Slashdot Mirror
Green Hills Software Decides Linux Isn't So Bad
An anonymous reader submits a link to this report on LinuxDevices.com, which begins "An outspoken open source detractor has paid Linux a back-handed compliment. Green Hills Software (GHS), known for diatribes against Linux in military/aerospace applications, is shipping 'Padded Cell technology' intended to enable the company's proprietary real-time OS to take advantage of the wealth of Linux application software." You may remember GHS's Dan O'Dowd, who's claimed that the embedded Linux Tools Market is a myth and that the open source nature of Linux makes it a threat to national security.
Has any Linux distro gotten Common Criteria certification yet? Seems like that is the major barrier to large scale governmental/military adoption and not some small-time competitor FUD.
If you use the property of someone else, they have the right to decide on restrictions (within legal limits). Given the number of copyright restrictions that tend to be splurged over any source code, I find it implausible that you were unaware of the implications of your choice to sell on the modified operating system.
Of course, if you were merely building applications on top of Linux then you will have no such problems - this is, I believe, what Adobe do with Acrobat Reader (the linux version is evil but that's not the point). In particular:
"Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released. This was simply unacceptable."
This is complete bollocks. Fire your lawyers.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
Most any company is going to look at things from their own point of advantage. If they did not feel they could make money on linux or it would actually hurt them, why would they praise it. So now they apparently think they can make money from it. At least they were open minded enough to reevaluate their position.
Nice troll. This is utter garbage of cause, but it is common misconception so I'll rebut it. Just because something uses a tool doesn't mean it is subject to the same licence as the tool. Firstly, if this were the case, then any document created in an open source word processor or text editor would need to be GPLed which is clearly not the case (and would be dangerous for writing confidential documents). Even if compiling something with gcc made it a dirivitive work (which it doesn't), only the binary would be a dirivitive of gcc, and the source code would be completely unneffected since it is not modified by gcc. BeOS was compiled by gcc for the x86 platform and it remained closed source and propritary with no legal challenges.
One only has to release the source code under the GPL to the people you distributed the binary to.If you keep it wholly in house you only need to give the source code to anyone. If you make it for a single client you only need to give the source code to that single client. Of cause anyone who you give the source to is allowed to pass it on, but it isn't like you have to just broadcast it to the world just because you changed it.
If you are not trolling and have read what I have just said and still don't think its fair, think about this: the program you are modifing was written by thousands of other people, many of them with commercial tasks just like you, and they have let you use their code. If you want to distribute the hacked kernel without sharing your code, how is it fair for the people who have contributed beforehand?
Oh, and if you are not a troll, you really need to get yourself a new lawyer quick, because that lawyer just caused you a lot of wasted time and effort.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
They aren't converting to Linux. They are just adding a compatability layer so software for Linux can run on their proprietary OS.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.gree nhillsoftware.com
-jpeg
Disclaimer: I work for Green Hills Software
There seems to be some confusion about this product. From what I've seen and heard (I haven't used this product directly yet), it is a method of running linux applications on top of the uber-secure real-time operating system, "Integrity". The linux applcation layer is sheilded from the rest of the system, and possibly from other linux-application layers. It's really more of like user-mode linux than a linux kernel.
I hope that helps...
Not quite... that's Greenhill Software, we're talking about Green Hills Software. According to Netcraft, they run NetBSD or OpenBSD: http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.ghs. com
It's me again (the guy who works at GHS as per the grandparent of this post. I don't have a /. account)
I don't feel that there is a "distain" for the work of the dedicated individuals who have worked on Linux. We offer development tools that can develop on and for Linux (as well as Windows and Solaris). Many (if not most) of our developers use Linux as the "host" operating system for developing INTEGRITY and MULTI (our compiler/debugger/code-editor/etc...). Linux is a fine operating system for desktop work.
The concern is that Linux is not provably secure. With INTEGRITY, we can prove security and stability. We have a version of INTEGRITY that has been certified as DO-178B Level-A compliant, which means that it can run critical systems on airplanes. To achieve this, we had to make the kernel completely deterministic, and test and document every line of code. There is no dynamic memory allocation at the kernel level (no malloc()), there kernel never turns off interrupts, even when in an interrupt handler (granted, a processor usually turns interrupts off when an interrupt fires, but we turn them back ON at the earliest opportunity). You cannot say these things about Linux, and thus it is less fit for safety or security-critical systems.
Lastly, in response to some complaints I have seen previously, Green Hills does offer the source to INTEGRITY to paying customers. There have been complaints that no one could trust INTEGRITY because they don't have the source code to it. These complaints are unfounded. Customers are free to examine the source and modify it to their wishes, and many do.
I thought that he was trying too strongly to make the case that those that want to use Linux for real-time applications will not buy tools and those that want better performance for hard-real-time will not choose Linux.
It is also obvious that a general-purpose operating system is not going to work as well in a real-time environment as one specially designed for that purpose. It's the reason why, for example, if you are an organization that wants a system to break encryption keys fast, you build a special-purpose machine that includes hardware designed to do quick computations of prime numbers, not commodity hardware with lots of extra features you don't need and won't use, that slow down the primary purpose of breaking codes.
He seemed to be arguing the point far too strongly, as if he had a hidden agenda. Okay, presuming his argument is valid, so what if Linux as a general-purpose O/S is not as good at handling hard-real-time as a specially designed one? He could have argued that in about 1/5th of the space his article uses. What is also interesting is, despite all his talk about how bad Linux is, he seemed to ignore examples where Linux is considered good enough for real-time use in many cases, and was unable to mention any alternative which might be better, such as some open-source alternatives that have been mentioned here on Slashdot.
I had a suspicion but I wasn't sure. And now it's clear: his company sells real-time operating systems in competition with Linux. So he claims Linux is not good enough. Where have we heard this before? :)
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.