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

["Evans, Richard K. \(GRC-H000\) via Tech-talk" <tech-talk at aps.anl.gov>]

Well said, Mauro. Thank you. 

/Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: giacchin <giacchin at lnl.infn.it> 
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2026 2:51 AM
To: Evans, Richard K. (GRC-H000) <richard.k.evans at nasa.gov>; Diego Omitto <diego.omitto at gmail.com>; tech-talk at aps.anl.gov
Subject: [EXTERNAL] (long, sorry ..) Re: 2026 white paper on EPICS vs commercial SCADA software

[You don't often get email from giacchin at lnl.infn.it. Learn why this is important at https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification__;!!G_uCfscf7eWS!ffx3GgC85e9RXaRn-rL2PreZkG8MVEB0kbbMOYeG15zsDj6lc7kC2gsLD1NxrCJSpCuq6P-vuKvrBT-NWeMuQobrUNuJXtiy$  ]

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of NASA.  Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.  Use the "Report Message" button to report suspicious messages to the NASA SOC.




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://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Furld__;JSUl!!G_uCfscf7eWS!ffx3GgC85e9RXaRn-rL2PreZkG8MVEB0kbbMOYeG15zsDj6lc7kC2gsLD1NxrCJSpCuq6P-vuKvrBT-NWeMuQobrUIzo7Xx1$ 
> efense.us%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F
> 403928088_A_comparative_study_of_industrial_and_open-source_SCADAs_to_
> optimize_the_design_of_control_systems_for_the_IFMIF-DONES_plant__%3B!
> !G_uCfscf7eWS!dLrszc_F4-MNU6rvR6_tBzD-oxGJWgrejzopanOX1p9BNsJxyEPjxFev
> bkdTX0hdTvbTDWos84abzN6ViuHnARMNORgosr0r%24&data=05%7C02%7Crichard.k.e
> vans%40nasa.gov%7C3c24247540474a04ee3008ded2861996%7C7005d45845be48ae8
> 140d43da96dd17b%7C0%7C0%7C639179670571027860%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8e
> yJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWF
> pbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=S5fFeJFbJ3RJ%2Bz%2FkWqHwJdPj4
> RlwgOlmNOMyWrYsWHs%3D&reserved=0
>>
>>
>> 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