Slashdot Mirror


Indian President Advises Open Source Approach

geo_2677 writes "The Indian President Dr. A Kalam has advised defense scientists to go for open-source software for software security, rather than be stuck with insecure proprietary software. Being a scientist himself, he surely knows what's good for his country." Speaking at the Indian Navy's Weapons and Electronic System Engineering Establishment, Kalam argued: "Open source codes can easily introduce the users to build security algorithms in the system without the dependence of proprietary platforms", though continues: "We should take maximum care to ensure that our solution is unique to protect our own defence security solutions implemented on open platforms." We previously reported on Richard Stallman's meeting with Dr. Kalam earlier this year.

173 of 257 comments (clear)

  1. Some open source projects in India... by tcopeland · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...can be found on sarovar.org... it's one of the biggest public GForge sites out there.

    1. Re:Some open source projects in India... by vasqzr · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    2. Re:Some open source projects in India... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      ..and some of the blogs of the Indian Open Source developers can be found here.

    3. Re:Some open source projects in India... by rsidd · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's the president's photo you're linking to, not the prime minister's.

  2. Mmmmmppphhhhh by Otter · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Being a scientist himself, he surely knows what's good for his country.

    Being a scientist myself, I had to control my laughter and climb back into my chair before posting this.

    Perhaps geo_2677 could explain to the researchers with whom I used to share an equipment room why a) you need to close the lid of a refrigerated centrifuge and b) why, if you're too freaking lazy to do a) at least don't run the goddamn thing with a foot of condensed water in it.

    Yeah, if you want good, pragmatic common sense, ask a scientist.

    1. Re:Mmmmmppphhhhh by delibes · · Score: 1
      Reading the link, it seems he's a bit of a rocket scientist in hte literally meaning. That's not something to be disrespected. However it's vague as to what his exact contribution to India's rocket programme was. I expect that these days he's much more of a politician than an engineer. The two professions can overlap a little bit, but I'm sure engineers reading this have plenty of anecdotes about managers making political decisions counter to the engineering recommendation (NASA perhaps?).

      As for scientists lacking common sense... well I have to agree based on some of my friends (and myself I guess)! But then I also think people are stupid when they open another virus infected e-mail attachment called "harmless-flash-game.exe.vbs"...

      --
      This is not a sig
    2. Re:Mmmmmppphhhhh by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      Being a scientist myself, I had to control my laughter and climb back into my chair before posting this.

      But are you a "defence scientist"? Unless you have a degree in fence removal, please be more considerate. Oh, rats, they've fixed the spelling, but it still says, "defence security solutions".

    3. Re:Mmmmmppphhhhh by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 4, Informative
      OK , He is not a bit of a scientist, he is full fledge scientist. The presiden of India is a non-power position, much like the queen of england.

      Look at his acchievents milestones and also a site dedicated to him here

      Even though the position is only decorational, it is good to know that a country recognizes its intellectual wealth and respects it.

      --
      for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
    4. Re:Mmmmmppphhhhh by fateswarm · · Score: 1

      "Yeah, if you want good, pragmatic common sense, ask a scientist."

      Your point is fine and funny but I think he meant 'in terms of science he knows better what's good for science in India".

      Which is a fine remark unless he is not a good scientist.

  3. Huh? by Chess_the_cat · · Score: 3, Funny
    Being a scientist himself, he surely knows what's good for his country.

    Please explain.

    --
    Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
    1. Re:Huh? by happyfrogcow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      With respect to logical reasoning maybe? With repsect to scientific methods? taking the sentence out of context opens up a can of worms. leave it in context.

      Take a look at our (U.S.) president. "Being a former oil tycoon and son of a former president, surely he knows what's good for his country."

      I'd much rather trust a scientist, almost regardless of what type of scientist.

      but seriously, to get back on topic, what would you rather use to chain your bike up. a chain that you can inspect only the links that lock together, or all of the links to make sure the chain is strong enough?

    2. Re:Huh? by Neil+Blender · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd much rather trust a scientist, almost regardless of what type of scientist.

      Being a scientist and working with scientists for the past 15 years, I can tell you there are many, many scientists that I would not want to run the country. Scientists very often live in the world of theory, not reality. And when you live in a theortical world, concepts which, in theory, are very sound, will never work in reality. Not to troll here, but a lot of scientists I know are Kucinich supporters. He has a lot of ideas that make a lot of sense, but in reality they just wouldn't work. I heard something once that I think is pretty true. It went something like, "I'd rather have 2000 average joes run the country rather than the smartest person alive."

    3. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The point is that being a scientist doesn't automatically make him know what is good for his country. Yes, he may; but the fact that he is a scientist is not, without other evidence, much proof of his worthiness to make decisions outside his field. Yes, a scientist may be more trustworthy, on average; but there is no surety.

    4. Re:Huh? by Epistax · · Score: 1

      A scientist is much less likely to have self ambition than the capitalist success stories we normally elect. If your president isn't altruistic then you're doomed to corruption. I really wonder how many people we've elected to become elected to help themselves and others, or perhaps more like on a bet or even another sort of 'mile high club'.

      "You own a nice car? I used to be president! See this guy in a suit? His name's Larry and he'll kill you if I tell him too. Won't get in trouble neither!"

  4. Could someone explain... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2

    ...Indian's political structure? I seem to remember that a woman was just elected as Prime Minister (a big leap for India!). How does the Prime Minister relate to the President? What is their area of power? Is there a Parliament or Congress?

    AFAIK, Prime Ministers have always been used in Monarchies instead of democracies. So I'm a bit confused here... :-/

    1. Re:Could someone explain... by alphan · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I am not an Indian, but as a friend of mine told me, presidency is more like a symbolic thing, hence does not have any power.

      As the title says he can advise though :)

    2. Re:Could someone explain... by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 5, Informative

      ..Indian's political structure? I seem to remember that a woman was just elected as Prime Minister (a big leap for India!).

      Where have you been? For that matter, hit Google News--she decided not to take up the position after heavy pressure from nationalist parties, who pointed out that Sonia Gandhi was, in fact, born in Italy.

      Back on topic... enjoy.

      --

      Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
    3. Re:Could someone explain... by teetam · · Score: 4, Informative
      India's first women prime minister (Indira Gandhi) was elected back in the 60's/70's, so it is NOT a big leap. In fact, all the countries in the subcontinent have had women heads of state (Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh). And recently, Sonia Gandhi's party won the elections, but she was not elected PM.

      In the Indian system (similar to the British), the PM is the head of government and the President is a figurehead, like the queen of England. He has some, limited powers. The PM is elected by people's representatives (not directly like in US, though), usually from the largest elected party.

      Actually, the presidential system is more similar to monarchies than the Indian system. Look at how much Bush can do without having to answer anyone in any parliament!

      --
      All your favorite sites in one place!
    4. Re:Could someone explain... by Frohan · · Score: 1

      ... you're way off on what you know about history and government.. India has had a female prime minister before... more than once I believe. Also, in India.. Prime Minister is basically what the president is in the United States.. in terms of power. In India the President is more of a figurehead and doesn't really do much. With that said the Prime Minister is the leader of the party that is voted to majority in Parliament (so they don't use a Congress to answer your question). And about Prime Ministers being used in Monarchies... I don't know where you got that from. The British use the Parliamentary system (and I don't think you can really say the Queen does much) and most other democratic nations that use systems based on more direct representation than the US system use a parliament. Also... India has the largest democracy in the world.. so calling them Monarchist is hardly fair.

    5. Re:Could someone explain... by arvindn · · Score: 2, Insightful
    6. Re:Could someone explain... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Aren't you nice? It just so happens that I was standing next to a young Indian woman as the news was on CNN. (The place of business is a Financial Institute, so we actually have a TV.) She confirmed that it was indeed a big step for India, so I'm not exactly pulling this out of my rear. It's too bad she changed jobs recently or I'd simply ask her questions about India's political structure instead of dealing with the idiots on Slashdot.

    7. Re:Could someone explain... by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Except that most of what Bush has done should have been illegal i.e. hiding folks in Guantanamo so the courts can't rule as to the legitamacy of their detention. Nominally, though, he did get congressional consent before going to war.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    8. Re:Could someone explain... by kyknos.org · · Score: 2, Funny

      "AFAIK, Prime Ministers have always been used in Monarchies instead of democracies. So I'm a bit confused here..." :-/ ---- huh??? I am from czech REPUBLIC (not monarchy) and WE have prime minister. well we do not have just now because the government resigned this week but we usually have.

