Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Army's Future Combat System Will Run Linux
jkastner writes "In 2001 Boeing was chosen to be the lead system integrator for the Army's Future Combat System. The bumper sticker description of this project is 'see first, understand first, act first and finish decisively,' and while Boeing's official FCS site doesn't have a lot of technical details, but you can find some good information at Global Security. To quote their page, "FCS is envisioned as a networked 'system of systems" that will include robotic reconnaissance vehicles and sensors; tactical mobile robots; mobile command, control and communications platforms; networked fires from futuristic ground and air platforms; and advanced three-dimensional targeting systems operating on land and in the air.' The Phase 2 request for proposals just appeared and the estimated price is $26 billion
through fiscal year 2009. The fact that the Army is spending billions of dollars on a project isn't anything new, but a little known fact is that the OS for FCS will be Linux (FAQ 4 here.)"
I can rent terminator 2 for a lot less than $26 billion dollars. How about $26 billion for global no-cost healthcare and food? THATs futuristic!
Will this mean that the military will start recruiting 12-year-olds to keep everything running?
oderint dum metuant - Caligula ("Let them hate us, so long as they fear us")
What the fu** is "Kernel panic" and what is he doing with my B-52?
This is good news as it means that GNU/Linux will have another set of *very careful* eyeballs looking through the code. After all, it is now a matter of national security. The driver support for robotics and other real-time systems is also likely to improve dramatically.
On the other hand, I think that more than a few hackers will feel a twinge of sadness when they see footage of some people being blown up. Doesn't exactly make you want to point and say "oh look see, that was my code they used to send the `fire' command to that unit..." Especially if it is one of those not-declared-or-debated sort of wars that we seem to be getting into these days.
the kill command.
This is great for the army, but as we consolidate overlap between services, I would like to see all branches adopt similar platforms (Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, National Guard, Reserve Force, CIA, and Secret Service). It would save moneys for the purpose of cross-training and upgrading in the-long-run.
I suggest you read Slashdot
If you have ever worked with Platform Builder or Embedded NT (or XP) and compared that to building an embedded system on Linux, you will see that the Microsoft products are targetted at a very narrow market and are not really all that well suited for many things that Linux is in the embedded world.
Windows is currently better than Linux in a few (unfortunatly critical areas), but even that is changing quickly. And in the embedded market, Microsoft's products really are niche products, while it is Linux, DOS, and a few other products that are the best products for most projects.
Of course in general server software, I have to say I *much* prefer Linux. For client programs I use Linux mostly (as well as XP occasionally) but even over the last six months, there have been incredible improvements made in many critical areas. Give it another couple years, and I suspect that Linux will be *the* corporate desktop of choice.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
For such a system, linux is the obvious choice IMHO. Here's why: Consider the possibility of a malicious agent (possibly an insider) gaining unauthorized access to some of the systems. Because the whole thing is networked and remotely coordinated, the possibility for damage is immense. In that case, it is absolutely essential to detect the intrusion, track the attacker's footprints and minimize the damage as quickly as possible. And I would say linux wins hands down at this, because of its transparency. The main thing is not cost or ease of use or applications or any of the things that are usually considered, but having the innards of the system open for the administrator to see.
Does the military have to release their code because they are running on a GPL platform?
They would have to provide access to the code to people they distribute binaries to. Of course that is probably not the general public.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
This ought to make for some interesting device drivers and kernel patches.
.mil addresses submitting kernel patches --
I can see it now on the Kernel mailing list - a bunch of new developers with
Hey Linus - this one gives improved target acquisition for the Patriot II antimissle. If you want you can come see the live tests in Iraq.
.. .the next "killer app" will be for Linux
Linux is GPL, modifications that they do to specifically linux or other GPL app should be GPL also (at this only means that the source must be distributed like the binaries, no more, no less), but applications that run over all of this don't need to be.
As commander in chief, no way will I stand for MY DAMN RED-BLOODED ALL-AMERICAN APPLE PIE ARMY running a system developed by COMMIES! First thing Monday, I'm having a word with the Pentagon!
George W. Bush
President, United States of America
Wow... all you Linux zealots will now be responsible for the deaths of hundreds, thousands and perhaps some day millions. I hope your proud of yourselves! ;)
You liberals should be firmly backing Microsoft at this point... Windows is the ultimate anti-war software... I mean, how can you bomb the hell out of innocent civilians when your missile launch systems crash when you push the launch button!
