Re: [LHA-misc] RE: HCS Web Pages

[Neil C. <nc...@ho...>]

Mike Baptiste wrote:
> 
> Bob,
> 
> I was just about to reply to your email when I saw your post here.  I
> figured I reply here too.

Actually I was hoping you would respond here, you are best qualified to
defend your product (but I wasn't trying to start a war, not implying that
you are either). I just felt that this forum was the appropriate place
for the discussion.

> Yes, it uses and 'old' design, but not necessarily 'old' technology.  We
> upgraded the CPU used in the HCS-II, giving it a performance boost of
> 2.5.  Not bad for an older design.  The key is, it still gets the job
> done with room to spare and it is a VERY stable and reliable platform.
> My telephone is based on 50 year old technology and still works as
> designed :)

Funny thing about 'old' technology is that it becomes the 'new thing'
every once in a while. The PIC chips were designed in the 60's. The
technology used in the Intel x86 family is derived from 70's mainframes.
And the Z80 is back again as the EZ80. Of course all have been updated
a bit to take advantage of new methods of integration and construction.
I seem to recall that the Lineo board is based on the 68K processor
(1979). 
 
> However, I have no plans to create a system that uses Ethernet as the
> core communications media.

Ooops, I didn't mean to imply that the ethernet should be used to talk
to controllers. I hope nobody gets that impression. I'd like to also
clarify my past thoughts on the HCS. It can be purchased as a kit or
ready assembled.

> Now, I agree that using an embedded Linux solution sounds appealing and
> it has advantages.  But don't mix apples and oranges.  The HCS-II is not
> just hardware.  It uses an advanced firmware program that provides for
> an easy to use control langauage called XPRESS (included in the $299 you
> pay for an HCS-II board)  You simply write a program to control your
> house, compile it, and upload it to the HCS-II.   There is 200 pages of
> code behind all that functionality.

Yes this is very important, the Lineo board may be less expensive at
first blush but it doesn't come with HA software, the I/O still has to
be buffered (you need hardware) and it still needs a HA control software.
For some people this may be fine as it what they like to do (I not trying
to discourage you and neither is Mike).

> Sure, you can use perl in Linux to control your house, but this means
> you have to worry about control AND the interfaces to the various I/O
> you might have.
	<SNIP>
>                                                            But realize
> that $300 for an HA controller is more than just hardware, regardless of
> the age.
> 
> Neil's project aims to provide a generic interface to the existing HA
> hardware (and any new stuff that comes out).  Its a great idea since it
> lets you take basic HA controllers and add even more intelligence to
> them.  But don't forget the above controller were designed as stand
> alone devices that don't require a PC to be on non stop.

The last sentence is very important! One thing I've learned form my work
and experience is that eventually things fail. With the the LHA project
I intend to make the failure of the Linux box a smaller issue. The HA
controller can run independent of the Linux box and do what it's
programmed to do. The Linux box mainly gives you access to the status of
everything. But it also allows you to 'influence' the controllers
behaviour. And lastly it allows you to integrate dissimilar systems. By
using Perl and shell you can often create 'quick', 'dirty' little hacks
that let the HCS, the Ocelot, the CM11A, the CM17A, a weather station
and whatever else I have work together.

> Now regarding CeBus...  I personally wonder about its future.  It has
> been around for some time.  The parts and interfaces are VERY expensive,
> but that may change.
	<SNIP>
> The problem with CeBus is it requires a LOT of overhead.

Many of us beleive that X10 as a protocol will go away (BTW: A10 sounds
interesting). I have no idea what will replace it. I've heard of CeBUS
and LonWorks but I've yet to see much in the way of products and what I
have seen is very expensive (you want me to replace my $2 light switch
(hey, I only buy the best :-) with a $150 switch?).

Dave Houston has an interesting project using a Scenix chip and wireless
to interface to X10 that sounds great! Give you any ideas Mike? :-)

On the subject of a lot of overhead, that goes for LONWorks and UPnP.
They both sound great but require lots of overhead. I know that CPU are
getting faster, more powerful and cheaper but the resources required for
these tecnologies is bordering on Bloat! When I design networks for my
customers I try to keep it as simple as possible to meet the customers
needs. The best designs are simple. This makes installation, maintenance,
and debugging quick and easy.

> Sorry for the long post, just had a lot to cover and I haven't posted in
> a while! :)

BTW how was the show(s)?

-- 
Linux Home Automation           Neil Cherry             nc...@ho...
http://members.home.net/ncherry                         (Text only)
http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/lightsey/52           (Graphics)
http://linuxha.sourceforge.net/				(SourceForge)