Some more soap box issues for the User's Conference
As one who usually sits in the background, I feel its time to put in my $0.02 CDN (or $.005 US). I've seen much discussion on system Utilities (re Bo's revolution of forcing Foxboro to walk the talk on online upgrades), but what about the other sessions? Is there nothing else that anyone else is concerned about, that we can rally around? For example * what's happening with Fieldbus (sensors not the Ethernet link). * Is anyone using FoxCom and if so are you as disappointed with it as I am? Foxboro's competitor's are moving miles ahead in using digital communications to diagnose field device problems based on process conditions (Reliability Centred Maintenance). * Staying with Hardware, has anyone else noticed a reduction in the quality of parts (or is it only our site). Don't get me wrong I think Foxboro is one of the best companies in the business, because of its customer support. But I wish I didn't have to rely on this support everytime a new device arrives. * A few years ago (I remember the Cheese Heads!) there was a big push on advanced supervisory controls. I haven't seen too much from this (I was hoping for true multivariable controls). * Finally what about the trending package. It is in dire need of an over haul (I really don't want to request features (again) that were in the top 5 three years ago). Getting back to Bo's revolution, how about a real revolutionary idea (this is Boston after all), and prevent any new ideas from making the top ten until at least the previous year's top 3 have been addressed. This would keep the emphasis on what the users want. Well thanks for letting me get this off my chest. see you in Boston John Campbell Dofasco EMT Control Systems [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- This list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by the Foxboro Company. All postings from this list are the work of list subscribers and no warranty is made or implied as to the accuracy of any information disseminated through this medium. By subscribing to this list you agree to hold the list sponsor(s) blameless for any and all mishaps which might occur due to your application of information received from this mailing list. To be removed from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe foxboro" in the Subject. Or, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Back on the Soap Box
I have to ditto all of these comments. Besides the bootless CP issue, one very big issue should be CSA. This is a single point of failure that can reek havoc if gets corrupted. It needs to be addressed. If you do not want to have to reboot a CP for an upgrade, then you definitely do not want to have initialize your CP and reload a SAVEALL to fix a problem. Also, since I know that many of the comments on this email list make to the eyes of some key Foxboro associates, maybe we should have some more discussion on FoxView/FoxDraw. They want to know our comments. What does everyone dislike or like about FoxView/FoxDraw? For those of you have extensively used both the legacy (DisplayBuilder,Display Configurator, DisplayMgr) and the new (FoxView, FoxDraw) graphic builder and display software, what are your comments about the Pros & Cons of FoxView/FoxDraw? How does the software compare to other vendor's software? Some of the comments that I have concerning FoxView/FoxDraw are: PROS: 1. Some folks like the side menu of FoxView. 2. The combined display builder and configuator functions of FoxDraw are great. 3. It is easier to edit text in FoxDraw than in the Display Builder. CONS: 1. I hate that FoxView graphic files are so large and that FoxView takes a lot more memory and bogs down the system. Especially on Unix. 2. I seemed much easier to use markers in the Display Builder than it is in FoxDraw. I wish FoxDraw had some capability for character graphic symbols like the Display Builder Markers. 3. I hate that FoxDraw symbols and graphic libraries utilize a lot of linked graphic parts. This makes it very hard to change something, or to grab a piece of an object for use elsewhere. 4. If a FoxView graphic is linked to another directory, the link is destroyed when FoxDraw is subsequently used to edit and save the graphic. We traditionally always kept out graphic files in /usr/disp and then linked some of them to /usr/menus, FoxDraw breaks the file links on Unix. 5. FoxDraw is not as functional on Unix as it is in NT. For instance, right click menus do not work under Unix. 6. The NT version of FoxView needs to have a standard "Command Prompt" pick under the Software Maint menu. We know how to add it, but it was not easy to figure out. It took TAC & development a while to figure it out. Joe Markham -inc.com> AT AT i-net@CCM i-netcc: (bcc: Neil Martin/US/PC/HUNTSMAN) Subject: RE: Back on the Soap Box 07/26/00 12:28 PM I have to agree with your assesment of FoxView/FoxDraw. I have found it to be buggy as well. Each little upgrade has broken as much as it has fixed. Also, why do I have to ASK for each version. Why can't Foxboro just send it out when it becomes available. Same with any patches relevant to my system. Foxboro knows what I have installed. Why not send