Slashdot Mirror
Linux -- Government Acceptance vs. Actual Use
sdriver writes: "As someone who works in the Space/Science/Military field (as a contractor) I thought I'd share some links to how much Linux really is being used. This one is the U.S. Military using Linux. This is another. This one is about realtime Linux stuff for the U.S. Military. Then there are some general arguments about Open source here and here. For those of us who have hardcopies of this magazine will notice most advertisments feature Linux along with VxWorks as a typical target platform. Not the "other" guys."
It's no surprise or secret that for all its tripwire maze of requirements, the U.S. government uses plenty of Free software already. Still, a re-examination of the POSIX requirement would seem in order. Or perhaps the Feds would like to save money by funding the development of an add-on POSIX implementation layer for Linux -- after all, that sounds "good enough for government work." ;)
Go back and reread the article. What possible facts do you have which supports the notion that it was an OS Failure?
Some inept journalist who says "The system crashed". What does that mean? We had our Oracle server crash the other day, yet at no point was it the fault of the OS(HPUX).
The Oracle server problem caused all the apps on the remote terminals to fail to function as well.
You can go right ahead and call names. You really aren't in a position to do so considering you appear to have very little understanding of system design or how an OS functions in relation to it's applications.
...because the government shouldn't have shackled themselves to such a proprietary system as Windows in the first place.
I mean, I understand that there weren't many open systems back when the DoD, for example, started migrating from MS-DOS to Windows for servers. However, there have always been operating systems where you could at least view and audit the source, if not give it away.
IIRC, AT&T Unix was always fairly "open" in the sense that you could contract with them to look at the code. Somehow I doubt that the government ever got that option from Redmond.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
From the ma-linux tux list:
l
BTW, there's actually another reason: All gov't computers are required to
be fully POSIX compliant, which MS OS's are not.
"...shall have a POSIX compliant, multi-user, multi-tasking OS [operating
system] that is capable of providing the following services concurrently:
print, file, communications, networking, and database."
I've brought this up lightly at the Dept. of Ed. and people didn't care.
-brian
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> Government Computer News column by S.M.Ryan:
>
> http://www.gcn.com/vol19_no20a/opinion/2449-1.htm
>
> brings up the topic of a Federal Acquisition Regulation Council rule,
> known as the 'blacklisting rule', that requires the government to
> do business only with vendors that it finds 'responsible'. He writes:
>
> The proposed standard remains the same: no finding of
> responsibility for vendors with "an unsatisfactory record
> of integrity and business ethics." But the new proposed
> rule requires contracting officers to rely more on
> objective measures, such as findings or decisions by U.S.
> courts, administrative law judges and boards of contract
> appeals.
>
> Could some enterprising contracting officer therefore
> conclude that Microsoft, the world's largest software
> company and a major seller to the federal government, has
> an unsatisfactory record of integrity and business ethics
> based on Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's detailed ruling?
>
> I think the answer is yes.
>
> If this comes to pass, it would be quite explosive, and would
> certainly be a good argument for the Supreme Court to decide the
> Microsoft case quickly.
>
>
> p
>
>
> NB for the legal eagles among us, I think the crucial passage is 52.209-5 (D),
> page 40833 of Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 127, Friday, June 30, 2000
> and can be obtained via http://www.arnet.gov/far/ProposedRules/99010.pdf
>
--
Brian C Merrell
merrell@tux.org
BilldaCat
People have to get over the 'anyone can modify it' stuff.
'Anyone can modify it' means two things.
1) The source is available
2) It's LEGAL to modify it.
Nothing more. It doesn't mean that 'anyone can walk into your installation and 'modify' your stuff.
It means you have to take responsibility YOURSELF for ensuring that you stay consistant with whatever setup you want.
sheldon wrote:
Do you include yourself in this list?
While it is true that a typo killed the application, the application killed, not just the computer it was running on, but all of the computers needed to run the entire ship.
Now, is that an application error or a system error? Who knows? I wouldn't think that an error in a single application would be able to take out an entire LAN, or even the computer on which it was running without some help from the underlying operating system.
That is why I am dissatisfied with the explanation that the error was an application error and the implication that it would have happened under any operating system.
I work as a Sys Admin for the US Air Force (SrA.) and I use Linux as a print server and internet connection firewall. There is even virus software (McAfee) for download at the site where I download updates for my Win NT/9x machines. Linux has not been "officially" adopted yet but like many other places, it is in use. The military does not have an "on paper" official OS that we must use but we are encouraged to use NT because it is more "secure" (wonder who made that assumption, I bet not a sys admin) but we can use Linux if we want.
