Slashdot Mirror


Navy Commissions Open Source R&D

Lin_Matt writes "OSSI has announced a three year Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with the U.S. Navy to explore and expand the usage of Open Source Software. Barry Duplantis of Red Hat will be serving as the Program Manager for this CRADA which will cover the Navy's use of OSS within the Naval Oceanographic Office's Web services, scientific computing and enterprise architecture systems."

201 comments

  1. Uhh, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    So what? US Government has funded software development before and it's always been open source'd. No big deal.

    1. Re:Uhh, so? by sPaKr · · Score: 1, Interesting

      always open source? This is not the case as Iv seen many crypto chips which are asics that started as software implentations. These are not Open, the interfaces to the chips arnt even open.. but motorolla does sell phones with the chips in them.. course they dont sell them to us.. the sales of the hardware arnt even open. Its true that the .gov has funded open source, but not all .gov is open source.. not even close.

    2. Re:Uhh, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All non-COTS military software is written in Ada. Nobody on slashdot knows Ada.

    3. Re:Uhh, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So?

    4. Re:Uhh, so? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      All non-COTS military software is written in Ada. Nobody on slashdot knows Ada.

      Not surprising, considering Ada is dead.

      1852

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    5. Re:Uhh, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not true; i am an enlisted computer programmer for the air force and we are using java currently.

  2. OSS to the rescue by crypto55 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Excellent. Maybe now Microsoft won't be invading every crevice of our military... Speaking of Microsoft, when does skynet come online?

    --
    Due to financial difficulties, the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off.
    1. Re:OSS to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Skynet was scrapped in favor of Skynet.NET. However, the new in-filesystem invasion feature has been dropped due to complexitiy issues. Further... Eh. I can't make fun of Microsoft that well. You do it.

    2. Re:OSS to the rescue by thundercatslair · · Score: 1

      Indeed, maybe now some problems could be avoided.

    3. Re:OSS to the rescue by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Well, if you remember Terminator 3, SkyNET was a global cluster.

      What again of these beowulf thingies?

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    4. Re:OSS to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine a Skynet of beowulf clusters?

    5. Re:OSS to the rescue by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Yes, that was the joke.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    6. Re:OSS to the rescue by Lost+Penguin · · Score: 1

      Let's hope Skynet is by Microsoft.

      We can stop the terminators much easier

      --
      I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
    7. Re:OSS to the rescue by nounderscores · · Score: 2, Funny

      if they put oss into submarines then it will be official:

      BSD is diving.

  3. RedHat 8.x on SSN 778 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work at 'x', and I'm on a project that interfaces with Q70s running RedHat 8.x... target platform is SSN778 (VA class submarine)

    1. Re:RedHat 8.x on SSN 778 by airider · · Score: 1

      Is that usq-70 or uyq-70???

  4. Its about time by jefedesign · · Score: 1

    The reality is, is that if open-source isn't the option then we might as well be handing everything over to one insane little geek rather then a community. Live long and prosper Linux!

    --
    Linux blog http://nsajeff.com/blog
    1. Re:Its about time by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      The reality is, is that if open-source isn't the option then we might as well be handing everything over to one insane little geek rather then a community.

      I think Ross Perot sold EDS to General Motors sometime back.

      On the other hand, Perot was a major financial backer of NeXT, so maybe he's insanely great. That's kind of weird to think about, that we might not have OS X if it weren't for Ross Perot.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  5. Whats the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    while the visibility of open source CRADA's are great, open source has been used in the navy for a while now.

    I was involved with a project (I work at a navy research lab) that used python, zope, and mysql. A few doors down they were using Zope in conjunction with NATO.

  6. An interesting anecdote by nate+nice · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I worked with a man who was a Marine and had a couple years in the Airforce. He wasn't the "brightest" guy in the world but had a lot of military experience and could talk about it all day. He didn't like UNIX much in the service because he said their equipment didn't work well often. But with the Windows based systems, things worked a lot better and were much easier for soldiers to use. I'm not sure what this has to do with this article but I assume we should listen to these kinds of statements to see how we can make Linux based systems more reliable and easy to use for people that depend on a system they can use under extreme stress and fatigue.