me a patch before I have trouble? Hmmm. What else would I like? I would like to see the configuration utilities (the ICC especially) join the 21st century. Specifically: I would like everything to be able to have comments. I would like to be able to insert a step in a calc block. I would like to have the equivalent of subroutines so that I only have to change something (maybe a calculation in a calc block)once to have it take effect globally. I would like a revision history system, which includes the ability to undo changes. I would like high and low limits and engineering units to propogate through downstream blocks blocks. One other thing. Please update the version of Solaris that you are using from 2.5. It's so old that I have trouble with third-party software. Thanks for the forum to toss my $0.02 in -Joe Markham -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Miller Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 11:29 AM To: 'Foxboro DCS Mail List' Subject: RE: Back on the Soap Box There are a few of things I need to bring up: First, besides Bo, has anyone had success with doing an upgrade to 6.2 and not having to reboot the CP's. Bo says that he has
Some notes about the conference.
Hello all, For those of you attending the conference, here are a few items of note. I am speaking as a member of the steering committee here, so bear with me. First. There will be a welcome reception Sunday night at the Westin. This should provide everyone with an opportunity to do a little informal mixing and would be a good place to discuss problems and lobby for improvements you want to see made to the system. Plus a good turnout for the welcome reception would be appreciated by our Foxboro hosts. And it makes us look good too. Oh yeah, free drinks! Second. There is supposed to be, a white board, or paper wall, or something to that effect, to post messages on during the conference. If you want to get a group of people with similar ideas and issues together you can put a message up where everyone is SUPPOSED to check. Or you can decide to present a topic of your own choosing to see how it's received. Third. We have asked that some of the rooms at either the Hynes, or the Westin be made available for groups to meet after hours. That way you could get thirty plus people together for an ad hoc discussion. Fourth. Although the agenda is fairly crowded, do try to spend a little time after hours getting to know other users. The conference is shorter this year, so don't plan spending as many nights out on the town. The whole point is to come together and get to know each other better. Fifth. That's my fifth! Don't drink my bourbon! Sixth. The steering committee will be turning over a lot of people at the end of this year, and some new faces are needed. If you are interested in serving on the steering committee next year, try to let Edward Prejean (el presidente') know about your interest as early in the conference as possible. Hope to see you there. David --- This list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by the Foxboro Company. All postings from this list are the work of list subscribers and no warranty is made or implied as to the accuracy of any information disseminated through this medium. By subscribing to this list you agree to hold the list sponsor(s) blameless for any and all mishaps which might occur due to your application of information received from this mailing list. To be removed from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe foxboro" in the Subject. Or, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Back on the Soap Box
If I did say that I did a 'bootless' upgrade to version 6.2, I was mistaken and apologize. I did 'bootless' upgrades to version 6.1.1 which do not require EEPROM updates. Can't be done with EEPROM updates. -Original Message- From: John Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 11:29 AM To: 'Foxboro DCS Mail List' Subject: RE: Back on the Soap Box There are a few of things I need to bring up: First, besides Bo, has anyone had success with doing an upgrade to 6.2 and not having to reboot the CP's. Bo says that he has seen it work, yet I have had sources in Foxboro recommend against doing it. Does anyone know why we would be told this? Second, in addition Bo's desire to see bootless CP upgrades (with economics dictating longer intervals between shutdowns, we could use that feature, too), I'd like to see FoxView/FoxDraw brought beyond what I still feel is beta test reliability and features. Two years ago, we were promised that the next version of the package would have dynamic trending - where is it? I'd also like to know if FoxView is still being developed or is it being abandoned in favor of a Wonderware based product? I know this isn't as critical as Bo's issue, but it's important for planning and upgrades. Finally, there are two and half working days left until the User's Conference. Has anyone given any thought to how those of us who feel that bootless CP upgrades are a critical issue can organize and vote to see that it gets the attention it deserves? Are there any other specific items that we can bring up - additional function blocks, time delayed alarming, better