Slashdot Mirror


Linux Secure Enough For The Army

LordPixie writes " As summarized over at Defense Tech, the U.S. Army is soon to be infected with the infamous OSS virus. They have chosen Linux as the operating system for the abysmally named 'System of Systems Common Operating Environment,' a part of Army's planned Future Combat Systems."

14 of 71 comments (clear)

  1. An army of one... by keiferb · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...and he's currently playing tuxracer in his eyepiece.

  2. Picky picky picky by devphil · · Score: 3, Funny


    for the abysmally named 'System of Systems Common Operating Environment,'

    Look, you can either take whatever acronyms they hand out, or suffer under "backronyms" like PROTECT and PATRIOT. They don't know how to do anything else.

    --
    You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
  3. Right After... by 4of12 · · Score: 3, Informative

    they ordered about US$4.7e8 worth of Microsoft products for the next 6 years.

    I'll give them credit for covering both options, though.

    OTOH, it's possible they could have got a better deal waving around a credible FOSS initiative, like others have done recently.

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
  4. one problem of Open Source by quinto2000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I personally object to software I develop being used for military applications. Luckily most of the F/OSS software I've created wouldn't be useful for them, but how ironic for the many people that create F/OSS because of humanitarian goals, to see it mis-appropriated for death and destruction. Not to mention how hard it is to stomach giving another free resource to the mis-named Defense Department when they already drain funding from social services, healthcare and education. (and yes, i realize that other people can still use Linux -- I just doubt that the DOD license purchasing budget will be reduced)

    --
    Ceci n'est pas un post
    1. Re:one problem of Open Source by FLAGGR · · Score: 5, Funny

      SgtJenkins@military.mil$ drop bomb
      -bash: drop: command not found
      SgtJenkins@military.mil$ make bomb
      make: *** No rule to make target `bomb'. Stop.
      SgtJenkins@military.mil$ kill terrorists
      -bash: kill: terrorists: no such pid
      SgtJenkins@military.mil$ man i want windows back
      No manual entry for i
      No manual entry for want
      No manual entry for windows
      No manual entry for back

    2. Re:one problem of Open Source by CamMac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One of the entire reasons OSS is such a great thing is that becuase its OpenSourced, if can be adapted for use in ways that the original coder never though of. And dispite the fact that most soldiers have a hard time with an excel function, the fact that they might have acess to the source could allow for in theater modifications. Adaptability is a great thing.

      Of course, this includes ways the orignial coder might object to, but I'm sure they'll get over it. If your going to bitch about your software being used by the Department of Defense, remind me to not lift a finger when your getting your ass beat in some back alley. If your willing to help everyone but me, at no cost to you, why should I lift a finger to help you? Doesn't that fly in the face of OpenSource? I do give this to you in the HOPE that you might do something that might help me?

      --Cam

      --
      All jocks think about is sports. All nerds think about is sex.
    3. Re:one problem of Open Source by GypC · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, abolish all armies and then there will be peace in the world.

      *eye roll*

      Grow up.

    4. Re:one problem of Open Source by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you also have a problem using TCP/IP because it was a DARPAnet project to begin with? Hate to say it- but giving free resources to the mis-named Defense Department means that the government as a whole will have more money for social sercives, healthcare, and education- some smart congresscritter is sure to notice that FOSS licencing is cheaper than CS licensing and cut it from the budget.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    5. Re:one problem of Open Source by borroff · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, you can't have it both ways. Either OSS is totally unencumbered and free for public use, or not. You could write a license that says that it's free for everyone but the government or weapons manufacturers, but that's darn hard to enforce. I mean, do you really think the Pentagon obeys licenses and patent laws in cases of "National Security"?

      Ethically, I would say you're blame free. If you build a house, and a serial killer moves in, are you an accessory to murder? Most tools (excluding guns and explosives, and even those can be debated) take on beneficial or harmful characteristics only when wielded by a person who has made a choice.

  5. System of Systems by GuyMannDude · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...the abysmally named 'System of Systems Common Operating Environment'...

    The term "system of systems" refers to the fact that FCS is meant to allow the army to be able to reconfigure things easily and rapidly to allow the technology to be used for a wide range of missions. Yeah, it sounds a bit strange if you're not used to the terminology but they do pick these phrases, acronyms, and words for a reason. You can read more about FCS here. Basically, the idea is to use a collection of smaller, more manueverable vehicles (including tanks, guns, as well as unmanned ground and aerial vehicles) to accomplish a wide array of military missions. FCS will lack the heavy armor (e.g., 70 ton tanks) that we currently have which could make the force more susceptible to destruction. The advantage of using a lighter force, however, is that it doesn't take them so long to set up, they can move pretty quickly, and don't require as much support equipment and supplies (e.g., fuel). The army plans to make the lighter FCS unit survivable through a lot of fancy communication and data-sharing technologies. So the fact that they have decided to choose Linux is reasonably signficant. FCS will rely very heavily on the quality of their software.

    GMD

  6. Re:Ours vs theirs by ajrs · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm still using Slackwar, you insentitive clod!

  7. Obvious Choice by Mork29 · · Score: 3, Informative

    As a sys admin for the military, most of us complain about our dependence on a private company in the government sector. This will allow the Army to create what they need, and add what they need, themselves. Computers in combat environments do things that no off the shelf software was designed to do. Most of our stuff has to be home brewed or contracted out. Linux gives the military more flexiblity in this field. I wish I could run linux on our client/server systems for desktops, but I'm stuck with Windows for now. We do run Unix for many of our supply systems... Unfortunately that Unix platform was provided by SCO..... Many years ago....

  8. Very misleading title by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Informative
    It seems to suggest that just now the american army has decided that Linux may be used within its service. That is not the case at all. The army has been using Linux for a long time already and decided it was safe enough.

    This news is that Linux has been chosen as THE os for the future replacing the other OSes currently in use. This is a far greater story.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  9. Linux the logical choice, nothing to do with MS by stanwirth · · Score: 3, Informative

    Most of the military embedded, comms and simulation systems have traditionally been developed on a Unix platforms, and the embedded work was typically done with VxWorks.

    Migrating to linux means minimal porting costs from Unix platforms, it means preservation of the skill set already developed in military R&D outfits (FFRDCs) and it means freeing various corners of that world from the commercial interests of providers of proprietary *nix platforms. It also opens up a whole world of development environments for embedded systems. Porting from Unix to Linux can be combined with a refactoring exercise to make those systems more reliable, too -- whereas porting to say Windows -- would just be a complete mess. An ever-changing mess, as MS issues a never-ending stream of binary patches and updates and API changes and has a never ending string of vulnerabilities that cannot be patched in the field because nobody has the source.

    Linux is the logical choice, the rational choice for these systems from the standpoint of simplifying and unifying software development processes, having access to a greater range of development tools, and for making these systems more reliable. The cost benefits of the software systems reliability, simplicity and visibility considerations compounds the savings on the licensing fees.

    Those MS licenses they're also getting? Windows machines are used for administrative purposes -- think glorified typewriter, not the next guided missile system. It was far more worrying (and completely unrealistic, and probably politically motivated) when the military was considering standardizing their systems on MS--which is like hiring a secretary to drive a tank.