    --
    "If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer ..."
    1. Re:An interesting anecdote by TimeTraveler1884 · · Score: 2, Funny
      I'm not sure what this has to do with this article but I assume we should listen to these kinds of statements to see how we can make Linux based systems more reliable and easy to use for people that depend on a system they can use under extreme stress and fatigue.
      No, Windows is great for embedding into things like bullets and munitions. Just as long as the Blue Scream of Death is that of our enemies and not us.

    2. Re:An interesting anecdote by MHobbit · · Score: 1

      Thank you. Switching to Linux should not only be due to an urge to join the bandwagon of Microsoft-haters.

      --
      Debugging? Klingons do not debug. Bugs are good for building character in the user.
    3. Re:An interesting anecdote by FuturePastNow · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, the UNIX equipment he's referring to is probably kludgy old special-purpose machines, for controlling radars and such. Linux is a general (and special) purpose operating system that also runs on the same equipment as Windows.

      The Windows based systems are presumably the same sort of computers the soldiers use at home, no wonder they are more familiar and easier. Stick Linux on those computers and order people to use it.

      --
      Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
    4. Re:An interesting anecdote by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      No, Windows is great for embedding into things like bullets and munitions. Just as long as the Blue Scream of Death is that of our enemies and not us. I thought it was the other way around.... it being good to embed bullets and munitions into windows.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    5. Re:An interesting anecdote by Rylz · · Score: 1

      Stick Linux on those computers and order people to use it.

      Do you really think that's the best attitude to have about spreading open source software? IMHO force is not the way to gain acceptance for a development model that's all about sharing and freedom...

      --
      Sometimes you've gotta roll the hard six.
    6. Re:An interesting anecdote by ChuckSchwab · · Score: 1

      More like an interesting lie. WINDOWS working better than UNIX? Gimme a break. What is this guy, an idiot savant? Instead of being able to multiply large numbers in his head but not eat properly, this guy can make Windows work properly but gets screwed over by UNIX. He's got everything reversed.

    7. Re:An interesting anecdote by st1d · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, Windows is great for embedding into things like bullets and munitions.

      Yeah, I can just see the smiles on the soldiers faces when they go to fire their smart weapon, and the bullet needs authenticating because they replaced the firing pin earlier that day...

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
    8. Re:An interesting anecdote by FuturePastNow · · Score: 1

      You're thinking like a civilian, but the military isn't about sharing and freedom. They will evaluate open source software, and if they find it worthy of expanded use, they will use it. And "force" is a pretty strong word to use, if OSS is truly better, the users will eventually realize that and embrace it. If it's not better, well, that's what this research is for.

      --
      Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
    9. Re:An interesting anecdote by nate+nice · · Score: 0

      I'm happy to waste your time, loser.

      --
      "If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer ..."
    10. Re:An interesting anecdote by djmcmath · · Score: 1

      I can't speak for everyone, but I know that on my boat the only UNIX boxes were HPUX. We had one guy on board who really knew HPUX, and he wasn't me. Everyone else was terrified of the computers.

      (sigh) I think overcoming that terror is the first important step.

  7. Strong commitment? by e9th · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I sure am glad that they teamed up with that renowned bastion of computer science, the University of Southern Mississippi.

    1. Re:Strong commitment? by GoBears · · Score: 1

      NAVOCEANO is located in Bay St. Louis, MS. If you think someone from a "renowned bastion" is going to spend their days hangin' out in southern Mississippi...

  8. Just curious by jefedesign · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Why wouldn't the entire gov't use open-source? Most cost analysis studies show that Linux is cheaper in the long run not to mention more secure. The studies that indicate Windows to be cheaper are obviously biased.

    --
    Linux blog http://nsajeff.com/blog
    1. Re:Just curious by LWATCDR · · Score: 1, Insightful

      For some things Linux is not the best answer. Things like Aircraft control is one area. Of course you would not want to use Windows for those kind of tasks.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:Just curious by zootm · · Score: 1

      By asserting that, are you not giving away your own bias?

    3. Re:Just curious by DrLZRDMN · · Score: 1

      Because M$ could pay the difference.

    4. Re:Just curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10 min ago I read a joke
      If M$ made planes, due to micro-stimulated softness of their crappy designs the airplanes would not crash, they would hang in the air.
      -1

    5. Re:Just curious by geekee · · Score: 1

      "Most cost analysis studies show that Linux is cheaper in the long run not to mention more secure."

      Have you looked at Red Hat pricing lately?

