Slashdot Mirror
DARPA Grant Cancelled for OpenBSD and U-Penn?
Starrider writes "It seems the DARPA grant for OpenBSD and for University of Pennsylvania has been cancelled (?) immediately and without warning. See the full story in Theo's email and on deadly.org." Theo is left to only speculate why funding was suddenly pulled. One also has to wonder what this means for the University of Pennsylvania, since they were also in for a piece of the pie.
Theo's anti-war comments in The Globe and Mail can be found here. Theo wasn't told why funding was pulled but he suspects his comments there did it.
I don't think it was Theo's comments to ZDNet on "security through beer drinking" which can be found here.
The "oil grab" comment does strike me as a bit uninformed and polemic, but I'll leave that debate for another time. As an OpenBSD user, I'm sad to see the funding pulled and not happy that someone in the U.S. gov't is being petty. (Or perhaps they're just paranoid?)
--LP
I was suprised to see DARPA (which is more independent of this sort of thing in general) giving money of such magnitude to an open product, but I'm not suprised now to see them renig without explanation.
So yeah this might hit closer to home to some of you now. The DARP grant was to the U. of Penn. and a chunk went to OpenBSD with another smaller chunk to OpenSSL.
-- schubert
If true, this would most definitely NOT be the first time DARPA ever cancelled a grant...nor would it be the first time they cancelled a worthwhile grant.
http://www.openbsd.org/donations.html
http://www.openbsd.org/orders.html
Theo's message follows:
- - - -
FYI,
It has come to my attention that DARPA has cancelled the POSSE program with UPENN, (sub OpenBSD & a bit for OpenSSL) for undisclosed reasons, effective today, without any warning.
My suspicion is this happened because I made anti-war statements in a Canadian newspaper article in the Globe & Mail, but I am not an American citizen so I cannot claim to have free speech there (even made "quote of the day").
In a phone call a few days ago it was expressed to me that there were people inside DARPA and UPENN who were very uncomfortable with the article, but I was not told specifically what upset them.
We have 60 developers flying in from around the world (they bought their own tickets, non-refundable) for a Hackathon May 8 - 20, where we do a major part of our development; since DARPA is now forcing UPENN to cancel those Hotel accomodations, I would be very grateful if anyone can find a way to help us. I'm going to need to pay for it myself, since these people are going to come.
Thanks.
- - - -
The anti-war statements that were made can be found here
--
Full steam ahead, stoke the boiler with more kittens! -- Bluey, Dragon Tails
Here is the actual paypal link: Paypal link.
I use FreeBSD on both my server and gateway, but am going to switch my server back to OpenBSD with the release of 3.3, simply because of the features OpenBSD offers. However, I would never move my workstation over from FreeBSD, as the ports make it much a very nice match for those looking for a workstation.
My suggestion, as an OpenBSD afficianado, is to keep your server and workstation running FreeBSD and to shift your gateway/firewall to OpenBSD.
Gateways, firewalls, NATs - these are the things Open excels at. The firewall it offers is quite honestly second to none as of this point in time. As of 3.4, Open will have quite a lead in this realm. FreeBSD kicks the unholy shnikey out of Open on the performance and user front, however, and there's no denial nor excuse otherwise from the team nor the hardcore following of Open.
Just a suggestion, though. Alternatively, you might consider doing what I what I do . . . Open on the gateway and 'insecure/screw-around' server, Free on the heavy traffic webserver for performance, and Gentoo Linux on the workstation. This is just my personal approach, however.
Of course, the fact that you're using BSD on multiple machines suggests you're wise enough to make your own decisions, heh.
--Ryv
I'm a student at the University of Pennsylvania, and Jonathan Smith teaches CSE350 every semester (our software engineering course). Last year we wrote a kernel-level firewall for OpenBSD. It was a great course, and he's pretty much the only professor here with any idea what software engineering means.
:)
It's a shame that this grant was cancelled. He could do a lot for the gov's computers.
Now I know why we used OpenBSD in the course and not Linux.
Unless mankind redesigns itself
*sigh* Now I need to find another contract. :(
If you like OpenBSD, chip in a few bucks. If it went down the way it did, then that's a shame. I'm a Canadian, FWIW, and it's really too bad this went down like it did. I also run a OpenBSD 3.2 firewall that I love. I can't say that it suprises me though, and it certainly is dissapointing.
If you're an American and don't like this, then write your elected representative of choice. I'll be writing mine, but only because I'd rather see them throw money at these guys than a $1.077 Billion dollar gun registry boondacle. OpenBSD sells boxed sets, and I certainly imagine they'll take cash, too.
I didn't see in the article anywhere you could send a donation to. OpenBSD.org has their own donations page and a orders page for their propaganda and cds and section for donations as well.
If nothing else, OpenBSD will profit greatly from the exposure and free publicity this will generate in the Globe and Mail tomorrow.
..don't panic
Just for fun, let me respond to your accusations one by one:
* How much influence do you think any company has on DARPA directly? Somebody else indicated that they thought MS could buy off DARPA with free software/money. Hmmm... Lets think again. DARPA's goals are to advance technology in specific areas. They receive funding through DoD and Congress, not from any corporation. I believe a companies influence is limited to what they can convince key Congressmen of to redirect the type of technology (and software copyrights) that DARPA funds. Of course this ignores more direct, underhanded efforts a company might take to influence officials.
* I have a speculation of my own: the parent poster has never read what the real goals of TIA are. There seems to be an assumption that "total nformation awareness" means that the government wants to monitor all information all the time, including every single keystroke and mouse click on your computer. This is not what the specific project that is funded by DARPA (named TIA) is about. It is more about dredging through exisiting databases to notice suspicious patterns that may indicate terrorist activity. Whether or not some members of government would like the ability to comb through all possible information about people at any time is another question.
* In general I don't see DARPA being too concerned about techology leaking to other countries. Otherwise they would not fund large public universities (where a large percentage of faculty and grad students are not US citizens).
* The final point is too vague to be meaningful. While I am sure it plays well to the anti-establishment crowd, it doesn't contribute to intelligent conversation.
What, specifically are you referring to?1 6bushres.htm
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/10
--Evidently you didn't read the article. Theo was told that certain people in DARPA admin were "very uncomfortable" with his comments.
> In a phone call a few days ago it was expressed to me that there were people inside DARPA and UPENN who were very uncomfortable with the
article, but I was not told specifically what upset them.
--Although it must be said, that Theo displayed remarkable thick-headedness by making those remarks in the 1st place, considering the source of the money.
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??