documentation of existing control blocks, integerated expert system functions, fuzzy ? Granted, not everyone will have the same issues, but I think the group should be able to form a consensus to support each other's issues. John --- This list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by the Foxboro Company. All postings from this list are the work of list subscribers and no warranty is made or implied as to the accuracy of any information disseminated through this medium. By subscribing to this list you agree to hold the list sponsor(s) blameless for any and all mishaps which might occur due to your application of information received from this mailing list. To be removed from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe foxboro" in the Subject. Or, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- This list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by the Foxboro Company. All postings from this list are the work of list subscribers and no warranty is made or implied as to the accuracy of any information disseminated through this medium. By subscribing to this list you agree to hold the list sponsor(s) blameless for any and all mishaps which might occur due to your application of information received from this mailing list. To be removed from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe foxboro" in the Subject. Or, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Back on the Soap Box
Folks, Somewhere I've been slightly misunderstood. Here's exactly what I know: 1. Foxboro has been working diligently to upgrade the software quality process both within their development staff and the testing crew. I've personally been involved in this and see much promise for the future although this has not shown itself in any release as yet. That is the primary reason you don't hear me grumbling about software quality these days. I'm in a hold position right now waiting for the first new release coming out of the new process. Otherwise, this would REALLY be my 'top pole' issue. 2. I never intended that we should let up on Foxboro to complete and debug the products we already own, Foxview et al. We do need to let Foxboro know that that is a given and should proceed right along with developing the online upgrade capability and take priority over any 'new' offerings. 3. That being said, I want to get on with this new mission and get online upgrades for myself and you. -Original Message- From: John Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 11:29 AM To: 'Foxboro DCS Mail List' Subject: RE: Back on the Soap Box There are a few of things I need to bring up: First, besides Bo, has anyone had success with doing an upgrade to 6.2 and not having to reboot the CP's. Bo says that he has seen it work, yet I have had sources in Foxboro recommend against doing it. Does anyone know why we would be told this? Second, in addition Bo's desire to see bootless CP upgrades (with economics dictating longer intervals between shutdowns, we could use that feature, too), I'd like to see FoxView/FoxDraw brought beyond what I still feel is beta test reliability and features. Two years ago, we were promised that the next version of the package would have dynamic trending - where is it? I'd also like to know if FoxView is still being developed or is it being abandoned in favor of a Wonderware based product? I know this isn't as critical as Bo's issue, but it's important for planning and upgrades. Finally, there are two and half working days left until the User's Conference. Has anyone given any thought to how those of us who feel that bootless CP upgrades are a critical issue can organize and vote to see that it gets the attention it deserves? Are there any other specific items that we can bring up - additional function blocks, time delayed alarming, better documentation of existing control blocks, integerated expert system functions, fuzzy ? Granted, not everyone will have the same issues, but I think the group should be able to form a consensus to support each other's issues. John --- This list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by the Foxboro Company. All postings from this list are the work of list subscribers and no warranty is made or implied as to the accuracy of any information disseminated through this medium. By subscribing to this list you agree to hold the list sponsor(s) blameless for any and all mishaps which might occur due to your application of information received from this mailing list. To be removed from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe foxboro" in the Subject. Or, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- This list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by the Foxboro Company. All postings from this list are the work of list subscribers and no warranty is made or implied as to the accuracy of any information disseminated through this medium. By subscribing to this list you agree to hold the list sponsor(s) blameless for any and all mishaps which might occur due to your application of information received from this mailing list. To be removed from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe foxboro" in the Subject. Or, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Back on the Soap Box
