(long, sorry ..) Re: 2026 white paper on EPICS vs commercial SCADA software

[giacchin via Tech-talk <tech-talk at aps.anl.gov>]

Dear Rich, dear Diego, dear all,

Thank you both for raising this discussion and for Diego's precise and 
technically well-grounded observations. I read the paper with interest 
and share several of his concerns, more,  the notable absence of any 
reference to the LIPAc operational experience — which remains, after 
all, the most directly comparable running installation one could 
identify for IFMIF-DONES.
I would like to add a perspective shaped by more than fifteen years of 
working inside this community — not as a rebuttal, but as a reminder of 
a context that I think is worth keeping in mind.
Every time I attend an EPICS collaboration meeting, I am genuinely 
struck by the number of talented, enthusiastic engineers who bring fresh 
energy and intellectual curiosity to the framework. The contribution 
rate has not slowed; if anything, the pace of development around EPICS 
7, PVXS, and the tooling ecosystem surrounding Phoebus and the Archiver 
Appliance has accelerated in the recent years. This is not the picture 
of a stagnating legacy system.
In a broader sense, I find myself to think of EPICS in terms analogous 
to what Linux represented for operating systems: a sustained, 
internationally coordinated effort to build professional-grade software 
through open collaboration among research institutions, with no single 
commercial interest controlling the roadmap. That comparison is not 
merely rhetorical — the governance model, the transparency of 
development, and the depth of peer-review that happens implicitly 
through multi-site deployment are genuine structural advantages that a 
comparative scoring table does not easily capture.
On the paper itself: I think it is most useful to read it as the 
expression of a specific project's evaluation process, conducted within 
a particular institutional context and set of priorities. Different 
facilities weigh requirements in different ways, and it is entirely 
reasonable for some projects to conclude that a commercial SCADA 
platform better fits their operational model, their procurement 
framework, or their available engineering expertise. That is a 
legitimate outcome, and it says nothing definitive about the framework 
itself.
What I find more meaningful, as always, is the broader picture: the 
number and diversity of facilities worldwide that run EPICS in 
production — from spallation sources to synchrotrons, from fusion 
devices to cryogenic test stands — continues to grow. The mutual support 
within this community, the willingness of engineers at one site to 
invest time helping colleagues at another site to work through a 
difficult problem, is something that no commercial licence agreement 
replicates. And through all of this, we continue to have extraordinary 
people dedicating a sustained effort to keeping the framework not merely 
maintained but genuinely advancing.
A single paper does not change that. The community's track record speaks 
clearly enough on its own.
With warm regards and appreciation for this exchange,
Mauro.



On 2026-06-24 20:19, Diego Omitto via Tech-talk wrote:
> Subject: Re: Comparative SCADA evaluation - IFMIF-DONES paper
>
> Hi Rich,
>
> I read the paper and have a few specific concerns.
>
> I noticed a factual error in the operational critique: the authors
> claim that changing a variable property in EPICS requires restarting
> the IOC database. Runtime field modification via caput, dbpf, and
> autosave/restore is standard practice. This is not a minor point. If
> the evaluators did not know this, the scoring in Table 2 reflects
> unfamiliarity with the framework, not its actual capabilities.
>
> This also undermines the paper's characterization of EPICS as a legacy
> framework. EPICS 7 introduced PVAccess as a first-class protocol with
> structured data types, high-throughput streaming, and normative types
> that go well beyond what OPC-UA offers in accelerator contexts. The
> ecosystem around it is actively developed.
>
> More damaging to the paper's credibility: it cites the ITER
> OPC-UA/EPICS gateway as prior art for the CODAC-MPS integration
> problem, then penalizes EPICS in the scoring for limited OPC-UA
> support. The solution they acknowledge exists was excluded from the
> evaluation.
>
> Finally, the paper does not address the most obvious question: LIPAc,
> the direct operational prototype of IFMIF-DONES, runs EPICS. I don't
> see an explanation for why a framework adequate for the prototype is
> suddenly inadequate for the full facility.
>
> That omission says more about the motivation behind this study than
> the scoring does.
>
> Best,
> Diego
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 1:29 PM Evans, Richard K. (GRC-H000) via
> Tech-talk <tech-talk at aps.anl.gov> wrote:
>
> > Dear EPICS community,
> >
> > I recently came across a new whitepaper that present a comparative
> > evaluation of EPICS against various commercial SCADA platform
> > alternatives. The evaluation uses a set of requirements that they
> > state are representative of the IFMIF-DONES plant currently being
> > constructed in Escúzar, Granada, Spain.  The paper is linked below.
> > If you have a moment and are inclined, please take a look at Table
> > 2 and Figure 3 and let me know if you feel that EPICS has been rated
> > accurately/fairly.
> >
> > "A comparative study of industrial and open-source SCADAs to
> > optimize the design of control systems for the IFMIF-DONES plant"
> https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://www.researchgate.net/publication/403928088_A_comparative_study_of_industrial_and_open-source_SCADAs_to_optimize_the_design_of_control_systems_for_the_IFMIF-DONES_plant__;!!G_uCfscf7eWS!dLrszc_F4-MNU6rvR6_tBzD-oxGJWgrejzopanOX1p9BNsJxyEPjxFevbkdTX0hdTvbTDWos84abzN6ViuHnARMNORgosr0r$
> > Note - Figure 3 shows EPICS as seriously deficient as compared to
> > commercial SCADA software, but then I saw what they said on Table 2
> > requirement #17 wrt video and it doesn't seem like they fully
> > understood EPICS well enough to give it an honest rating.
> >
> > The paper is being circulated within my organization as strong
> > evidence that EPICS is a poor option as a control system SCADA for a
> > facility.  Any insights this community can provide in explaining the
> > possible motivations of  the authors and/or highlighting any clear
> > bias or incorrect assessments that the paper may contain would be
> > much appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> > - Rich Evans
> > NASA Armstrong Test Facility
> > Sandusky, Ohio