Table of PG3 node servers

[palayman]

Outside of the actual PG3 Node Server store, is there a table of available node servers, support level and price?  Considering finally moving from PG2 to PG3 versus other options.

Thanks,
Paul

[larryllix]

Outside of the actual PG3 Node Server store, is there a table of available node servers, support level and price?  Considering finally moving from PG2 to PG3 versus other options.
Thanks,
Paul

No. It's a dynamic and constantly changing list.

There are more selections than PG2 and many are free and most are only a few bucks.

Sent from my SM-G781W using Tapatalk

[bpwwer]

@palaymanYes  polyglot.universal-devices.com lists all current node servers and clicking on the node server brings up the details including price(s).

[palayman]

18 hours ago, bpwwer said:

@palaymanYes  polyglot.universal-devices.com lists all current node servers and clicking on the node server brings up the details including price(s).

This is awesome!

A few questions. Mainly for someone at UDI.

Any thought of adding ratings and/or node server reviews to this table?

What is the formal difference between production and non-production stores?

Are there any guarantees that node servers in the production store will be supported for a reasonable period of time and changes to the third party API will be supported promptly?

Just want to understand what I'm signing up for.  Was not happy when I couldn't move to PG3 when a couple of node servers I was using weren't available during the transition from PG2. Currently running Home Assistant in parallel to gain access to these.

Paul

PS Love the Solution Tag UDI has added to threads!

Edited February 1, 2023 by palayman

[asbril]

2 hours ago, palayman said:

Are there any guarantees that node servers in the production store will be supported for a reasonable period of time and changes to the third party API will be supported promptly?

That is why I favor for annual subscription fee for each Node Server, so that users can have reasonable expectation that the developer "services" the Node Server.

Often we depend on one sole person (the developer) to maintain the Node Server. I believe that Home Assistant has a more collaborative structure which may give their Integrations a more solid support. Of course many of the ISY node servers receive solid support from the developper, but not all.

Edited February 1, 2023 by asbril

[firstone]

1 hour ago, asbril said:

Often we depend on one sole person (the developer) to maintain the Node Server. I believe that Home Assistant has a more collaborative structure which may give their Integrations a more solid support. 

I think it's largely a function of total number of users and what percentage of them is capable and willing to contribute. Likewise, anybody is free to contribute any fixes to any of my node servers. 

Of course, situation can change when payment is involved. But it's a lot more complicated topic. Even companies go out of business, drop the product or support for it or support gets outsourced and takes weeks...

[asbril]

1 hour ago, firstone said:

I think it's largely a function of total number of users and what percentage of them is capable and willing to contribute. Likewise, anybody is free to contribute any fixes to any of my node servers. 

Of course, situation can change when payment is involved. But it's a lot more complicated topic. Even companies go out of business, drop the product or support for it or support gets outsourced and takes weeks...

I fully understand. I am one of the few having discovered the wonders of your Holidays Google Node Server. For me it is the most powerful Node Server of all. Your support to me has been outstanding.

In general I am a firm believer that ongoing support needs to be compensated. In fact, there should be a UD support plan, as it is not reasonable for Michel, Chris and Javi to be so available for free.... Of course there should be warranty period and also (free) support for new firmware, but free has to be within reason.

Edited February 1, 2023 by asbril

[bpwwer]

5 hours ago, palayman said:

This is awesome!

A few questions. Mainly for someone at UDI.

Any thought of adding ratings and/or node server reviews to this table?

What is the formal difference between production and non-production stores?

Are there any guarantees that node servers in the production store will be supported for a reasonable period of time and changes to the third party API will be supported promptly?

Just want to understand what I'm signing up for.  Was not happy when I couldn't move to PG3 when a couple of node servers I was using weren't available during the transition from PG2. Currently running Home Assistant in parallel to gain access to these.

Paul

PS Love the Solution Tag UDI has added to threads!

Ratings and reviews are a good idea.  I'll have to think about how that could work.

The formal difference between the stores is supposed to be the expectations of the users.  The non-production store was set up to provide developers a way to test both the node server and the actual release process with the expectation that not everything may work.   Node servers in the production store are expected to work.

Support levels are currently defined exclusively by the developers of the node servers.   My personal opinion is that the cost should reflect the expected level of support.  The higher the cost, the higher the expectation is for support.  Nobody should expect that a node server that is free will have the same level of support as one that cost $100, but again, that's my opinion. 