I have to agree with your assesment of FoxView/FoxDraw. I have found it to be buggy as well. Each little upgrade has broken as much as it has fixed. Also, why do I have to ASK for each version. Why can't Foxboro just send it out when it becomes available. Same with any patches relevant to my system. Foxboro knows what I have installed. Why not send me a patch before I have trouble? Hmmm. What else would I like? I would like to see the configuration utilities (the ICC especially) join the 21st century. Specifically: I would like everything to be able to have comments. I would like to be able to insert a step in a calc block. I would like to have the equivalent of subroutines so that I only have to change something (maybe a calculation in a calc block)once to have it take effect globally. I would like a revision history system, which includes the ability to undo changes. I would like high and low limits and engineering units to propogate through downstream blocks blocks. One other thing. Please update the version of Solaris that you are using from 2.5. It's so old that I have trouble with third-party software. Thanks for the forum to toss my $0.02 in -Joe Markham -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Miller Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 11:29 AM To: 'Foxboro DCS Mail List' Subject: RE: Back on the Soap Box There are a few of things I need to bring up: First, besides Bo, has anyone had success with doing an upgrade to 6.2 and not having to reboot the CP's. Bo says that he has seen it work, yet I have had sources in Foxboro recommend against doing it. Does anyone know why we would be told this? Second, in addition Bo's desire to see bootless CP upgrades (with economics dictating longer intervals between shutdowns, we could use that feature, too), I'd like to see FoxView/FoxDraw brought beyond what I still feel is beta test reliability and features. Two years ago, we were promised that the next version of the package would have dynamic trending - where is it? I'd also like to know if FoxView is still being developed or is it being abandoned in favor of a Wonderware based product? I know this isn't as critical as Bo's issue, but it's important for planning and upgrades. Finally, there are two and half working days left until the User's Conference. Has anyone given any thought to how those of us who feel that bootless CP upgrades are a critical issue can organize and vote to see that it gets the attention it deserves? Are there any other specific items that we can bring up - additional function blocks, time delayed alarming, better documentation of existing control blocks, integerated expert system functions, fuzzy ? Granted, not everyone will have the same issues, but I think the group should be able to form a consensus to support each other's issues. John --- This list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by the Foxboro Company. All postings from this list are the work of list subscribers and no warranty is made or implied as to the accuracy of any information disseminated through this medium. By subscribing to this list you agree to hold the list sponsor(s) blameless for any and all mishaps which might occur due to your application of information received from this mailing list. To be removed from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe foxboro" in the Subject. Or, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- This list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by the Foxboro Company. All postings from this list are the work of list subscribers and no warranty is made or implied as to the accuracy of any information disseminated through this medium. By subscribing to this list you agree to hold the list sponsor(s) blameless for any and all mishaps which might occur due to your application of information received from this mailing list. To be removed from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe foxboro" in the Subject. Or, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Back on the Soap Box
RE: Back on the Soap Box Darn, I was beaten to the punch. I had hoped to utilize the lull before the storm to propose a new 'tall pole' to vote on at the Users Group Meeting which I hope will can act as an umbrella to capture many other specific development issues (even Bo's need for an on-line CP upgrade). The quality and speed of software development needs to be improved. The overall quality is certainly lacking in products such as FoxView/FoxDraw. There is going to be a V99.2.1 release only because V99.2 was so buggy. And how come it is about the 3rd time that we have been notified that Foxboro has finally figured out why the AMD-chip based CP's (CP30B, CP40B, CP60) have issues with maintaining fault tolerance. And why does I/A for the 51 series still come bundled with Solaris 2.5.1 when Sun only 'officially' supports 2 releases back. (Solaris 8, i.e. 2.8 is the current release.) Do you know that the Ethernet driver (hme) in 2.5.1 needs to be patched to just to be able to reliably communicate on a 10/100 switched network? Do you know that the base driver with V6.2 that Foxboro extends to support nodebus communication does not include the necessary Sun patches? I could go on Hey, I can understand that one of the consequences of modern software development is that bugs sneak through with releases, but the CAR process is also painfully slow. (This theme was represented on the e-mail list with the discussion that "Have you rebooted yet" is too often the TAC solution method.") Bill Ketelhut and the others at the executive level need to hear that their development process is broken. Either they are working on the wrong things (Bo's request may be one of the things that they have dropped) or the things that they are working on arrive too slowly and are filled with bugs. If they is going to be coalition voting on subjects at the Users Group meeting, then a critical, executive level directed message needs to be delivered. Thanks, John Metsker General Mills, Inc -Original Message- From: John Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 11:29 AM To: 'Foxboro DCS Mail List' Subject: RE: Back on the Soap Box There are a few of things I need to bring up: First, besides Bo, has anyone had success with doing an upgrade to 6.2 and not having to reboot the CP's. Bo says that he has seen it work, yet I have had sources in Foxboro recommend against doing it. Does anyone know why we would be told this? Second, in addition Bo's desire to see bootless CP upgrades (with economics dictating longer intervals between shutdowns, we could use that feature, too), I'd like to see FoxView/FoxDraw brought beyond what I still feel is beta test reliability and features. Two years ago, we were promised that the next version of the package would have dynamic trending - where is it? I'd also like to know if FoxView is still being developed or is it being abandoned in favor of a Wonderware based product? I know this isn't as critical as Bo's issue, but it's important for planning and upgrades. Finally, there are two and half working days left until the User's Conference. Has anyone given any thought to how those of us who feel that bootless CP upgrades are a critical issue can organize and vote to see that it gets the attention it deserves? Are there any other specific items that we can bring up - additional function blocks, time delayed alarming, better documentation of existing control blocks, integerated expert system functions, fuzzy ? Granted, not everyone will have the same issues, but I think the group should be able to form a consensus to support each other's issues. John --- This list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by the Foxboro Company. All postings from this list are the work of list subscribers and no warranty is made or implied as to the accuracy of any information disseminated through this medium. By subscribing to this list you agree to hold the list sponsor(s) blameless for any and all mishaps which might occur due to your application of information received from this mailing list. To be removed from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe foxboro" in the Subject. Or, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Back on the Soap Box
There are a few of things I need to bring up: First, besides Bo, has anyone had success with doing an upgrade to 6.2 and not having to reboot the CP's. Bo says that he has seen it work, yet I have had sources in Foxboro recommend against doing it. Does anyone know why we would be told this? Second, in addition Bo's desire to see bootless CP upgrades (with economics dictating longer intervals between shutdowns, we could use that feature, too), I'd like to see FoxView/FoxDraw brought beyond what I still feel is beta test reliability and features. Two years ago, we were promised that the next version of the package would have dynamic trending - where is it? I'd also like to know if FoxView is still being developed or is it being abandoned in favor of a Wonderware based product? I know this isn't as critical as Bo's issue, but it's important for planning and upgrades. Finally, there are two and half working days left until the User's Conference. Has anyone given any thought to how those of us who feel that bootless CP upgrades are a critical issue can organize and vote to see that it gets the attention it deserves? Are there any other specific items that we can bring up - additional function blocks, time delayed alarming, better documentation of existing control blocks, integerated expert system functions, fuzzy ? Granted, not everyone will have the same issues, but I think the group should be able to form a consensus to support each other's issues. John --- This list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by the Foxboro Company. All postings from this list are the work of list subscribers and no warranty is made or implied as to the accuracy of any information disseminated through this medium. By subscribing to this list you agree to hold the list sponsor(s) blameless for any and all mishaps which might occur due to your application of information received from this mailing list. To be removed from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe foxboro" in the Subject. Or, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