      --

      SHE does throw dice.
    9. Re:Could someone explain... by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 1

      Mrs. Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of India, 1966-77 and 1980-84

      That's hardly "just elected".

      The current prime minister of India is a man, Atal Behari VAJPAYEE.

      Prime Minister is the head of government in those states which are closely descended from British Commonwealth systems (which are democracies, actually). Constitutional Monarchies (such as Britain) reserve the head of state for the Queen, but the actual government is done by the people. The Monarch has very limited powers in the Westminster system.
      In India, the head of state is their President, since they no longer have even nominal ties back to the commonwealth.
      In Australia, by contrast, the head of state is the Governor-General (the Queens representative), but his powers are very limited and rarely exercised. The Prime Minister is the head of the government and is considered the elected leader of the nation.

    10. Re:Could someone explain... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your response. You provided some useful information. It's sounds like the "President's recommendation" is likely to be headed about as well as the EFFs. i.e. Some people will listen, some people will ignore him.

      Also... India has the largest democracy in the world.. so calling them Monarchist is hardly fair.

      I didn't call them Monarchist, I said that Prime Ministers usually went hand in hand with a Monarchy, thus my confusion. While the modern day Prime Minister of Britian is elected (and actually plays the role of a President), he used to be appointed to the position to carry out the rather general goals of the Monarchy.

    11. Re:Could someone explain... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      It's quite possible she was, or it's possible I simply misinterpreted her. (i.e. Maybe she was referring to the fact that the Prime Minister was from Italy.) If I knew a lot about the Indian political structure, I wouldn't be asking, now would I?

    12. Re:Could someone explain... by philbert26 · · Score: 1
      Aren't you nice? It just so happens that I was standing next to a young Indian woman as the news was on CNN. (The place of business is a Financial Institute, so we actually have a TV.) She confirmed that it was indeed a big step for India, so I'm not exactly pulling this out of my rear.

      Maybe the big step forward was getting rid of the hardcore nationalist BJP, rather than electing a party led by a woman.

    13. Re:Could someone explain... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thank you for your polite reply. Most Slashdotters appear to think it's better to respond to an honest question in a condescending tone, rather than attempt to further the knowledge of others. I'm glad to see that there is at least one person willing to give helpful information.

      It seems odd that India would choose to model their government in a sort of odd mix of a monarchy and democracy when they so strongly despised the British occupation. When India finally obtained their freedom, many other governmental systems had been tried around the world. Of course, with the effects of the great depression in recent memory, perhaps they did not want to model their government too much like a Rupublic?

      Also, do you have any info on how India's electoral college works? The Wikipedia article is rather vague on that point. Does each Indian state decide its own method like in the US, or are votes decided by the appointed governor? The later would make for an odd feedback loop as the governor is apparently appointed by the President himself.

    14. Re:Could someone explain... by atari2600 · · Score: 1

      The current Prime Minister of India is Manmohan Singh. You must either be
      1. George Bush
      2. George Bush's adviser

    15. Re:Could someone explain... by nmk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      She wasn't just born in Italy, she's Italian by birth.

    16. Re:Could someone explain... by ViolentGreen · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I have wondered that too. I seem to remember hearing something country having the same situation but I can't remember which one (Germany?) Anyway, I guess it is the same thing there.

      But what's the point of having the president if he has no real power? Seems like a waste of money to me.

      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
    17. Re:Could someone explain... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Of course I will apologize! It was not my intent to portray India as a backward country, merely to ask for information on their system of government. If I offended anyone, I'm sorry. It was not my intent. Keep in mind that the US has never had a female President, so perhaps I should have said that it was a big step forward for the world. While India has (apparently) had a female Prime Minister before, it would have been a much more effective message this time around because of india's ever increasing importance in World Affairs.

    18. Re:Could someone explain... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      The current prime minister of India is a man,

      A polite gentlemen farther up the thread explained that she declined her appointment after political parties pressured her due to Italian birth. CNN has some info on the situation.

    19. Re:Could someone explain... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Maybe the big step forward was getting rid of the hardcore nationalist BJP, rather than electing a party led by a woman.

      Quite possibly.

    20. Re:Could someone explain... by florist · · Score: 1
      The PM is elected by people's representatives (not directly like in US, though), usually from the largest elected party.

      The Prime Minister is elected by the people directly too. He is just the leader of the party with a majority in the Lok Sabha (Lower House of the Parliament)

    21. Re:Could someone explain... by Charvak · · Score: 1


      Its a parliamentary system like France, Canada, England, Australia etc.

    22. Re:Could someone explain... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Its a parliamentary system like France, Canada, England, Australia etc.

      So the electoral votes come from the Indian Congress, correct? Very interesting. Thank you. :-)

    23. Re:Could someone explain... by metlin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I mentioned in this in my journal before, but here I go again.

      I'll paraphrase from a Times of India article --

      "...India will now have a Christian Prime Minister to go with a Muslim President (a widow and a bachelor to boot). The bastion of democracy, religious freedom and human rights -- the mostly white Christian United States, to paraphrase the description of India by western correspondents -- is set to elect its 44th President -- another Christian white male."

      As an Indian in the US, I kinda find that ironic :)

    24. Re:Could someone explain... by Charvak · · Score: 1

      I dont know what you mean by electoral college but here is how the parliamentary system works. The country is divided into constituency and from each constituency one representative is elected to the parliament by the general election. These elected representative then elect the leader ie prime minister. The president is just a figure head with little power.

    25. Re:Could someone explain... by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 1

      Whoops.
      Well, at least I'm only mistaken by a month or so, rather than 20 years !

      Oh, who am I kidding, this is what I get for copying information out of google searches without checking dates !

      Oh, the shame

    26. Re:Could someone explain... by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 1

      Well, that's a relief. In any case, a woman prime minister isn't as ground breaking in India as a woman President of the USA seems, since they've had a female head of government before. Something the USA cannot claim.

      It just sounded to most of us that you were being condescending. Many were quick to correct, I see.

    27. Re:Could someone explain... by Distinguished+Hero · · Score: 1

      Its a parliamentary system like France, Canada, England, Australia etc.

      You can hardly call France a parliamentary system after the establishment of the Fifth Republic (1958).

      --
      Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
    28. Re:Could someone explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      It seems odd that India would choose to model their government in a sort of odd mix of a monarchy and democracy when they so strongly despised the British occupation.

      It isn't really very odd at all. Most of the educated classes in British India were educated either in the UK itself, or in the British tradition in India. Gandhi and Jinnah, for example, both studied and practiced law in the UK before becoming involved in nationalist politics back in India.

      Although Indian nationalists were opposed to British rule, this had more to do with the fact that British democracy applied only to the UK population, and not to the populations of colonies like India, than with objections to the British model of democracy itself.

      An arrangement in which the UK population elected a parliament which governed both the UK and the British colonies was quite obviously unfair to the latter, and the principal aim of Indian nationalism was to correct this disparity by giving the population of India the same thing the population of the UK had.

      The American war of independence had similar roots, insofar as the taxes at the heart of the matter were enacted by the elected House of Commons (which, even in those days, had exclusive power to levy taxes). Framing that war as a struggle between democrats and an absolutist monarch was much better for propaganda, of course, even if it was mostly a fiction.

    29. Re:Could someone explain... by Chemicalscum · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Let me explain the principles of parliamentary democracy. The people elect the Parliament. The leader of the parliamentary party that commands a majority becomes Prime Minister (pimus inter pares - first amongst equals) and forms a government which is dependant on support in Parliament for its continued existence.

      This structure requires a Head of State with very limited powers - such as dissolving Parliament for fresh elections when the Prime Minister calls for it or when the P.M. has lost the confidence of Parliament e.g. losing a buget vote.

      The Head of State may be a constitutional monarch e.g. the UK or Sweden, or a person who stands in for the monarch e.g the Governor General of Canada. In the case of a Republic a President is elected or appointed (normally by Parliament) who is usually some repected figure who can stand above politics and maintain the constitution e.g. Germay, Italy and India.

      The situation in the US is gemerally regarded as a form of elective monarchy, i.e. the people elect (or in the case Bush - didn't elect) a President who acts as absolute Monarch with some limited checks and balances from Congress and the Senate.

