[ros-users] ROS 2.0 Strategy review

[Cedric Pradalier]

Thanks Thibault,

This express exactly my impression about ROS2 and DDS. On the other hand, I
tried several time to contribute to ROS (core) and I actually haven't
observed that it is possible to do so. So I guess that this is consistent.

I might be biased by the fact that the plugin-based architecture I proposed
(and implemented) for the transport layer of ROS 1.0 could have implemented
a DDS transport to test the suitability of DDS without changing a single
line of code in everybody's packages. At the time, I was told that UDP
multicasting, shared memory or bzip2 transport were not really useful
because they would make roscpp too incompatible with rospy.

So for now, I'm waiting curiously to see what will happen but I'm reluctant
to invest much time in the discussion.


On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Thibault Kruse via ros-users <
ros-users at lists.ros.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Bill Smart via ros-users
> <ros-users at lists.ros.org> wrote:
> > Also, I was thinking about the (perceived) autocratic behaviour of OSRF,
> and
> > about the origins of ROS. [...] Then Willow Garage came along,
> > asked a bunch of people in the community what they thought, and
> implemented
> > ROS. [...] Sometimes we have to stop talking and just do it, even if
> > it's not the optimal strategy.
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> A difference between then and now is that Willow Garage did
> not previously had any community that it could divide/hurt by creating ROS.
>
> Also Willow Garage, despite having tight business goals (10K robots
> in US households by 2015 IIRC), and despite having enough resources to
> sustain it's own software, made the effort to nurture an open-source
> community.
> OSRF, without the pressure of business goals, and desperately needing
> open-source contributions, instead ignores the open-source process (REPs),
> and
> plans to make a release that will divide the community into
> sub-communities.
>
> Willow Garage had strong and immediate pressure to provide a core that
> the perception / manipulation / navigation / supervision teams inside
> Willow
> Garage could easily use.
> OSRF, not having a robot plattform to produce or support, does not have
> this immediate feedback. OSRF could substitute the lack thereof by making
> small
> increments to ROS1 that the large ROS1 community can validate in a lot of
> real-world projects, but OSRF decided to rather validate ROS2 features with
> some hello-world packages.
>
> The behavior of OSRF does not only influence how quickly ROS2 will be
> ready (if ever) or what technical features it provides. The behavior of
> OSRF
> also influences how motivated anyone will feel to contribute to ROS.
> And what value has ROS without it's contributors?
>
> Nobody needs ROS2 to use DDS. There are open-source DDS libraries to use.
> Not much is gained by delivering a ROS2 that's just a paper-thin layer on
> top of DDS, but lacks the community momentum of ROS. That's why the
> behavior of OSRF and the strategy for ROS2 matter. Ideally ROS2 should
> not divide the community, and ROS2 should not make potential contributors
> feel like their opinion does not matter.
>
> regards,
>   Thibault
> _______________________________________________
> ros-users mailing list
> ros-users at lists.ros.org
> http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
>



-- 
Cedric Pradalier
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ros.org/pipermail/ros-users/attachments/20151002/e0ca98e9/attachment.html>