old IT
dinosaur. We earn money with replacement of accumulators and save in
this way our planet. For instance with NUT it is possible to use a APC
Smart-UPS with the old protocol. Linux brings the tools to adopt serial/
USB/ Network. With vendors software or Windows it would be impossible. A
new model with greatness and Power-HID is
http://www.online-usv.de/de/produkte/ze/intro.php
Now to your example, a gallon of milk hasn't changed much over the last
30 years. You have seen anymore milk with cream on top? This product is
rarely. You can buy "Milk" without taste (no fat), without water
(powder) or without cow (soy). The human being creative.
Am 28.04.2015 um 21:19 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
Carsten,
This is a common issue in technology when you have complex products
that the majority of consumers of those products do not understand how
they operate.
If most UPS customers understood the importance of standardization they
would have refused to purchase non-standard UPSes and all UPSes would
have long ago standardized on a single management protocol.
The normal thing is that product manufacturers do not want standard
commodity products. They want custom, specialized products. That
creates customer lock-in.
With simple products - like a toaster or a gallon of milk - the consumer
thoroughly understands what they are buying - and most of them will not
buy a product that significantly differs from the standard.
They do not want to buy a toaster that only toasts 1 bakery's bread.
With complex technical products consumers are easily fooled, and all the
manufacturers need to do is create the appearance of similarity and
consumers think they have a choice when in reality they don't.
When you buy a car for example and 3 years later it needs a new
alternator - you will rapidly find that there's no standardization on
alternators, so you will end up paying a very large amount of money
for a replacement. that benefits the manufacturer, not you. No car
consumers are demanding that cars use standardized parts like
alternators.
In many markets the government gets involved and enforces some
standardization, that's why for example most cars are the same width
in size, have turn signals, and headlights. But, that standardization
does not generally help the consumer.
The other issue is refinements of products cost a lot of money to
develop. So manufacturers have to pay for them by higher prices, and a
commodity market cannot support prices high enough to pay for
innovation. That's why, for example, a gallon of milk hasn't changed
much over the last 30 years.
And, in this vein, refinements cannot be used/stolen by competitors
until the cost to develop them has been paid for. Thus the need for
patents, and you cannot patent something that has prior art (well you
can but you won't be able to defend it)
UPSes are complex technical products that are not understood by most
people who buy them. Consumers may demand the lowest price on a UPS
but the only market where there is any significant competition in UPSes
is the non-managed UPS market, the so-called "desktop" UPSes that are
500va or less with runtimes of less than 5 minutes, fully loaded. With
more expensive UPSes, other factors than marketing against a competitor
are more important.
Some of these factors are:
Protocols like APC's UPSLink predate USB Power-HID
USB Power-HID also does not carry all datapoints that a UPS maker may
want to make available
Older mainframes did not have USB only Serial. A modern UPS maker may
want to produce new UPSes that work with older equipment.
There is no public standards-body standard for UPS data. Only a
de-facto standard.
Backwards compatibility is huge - people run older software quite a lot
in industry. New devices need to be compatible with older software,
this is a barrier to dropping support for older/superseded protocols.
not everything protected by a UPS is a PC. An industrial machine like
a 3D printer may only use a set of contacts to signal a trigger of
a shutdown sequence.
UPSes also depreciate an enormous amount. You can easily find 3-4 year
old UPSes on the secondary market selling for very cheap, and they
still work fine since power standards have not changed. That tends to
create large market inertia to changing protocols.
Ted
On 4/28/2015 6:17 AM, Carsten Burkhardt wrote:
Dear Developer and Tester,
I love NUT, because of the great interoperability. So I have the choice
and freedom on the operating system or the device. Many thanks on all
developers and the manufacturer, they support with informations,
material, wages and so on.
Dear Hyouko,
I am interested in to know, why every manufacturer use their own
protocol.
The USB Power Device protocol is already 20 years introduced. In my
opinion a unique protocol is easier to handle. Just to use one protocol
makes the soft- and hardware more efficient, reliable, sustained… What
is your opinion or you know the reason why everybody makes their own?
http://www.networkupstools.org/protocols/powercom/Software_USB_communication_controller_SKP_series.doc
Sincerely Carsten
Am 23.04.2015 um 02:57 schrieb κΰ(bluefish_wei):
Dear Hyouko,
Thank you very much !
Best regards,
Bluefish
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
发送时间: 2015年4月23日 7:25
收件人: 魏伟(bluefish_wei)
抄送: [email protected]
主题: Re: [Nut-upsdev] How to upload new ups driver to NUT
2015-04-21 8:23 GMT+02:00 魏伟(bluefish_wei)
<[email protected]>:
Can anyone tell me how to upload new ups driver to NUT website ?
You can either open a pull request/create a new issue on GitHub [1] or
send a gzipped patch to this list.
A quick read of the developer guide [2] should make it easier to get
the code merged faster and to avoid possible problems.
Also, documenting the protocol behind your driver [3] goes a long way
in making it easier for others to support it and effectively extends
its life.
As we are here, since you appear to be working for Voltronic Power,
I'd like to take the chance to ask if it's possible for you to release
(and give us permission to redistribuite) the protocols adopted by
your various devices (present and past): we have already done some
work [4] and support for P15/P16/P30/P34/P35/P36 protocols is under
way, too.. but we still lack some information and, obviously, knowing
the protocols in full directly from the manufacturer would be a lot
better (not to mention the huge amount of time I would save in reverse
engineering...).
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Carsten Burkhardt
_______________________________________________
Nut-upsdev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsdev
_______________________________________________
Nut-upsdev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsdev
