Are we "walled off"?

[Michael Aivaliotis]

Noticed this on twitter today:

http://twitpic.com/2rb1st

What do you think?

In my humble experience, folks learned in lab view are walled off from just about all other hardware solutions

[jgcode]

Noticed this on twitter today:

http://twitpic.com/2rb1st

What do you think?

I think that man prefers open-source stuff.

[ShaunR]

As generality/stereotype....yes. But not because of what he probably thinks. Is there a full video?

[Dan DeFriese]

Well, even though it’s not true. I sometimes pretend it is.

I certainly take no offence since NI hardware just seems to work better and more reliably than the cheaper crap people bring into the lab. Even those poor C\C++ programmers down the hall agree, eventually.

[crossrulz]

They could at least learn to spell LabVIEW correctly (capitalization is wrong multiple times, two words once)

[mje]

I think to some extent, yes we are walled off. I'm pretty ignorant of non NI hardware. To some extent it's intentional. My time is way to valuable to spend tackling the latest low-cost, low-support, low-functionality, low-extensibility system from some other vendor. I buy and work with NI because their hardware just works (usually). For me its an investment in a platform that is proven, stable, and reliable, with good support for both hardware and software.

[Ryan Podsim]

I think it comes down to a more fundamental reason... Money. Yes, NI hardware may cost more, but it works 99% of time. The low hardware cost solutions may look appealing, but how much developer time and debug time does it take to making it work? What does that time cost you? I'll admit if I was going to be shipping 1 million plus units, hardware cost would be a factor, but the test systems I design usually only number in the 10s so development time is the driving factor and the less time I spend 'making it work' the better.

[Daklu]

"Labview allows modification, but not reinvention."

I'm not sure what he means by that. Anyone have a clue?

"Folks learned in Labview are walled off from just about all other hardware solutions."

He's referring to developers who create test apps using Labview not wanting to consider other hardware vendors. Sounds like a disgruntled salesman...

There's nothing inherent in Labview that prevents me from using other hardware as long as that vendor has supplied a good api. We rarely use NI hardware in our test systems: Total Phase Beagle and Aardvark instead of the USB-8451, Fanuc robot controllers instead of NI Motion, independent Agilent spectrum analyzers and VSGs instead of NI's virtual instruments, etc. We use NI hardware when that solution is the best one available, all things considered.

[jhoskins]

I would have to say that I am not walled off because of LabVIEW. In fact it is because of LabVIEW that I am where I am today. Before i learned LabVIEW I was just an ordinary electronics technician. Then i learned LabVIEW and that sparked an interest in software development. Now I am pursuing my Master's in computer science. My Job pays a lot better than it did. I am proficient in many more programming languages and that has broadened my career extensively.

When I am designing a test set or anything for that matter. I use the tool that is the best for the job. Is it ALWAYS an NI product, do I always use LabVIEW, no, I use the right tool for the job that is going to give me the results that I want and need. I will not use a wrench to turn a screw made for a screwdriver.

Just my 2 cents

"I'm in a cube, Walls we don't need no stinking walls"

[Phillip Brooks]

From Dan Steingart's blog:

Giving It Away

Somehow I’ve managed to a sneak a talk in at the

open hardware summit

between

Leah Buechley

, inventor of the

lilypad

and

Michael Shiloh

, hacker extraordinaire. Beyond that there are other rockstars of open source like

Dave Mellis

, lead software dude for the

arduino

,

Bunnie Huang

of

Chumby

fame, the dudes from

Seeed

and

Sparkfun

, and, well, just about everyone else other than me is a rockstar.

Ostensibly I’m going to talk about why I think the

ardustat

is important, but I’m also going to rail a bit about the decline, IMHO, of the grad student hacker outside of EE/CS, and how open source hardware can reverse this trend. So

register

, suffer through my talk (it’s 10 minutes, go to the can or something), and then be enlightened for the rest of the day by some truly generous, thoughtful people.

1 month ago

Notes (0)

I think this helps put the image in perspective (at least for me).

[jzoller]

I think to some extent, yes we are walled off. I'm pretty ignorant of non NI hardware. To some extent it's intentional. My time is way to valuable to spend tackling the latest low-cost, low-support, low-functionality, low-extensibility system from some other vendor. I buy and work with NI because their hardware just works (usually). For me its an investment in a platform that is proven, stable, and reliable, with good support for both hardware and software.

