Solutions for Viewing VIs

[billko]

---

@altenbach wrote:

---

@EricR wrote:

Christian,

When you launch the product, what does LabVIEW say it is operating as?  It should say "LabVIEW Community Edition".

Functionally, all of LabVIEW is available through the LabVIEW Community Edition.  Therefore the "package manager" view you showed is correct.  LabVIEW is installed, and its running in the "LabVIEW Community Edition" mode.

---

Yes, this is on a clean VM with only the community edition installed. If I try to surgically uninstall the hobbyist toolkit, it also wants to uninstall the "LabVIEW community" entry. However, it does not say that it will also uninstall "LabVIEW 32bit English". It is really not clear what some of these entries are.

Installation, uninstallation is way too slow and I don't want to waste another day just to play around but it seems that if I uninstall the hobbyist toolkit, it drags the "LabVIEW Community" down with it, maybe LabVIEW 32bit remains installed and functional. Maybe not? That was my question.

(As background, I want the community edition only for pure, hardware-free programming without all that extra driver baggage.)

---

Package Manager makes it impossible to surgically remove pieces anymore.  Or, at least, to predict what will happen with any reliability.

[NI]

LabVIEW is core to NI's software investments, and we continue to evolve its capabilities to meet the ongoing development needs for modern test systems. LabVIEW continues to be the ONLY programming language designed just for test and measurement applications. As NI continues to bring offerings, products, and components to the market, to facilitate the development, maintenance, and scalability of enterprise test software infrastructure, LabVIEW and a handful of other popular languages will be first-class citizens to connect to aspects of the infrastructure.  Solutions designed with these tools include scalable client/server architectures, cloud-enabled technologies and integration with languages best suited for those applications.  This is initially demonstrated with NI’s integration of gRPC into the software stack.

While additional tools like InstrumentStudio and SystemLink have become important to meet the needs of modern test systems, that does not diminish the value of LabVIEW as a core piece of NI technology. We continue to invest in LabVIEW, making it easier to deploy with modern CI/CD tools, and invest in our developer community.   Our move to a subscription plan was in line with the industry and was applied across all of our software product portfolio. Through ongoing development, we will continue to improve LabVIEW, TestStand and our other software products. Again, LabVIEW continues to play a vital role in modern test systems and NI has no plans to stop investing in it.

[altenbach]

---

@NI wrote:

...LabVIEW continues to be the ONLY programming language designed just for test and measurement applications. 

---

It always really saddens me when you artificially limit yourself to such a niche. LabVIEW is much more than that! It is a very rich, full featured programming language that can do virtually anything!

As Jeff Kodosky stated long ago here:

"A survey of LabVIEW users would likely match a recent informal poll of developers on the team, where the overwhelming majority were of the opinion that LabVIEW has sufficient functionality to be classified as general purpose, and, in fact, use it that way."

Note that the remaining "deficiencies" mentioned in the next sentence have since been implemented too!!!

In my opinion, the success of LabVIEW is a direct result of the vision of the developers to see it as much more than a puppet master for NI hardware. (back in the days, HP VEE did not do that and in the late nineties they tried hard to make me switch from LabVIEW to VEE, by sending me demos and such. I never liked it!).

Graphical dataflow programming as implemented in LabVIEW is beautiful and functional and very general. It does not matter if an input is read from an instrument or from a front panel control or if an output goes to an LED on the front panel or a digital output.

Yes, users that use LabVIEW mostly without hardware (or with non-NI hardware) don't contribute to the bottom line in the same way, but I argue that these are the people that advance adoption by focusing and developing very advanced programming solutions that will push the boundaries for all. Things will trickle down to all users. (Yes, big NI hardware customer, you can in fact do all that in LabVIEW right there, even during measurements, even if you initially thought you needed to save the data on a floppy disk and analyze it elsewhere.) 😄

My 30000+ kudos and 2600+ marked solutions here in the forum prove that what I just said is not just empty chit-chat.

Despite being just a "second (or third?) class LabVIEW programmer" in the eyes of NI management, I love it enough to keep using it daily for any computing tasks I can throw at it. Even to solve problems for other forum users that I don't even know. As a programmer since 1973, I haven't touched text programming in over 25 years and don't miss it at all. It is always satisfying to teach a computer a new trick nobody ever imagined, not even the LabVIEW developers. 😄

Don't forget the visionaries that designed LabVIEW as the stellar general tool it is today!!! Thanks!