 

[palayman]

27 minutes ago, bpwwer said:

Ratings and reviews are a good idea.  I'll have to think about how that could work.

The formal difference between the stores is supposed to be the expectations of the users.  The non-production store was set up to provide developers a way to test both the node server and the actual release process with the expectation that not everything may work.   Node servers in the production store are expected to work.

Support levels are currently defined exclusively by the developers of the node servers.   My personal opinion is that the cost should reflect the expected level of support.  The higher the cost, the higher the expectation is for support.  Nobody should expect that a node server that is free will have the same level of support as one that cost $100, but again, that's my opinion. 

 

Perhaps the developers should provide some statement of support expectations in the table so users could decide if it seems adequate for their needs. Then there is no expectation mismatch.

Is it safe to assume source code for node servers in the production store is not provided? Somewhat concerned that a developer might get pulled away or disappear.  Could there should be a mechanism for the source to be made available after some period of time if the this should happen.

[bpwwer]

1 hour ago, palayman said:

Is it safe to assume source code for node servers in the production store is not provided? Somewhat concerned that a developer might get pulled away or disappear.  Could there should be a mechanism for the source to be made available after some period of time if the this should happen.

No, that would be a bad assumption.  Developers can make the source available or not, depending on how they license the node server.  Many free node server do have a fairly permissive license and do make the source code available.

And no also to the second question.  The license the node server is released under is determined by the node server developer. It would be illegal for a third party to release the source if the developer doesn't allow it.

The node server ecosystem isn't really large enough at this point to attract corporate developers so today it's people creating and supporting node servers in their spare time.  So of course there's a concern that they might stop supporting their node servers.  

[firstone]

25 minutes ago, bpwwer said:

And no also to the second question.  The license the node server is released under is determined by the node server developer. It would be illegal for a third party to release the source if the developer doesn't allow it.

If developer decides to stop developing what are the options? Creating completely new node server for the same integration? Kinds of sucks but I don't see any other possibilities.

[palayman]

53 minutes ago, bpwwer said:

And no also to the second question.  The license the node server is released under is determined by the node server developer. It would be illegal for a third party to release the source if the developer doesn't allow it.

Is this license available for review before you purchase or use the node server?

[bpwwer]

45 minutes ago, firstone said:

If developer decides to stop developing what are the options? Creating completely new node server for the same integration? Kinds of sucks but I don't see any other possibilities.

If the node server is proprietary and doesn't grant permissions to modify the code, then yes, creating a new one is the obvious answer.  But again, this depends on what the node server developer want to do.  Recently one of the developers wanted to stop supporting their node servers and passed them on to someone else to continue supporting them.

Most of the PG2 node servers that were abandoned, were ported to PG3 by me since the license allowed for that. 

[bpwwer]

22 minutes ago, palayman said:

Is this license available for review before you purchase or use the node server?

Good point.  In most cases, I don't believe it is, but it should be.  Another thing to add to me todo list.

[Geddy]

18 hours ago, palayman said:

Is this license available for review before you purchase or use the node server?

Do you mean trial before you buy? Or something specific to the license? 

  

17 hours ago, bpwwer said:

Good point.  In most cases, I don't believe it is, but it should be.  Another thing to add to me todo list.

@palayman many node servers do offer a trial period. This gives you the ability to install and make sure they work before you commit. That information is usually seen in the details of each node server. 

Elk (for example) shows this:

So you can try it for a month then pay $30 to have ongoing access to it. 

 

[palayman]

3 minutes ago, Geddy said:

Do you mean trial before you buy? Or something specific to the license? 

  

@palayman many node servers do offer a trial period. This gives you the ability to install and make sure they work before you commit. That information is usually seen in the details of each node server. 

Elk (for example) shows this:

So you can try it for a month then pay $30 to have ongoing access to it. 

 

As to your first question, I mean let us see the license terms before I even try it.

Basically I trying to figure out if is worth while moving from my ISY and PG2 to the Polisy I have owned for almost 2 years and PG3 (which has already been replaced by the EISY) versus moving entirely to Home Assistant.  Don't really want to invest in the move until I've assessed fully the costs and benefits for my particular situation. I think this is reasonable.

[Geddy]

2 minutes ago, palayman said:

I think this is reasonable.