"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people in the world?"
WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?
I am quite civilized, and I should be brought a beer immediately. -- Bruce Sterling
It givesa a whole new meaning to core dump.
The warp core, she's dumping all over me cap'n, she can't take much more, she's gonna blow!
Linus reserves the right to break Posix when he thinks it's being brain dead. Also, bits of POSIX are still in the works (Like the Linux Privs stuff.)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Although the Yorktown did not have backup systems, Redman said that future Smart Ships will have systems redundancy to ensure that ships can continue to operate.
I can see it now.
[Primary system failure]
BSOD- Divide by zero error
[Switch to backup NT systems]
BSOD- Divide by zero error
[SDIW- Ship Dead In Water]
Commander: "What the... Fucking Windows NT! Get Bill Gates in here."
[Bill Gates enters]
Commander: "You told us SP6 would be more stable, faster and have better failure protection."
Bill: "It does, it's over 400 times less likely to.."[BLAM, Commander blows his head off]
Yes I shamelessly stole this scenario from the Southpark movie.
Steven
-- I have marked myself unwilling to moderate-- I don't have other accounts to artificially inflate the karma of
Security can't be their primary concern, heck, the DOD has been cracked so many times it's a wonder their not on a firs name basis with their guests.
/usr/home4/pixarc2/"
"Hi, Bob, How's it going?"
"Oh, Pretty good, yourself?"
"Can't complain, got a new DSL, just trying it out."
"Nice, what are you looking for?"
"Oh, just the usual, some prOn pix of the Joint Chiefs."
"Look on
"Thanks! Catch ya later, dude!"
"No prob, say 'Hi' to 31337 7rO11 8OY for me."
Vote Naked 2000
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I live in Europe. Here, there are plans to ban MS Windows from government key networks. The two reasons behind these projects are the following (and they do apply in many other situations) :
- avoid backdoors intentionnally placed by the software manufacturer (code can be checked for backdoors). Think of a world where Microsoft keep the US Government in hostage "you stop pissing us off with those anti-trust trials or whe shutdown all your NT system...". And, with the UCITA, they could even have the right to do it !!! Not speaking of information leaks (spying) by the various backdoors (or data corruption ?) Risks from a closed-source system are far to high or governments !
- vendor independance. Think of the case here Microsoft stops to make MS Windows products. All updates stopped, no more bugfixes, no new licences for the new machines to be incorporated in the network, no new-hardware support,... If that ever happens, the system would have to be changed fast, involving many costs (reinstallation, porting of in-house programs to the new environment, buying of replacements for some programs,...) Such a transition would be very disruptive if it has to happen from one day to the day after.
Beside this, the availability of sources is very interresting for military purpose. It allows them to put in their own modifications to harden the security, to cut off unneeded parts (to avoid the security problems into these parts), to hardcode some usually dynamically fixed values (IP address of the NIC for example),... many advantages not provided by MS Windows.
And here is the correct link to the article...
--
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
25: ten.knilrevlis@wkcuhc
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
These are the guys who, aside from inexplicable decisions like considering the F-16 a suitable replacement for an A-10, put Windows NT in charge of a cruiser.
The ones in charge clearly don't have any clue whatsoever.
Besides, do you want free software considered to be vital military equipment? That's kind of a scary thought. A little close to the "munitions" argument over encryption software.
---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
Don't let the hoopla fool you. The US Army currently uses Linux as the OS for their Warlord Notebook Intelligence Analysis System.
It is a light weight, cost effective counterpart developed by Mystech Software (later Sterling Software and now I have no clue) to compete against ILEX's All Source Analysis System - Remote Work Station (ASAS-RWS or just RWS for short). The RWS sits on Sun architecture and Solaris 7. The RWS code from ILEX really sucks too.
So, Mystech/Sterling developed the Warlord Notebook using Government Furnished Information (GFI) derived software and MySQL on top of Red Hat 4.2 initially before migrating to Red Hat 5.0 and then 6.0. It was cheaper (by far... as in free! The Army only had to pay for contract support and that was even optional) than the RWS system which was proprietary code from ILEX (which sucked), Oracle 7i (which rocked but at $2k per licence) on top of Solaris and were forced to accept support contracts. The system proved to work so well that some units dropped their RWS's completely for Warlord notebooks. There are a few other factors involved in that as well (such as a laptop notebook vs a Sparc pizza box and monitor... what a weight difference!) and it was generally liked by the users (unlike RWS).
But... money and politics play out and at last word, ILEX was gaining the upper hand again and Warlord Notebook was going to phased out. Not due to performance or cost, but due to the fact the Dept of the Army had spent SOOOO much money with ILEX that they didn't want to throw it away.