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    6. Re:Just curious by kneeless · · Score: 1

      Oh? Pray, tell me why that is. IMHO, I would think Linux would be better for pure stability purposes, let alone the litany of other reasons.

    7. Re:Just curious by st1d · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure, RH and SuSE (corporate) pricing is up there. On the other hand, you don't HAVE to pay that much for a Linux solution, as there are a number of well respected distributions available, some specifically designed for the corporate market, for the very reason of being disenchanted with RH and SuSE pricing. It may be a bit more work to look into these than "go with the norm", but that decision depends on your priorities, just like the decision to consider Linux, instead of just going with MS out of blind ignorance.

      OTOH, MS pricing is MS pricing, and about the only way to get a better deal is to tell MS you're thinking of switching to Linux. So even if you are determined to stick with MS, come hell or high water, it wouldn't kill you to learn more about Linux (beyond the FUD), as it gives you more bargaining power. If, along the way, you realize that Linux is a good solution, all the better. :)

      That should tell you something in itself.

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
    8. Re:Just curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Linux is big, complicated, and rapidly-evolving, whereas the primary characteristics you'd be interested in for an ATC system are small, simple, and *very* *very* mature and well-tested.

      As the grandparent said, Windows would be a pretty crummy choice, too.

    9. Re:Just curious by vruba · · Score: 1

      Generic Linux may be more stable, but it's not as stable (or as predictable) as a realtime OS. Even one hang a year would be terrible for air traffic control, nuclear power plants, rocketry, etc. They would much rather have a slow, non-scalable system than one that had even a slim chance of screwing up.

    10. Re:Just curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    11. Re:Just curious by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      So what? Red Hat isn't the be-all and end-all of Linux. There are other distros out there. I've put together a number of servers, not one of them running Red Hat. I have no intention of installing REd Hat now or at any time in the future.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    12. Re:Just curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    13. Re:Just curious by mumblestheclown · · Score: 1
      Most cost analysis studies show that Linux is cheaper in the long run not to mention more secure. The studies that indicate Windows to be cheaper are obviously biased.

      "now there's an unbiasted statement!"

    14. Re:Just curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be a requirement for multiple levels of redundancy, not just a real time OS.

    15. Re:Just curious by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Then use Debian Potato. It is so mature it has roots and mold in it.

    16. Re:Just curious by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      For one Linux is not a real time OS. There are some real-time add ons for Linux but standard Linux is not determinate. The OSs that are used for aircraft control systems tend to be much simpler than Linux. They would make a poor OS for a workstation or server.
      When people lives count you want to have completely audited code. There are also testing and certifications that you want to run an OS for flight control through. Linux has not been tested for that type of application. Even if Linux is stable enough for aircraft or other life critical system until it has been audited, tested, and certified you can not be sure that it is. I would love to see someone take Linux through that process . Lots of bugs would be found and fixed. Of course only one version would be certified. as soon as a patch was added you would have to do the tests again. It would take a lot of time and money.
      Linux is a GREAT general use OS as are the BSDs but Linux is NOT the perfect OS for every Computer system. It is not the answer for 8-Bit systems, DSPs, and maybe not for life critical real-time control systems.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    17. Re:Just curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think Linux is the king of stability, you'll die when you read about the software running on aircraft control computers. It makes Linux look like Windows XP running on bochs running on an 8086 with a 4GB RAM device hooked up as a peripheral, wired together by an entire high school electronics class using a power supply sold by Radio Shack 15 years ago, hooked into a dodgy power strip with loose connectioned plugged into the same circuit used by the lunchroom to power their dishwashers and microwaves.

      Aircraft Controller software is the best example of stable software there is, without going into embedded computers, where programs are basically each their own Operating System. Aircraft Controller software is written in Ada, usually, much like a lot of aircraft software like in the link you were given.

      Linux stability is great compared to Windows, good in its own right, but it's not on the top level of software stability. It's built to be too generic for that, and it has too many code paths to be evalutated quickly. You could probably write a program quicker using the Spark subset of Ada than you could evaluate Linux for some tasks.

  9. Bravo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Microsoft has been waving the "Buy American" banner for too long. Red Hat is an American company too!

    1. Re:Bravo! by dn15 · · Score: 1

      It is not my intent to challenge you, but how/where has Microsoft been waving a "Buy American" banner? I have no love for Microsoft, but I've never seen anything like that.

    2. Re:Bravo! by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has been waving the "Buy American" banner for too long. Red Hat is an American company too!