This.

[jgcode]

I have never understood those people who always go for the cheapest DAQ just because its the cheapest.

IMHO, the most powerful thing about NI is not their hardware and not LabVIEW (don't get me wrong these are both fantastic), its their Drivers - the connection between the IDE and the hardware.

Again, IMHO, for the extra cost upfront of going with more expensive hardware, you are going to save a bucket load of time (and therefore money) by having a reliable Driver set e.g. standardization/familiarity, support, flexibility, upgrades etc...

So a lot of the time (for what we do) it makes sense to choose NI. (However, we are also an Alliance partner, so we are bias)

[ShaunR]

I have never understood those people who always go for the cheapest DAQ just because its the cheapest.

IMHO, the most powerful thing about NI is not their hardware and not LabVIEW (don't get me wrong these are both fantastic), its their Drivers - the connection between the IDE and the hardware.

Again, IMHO, for the extra cost upfront of going with more expensive hardware, you are going to save a bucket load of time (and therefore money) by having a reliable Driver set e.g. standardization/familiarity, support, flexibility, upgrades etc...

So a lot of the time (for what we do) it makes sense to choose NI. (However, we are also an Alliance partner, so we are bias)

You are quite right. It is the synergy between their hardware and the software (sometimes we forget Labwindows) that makes them the obvious choice. And one of the main reasons Labview is as successful as it is is because. It turns a software engineer into a systems engineer (much more useful ) However, if all you need is a dumb remote analogue or digital device then the cost of cRIO or field-point cannot be justified ($2000-$4000) against a $200 ethernet device from another well known manufacturer.

But having said that, I think it has more to do with confidence and experience than anything else.I am comfortable interfacing to anything in any language (but I will fight like buggery to use Labview ). If someone has only used labview and only knows labview products, then its a low risk, sure bet..

[Michael Aivaliotis]

...its their Drivers - the connection between the IDE and the hardware.

Ya, but it gets kinda silly when I have to download a 1 Gb driver installer. Don't ya think? I know, I know. You pay for the convenience. But it's still insane.

[jgcode]

Ya, but it gets kinda silly when I have to download a 1 Gb driver installer. Don't ya think? I know, I know. You pay for the convenience. But it's still insane.

Ha! I never mentioned the size of that connection...

Yes, you are right, to use DAQmx as an example: whilst the size has not increased dramatically in the last few releases - like it was doing previously (it may be ever so slightly shrinking as well) - I would love to be able to have the ability to be able to scope support to single devices so I can limit the size of my installers. (~150MB for the LRTE and) ~150MB for DAQmx Core drivers is cumbersome, we obviously can work with it, but I would like to know if anything could be done for it - maybe I should post this on the Idea Exchange?

[Val Brown]

Of course then, if you do that, you lose the easy, already built-in extensibility of the other drivers.

Again this is a paradigm argument not a rational discussion (meaning the original posted video). This is someone who believes the grad school hacker of the good ole days is the real hero and should be supported in all ways, but esp in terms of open source software and hardware. But perhaps most importantly in gaining and using real, true insider geeky knowledge -- the kind that comes from HAVING to make a really cheap hardware solution work in a limited budget environment, not a real-world production environment.

[Daryl]

Noticed this on twitter today:

http://twitpic.com/2rb1st

What do you think?

My life would definitely be much easier/nicer if I were walled off

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

Did not watch the videos but I can share some was that thought could be understood as valid.

1) DSA used to be a black art that only hardware could keep up with. THe software versions have covered that couldren for all but the most demanding apps.

2) With NI hardware working so reliably, the focus is on the actual science rather than the EE smoke and mirrors.

Although these points are valid they aren't much different from the computers themselves where very few peolpe actually understand what is happening inside the CPU but make very good use of it lacking that familiarity.

So we are equally walled-off from what it takes to smelt the metal we need to make nails. This is part of the evolution of technology and is equally a concern as our lack of knowlege re: growing our own food.

On a similar note I finally made the decision to retire my "Scope Cart" (O'scope PS etc) from my work-shop just this week-end.

Ben

[Cat]

I often use non-NI hardware... as long as it comes with LabVIEW drivers.