But noooooo... with Linux, this'll never happen, and we can kill all the people we want with no doubt our systems will function properly.
Yeah, good job penguin-heads!
(In case there is any doubt, tongue is firmly planted in cheek here)
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
As much as I hate to see Linux used for war, this is probably a good thing; can you imagine killer military robots running on Microsoft software? I don't want to see the headline, "Chinese Embassy Nuked by Talking Paper Clip."
--Tina Russell thinks you're typing a letter. Would you like to go to the Bomb Iraqi Peasants Wizard?
This wedding party has committed an illegal operation...
To quote their page, "FCS is envisioned as a networked 'system of systems" that will include robotic reconnaissance vehicles and sensors; tactical mobile robots; mobile command, control and communications platforms; networked fires from futuristic ground and air platforms; and advanced three-dimensional targeting systems operating on land and in the air.'
Oh, great. They're building SkyNet.
All robots. All automated. All computer controlled. And they're using Linux. Who'd have thought lil' Tux would eventually bring about the end of civilization? Linux's reliability means that SkyNet will become self-aware and overthrow the humans many years sooner than it would otherwise have done. At least if they ran Windoze we could rest assured that it would eventually collapse due to bluescreens or worms/viruses. But it's running Linux and will therefore be undefeatable. I fear the end is near...
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Even headline is Best battle ground for Linux.
Help fight continental drift.
Linux is great and all but did anyone take a look at the tank/apc/mobile rocket launcher platforms at the bottom. Either those are some kind of hovercraft or armored treads. I think everyone can agree that having a tank look like it was designed by anime artists is way cooler then any of this Linux stuff:)
In the '60s Senator Everett Dirksen said, "A Billion here and a billion there and soon you're talking about real money." And, by the way, he was talking about the defense budget, then.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
When you develop software under governement contract, the governement owns the code. Only when some software is "Commercial off the shelf" (COTS) does the governement not get the source code. I worked for a defense contractor for twelve years and every scrap of code that went into the systems including test scripts and drivers, makefiles, etc. was governement property once it was accepted. The main thing was to document anything that wasn't developed for whatever program so that the governement didn't think they were entitled to that too.
A few of other points...
The acquiring agency is generally considered to be the end user. Not the guy in the field who sees it as a fire control or logistics system.
Usually the source code for something like this won't be classified. Its a command and control system so its only useful to someone else when it has live data in it. Think of it as a telephone: its not the phone that's classified, its the conversation that's held using the phone.
The developer, Boeing, will have every incentive to provide patches for commercialy applicable code back to the Linux development community. Otherwise, they have to maintain their own set of patches and independently apply them and test them every time they go to a new release. I'm guessing they WON'T provide the device driver for the Patriot battery though.
One last item, a couple of systems I worked on when I was with said defense contractor were elements of what the Army then called the Army Tactical Command and Control System (ATTCS) which consisted primarily of HP9000/3X0 workstations running the current flavor of HP-UX and communicating over a variety of tactical comm gear. So this isn't really new but looks like just the next evolution of a concept that has been in use by the Army for about 10 years.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Actually one of the aims of the GPL is to prevent exactly that kind of thing from happening. Although it has not been tested in court, one aim of the GPL was to ensure that someone (not even the author) could not come a long at a later date and stop you from using or continuing to work on code that you had been using before.
It's all about freedom remember?
A while back someone did suggest a variation on the GPL which would rule out various sorts of immoral use (I think they had dictatorial regimes in mind) but I don't know whether it caught on at all.
Before the economic sanctions + war vs. the USA, Iraq was doing excellently economically and it's people were thriving. They were probably one of the best off countries in the Middle East under Saddam.
I don't like Saddarm but let's criticize him on more valid points. If you want cruelty you can attack him on his tyrannical rule and his version of the Gestapo.
Hmmm... Pie...
How many of the people who contributed to Linux knew their work was going to be used to kill people?
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
I was watching on the news a few weeks ago and they showed their all new, "state of the art" command and control center, a giant tent in the desert on the edge of Iraq.
The tent was full of computers, I would guess at least 100 and most likely more. There were soldiers sitting at them planning future battles.
As the camera panned about the tent it was extremely clear that every last one of them was running windows.
I saw that and thought, "Oh shit, we're screwed now!!"
I the security of this country relies on M$ we may as well just turn it over to the terrorists right now.