      Well there we are Constitutional Theory 101

    30. Re:Could someone explain... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      You've pretty much described an electoral college. Electoral College is basically a system whereby votes for a political system are delivered by peers (i.e. "college") rather than directly by the people. In the US, the college is designed so that each state gets X number of votes. It's up to the state to decide how those votes get allocated. (Interestingly enough, South Carolina used to decide its Presidential votes in the state government and did not poll the populace.)

      In the case of India, (if I understand correctly) the electoral college is composed of Congressional representatives who may vote as they choose.

    31. Re:Could someone explain... by jackbird · · Score: 1

      No, it would be like the speaker of the house being president. The parliament passes laws in addition to appointing the executive.

    32. Re:Could someone explain... by robbot · · Score: 1

      But what's the point of having the president if he has no real power? Seems like a waste of money to me. Yeah us poor folks with monarchs have to pay idiots who are born to be the heads of our state. I'd rather have someone elected. I don't know anything about Indian Government, but I suspect their president does what a monarch would do. Like disolve parliment if their government screws up, and sign bills.

    33. Re:Could someone explain... by robbot · · Score: 1
      I seem to remember that a woman was just elected as Prime Minister (a big leap for India!).

      Not really a big deal if it had happened, Indira Ghandi was PM a few decades back. I think Indira was Sonia's Grandmother In Law. Indira was hardly fine example of a good politician either.

    34. Re:Could someone explain... by robbot · · Score: 1

      Correction, just mother in law, Indira looks so old she just brings up an image of a Biji...

    35. Re:Could someone explain... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      It's still an electoral college. The representatives having other responsibilities does not invalidate the structure of an electoral college.

  5. Now if only... by TaintedPastry · · Score: 4, Interesting
    ...now if only we could get Cowboy George to follow suit.

    Unfortunately I doubt this will heavily impact any nations/businesses tech policies outside of India. But at least it's a step in the right direction

    1. Re:Now if only... by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 4, Funny

      Contribute a million dollars to his campaign fund and he'll give Richard Stallman a lapdance, if you ask him to.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    2. Re:Now if only... by pseudochaotic · · Score: 1

      Given how much of America's coding is done in India, it just might have some impact.

      --
      And the l33t shall inherit the 34r7h.
    3. Re:Now if only... by TaintedPastry · · Score: 1

      While that maybe be true the article makes it sound like he's just pushing the Indian Navy (that could bea cool band name) to do it at this point.

    4. Re:Now if only... by chris_mahan · · Score: 2, Funny

      I though the lapdances were $10,000... Dangit!

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    5. Re:Now if only... by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but donate a million and he'll do it for the next four years.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
  6. Wow. by downbad · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Microsoft has been getting hit from all sides these past few days. I almost feel bad for them.

    Almost.

    1. Re:Wow. by oroshana · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's save up out sympathies for them Microsoft really IS the underdog. I'll totally be back on Billy's side when he's got small market share

  7. Security by obscurity? by delibes · · Score: 5, Funny
    "We should take maximum care to ensure that our solution is unique to protect our own defence security solutions implemented on open platforms."

    Uh oh. Somebody needs to get a visit from Bruce Schneier next! I suspect that his proposed unique solution would be better off if it was Open Sourced for peer review.

    --
    This is not a sig
    1. Re:Security by obscurity? by toolz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Knowing my president, he definitely does not see "unique" as "closed". So let's not mis-interprete his words. He probably meant "not based on tainted imported technology", i.e. an encouragement to innovate, rather than copy.

      I have watched him take on this issue for years now (in his roles as both president of India, and as a highly respected scientist), and I can tell you that you are dealing with someone who is majorly savvy about open systems. He could probably teach quite a few people here on Slashdot about such things - he certainly taught Bill Gates a few things.

      If RMS was in a receptive state of mind during his meeting with President Kalam, I am sure he would have learnt a few things himself.

      --
      You aren't remembered for doing what is expected of you
    2. Re:Security by obscurity? by zmower · · Score: 1

      Do you really want the source code of some critical defense software could be read by Al-Qaeda? Yeah, they're bound to post patches!

      You may say that other people could find the faults but is a community going to coalese around defense software which has no utility to the average hacker? Only if they were being paid methinks. Gosh, does shared source make more sense for defense software?

      --

      Sig pending!
    3. Re:Security by obscurity? by bladernr · · Score: 1
      . He is asking to implement them on an open platform, not necessarily calling the actual implementation to be an inherently open one.

      If this is written for hire by a defense contractor and sold to the government (instead of writting by the government itself), and it uses GPL'ed code, wouldn't they be obilged to publish? Is the FSF going to file suit?

      --
      Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
    4. Re:Security by obscurity? by cOdEgUru · · Score: 1

      The question is not whether Kalam can teach all of us a few things, there are bound to be people of equal or better calibre here as well. Thats not the point.

      Kalam was right in exhorting the need to move to an open framework for all defense systems so as to reduce our dependence on closed systems as well as build security in to the framework which allows us to be ready for exceptions, how ever nasty they are. But the question is how do we get there. And if they are basing their work on OSS, then arent they legally bound to make the resulting system open for publish as well? He hasnt exactly thought out through and through in this scenario, I believe he was just setting the goal and expected everyone else to play catchup.

      The issue here is the President does not dicate policy, atleast to my knowledge. The Govt is still free to choose closed systems to meet their needs.
      The Army/Navy and Airforce has enough intelligent people to know the advantage of using OSS, but unless the change starts right from the top, Kalam's words will be wasted. I believe the LUGs as well as other OSS groups in India need to play a more proactive role in gathering support for the use of OSS by the various wings of Govt.

      As for Bill Gates being taught a few things, I sincerely hope he learned a few.

    5. Re:Security by obscurity? by toolz · · Score: 1

      And if they are basing their work on OSS, then arent they legally bound to make the resulting system open for publish as well?

      Did he say anywhere that they wouldn't publish? Besides, if you read the GPL, it simply says that you must pass on the benefits of GPL'd software to the person you are giving the software to - i.e. the recepient (in this case the armed forces) should have access to the source code of the software they use.

      He hasnt exactly thought out through and through in this scenario, I believe he was just setting the goal and expected everyone else to play catchup.

      I agree and disagree.

      I agree with the contention that he is setting goals and expects people to reach them. This is the correct way of doing it.

      I disagree with the contention that he hasn't thought this through. His entire career as a scientist has been based on the very principles that he is now talking about. And very clearly, he has results to show to prove that his methods work. Does that sound like someone who hasn't thought things through?

      --
      You aren't remembered for doing what is expected of you
    6. Re:Security by obscurity? by cOdEgUru · · Score: 1

      You still havent responded to my question as to whether the Office of the President of India has the power to dictate Govt policy?

      As long as he doesnt, what he spoke of would be mere advice that may or may not fall on deaf ears. What's needed instead is a consistent push from the public and private support groups towards the use of OSS by different depts.

    7. Re:Security by obscurity? by toolz · · Score: 1

      I answered your question here.

      --
      You aren't remembered for doing what is expected of you
    8. Re:Security by obscurity? by WNight · · Score: 1

      Many programmers rely on their ugly hacks not being found. If you could read the source and see the magic numbers and the //FIXME comments they wouldn't be able to rely on this.

      People don't understand how readable ASM (as seen in a debugger) is to a skilled programmer, and how there's nothing you can do (successfully) to keep someone from seeing a program, if it has to be run on a general-purpose machine.

      Besides, you hear how millions of lines of code are required for a missile'd guidance system, but many of those could be replaced with a off-the-shelf OS, and many with a floating-point library, and so on. This would drastically reduce the lines of code needed, meaning there's less place for bugs.

    9. Re:Security by obscurity? by zmower · · Score: 1

      You assume that the executable is in the hands of the attacker. Really, there's no incentive to open source the sensitive bits. The worst exploits won't even be coding errors. They'll be the frequency on which you send commands to the missile or weaknesses in the algorithm used to find the target.

      You're right about the infrastructure though; that can be (as is being) open sourced.

      --

      Sig pending!
    10. Re:Security by obscurity? by WNight · · Score: 1

      You have to assume the worst though. If any missile fails to explode it'll be found on the desert sands below a dogfight, potentially by the enemy, and the computer can be slowly peeled apart.

      If you have to assume that one of your missiles is sitting in an enemy lab being studied you aren't going to hard-code a specific frequency, or encyrption keys, or even a specific algorithm.

      If you code properly (read, modularly) you'd be able to swap out of seeking algorithm for another with a minimum ammount of work. If you know the enemy might have a copy you're going to be working on improving the algorithm.

      If you build a safe assuming that you're protecting it against you and your design team you'll be okay even if one of them turns to a life of crime. If you merely build a safe that's uncrackable to anyone who doesn't know the secret you have an ever-widening group of attackers, as the secret slowly leaks. Further, once the secret is discovered once the whole line of safes are vulnerable.

    11. Re:Security by obscurity? by zmower · · Score: 1

      My point about shared source was that you could simulate the open source process without giving the source to your enemy. Heck, the corporations which produce defense software have enough engineers to do this internally if they wanted.

      --

      Sig pending!
    12. Re:Security by obscurity? by WNight · · Score: 1

      And I'd agree that this is the best to use for the final product, and for any critical defense components. But if the missile needs a product like SSH I think there are big gains from using OpenSSH instead of writing your own.

  8. For a moment there ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I thought that said Indianan predident. I was about to start planning my campaign for Viceroy of Georgia.

    1. Re:For a moment there ... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      I was about to start planning my campaign for Viceroy of Georgia.

      Except that Viceroys are appointed, not elected. Doh!

    2. Re:For a moment there ... by raygundan · · Score: 1

      I thought that said Indianan predident.

      And people from Indiana are called "Hoosiers."

      Let's play "ruin his joke!" It's fun!

  9. Arrgh! This means that Pakistan will want Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    At the very least, he should have publicly decried open source as an anti-Hindu plot. Pakistan would jump on the bandwagon immediately.

  10. Obligatory Simpson's Reference by brysnot · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bill Gates: I am here to let you know that we are prepared to slash prices to keep you as a customer.
    President Dr. A Kalam: Thank you! Come again!
    Bill Gates: But you haven't bought anything?
    President Dr. A Kalam: Thank you! Come again!

    1. Re:Obligatory Simpson's Reference by downbad · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I wonder what will happen when Microsoft can't slash their prices any further.

      Think they'd go so far as to start paying governments to use their software?

    2. Re:Obligatory Simpson's Reference by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 3, Informative
      Think they'd go so far as to start paying governments to use their software?

      Yes

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
  11. Tech Support by Apocalypse111 · · Score: 5, Funny

    At least the tech support will be a local call for them...

    --
    There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
  12. Fixed. by Spaceman40 · · Score: 1

    "The Indian President Dr. A Kalam has advised defense scientists to go for open-source software for software security, rather than be stuck with insecure proprietary software...."

    --
    I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
    1. Re:Fixed. by Spaceman40 · · Score: 1

      Except not - whoa, where'd my head go.

      --
      I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
    2. Re:Fixed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Defence is the British (English) spelling, Defense is the American spelling. /. has a strong American slant, but it doesn't make the British spelling incorrect!

  13. Re:Arrgh! This means that Pakistan will want Windo by Charvak · · Score: 2, Informative

    Perhaps you didnt noticed but the president of india is a moslem.

  14. I think.. by GillBates0 · · Score: 4, Informative
    ...geeks make better politicians, because they're more inclined to think rationally/logically. I know this is a broad statement, but I've seen it hold true in most occassions.

    Incidentally his official website runs Apache/2.0.42 (Unix) PHP/4.2.3. A couple of brief excerpts from his bio here:

    After a fairly secure childhood, during which he is said to have read as much as he could, he studied at the Madras Institute of Technology, where he specialised in Aero Engineering.

    He has worked in leading defence and space organisations in research and managerial capacities. He contributed in a major way to the development of the Satellite Launch Vehicle (SLV) III, which put the Rohini Satellite into orbit. He has also been chairperson to Technology Information, Forecasting and Assessment Council (TIFAC).

    A vegetarian, his interests include playing the veena and writing poetry. He has written two books, Ignited Minds: Unleashing the Power Within India and India 2020: Vision for the New Millennium.

    Till now, Abdul Kalam has been best known for his key role in the nuclear tests at Pokharan in the Rajasthan desert on May 11 and 13, 1997. With most parties choosing him as their presidential candidate, he has become the 11th Indian to join a very select group.

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
    1. Re:I think.. by GOD_ALMIGHTY · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You should see "Fog of War" and go read some more about Robert MacNamara. He was considered a technocrat who's arrogance led to some mistakes. Many of the Italian and German fascists were also technocrats. I will entirely agree that technocrats are alluring and we should look for some of those qualities in our politicians, but there is also an arrogance in putting complete faith in technocracy.

      I would say that just because someone is not arrogant when confronted by facts and figures, that does not make them a wise leader. They can be just as arrogant and blinded with facts and statistics as their justification.

      Seek balance and understanding (empathy) in politicians, those qualities will let them listen to technocrats. Of course, I do want to point out the irony here on /. that technocrat is really just a modern term for bureaucrat. In fact, the modern technocracy has all of the same problems as turn of the century republics like France and Italy, where the problems were blamed on the failing of the bureaucrat.

      Just my .02 on your statement

      --
      Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
    2. Re:I think.. by kabocox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      because they're more inclined to think rationally/logically.

      Ask them, which is objectivly better out of these choices:
      windows or linux
      emacs or vi or notepad
      IE or Mozilla
      Gimp or Photoshop
      closed or open source

      We may be generally rational, but we can easily become raving zealots if the right questions were asked.

    3. Re:I think.. by CoughDropAddict · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This may surprise you, but some technically minded people can discuss things like that rationally.

    4. Re:I think.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think any rational person would respond with "what does better mean"?

      If better means cheaper, the answer is Linux/Emacs or vi/Mozilla/Gimp/irrelevant
      If better means more secure, the answer is Linux/irrelevant/Mozilla/irrelevant/having the source code (regardless of whether or not you obtained it under a "true" open source license)

      But usually "better" doesn't mean any one clearly identifiable thing. It may mean "more usable" (that can get esoteric in a hurry), is more fit for a very particular purpose, is available under more generous licensing terms, etc. The reason "religious debates" exist in technical areas is almost entirely due to one or both sides not believing that "better" is in itself a subjective term. That's usually the sign of someone who's not a terribly deep thinker, and may be more of a scientific dilletante than an actual scientist. Or a scientist in one field totally out of his or her depth in an unrelated field.

    5. Re:I think.. by kabocox · · Score: 1

      And you posted that as AC? Gosh, that's one of the most insightful posts I've read inwhile.

    6. Re:I think.. by General+Wesc · · Score: 1
      ...he studied at the Madras Institute of Technology...
      So he graduated from MIT. Cool!
    7. Re:I think.. by anshil · · Score: 1

      Well it were the wrong examples.

      Vi vs. Emacs (okay that was a good one)
      C++ vs. C
      Gnome vs. KDE
      Linux vs. Bsd
      Mach-Kernel vs. Monolithic
      Perl vs. Pyhton ..and so on...

      I would like to see any rational discussion about these :o)

      --

      --
      Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
  15. His scientific affiliations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative


    From the article --


    Even today Kalam is in huge demand. He is Fellow of Indian National Academy of Engineering, Fellow of Indian Academy of Sciences, Bangalore, Vice-President of Astronautical Society of India, Fellow of National Academy of Medical Sciences (India), Honorary Fellow of Institution of Electronics and Telecommunication Engineers and an ISRO Distinguished Professor!


    Wow, that's just too good. I'm quite speechless.

    1. Re:His scientific affiliations by metlin · · Score: 1

      I think you are misinterpreting First Class to be First in class.

      Most Indian Universities follow the percentage system -- and if you get more than 60% you get a first class, if you hold more than 75% it's first class with distinction and the like -- the particular thresholds vary for each place, depending on how hard it is to get over the threshold percentage.

      And FYI, India has as much of the caste system influence in it's work culture as racism does in the US -- very little to none.

    2. Re:His scientific affiliations by metlin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Pray, one does not call being elected to scientific societies a trapping. No matter how influential one is, you do not get elected to multitudes of scientific societies purely as a function of your power or position.

      I think we can at the very least grant scientists across the world that much of credit.

      And oh, ISRO is the Indian Space Research Organization, with quite a lot of successful space launches under it's belt. I do not think such an organization would lightly make anyone a distinguished professor, no matter what the other credentials.

      I guess you would make a sad scientist, because when someone is credited with good accomplishments, all you can think of is how they might have gotten it through the wrong kind way.

      Please do not be so prejudiced, especially when what you know is so completely wrong. It helps to be broad minded.

    3. Re:His scientific affiliations by necromonger · · Score: 1

      It's sort of funny when someone screams "rigid indian caste system." FYI - in the workplace, in most cities, the caste has nothing to do and is never thought of. I don't know what my fellow mates caste is, I don't care, I don't bother. It is true that rural india still has a long way to go from eradicating casteism, but urban indian has moved along quite well, especially in the work place. Some things take time to go away, especially if it's been around for about 2000 years. It's not like desegragation in the US happened 20 years after US independence, likewise - we are on our way to getting rid of it.

    4. Re:His scientific affiliations by ashayh · · Score: 1

      India has as much of the caste system influence in it's work culture as racism does in the US -- very little to none.
      There is a lot of racism evident to me where I am in the US (Philly).
      And I have seen the casteism in India as well.. its far from over. Google "caste crimes in India".

  16. Condensed water? by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 5, Funny

    Okay, I just have to ask... what is condensed water? Is it like condensed milk; Water with most of the water taken out?

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    1. Re:Condensed water? by Otter · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sort of -- it's water with most of the air taken out.

    2. Re:Condensed water? by Fearless+Freep · · Score: 5, Funny

      Water with most of the water taken out?

      That's de-hydrated water

      It stores and ships easier that way

    3. Re:Condensed water? by gosand · · Score: 1
      Sort of -- it's water with most of the air taken out.


      So instead of H2O it would be more like HO? Or H?

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    4. Re:Condensed water? by Matt+Perry · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's water formed from condensation.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    5. Re:Condensed water? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      I'd hazard a guess that every molecule of H20 on earth was at some point once a part of a rainfall, and will likely be again part of a rainfall. Therefore all water on the planet fits your definition of condensed water.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    6. Re:Condensed water? by gosand · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should get yourself a sense of humor.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  17. this is situational, not necessarily general.... by rbird76 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1) India has less income that the Europe and US per capita, but lots more people. If India has a choice, it makes sense for them to go with OS (which requires more labor but less money) than with proprietary solutions such as MS (which require more money but (perhaps?) less labor).

    2) Using nonproprietary solutions allows countries to develop indigenous software industries; for now, and for awhile, this will probably foster OS in lots of ways. In the pharmaceutical industry, India has started out making lots of generics, but are now looking at developing and selling their own blockbuster drugs. If a similar path is followed by India in software, at some point they will have their own MS; at that point, the continued use and nurturing of OS is not assured - as the relative cost of labor increases, commercial solutions might become more attractive.

    While it might be best for India to follow an open source pathway, this is not because it is always right to do so, but because it best fits their current circumstances.

  18. Score one for the Good Guys! by MooseByte · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Woohoo!

    What really shocks me is why so many countries are still using MS at all in their gov't infrastructure. I've always wondered about the following scenario. (Note: Tinfoil hat required.)

    MS is closed-source and rife with a constant stream of what are effectively root exploits being stumbled upon. What if some agency wanted to cozy up to MS and carefully craft backdoors and such, inject them into the OS and have them released into the world? Windows is so ubiquitous that your task has now become that much easier.

    Furthermore only the random stumbling of a security researcher/hacker has a chance of discovering it. Probability == low in most cases. In which case "Oops, release patch (add new backdoor)".

    Then there's the less nefarious scenario - an agency just sitting on little-known accidental root exploits and keeping them in their classified root kit.

    Either way it strikes me that linux in particular (and open source in general) would give sovereign nations some peace of mind. Not bulletproof, but having a global community reviewing the source and tracking exploits openly would sure seem to me to be a better way to safeguard my country's secrets than relying on a huge foreign company with a crappy track record for security.

    (You can now remove your tinfoil hats. No, wait, NEVER remove your tinfoil hat...)

    1. Re:Score one for the Good Guys! by jayp00001 · · Score: 1

      If you think there isn't "an agency just sitting on little-known accidental root exploits and keeping them in their classified root kit" for most (if not all) of the *nixs out there you are dreaming. In fact I'm pretty sure there are folks out there that check to make sure the exploits still work as each new build comes out.

    2. Re:Score one for the Good Guys! by MooseByte · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "If you think there isn't "an agency just sitting on little-known accidental root exploits and keeping them in their classified root kit" for most (if not all) of the *nixs out there you are dreaming."

      Definitely, but Open Source *nixs are far less likely to harbor them than any closed source OS, *nix or otherwise. Agreed? If not, let's discuss.

    3. Re:Score one for the Good Guys! by MooseByte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "On the other hand, OpenBSD doesn't looks as much like swiss cheese, so being open doesn't necessarily mean being full of holes either."

      Or maybe being open source means the holes that do exist are found far more readily than in closed source. After all (using your example), Solaris source (closed) may have as many holes as RHL (open), but how would you ever find out, short of blindling stumbling across the Solaris hole?

  19. Scientists are the best leaders? by Strudelkugel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Being a scientist himself, he surely knows what's good for his country.

    If this is the case, I guess non-scientists can all remove themselves from politics. But would the world really be better off if William Shockley were president? If Edward Teller were in charge of arms control?

    --
    Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
  20. Re:Is offtopic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Essentially, yes.

    Being modded +1 funny will not increase your karma

    if someone then mods you down, your karma WILL decrease

    so if you post a comment that gets marked up +1 funny 3 times, then down -1 troll twice, then +1 funny 3 more times for, you don't end up with a sum gain in karma

    you lose -1 for the troll

    if you post a comment that half the moderating population think is -1 troll but the other half think is +1 funny and keep jumping between +4 and +5 funny, for example, then you end up just losing and losing more karma the more you are moderated down, despite also being moderated up

  21. A scientist who is in politics? by cmdrwhitewolf · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Hmm, when was the last time I remember seing something like that -
    uh, Einstein. Uh oh, this can't be good - I certainly hope they both share the same views about *not* using WMD...

    --
    [Now, I'm off to lift my le... Um, visit... at another place.]
  22. Subtle! by raygundan · · Score: 1

    That is the funniest thing I've read all day.

  23. Why we should outsource the government to India by GOD_ALMIGHTY · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is it me, or does India continue to make LOGICAL political decisions?

    They invested in education and social programs and created a workforce capable of doing our high-paying jobs. They then set up an economic environment where those jobs would come over, including investments in infrastructure and utilities.

    Next the middle class over there starts to take off, and they make a national effort to help make sure that the benefit of the boom is extended to the less fortunate, so they can make more of the country self-sufficient.

    They've managed to stay out of international conflicts and have sent peace ovetures to Pakistan. Now they're jumping all over Open Source as a way to improve their own efficiency and self-sufficiency.

    All this, and I doubt India's federal gov costs anywhere near what these asshats over here who seem to actively work against us cost.

    Between Colin Powell telling the Indians that there will be no attempt to curb outsourcing by American companies on the part of the Bush Administration and the following account of Tom Donohue's (CEO of US Chamber of Commerce, really good friend of Bush Administration, kind of like Ken Lay) speech in San Francisco:

    Donohue acknowledged the pain for people who have lost jobs to offshoring - an estimated 250,000 a year, according to government estimates. But pockets of unemployment shouldn't lead to "anecdotal politics and policies," he said, and people affected by offshoring should "stop whining." - AP Newswire

    Personally, I say we go build a freaking guillotine, cause as far as I'm concerned, he might as well have said, "let them eat cake".

    Anyway good luck to India and how much to run our Federal government?

    --
    Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
    1. Re:Why we should outsource the government to India by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately, you're only seeing the good parts. In my opinion, India still suffers from bad policies that stifle talent, corruption at all levels is pretty much the norm (although the current prime minister and his predecessor have been really good, IMO) and elections that are won on gimmics rather than the important issues.

      There definitely has been a lot of progress in the past few years, but it isn't really that rosy. That said if we stop fighting pakistan, manage to conquer religious and social strife and promote education, things could look really good in 20 years.

    2. Re:Why we should outsource the government to India by SpaceCadetTrav · · Score: 1

      While you're making comparisons between Indian and U.S. governments, why don't you go visit that country and let us know how great it is. Maybe it will occur to you that these are two VERY different countries. Perhaps these policies that you prefer aren't one-size-fits all?

    3. Re:Why we should outsource the government to India by What'sInAName · · Score: 1
      For the most part, I agree with you, however...

      Next the middle class over there starts to take off, and they make a national effort to help make sure that the benefit of the boom is extended to the less fortunate, so they can make more of the country self-sufficient.


