Slashdot Mirror
Land Warrior Army Suits Simplified, Linux-ized
Dosco Jones writes 'The Army is drastically simplifying the makeup of its high-tech soldier ensemble, the Land Warrior, in an effort to make the system less prone to failures and easier to use,' National Defense reports. Defense Tech continues: 'After the last version of Land Warrior failed reliability tests earlier this year, the Army switched gears and decided to make the system less complex and modify the hardware to make it compatible with the new [and controversial] Stryker infantry vehicle. Changes include a more simplified data bus and a Linux-based operating system, as opposed to Windows. 'Evidence shows that Linux is more stable. We are moving in general to where the Army is going, to Linux-based OS', says the program's manager, Lt. Col. Dave Gallop."
...it's all made by the lowest bidder. And by that criterion, Linux is the clear choice.
One thing that nobody's managed to explain to me is how your average 11 Bravo is expected to carry an extra fifty-odd pounds of electronics.
Land Warrior? I'd settle for a fucking infantry boot that wasn't the height of 1950's technology.
Well I guess this contradicts Mr. Balmers comments about windows being better because there was someones job at stake. It seems when its a life at stake its time to pick linux.
Murphy's Combat Law #6: Never forget that your weapon was made by the lowest bidder.
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
There just aren't enough marines and SF guys out there to do the boring "country occupation" missions.
Plus, it would be a waste of their advanced training to have them doing such mundane work.
The Marines are small (in number), but much more elite - they can afford to take only the best. If you eliminated the Army and wanted to expand the marines to compensate, the Marines would be diminished because they would no longer be able to be as selective and elite.
Even better : New updates have been successfully installed. The system will be rebooting in 5,...4...
How so? Don't just throw out an unsupported statement. Grow a couple and don't be a pussy.
I drank what? -- Socrates
Because something works (which is contestable, pending evidence) does not mean it is the best tool for the job. The pragmatic fallacy is alluring, but it must be avoided :)
They are actually "entrusting vital systems to an OS that" they can have total control over themselves. "They are learning through experience" that win2k is not stable enough for their purposes and that the "high quality OS for free" is good enough for IBM, Dell and HP. Since DARPA has a large core of UNIX programmers Linux is pretty much the obvious choice. The initial choice for win2k probably went against the grain of DARPA developers to begin with. "Where else than in OSS land do you get anything for basicly nothing?" Sunlight and stellar fusion is the basis of all energy on our planet. Nobody charges for that. Except those who have monopolized energy.
Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
Parent is dumb. Embedded systems are not designed like that system on your desktop. Typically in embedded applications you have a watchdog timer which will reboot the system within ms of the system locking up. With Linux this will take just a few seconds, and the system was running in RAM so no need to worry about disk corruption.
The rigors of combat? Hell, it doesn't even survive the rigors of internet browsing or playing DVDs. Forget active combat!
-3Suns
~~~~
The Revolution will be Slashdotted
...the real advantage to using Linux as opposed to Windows in this instance is the ability to strip the OS down to the bare essentials required to accomplish the mission.
Windows is the kind of OS where cramming in as many features as possible is more important than many other things. Hence, this system running Windows is likely hogging up cycles and draining battery performing tasks that aren't needed or even wanted in a battlefield.
But with Linux you can strip it down so that every cycle is a neccessary one. Plus the NSA has plenty of experience hardening the kernel per it's whimsy.
The Military has experience fielding unix in ground combat systems. It's been proven time and again in combat. A Linux solution (or an embedded linux solution) allows the Army to customize even the very low levels of the software in addition to the legendary reliability it enjoys in other systems.
Windows has neither of those things and frankly is not suited to an environment where taking time to patch the OS or troubleshoot could cost you your life.
"Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
This seems to be one of those cases where diversity of options is really important.
Back to computer science. Seems like the best option for the army (and marines and other military types) here is to have an offshoot from a well established OS. Linux is much more manageable than MS Win, and it is open and free (free from legal battles too, not the least of considerations) and readily available now. Since the US military is not going to sell the offshoot, its proprietary version of Linux would not violate GPL, LGPL and other appropriate agreements. I am not sure they will contribute back to the community though... however, many important pieces might go back, since all the important military logic should properly be contained in the application layer, not in Linux per se. The OS may not even be rewritten for the military applications, just tweaked.
Disclaimer: I do not know what I am talking about. No relation to the US military, no active relation to any other military.
Which is easy to do with simple equipment.
Catstrophic failure is catastrophic failure. A Civil War soldier whose rifle cracks is exactly as out of luck as a Land Warrior whose system crashes.
(more, actually--the LW can concievably recover from a crashed system when he gets an hour or so, and the system will "know" that his suit's on the fritz. The civil war soldier needs to make do, steal a rifle, or wait for a replacement to be issued.)