At least this dispells that age old myth about "Military Intelligence" in that it appears that maybe it really isn't an oxymoron after all...
The reason Linux was chosen by GD and other defense manufacturers is they have ruined defense projects by trying to make thier own propietary software. I can guarentee that the defense department requried commercial off-the-shelf software (COTS) for all development. Windows not open enough to use so naturally Linux was selected.
The Land-Warrior gear that the Special Ops use was originally a GD contract. They wrote custom software to work the gear; the program and gear failed misserably. Then, a few small companies in California took Windows CE, a CE PDA, wrote some custom drivers and hardware mods and you have a very useful system that is used today. Although Windows was chosen, the point is to the DOD that COTS works and has been pushed as the right thought for system development up to the highest generals. It is only natural that this time defense integrators choose the RIGHT technology for the job.
I don't know where most posters to this thread are from, but $26B is chump change. With a $350 Billion defense budget a year that is only $4B a year or 1.1% of the annual budget.
The US produces more food than can be eaten. We air drop for FREE billions of tons of food for third world nations.
Furthermore, you all have to realize that the only reason UN demands are NOW being executed and inspectors are NOW back in Iraq is b/c there are 200,000 US Troops with the billion dollar toys effectively saying "you have no choice, you couldn't disarm on your own in the late 90's and we're tired of taking shit, disarm or get distroyed." A fair statement IMHO.
With Nations like N.Korea just trying to cause problems; Mind you a nation that doesn't have a spare volt to power a palm handheld, or food to keep its people alive (YES we are airdropping food to them as well), is building nukes to "shakedown" the asian community??? It is countries such as N.Korea that force the US to build $26 Billion dollar army combat systems to defend the rest of Aisa and Europe (minus the UK-they are pretty damn tough).
[begin Sarcasim_time]
But if you would rather the US to give that $26B in small-bills to third-world nations, OK we'll do it, and at the same time pull our fleet of aircrat carries over to the UK, Spain, Italy (short list of our supportrs) and protect only them from evil dictatorships and let the rest of you all die horrible nuclear and chemical weapon deaths.
[end Sarcasim_time]
All this idological talk about peace is nice but if you are typing on a computer, you should have the intelligence to realzie that the real world doesn't have people that want peace. As cyclic as economic markets are, so cyclic are the ideals of dictators.
In the 1940's you had Hitler, 1960's was the Cold War, and now you have Terrorists and distructive regiemes. I feel much better paying a few hundreds bucks for my health insurance and knowing my government is doing all that is necessary to ensure the future of free (as in beer and freedom) people will carry on.
Most of the stuff I worked on had little or no demand outside of the governement/DoD world.
That's still true today, I'm sure that a major reason that more DoD code doesn't get leaked out to the public is that it's unfriendly, difficult to use (especially on consumer hardware), and plain-old boring.
from a licensing perspective, the end user is the acquiring agency;
That is how many software licenses are written, but it's not how the GPL is written. The GPL doesn't make any specific mention of corporations having special status. Nor does US copyright law give corporations (or agencies, or other kinds of organizations) special rights as a user of copyright (they have a few differences as a holder of copyright, though).
When the government wants software from Microsoft, they can negotiate a Volume License. There is no equivalent to a "Volume GPL", though. The GPL makes no mention of "groups", "companies", or "sites", so each individual person is the same as any other.
So, assuming a government agency recieved a modified GPL program as a deliverable. It'll have the GPL still attached, and each time they distribute it (to one of their military end-users), they'll have to abide by the GPL, or be in violation of copyright law.
That is why, I believe, contractors so far do not use GPLed code as the basis for deliverables- the government wouldn't like abiding by that license once they'd recieved the end product.
That would be like every cash register in a Linux based point of sale system coming with its own set of source CDs.
That's an interesting question, and one I don't see as 100% resolved yet. It comes down to the meaning of "give the binaries to" (because anyone with the binaries can demand the source). Does a person "have" the binaries, if they're embedded in a device whose filesystem he can't access?
Then, what about the related case of a consumer-product (like an MP3 player) having a GPL program embedded in the firmware? Is that end-user entitled to the source code? From watching RMS, it seems he wants the answer to be yes. (Of course, this is a little different from a cash register or battle tank, as the user owns that hardware)
As someone who works on a large comms/IT based MoD project and who has been pushing linux and open source within the project (watch out a very large Open Source project), this just adds more fuel to the fire.
H&Ks Garf