      Actually, this point (or the lack of it) is a primary reason that the BJP were pounded in the last elections. A lot of the rural people (which is about 70% of India's population) HAVEN'T see the benefits of the tech boom. As for infrastructure, some cities have done a pretty good job, from what I've heard (Hyderbad comes to mind), but Bangalore really needs to improve things. They have some really nice tech parks, but they have really been suffering from a mass influx of people from rural areas, looking for jobs. They need some controlled growth in a bad way (and programs to help the rural areas), but unfortunately, this is in practice very difficult to achieve.

    4. Re:Why we should outsource the government to India by GOD_ALMIGHTY · · Score: 1

      I realize that's why the BJP lost. That's why I was so excited. It was democracy at work. We tried that here and they rigged the election in Florida. Don't get me wrong, I understand India still has about 800 million people living below that middle class status, but I see hope in India and I'm seeing them make the correct choices that will lead to more prosperity for a larger number of their citizens.

      At least India is willing to try. Over here, half the country thinks regulation is a bad word and only a commie would like one. We've got a bunch of people who don't believe in evolution, still think the world is full of marxists (Castro is the only one left), and hold on to amazingly stupid false dichotomies. I realize that India has it's numbers of kooks too, but at least things there are moving in the right direction. We've got a government that seems to want to feed into this irrationality and sell off the infrastructure the next generation will need to compete with countries like India.

      From my perspective, I will be welcoming our new Indian overlords from the unemployment line sometime in the next 25 years.

      BTW, do you have any good english sites that give an objective view of day to day news in India? I hit some of the big ones, but I don't know enough about Indian politics to tell whether or not I'm reading an objective view or not.

      --
      Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
    5. Re:Why we should outsource the government to India by GOD_ALMIGHTY · · Score: 1

      That was my point. That things are heading in the right direction. Look at your list:

      stop fighting pakistan, manage to conquer religious and social strife and promote education

      We've essentially got the same list. We're in two wars, providing security for a number of other countries, have religious kooks that are trying to turn our country into a theocracy, racists and a crumbling educational infrastructure. The only suggestion I could give to you, is to remember how fragile society, especially complex industrialized ones, are. It is much easier to piss away the gains of a couple of generations that to help create those gains.

      --
      Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
    6. Re:Why we should outsource the government to India by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

      I'll try to remember that when I vote in November :)

      I'm of Indian ethnicity and lived for most of my life in India, but was born and am a citizen of the USA :)

    7. Re:Why we should outsource the government to India by GOD_ALMIGHTY · · Score: 1

      Cool... honestly I'm happier to hear you'll be voting here in Nov, but it did sound like you were still across the pond.

      --
      Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
    8. Re:Why we should outsource the government to India by What'sInAName · · Score: 1


      I'm not exactly sure about an unbiased source, but you might check out samachar.com, which collects headlines from various Indian news sources, plus CNN and BBC. Hope that helps.

  24. Re:Wow. (Microsoft in trouble?) by mgoss · · Score: 1

    Yeah, there's been so much open source activity that I think Microsoft is actually getting more worried. All those patents they're trying to get seem to be one way they think they'll be able to beat open source.

    Until just recently I thought open source / linux would be hopelessly lost to Microsoft, but as each new thing like this comes out, I'm beginning to think open source may put Microsoft out of the monopoly business.

    I would feel sorry for Microsoft, except... what did they ever do for the open source community??

    Soon, I think Microsoft is going to reap what it has sown.

  25. How is this going to help? by TheTXLibra · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Okay, once again, I'm failing to see the benefit the article claims.

    How exactly does open-source code make for a more secure government? It would seem to me that giving the source-code to your encryption away, that you are practically begging others to learn how to hack it. At least proprietary software has a tiny measure of defense. It would also spread your possible leak-sources from the responsibility of one entity, the corporation that made it, to pretty much the entire world.

    I believe, in the interests of National Defense, it would be best to have any sort of security source code until very tight lock and key.

    Am I wrong here? Can someone tell me why?

    --
    -The Libra
    "Please be patient--The future will begin momentarily."
    1. Re:How is this going to help? by BranMan · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Absolutely wrong - encryption code is like good wine - it gets better over time. The only way any encryption code is approved for use is to have the best and the brightest in the world beat on it for years. Good encryption code generates unbreakable encrypted data - having the source code does not help. When it is this good, then you can trust it. Anything developed by a small group and not shared WILL fail - security through obscurity is no security at all

    2. Re:How is this going to help? by Fanglord · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A secure encryption system should NEVER rely on keeping the algorithm secret. The system factoring of products of very large primes is completely known, yet still forms the basis for the best (economically feasible) cryptosystems out there.

      Your enemy should be able to know your system, and still not be able to break your code. Look at PGP (yeah, I know, someone found a flaw in the implementation, but correctly implemented, it's as strong as ever).

    3. Re:How is this going to help? by SpaceCadetTrav · · Score: 1

      Of course an encryption system shouldn't RELY on keeping the algorithm secret, but in all practicality, it probably wouldn't hurt.

    4. Re:How is this going to help? by Fanglord · · Score: 1

      I believe it WOULD hurt. Many eyes make all bugs shallow (to paraphrase). Same is true for finding flaws in encryption schemes. The more people who look at the algorithm, the more likely to find an obscure (or obvious) flaw.

    5. Re:How is this going to help? by SpaceCadetTrav · · Score: 1

      That's a nice theory, and I'm sure it works sometimes. But we're talking about practicalities here.

  26. Scientists automatically know what's good? by character_assassin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Being a scientist himself, he surely knows what's good for his country

    Yeah, like CalTech physics Ph.D. John Poindexter, who obviously knows what's best for America, e.g. Iran-Contra, Total Information Awareness...

    --

    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
  27. Re:I wonder by sakyamuni · · Score: 1

    This might not be as much of a joke as we think. In this particular case probably not, given the sensitive nature of the project, but in general I don't see why not.

    Remember the furore about the medical data processor in India or Pakistan who threatened to publicize confidential patient data if not paid? That shed light on the practice of multiple levels of sub-contracting in that industry.

    It would not surprise me that (if not now, then soon) Indian software houses in turn outsource some of their less challenging work to cheaper locales. That's how the "next India" will get its start.

  28. Re:Is offtopic but... by Deflagro · · Score: 1

    THANK YOU!

    That makes sense then since my one post was at +5 funny then went down to +3 funny and just that hurt me. That explains it very well.

    Guess i'll have to say something worthwhile to get my little bonus back ;)

    --
    Der Tod ist der einzige Weg hier raus!
  29. Perhaps TOO subtle. by raygundan · · Score: 1

    The "+3, informative" on your post makes me wonder if anybody else is getting it.

    "Condensed Water," guys. As in, "it condensed out of the air." Which our lab-rat friend pointed out could be looked at as having had most of the air removed from it.

    1. Re:Perhaps TOO subtle. by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      Relax. Maybe the moderator thought it was worth more than a +Funny mod, which is worth nothing . . . Well, it's remotely possible.

    2. Re:Perhaps TOO subtle. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Only if you think of the atmosphere as being made of water, with some pesky air getting mixed in with it. i.e. airplanes don't fly - they swim through rather rarefied water.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  30. Re:Huh? (here's an unexhaustive list...) by gosand · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I'd much rather trust a scientist, almost regardless of what type of scientist.

    I can think of several I wouldn't trust....

    pseudo-scientist

    Christian Scientist

    Computer Scientist

    Marine Biologist

    Botanist

    Archaeologist

    Food Scientist

    Paranormal Scientist

    In fact, can you name a type of scientist that you would trust with knowing what is best for a country?

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  31. Doesn't sound very good by sakyamuni · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Either the paper's "Special Correspondent" took poor notes from Dr. Kalam's speech or Dr. Kalam doesn't know WTF he's talking about. Or maybe there's a language problem...

    "Open source codes can easily introduce the users to build security algorithms in the system without the dependence of proprietary platforms"

    Roll-your-own security algorithms are a very bad idea, as most of us know. Get a professional to do it. Don't design your own ultra-secure AES alternative based on an "introduction" gained from looking at open-source code.

    "We should take maximum care to ensure that our solution is unique to protect our own defence security solutions implemented on open platforms."

    "Ensure a unique solution... to protect security" sounds like a euphemism for "security through obscurity" if I've ever heard one.

    1. Re:Doesn't sound very good by fatmonkeyboy · · Score: 1

      Roll-your-own security algorithms are a very bad idea, as most of us know. Get a professional to do it.

