Talk:Modbus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Neutral point of view[edit]

I went to the site, and I can say it contains nothing useful from encyclopedic point of view. This link belongs to 'yellow pages'. Deleting. --matusz 09:32, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think this page was written by a MODbus salesman. It is very POV.

Where are the sources to state that Modbus "is the most commonly used communication interface". I could have easily said the same about EtherNET/IP, Profibus, DeviceNET, DH+, ControlNET or RemoteI/O.

Wikipedia is a place to learn and share information, not to advertise.

ProdigalSon 08:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Count the devices. A reference refuting the statement would be most welcome. Modbus is everyone's second-favorite protocol (with their own, proprietary, superior protocol being offered to their customers who are englightened enough to realize that one vendor has every solution they could ever possibly need). I suspect that its popularity is due to being available royalty-free, though I have no reference for that. There's no such thing as a "Modbus" salesman any more than there's an "Ethernet" salesman. --Wtshymanski 13:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

As an engineer for a company which is an end-user of these products, I agree with Wtshymanski. We absolutely prefer Modbus because it's universally useful - we don't need NDAs or expensive licensing fees to make devices work with our in-house software. Just a modbus mapping spec, a day or two writing a new device module for our software, and it just works. Contrast to Profibus or DeviceNET... not a happy experience. Even getting HART specs out of some device manufacturers is like trying to get blood out of a stone. For Modbus, companies like Emerson, General Monitors, etc. have an appendix in the user manual which is all you need to make things work. Generally, it's the DeviceNet/ProfiBus manufacturers who want to lock you into their software. Such manufacturers who want vendor lock-in do NOT use Modbus.

As someone who helps in software development for natural gas equipment, I would agree that Modbus is the most widely used. However this is from my point of view and I have no physical proof to back this up. I would agree that without references, that statement does not belong here.

Alshain01 13:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed commercial (non free) link from Free section. Moved to commercial section -- user:wpostma

I think it is time to remove the NPOV warning, the article has been cleaned as requested by polite comments. If you think otherwise please justify. Jimwelch (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jimwelch. I'll try removing the warnings and see if that edit sticks. If not, then I'd like more specifics about exactly what wording is objectionable. RussNelson (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

most commonly?[edit]

Written in article: "It has become a de facto standard communications protocol in industry, and is now the most commonly available means of connecting industrial electronic devices." But http://www.controldesign.com/industrynews/2010/021.html says it's number 3. That is a contradiction.--UlrichAAB (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That reference talks about Ethernet. This article is about Modbus. --Wtshymanski (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed the link above only covers Modbus over TCP; but are there any surveys/sources supporting this claim in the article? -- intgr [talk] 16:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Gosh, there's no references. Better delete it, then. After all, Wikipedia doesn't run on common sense or knowledgeable editors. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, that was supposed to be a polite reference request, don't take it personally. I didn't say anything about deleting.
Stating that something is "the most common" is a big claim to make. The statement is fairly ambiguous, so I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for sources. Obviously you wouldn't cover surveying methodology in the article, hence why pointing to a source is useful. -- intgr [talk] 18:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I've just spent 15 minutes with Google Books, which is 14 3/4 more minutes research than most Wikipedia articles get. One would hope a subject matter expert would add more, although one's touching faith in the notion that someone who gets paid to know about things would spend his valuable time on Wikipedia might be ill-founded in reality. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Which industry? I work with automation systems focused on residential and commercial (The "CEDIA Industry") but not industrial, and I have implemented drivers for hundreds of devices over the years and I rarely come across devices supporting the Modbus protocol. No VCR/DVD player speaks it, nor Jandy or Compool controllers, nor Lutron or Vantage lighting controllers, nor GE security systems - just to name a few off the top of my head. Maybe the statement is true among industrial automation systems - it seems popular in that realm - but very far from the truth among other commercial and residential applications. --108.95.137.143 (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)IanEpperson

I have been working as an automation engineer for many years using most common industrial fieldbuses. Modbus is not my favorite, but I still agree with the article. It's definitely one of the most spread protocols, supported by many companys. I do not think the article is like an advertisment. I think it's quite balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.16.173.217 (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Protocol or society?[edit]

Paragraph 1: "Modbus is a serial communications protocol...."

Paragraph 3: "Suppliers large and small, .... can become Modbus members." 80.45.129.137 (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Good remark. And the answer is: (a) Modbus is a protocol, while Modbus Organization is ... right, the organization, and (b) I clarified this point in the article. --Marius 12:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Open-source software[edit]

Protocol Variants and Stack[edit]

Why has the section on Modbus Protocol Variants been removed? My first introduction to Modbus was via this article, and the section on protocol variants was very useful in developing my understanding. I feel the article is much less useful and informative as a result of removing this section. Also, there is now no indication (except in passing) of how Modbus sits within a protocol stack. There is only reference to Modbus over TCP/IP in passing, and no reference to RS485 as a physial layer for ModbusRTU. Stevegoobermanhill (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Steve

Seconded. I expect a wikipedia article to give a good general overview. No indication of physical layer (RS485), or any indication of exactly how slave units respond with their data, or relative timings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.242.49 (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)