[yura_beno]

LabVIEW does seem to have sufficient functionality with or without NI hardware, see http://bionichaos.com for examples. Please don't ruin it by silly user agreements, novel subscription structures, ridiculous policies, etc.

[JÞB]

---

@altenbach wrote:

---

@NI wrote:

...LabVIEW continues to be the ONLY programming language designed just for test and measurement applications. 

---

It always really saddens me when you artificially limit yourself to such a niche. LabVIEW is much more than that! It is a very rich, full featured programming language that can do virtually anything!

As Jeff Kodosky stated long ago here:

"A survey of LabVIEW users would likely match a recent informal poll of developers on the team, where the overwhelming majority were of the opinion that LabVIEW has sufficient functionality to be classified as general purpose, and, in fact, use it that way."

Note that the remaining "deficiencies" mentioned in the next sentence have since been implemented too!!!

In my opinion, the success of LabVIEW is a direct result of the vision of the developers to see it as much more than a puppet master for NI hardware. (back in the days, HP VEE did not do that and in the late nineties they tried hard to make me switch from LabVIEW to VEE, by sending me demos and such. I never liked it!).

Graphical dataflow programming as implemented in LabVIEW is beautiful and functional and very general. It does not matter if an input is read from an instrument or from a front panel control or if an output goes to an LED on the front panel or a digital output.

Yes, users that use LabVIEW mostly without hardware (or with non-NI hardware) don't contribute to the bottom line in the same way, but I argue that these are the people that advance adoption by focusing and developing very advanced programming solutions that will push the boundaries for all. Things will trickle down to all users. (Yes, big NI hardware customer, you can in fact do all that in LabVIEW right there, even during measurements, even if you initially thought you needed to save the data on a floppy disk and analyze it elsewhere.) 😄

My 30000+ kudos and 2600+ marked solutions here in the forum prove that what I just said is not just empty chit-chat.

Despite being just a "second (or third?) class LabVIEW programmer" in the eyes of NI management, I love it enough to keep using it daily for any computing tasks I can throw at it. Even to solve problems for other forum users that I don't even know. As a programmer since 1973, I haven't touched text programming in over 25 years and don't miss it at all. It is always satisfying to teach a computer a new trick nobody ever imagined, not even the LabVIEW developers. 😄

Don't forget the visionaries that designed LabVIEW as the stellar general tool it is today!!! Thanks!

---

In fact, although I have never mentioned it to Christian, I was one of those early adopters of developing Tests VIA straight HPIB and wanted a method to document MY HP configurations that yielded TESTS over HPIB busses.  VEE was a sorry way and HP 488 got stolen as a new IEEE standard.  @the same time I learned LabWindows!  ( yes before Microsoft licensed "Windows" from NI)  then I heard about LabVIEW!

And the LabVIEW Test Exective that was to be the forerunning concept of TestStand. 

VEE really never stood a chance against IEEE opening the best bus and NI hardware. 

[TeraTech]

---

@EricR wrote:

@MichaelBalzer - These are good points.  I confirm NI is evaluating additional solutions.  That said, solutions that require new features/functionality will take longer to make available.  The primary requirements for this solution were:

1. solutions need to be initially available quickly - ideally without waiting for the next software release
2. solutions must allow users to view any VIs built using LabVIEW Base, Full, or Professional editions to view IP they created even outside of an active subscription
3. solutions require that VIs and other LabVIEW "source" content developed by the end user are viewable in-context as they were created

The first requirement meant NI needed to have a solution that could be usable very quickly.  The second requirement provided a scope of what functionality needed to be available in the initial solution with the assumption that the solution can be iterated on beyond the initial starting point. The third requirement meant that "simple solutions", such as exporting pictures of Block Diagrams and Front Panels was unacceptable and there needed to be a more complete "viewing" experience, that closely resembled the editor experience.