I 100% agree. Thankfully I do not rely on node servers so haven't worried about such issues. They really seem great for people that need them and rely on them. My system isn't that complicated and not spread between multiple ecosystems that would require node servers to monitor/control everything through ISY. 

I think most (as with PG2) have always just taken the leap of faith a little more blindly and trusted that there would be support for the systems they're using. 

To me, I've always looked at node servers as something somebody made to support their system. They then offered it to others at large through PGC/PG2. With the development of PG3/PG3x UDI gave those developers a way to get paid for their development and (ongoing) support. Some have probably been more diligent with their development and support than others. But at the end of the day I see this more as an individual offering rather than company offerings and at that level feel that ongoing usability and support should be hopeful at best. Case in point that @bpwwer mentions at least one has recently decided to abandon development and turn their offerings over to others. Sadly, people that had purchased those node servers might now have to wait for them to be usable again. I highly doubt that many individual developers have a true license that is in place. I would assume it's under an blanket license agreement with UDI as a part of the developer level process. 

You bring up a lot of great and valid points for your situation and concerns. Others just take the leap of faith and keep on trucking. 

[bpwwer]

I suspect that most node servers are under the MIT license as that's what the template and examples use.  So my guess is that most just copy the same licence file over and don't change.

However, I can really only speak for my own node servers.  Those that I've written and sell are licensed under a proprietary license that prohibits modifying or re-distributing the code.

[palayman]

1 hour ago, Geddy said:

I think most (as with PG2) have always just taken the leap of faith a little more blindly and trusted that there would be support for the systems they're using. 

Unfortunately I was one of them. I thought it would be wonderful.  Open hardware (Raspberry Pi) and open source software.  Beautiful.  Then there was the short lived Policy,  PG3 and node servers with no source and no tangible support commitments.

My wife is severely disabled and has come to be dependent on home automation to give her some degree of independence. Unanticipated change is not desirable. Hence my diligence. 

Edited February 2, 2023 by palayman

[lilyoyo1]

20 hours ago, bpwwer said:

Recently one of the developers wanted to stop supporting their node servers and passed them on to someone else to continue supporting them.

Which node servers does this affect

[bpwwer]

36 minutes ago, lilyoyo1 said:

Which node servers does this affect

Why does it matter?  Are you just curios?  I'm reluctant to name the developer (which would be obvious by listing the node servers).  If you feel you have a legitimate need to know, it might be better to move this to a PM.

My point was that there are ways to properly transfer support of a node server should the developer feel it's something they can no longer support.

[lilyoyo1]

47 minutes ago, bpwwer said:

Why does it matter?  Are you just curios?  I'm reluctant to name the developer (which would be obvious by listing the node servers).  If you feel you have a legitimate need to know, it might be better to move this to a PM.

My point was that there are ways to properly transfer support of a node server should the developer feel it's something they can no longer support.

I was asking out of curiosity. When it comes to people spending money on something that may or may not be supported going forward, they do have a right to know that information. Yes, it's buy at your own risk to a certain degree as anyone can step down in the future.

However, for node servers to work and the platform to succeed, people will need to believe in the system and trust that they won't be wasting their money only to see things break or have issues without a fix. 

If those node servers (in addition to potential future situations) are being picked up by UDI, yourself, or someone else, then it's all a moot point. 

[bpwwer]

2 hours ago, lilyoyo1 said:

I was asking out of curiosity. When it comes to people spending money on something that may or may not be supported going forward, they do have a right to know that information. Yes, it's buy at your own risk to a certain degree as anyone can step down in the future.

However, for node servers to work and the platform to succeed, people will need to believe in the system and trust that they won't be wasting their money only to see things break or have issues without a fix. 

If those node servers (in addition to potential future situations) are being picked up by UDI, yourself, or someone else, then it's all a moot point. 

I fully agree with this.  

At this point, I don't really feel that's is my place to announce a change of ownership and that it's something the original author should do.  

Unfortunately, UDI doesn't have the resources to police the node server store so it's really left to the individual developers to be upfront with the level of support they're capable of providing.  It's not hard for a developer to update the description or readme for their node server to say they are no longer going to be providing support.  But this is where having ratings/reviews could be really useful.  

Maybe adding a support commitment level would be useful, but that again would require the author to update it if their situation changes.

This discussion has been good in that it's given me a lot to think about for the node server details.  Thanks @palaymanfor initiating this.