It's a crying shame.
I don't drink because I have to, I drink to stop the voices in my head!
I don't drink because I have to, I drink to stop the voices in my head!
Having just quit my job as a defense contractor, the largest problem is getting the local DAA (Designated approval authority, or something like that...) to approve the use of the software. The DAA has the last word on what is and what is not allowed at a site. On some bases, each building has its own DAA, and thus the policy can vary from building to building depending on who the DAA is.
:)
:)
I had to jump through more hoops just to get Perl installed on a few systems that we were using for development work. These were for systems that were not connected to anything outside of the room that they were in (they were classified, but only at the 'secret' level.
The argument being that all 'freeware' is not permitted by USAF regulations. The problem was that the regulations were talking about binary only distributions, not source code. I had fun pointing out that the main AF Publications web server (the one that holds all of the regulations) was running on apache and linux
I eventually got around the problem by purchasing the O'Reilly Perl resource kit, so it was now 'purchased COTS (commercial, off the shelf)' software, and that is ok. I could sit at home, burn this stuff to CD's and sell it to the government for a ton of money... That was ok, but I could not download it for nothing. Your tax dollars at work.
Like I said, this will vary widely from location to location depending on the local DAA and what they are willing to accept the risk for. Unfortunately, most DAA's are GS-14 or 15 (top of the civil service management ladder) and lifetime civil service employees, and thus do not have much real world experience or knowledge.
But anyway, I'm much happier now as a consultant for internet startups where OpenBSD and OpenSSH are accepted. Now I can do my job and really secure the systems
I've worked for the last year on a DARPA program for wearable situational-awareness computers for the military (the Army, specifically). The system we're designing, while still proof-of-concept, is built around Linux, which was chosen primarily for its openness and flexibility.
Parts of this system, probably significant ones, will make their way into fielded systems in the next ten years. Also, there are a great number of DARPA research programs that involve Linux. In other words, the *future* military systems are being developed *now* under Linux.
It isn't big yet, but I'm willing to wager that because of today's research, the next generation of military software will be Linux based...
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
Is anybody else tired of hearing this? "Linux isn't right for us, because of all the hackers out there that will crack our machines". I was with them through POSIX, Motif (God knows why), NFS and CDE, but they lost me at posting the source online. As if /usr/src was openly accessible over the network by default.
Isn't part of the Open Source Creed the Right to Fork?
Mebbe someone with better GPL knowledge can say whether or not the DOD would have to release the source if they made modifications to the kernel to make themselves happy.
Or, I suppose, they could go with FreeBSD, and use the BSD license.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Lots of places in the DOE use linux. A lot of that is scientific computing. Look at Avalong and Loki at Los Alamos. Look at Los Lobos at Sandia. Look at all the clusters all over. It's cheap cycles.
I work as a sysadmin at a DOE facility. We recently decided to include Linux on our unix supported system list, set up a program to buy linux boxes, and started getting a lot of interest. For the stuff we do, a $5k linux box will equal the $30-50k suns and sgis. Before you freak and say I am wrong, it works for us. For our applications. Most of our stuff does not have a 64 bit requirement, so that's not an issue. Basically, we just found what we needed to integrate into our environment (shared filesystems, main applications, etc), made sure our config stuff was cross-platform (PERL is the language of the gods), and put it up. We now have guys who can do work on a $10k machine (including a huge monitor) that would normally have required a $80k machine before.
Linux is breaking the paradigm. Scientists jsut like to see the numbers. You say, "Benchmark this box vs your workstations". They are shocked with the results. For the longest time, sgi and sun (and to a lesser extent hp, but I still love PA-RISC) dominated the market for a reason. Then, more recently they dominated the market because of reputation and past.
Face it, it's hard to beat an x86 cluster for computationally bound tasks for the $$. As a desktop, a $5k x86 box is _insanely_ fast. _INSANELY_. Ask any of my scientists that say "Hey, can I borrow your box to run on? It's just faster than this *insert traditional unix box here*".
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
I would imagine in places where security is an issue, the government should be looking at BSD first. Not to diss Linux, but OpenBSD is reknowned for it's "security by default" out of the box. If anything, I would think the government would err on the side of security (so their government hire doesn't get the bleeding edge driver or graphics utility, boohoo).
If the gov does use Linux widescale, I would think they should scrutinize all the distros, and come up with one STRONGLY suggested one so all machines will be compatible and fixes can be applied everywhere at once.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Well, okay, you can have Motif.
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
--
I like to watch.
NT Cripples Navy Cruiser
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!