One of the reasons I posted this thread was to capture additional requests, which include:

1. RT, FPGA, and other "modules" and "toolkits" aren't currently licensed in any existing option other than the editor experience
2. enable the functionality without requiring additional installations

To confirm, NI is investigating how to satisfy these additional scenarios.  Because there is no existing solution that can satisfy them, they will take longer to implement.  The time to have an initial solution available seemed important enough to the general LabVIEW community that NI did not want to wait until every possible scenario could be addressed before introducing any solution.  So we are introducing this initial solution the meets the requirements and then continuing to work on additional solutions.

---

@EricR

Will Community Edition be able to open code from an SSP version (say LV2021) and re-save it as an SaaS version LV2022+? Correspondingly, will the Community Edition then be able to re-save back to the SSP version LV2021 and prior?

My concern is that if someone here installs some SaaS version, LV2022 or after, say LV2024 trial version or Community Version, then uses that to open code from LV2021 or prior (an SSP non-SaaS version) then re-saves it as LV2024+. In that case, regardless that we have a LV2021 or prior perpetual license, we will no longer be able to open that code because it was saved using an SaaS version.

[crossrulz]

---

@TeraTech wrote:

Will Community Edition be able to open code from an SSP version (say LV2021) and re-save it as an SaaS version LV2022+? Correspondingly, will the Community Edition then be able to re-save back to the SSP version LV2021 and prior?

My concern is that if someone here installs some SaaS version, LV2022 or after, say LV2024 trial version or Community Version, then uses that to open code from LV2021 or prior (an SSP non-SaaS version) then re-saves it as LV2024+. In that case, regardless that we have a LV2021 or prior perpetual license, we will no longer be able to open that code because it was saved using an SaaS version.

---

LabVIEW is still LabVIEW, regardless of the licensing.  LabVIEW Community Edition is exactly the same as LabVIEW Profession other than the license.  You can take the files back and forth and do the "Save for Previous" using either license.

[paul_cardinale]

---

@NI wrote:

...

  Our move to a subscription plan was in line with the industry and 

...

---

So what?  Corporate me-too-ism is why most automobiles look like generic blobs.

You subscription plan is not compatible with the way we do business; so we won't go past LV 2021.  And we will likely not renew our support contract which expires at the end of this year.

I suspect that there are many other of your customers who that fall in the same category.

It doesn't matter how much you improve LabVIEW, your business model just doesn't suit us.

[EricR]

The Community Edition works the same as the other editions of LabVIEW, as was previously stated.

I will also re-iterate a point I've made in multiple other forums that got a lot of "kudos/up-voting".  I think the general approach to "project versioning" needs to change and improve. The whole idea that as a code-contributor, you have to keep track of what version of the editor you save the project with so you don't screw it up for other code-contributors is painful, manual, and error prone.  This is a particular workflow I would like to see improved. 

[mysticfree]

Eric,

I just spent 2 months trying to get a quote from NI so I could (reluctantly) renew our SSP - at double last year's price.  The problem is that NI now wants to automatically renew using the purchase order we used last year.  Unfortunately, once my company issues a PO, it is a one-time deal -  only good for single use.   Not only that, since the renewal price changed, NI did NOT provide a quote as your EULA says:

" The price for a renewal may change from time to time at NI’s discretion. In such event, NI will provide you with an updated quote at least sixty (60) days prior to the termination of the current License Term. If you do not agree to the new price, you may provide notice of intent not to renew thirty (30) days prior to the commencement of the renewal License Term. "

So for 2 months now, I went round and round with you guys dealing with canned email replies about "how convenient" this automatic renewal feature is.  It is NOT.  Finally, after I submitted a tech support ticket (can you believe it? a tech support ticket for a sales issue!) and a few more emails later, I got a quote issued.  That has been submitted to our accounting department who also said that purchase orders are a one-and-done document.  SO YOU CAN NOT AUTOMATICALLY USE IT NEXT YEAR!

Also, why is there no longer a phone number to talk to an actual human?  I couldn't find any for renewal.  I submitted info to the chat bot you have on the site. I asked and emailed repeatedly for a number to no available.

I have to say this year has been the most frustrating experience just to give you guys our company's money for the latest LabVIEW ransomware.

Hopefully, when Emerson takes over, we can get some relief from this subscription insanity.

If you could see in your heart to pass this absolutely unnecessary experience to your powers-that-be.  Maybe they improve NI's customer experience for next year.

Of course, I'm not holding my breath while looking for alternatives to protect my company from this eroding LabVIEW adventure.