      We're not talking about the IT department at the local grocery store here. We're talking about India.

      INDIA.

      Something tells me they're not going to have a problem finding a competent mathematician or computer scientist to help them out.

    2. Re:Doesn't sound very good by sakyamuni · · Score: 1
      Something tells me they're not going to have a problem finding a competent mathematician or computer scientist to help them out.

      Pay attention, fatmonkeyboy -- if that really is your name! Dr. Kalam is quoted as having said: "Open source codes can easily introduce the users to build security algorithms in the system without the dependence of proprietary platforms." Competent people won't have to browse somebody's open source code to get an "introduction" to "building security algorithms". So, obviously he wasn't speaking with experts in mind.

  32. Nice logical fallacy in the article blurb. by Etone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "has advised defense scientists to go for open-source software for software security, rather than be stuck with insecure proprietary software" Because open-source always is secure and proprietary always is insecure, right? -E-

    1. Re:Nice logical fallacy in the article blurb. by mritunjai · · Score: 1

      AT LEAST read the /. SUMMARY if not the article, you fool!!

      Its clearly written - "Open source codes can easily introduce the users to build security algorithms in the system without the dependence of proprietary platforms"

      So EVEN if the open source ones don't have security, the USERS can be motivated to make them secure rather than waiting for vendor to fix them.

      NO ONE is saying that open source is more secure than proprietary solutions... the only difference is that USERS can make it secure, if they want it to!

      --
      - mritunjai
  33. Re:Huh? (here's an unexhaustive list...) by ViolentGreen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In my experience, most scientists, while generally brilliant (from my perspective) in their field, tend to lack a lot of practical knowledge and common sense about the outside world.

    It could just be me though.

    --
    Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
  34. Re:Maybe... by pseudochaotic · · Score: 1

    Actually, i've heard that jobs outsourced to India are being re-outsourced to the Phillippines, etc. Too lazy to back this up, but I CAN promise +5 informative to the first (and second, and maybe third) person who can.

    --
    And the l33t shall inherit the 34r7h.
  35. Re:Pakistan connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    If Pakistan wanted to perform a "first strike" operation, all they would need to do is submit a kernel patch and that would cause all of the Indian weapons to recompile their Linux kernel. Especially if they are running Gentoo, they could be busy for weeks.

  36. Stallman being a lobbyist in India... by Theovon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It looks like what happened here is that Stallman went to India, had a talk with their President, talked to him about open source being a good idea, and the President bought it.

    This doesn't necessarily say that the Indian President is a brilliant leader; one possibility is that he was swayed by someone's argument, the same way that many other leaders are swayed by Microsoft's argument.

    I'm not saying that I'm disappointed, but it's one thing to have a leader be swayed by someone that gave him a convinving argument, and it's entirely another to have that leader come to the conclusion on his own.

    Now, the thing is the Indian President is clearly a really smart guy, and he's an accomplished scientist, etc. I don't mean to imply that he ACTUALLY just bought Stallman's line without thinking about it. What I mean to say is that there are plenty of people who would point at the Stallman visit and try to use that to suggest that the Indian President only made his recommendation because he's parroting someone else's words. This is a means for them to dismiss his recommendation.

    It's much more satisfying when someone figures out that Free Software is a good idea without activism being involved, so no one can imply that he didn't understand what he was saying.

    Argh. I'm having a really hard time expressing what I mean. Oh well.

    1. Re:Stallman being a lobbyist in India... by crushinghellhammer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As you admit, your line of reasoning isn't clear.

      Just because Stallman paid a visit to the President of India and spoke to him about OS doesn't mean that he was the first person to make him aware of OS. If I remember correctly, the article of Slashdot regarding that visit mentioned clearly that the President of India was already interested in OS and was advocating its use.

      Kalam was a scientist at the premier defense labs in India, which almost exclusively use Unix and variants. I'm sure he has a pretty rich experience with these Op. Systems, which would in all probability lead to his appreciation and advocating the use of Linux and Open Source models.

    2. Re:Stallman being a lobbyist in India... by gabbarbhai · · Score: 1
      I don't think its as simple as that. Billy G. has been investing relatively large amounts of money at all levels in India including through his foundation to push his software. I wonder what Stallman invested in India on the other hand. Maybe a free membership of FSF for APJ? I doubt even that..

      Fact of the matter is, with all kinds of sanctions slapped on the Indians in the recent past due to the Bomb thing, they do recognise the need for self-sufficiency at least for maintenance of existing systems. It would definitely be scary to find a hole in the Navy servers with economic sanctions preventing the download of the latest patch from the US :-)

      All this also ties very well with the 'digital divide' (scroll down for a related story posted today on slashdot) thing going full steam: the easiest way to get software to the masses is to make/keep/get it free.. Clearly, the Indian policy makers are smart guys, even disregarding the president.

  37. Yes.. parliament by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

    We don't have a "parliament". We do have a congress whom he asked for consent. We also have a judiciary that just smacked the crap out of his lawiers for the detention without trial of American citizens as well as other individuals. The US is much more of a Republic than a Democrocy. Usually, the Congress is lead by an entirely different party than the presidency, but thats not the case right now. I prefer the system because it allows me to differntiate my representation in Congress from my selection of President. I can vote for a Democratic Congress and a Republican President! I suppose there are advantages and disadvantages to both systems. While our system may produce some strange results over s short period of time, there are some benifits to the way in which it was constructed. If I had my way, we would have a philosopher king!

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    1. Re:Yes.. parliament by teetam · · Score: 1

      Theoretically, you are right. That is how USA was *designed*. That is not how it is today. The president's office (the executive) has continually usurped more and more powers over the last 150 years. Most of the countries that USA has invaded in the last 50 years, it has been done without congress declaring war. Things have finally lead to a point where Bush's men argue that in times of war, President's powers are unlimited. And since the president can always declare vague wars against poverty, drugs, terrorism, crime, obesity etc., this means that the President can always do whatever he wants! Think about this and think about monarchies...

      --
      All your favorite sites in one place!
  38. Re:Maybe... by JPriest · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I am sure this has nothing to do with Microsoft, Oracle, PeopleSoft, Sun, Adobe, and Apple being American companies.

    --
    Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
  39. Well this is alarming by jeanph01 · · Score: 1

    Look what the guy also said about bio-nano-tech : "The world market for nano materials, nano tools, nano devices and nano biotechnology should be over a hundred billion dollars. The fastest among them is nano biotechnology. Nanotechnology worked at the molecular level to create structures with fundamentally new molecular organisations, explained the President, adding that potential benefits covered diverse fields such as materials and manufacturing, nano electronics, computer technology, medicine and healthcare, environment and energy, aeronautics and space, biotechnology and agriculture. Many of these areas had applications in the defence sector and would help countries employing them to leapfrog in the science of warfare." It looks like the way the war is fought will never be the same after the bio-tech machines will be created. Imagine a thousand little T1000 !

  40. Now this too... by sammaffei · · Score: 1

    They have our jobs, now they want us to write the code for them too.

    Sesame Street was wrong. Sharing is not always a good thing.

    --

    Political correctness is the newest form of slavery.

  41. Stallman as Marco Polo ? by hung_himself · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A bit colonial isn't it to automatically assume that the Indian president needs an emissary from the US to tell him about open source?

    Do you really think that Kalam has never thought about open source? After all he is not the president of the US - he actually has proven that he can think independently as a scientist. If you knew academic scientists you would know that they understand the value of open-source better than anyone.

    A much more likely scenario is that Dr. Kalam wanted to meet with someone to discuss some technical details and get some feedback and maybe some publicity for his ideas of implementing open source. As there were noodles before Marco Polo went to Cathay and there was open source before Stallman went India...

  42. I am not arguing quicker... by rbird76 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you have lots of people and no money, you go for solutions that use manpower (what you have) and avoid expensive equipment (that you don't have or can't afford). If you have lots of money but few people, you buy solutions, because your time is more valuable than your money.

    You use what you have - if you have lots of people, then you use them. Where money is tight, you only buy what you can't get another way. Since with software India has a choice (commercial or OS solutions), they can throw programmers at problems and save their money for situations where they don't have another way. They can afford to be inefficient with people, but not with money, so even if the solutions aren't efficient, if they save money they make more sense than efficient solutions that cost lots of money (that they don't have).

  43. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  44. Actually Kalam Pushed Open Source long before... by GillBates0 · · Score: 4, Informative
    Stallman visited India. I remembered this clearly when I read Stallman's story, but could not dig up relevant Slashdot stories for you. However, I have managed to find some other stories, which clearly show that the *first* time the Prez recommended Open Source publicly, it was back in May2003. Stallman paid him a visit only earlier this year Jan 2004 if I remember right.

    Here's the proof:
    Article from the Times of India. A blurb
    TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2003 12:06:03 AM ]
    PUNE: President A P J Abdul Kalam on Wednesday urged Indian IT professionals to develop and specialise in open source code software rather than use proprietary solutions based on systems such as Microsoft Windows.

    Stallman's visit reported in The Hindu and elsewhere:
    Kalam, Stallman discuss open source software NEW DELHI, JAN. 31. The President, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, last Thursday played host to two radically divergent poles of the global software industry.

    Though the second link does not say 2004, I'm sure it was earlier this year, and a Google search should help you confirm that. Also the URL is dated 20040201.

    The above information renders your argument incorrect and w/o H20.

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
  45. Re:Arrgh! This means that Pakistan will want Windo by r00zky · · Score: 1

    But wasn't the main problem between India and Pakistand a dispute about Kashmir soverignity?

    Didn't knew they had some religious war there too... *sigh* religions good for nothing *cough*

    --
    I'm a chainsmokin' alcoholic sociopath, so-ci-o-path
  46. Impact of this decision by Greenisloved · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If things go by as Dr.Kalam envisioned , Im pretty confident that Open source will gain the biggest momentum worldwide.This is because

    1. A majority of Indian techies, might start using some variant of linux in the upcoming years.Rigt now,Most of them are still using Windows only.{ I observed that India ranks very poor in the number of registered Linux users.}
    http://counter.li.org/reports/place.php
    reports that there are very few linux users when compared to linux friendly nations.ofcourse i agree this may not be prefectly linear relationship in reality.Neverthelss , a reasonable estimate

    3.Once Linux Fever is caught up in India , we could expect a good increase in the number of open source projects , growth in popularity and confidence of open source projects.This will impact other developing nations , if they would realise the vast savings of the decision.

    4.MS share in India will dwindle big time.. This would affect its revenue as India is such a huge market.

    5. Indian colleges then would advance to use and advocate open source platforms and resources.This would help the indian progammers extend their scope and may improve their knowledge standard.Right now , most colleges in semi urban areas use proprietary operating systems.

    May be im over optimistic..
    Downside:
    1. MS is silently attracting the techies and indian public by offering donations to the poor,AIDS victims etc..These will go down eventually.

    2.This mite stir up some greedy and filthy politicians who get good bribes from corporate leaders and may work for delay in progress.

    It's still a challenge for India to come up in technological arena with the onus of poor political stress on it.
    Lets see where this takes !!!

    --
    Hello , this is my way.
    Which way is yours ?
    btw there is no right way
  47. Respect for logic? by metalhed77 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'd note a few things about 'logic'. Let's start with newton.

    Newton was brilliant yes.

    He also was:

    Stared at the sun once for an extended period, lost most of his sight.
    Wrote bizarre raving religious tracts
    Was an antisocial asshole
    An Alchemist

    Now the point is that skill in science means nothing when it comes to statecraft. The anti-social part is a big part of this. A major part of a politicians job is getting people to do what you want them to do. Being right is only half the battle. Additionally, scientists are not so hard to corrupt. You can get a prestigious professor to flack for just about any lobby if you pay him enough why should a president be so pure?

    --
    Photos.
  48. That may be true of Bush, but the system works. He got slapped down by the supreme court (thank God). They are not unlimited even in times of war. Compare what he's doing with rosevelt's handleing of WW2! There has been less censership, racism, and dictatorship behavior under Bush! Shhh. Don't tell the Bush haters, they'll kill you if they know you know!

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  49. he wants to fund Military Nanaotech too.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    If you go to this article at Kurzweilai.net (http://www.kurzweilai.net/email/newsRedirect.html ?newsID=3482&m=11262), you can find details (the(nano)arms race has begun), this does signify that a new dangerous nanotechnology arms race is being considered by countries around the world, this may be good for nanotechnology research, but, of course, it will probablly make the world a much more dangerous place, but, I guess if you have sufficient nanotech yourself (someday), then you may have to worry less if somebody else (country, terrorists, hackers) have some dangerous nano themselves..

  50. The real head of state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    is an economices professor. Dr. Manmohan Dingh is the elected leader and in the Prime Minister.

    1. Re:The real head of state by srichand · · Score: 1

      Thats Dr Manmohan Singh. The post of President in India is very much like that of the Queen of the UK. Only a ceremonial position. But what he says , *generally* is echoed by the ruling government.

  51. Publish as well? by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    No, unless they distribute it and are using software licensed under the GPL or something akin.

    Have you read the GPL?

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  52. GNU-PGP by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Enough said.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  53. Looking for price cuts? by aussie_a · · Score: 1

    Everytime I see something like this everyone says "oh they're just looking for price cuts from Microsoft, they won't really go open source." Has this really been the case in the past? And will it be the case this time?

    I believe it's quite likely that the answers are no :)

  54. My take on the ills of open source. by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 1
    I don't understand how anybody can support this open source philosophy. The way I see it, the only good software is commercial proprietary closed source software. There is no possible way that a group of geeks who communicate through IRC and have never met each other can outdo in open source what professional masters degree programmers wearing fancy suits working in fancy office buildings and advertising on glossy sales brochures can do in their pristine closed environment.

    Besides, all open source is simply a bad immitation of quality proprietary software. Take Windows, for example. Here you have a fine operating system, with beautiful graphics, a great web browsing experience, great support for collaboration, and a widely installed base. On the other hand, you have the open source Linux, which is hard to obtain, hard to install, hard to configure, hard to learn, hard to use, and hard to teach. Its graphics aren't as nice, either. Not to mention that the TCO of Windows is much lower than that of Linux. You can do with $100 more with Windows than you could ever do with Linux for that price. Linux is only cheaper if you don't value your time. Clearly, then, proprietary closed source patented copyrighted trademarked software with digital rights management, copy protection, and forced registration is a much better choice over open source, which is really crappy.

    Winners always choose closed source.

    Sincerely,

    Bill Gates.

  55. Re:Huh? (here's an unexhaustive list...) by robbot · · Score: 1

    Huh? What's wrong with Archaeologists? Knowing a bit of history doesn't seem to be a bad thing in politics.

  56. But MacNamara was an analyst... by 286 · · Score: 1

    Technocrat or not he was *told* to find a way to bomb the shit out of Japan, and later Vietnam.

    He told JFK the numbers looked bad in Vietnam, ultimately those mistakes lie with the President; Kennedy, Johnson or Nixon.

    Who deserves more of the blame, Rumsfeld or Bush, for the misshanling Iraq?

  57. Re:Actually Kalam Pushed Open Source long before.. by toolz · · Score: 1

    Though the second link does not say 2004, I'm sure it was earlier this year, and a Google search should help you confirm that. Also the URL is dated 20040201.

    Actually, if you look closely at the top of the page, it says "Sunday, Feb 01, 2004".

    Prez Kalam was heavily into FOSS long before this. During a meeting the Government of India (Ministry of Communication and Information technology) had with the IT industry and FOSS community on December 26th, 2002, the president's stand was clearly conveyed to us.

    While a number of people have pointed out that the post of President in India is not an "active" one like in the USA, he wears many hats - and the second hat of his (as a scientist) is probably far more influential than the first one. Remember, this is the man who made India a nuclear power - not by policy, but by *action*.

    As *President*, he can *reach* people, and he does. Industry and community are sitting up and lending a careful ear to what he is saying.

    Even more important - this is a president the people *know*, *like* and *trust*.

    --
    You aren't remembered for doing what is expected of you
  58. Wha-wha-whaaat? by d474 · · Score: 1
    1. Being a scientist himself, he surely knows what's good for his country.
    Being a politician himself, he surely knows what's good for the scientific community.

    Are we getting it yet?
    --
    Authority questions you. Return the favor.
  59. Quite a few nations have 'reserved' algorithms by cheros · · Score: 1

    If you read through any country catalogue for crypto you will find that there are 'Government' versions of the packages. The sole reason for this is because the algorithms used for Government are different (no idea if they're better, though ;-).

    Don't be too rash to knock the guy - your judgement appears to be based on a lack of understanding (hereby hopefully corrected ;-).

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.