      Shh. I hear the people that works at RedHat are communists. I mean, REDHat... doh!
      I wouldn't rule out they being terrorists either.

  10. redhat is only better by BobVila · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Now we can be Redhat's whores instead of Microsoft's whores.

    1. Re:redhat is only better by crypto55 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey, at least we'll be OSS whores. Then we'll know what's causing our apps to crash!

      --
      Due to financial difficulties, the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off.
    2. Re:redhat is only better by AnFraX · · Score: 1

      Now we can be Redhat's whores instead of Microsoft's whores.

      I think it would have been funnier as: "Now we can be Redhat's whores instead of Redmond's whores."

    3. Re:redhat is only better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thank goodness it's not gentoo. for problems that take months to debug, recompiling the kernel in your moms basement every night makes troubleshooting more difficult.

      AC

    4. Re:redhat is only better by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      You're damn right. Who else is better suited for open source than the guys who are involved with it more then any other entity and are largely responsible for its mainstream use today. Check the kernel changelogs, or Gnome (Red Hat also hosts their website), GCC, a ton of work for GCJ, lots of work on many of the Apache projects, and many other very important projects in OSS from the lowest level things to stuff every day users use. Red Hat contributes far more code then any one else to those plus many many more projects. Red Hat as a policy open sources everything it has and allows all patents to be used by open source projects. So far the only mistake Red Hat made was a marketing mistake and who can blame them? They are getting bigger and must learn from things like they did.

      They never once started abusing the community like many companies that just repackage many open source projects together and maybe add a little custom utility to manage some things. Red Hat is an integral part to the OSS movement so people should really stop bad mouthing them. Red Hat puts food on the table for the best of the best enginneers in OSS (excluding some which OSDL covers). Oh yea and not to mention, many of those 24 hour security responses that the OSS world is famous for come from Red Hat. I'm sick of people talking down on them on slashdot, its ridiculous the FUD some are spreading. Thank god alot of people realize that it is just FUD and nothing more.
      Regards,
      Steve

      P.S. This post is directed at the /. community at large, not necessarily just the parent.

    5. Re:redhat is only better by AnFraX · · Score: 1

      Hey, at least we'll be OSS whores. Then we'll know what's causing our apps to crash!

      Or our F-14's.

    6. Re:redhat is only better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking bullshit. They are making a *fortune* off other people's backs, fuck them into eternity. Nearly $2000 for a fuckin distro? Fuck them! Fuck. Fuckers!

    7. Re:redhat is only better by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      You obviously haven't checked out their prices, nor compared then to novell's nor looked into the cost of supporting software with live people rather then just tossing a manual at them.
      Regards,
      Steve

  11. Don't count yer chickens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The aforementioned RedHat based Q70 is interfacing to a Single Board Computer running XP-Embedded

    NB: the only ECDIS-N certified voyage management system runs on Windows

    There is something to be said for an OS baseline that doesn't change monthly/weekly/daily.

    1. Re:Don't count yer chickens by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      The aforementioned RedHat based Q70 is interfacing to a Single Board Computer running XP-Embedded

      NB: the only ECDIS-N certified voyage management system runs on Windows

      There is something to be said for an OS baseline that doesn't change monthly/weekly/daily.



      What, like QNX?

      I thought it was designed specifically for mission-critical, has-to-work, has-to-have-great-support, musn't-change-often kind of situations. I'm sure there's other OS's like it, too. Why Windows?


      OT, but incidentally if anyone's wanting to make good use of older (Pentium or early PII) hardware as a dedicated MP3 Jukebox or 'net browsing box, you can do worse than QNX for x86. BeOS is a good choice, too, if you can find a copy. They both outperform every Windows version since '95 and every modern Linux/BSD on old hardware, when it comes to graphical operations, like managing a playlist, browsing the web, or watching video.

      There's a surprising amount of software available for both of them, too. Plus, they're both *nix(ish)!

  12. Gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Hmmm How long till Bill Gatesis on a plane to the Whitehouse for a closed door session with Bush?

    As for your Buddy and UNIX in the AIRFORCE thats a Crock.

    Never had a single problem with it or its counterpart OS400 and neither did my fellow Airmen/Sgt's

    Me thinks your a M$ plant.

    1. Re:Gates by joh_tank · · Score: 1

      20 Years in the Navy has taught me two important things about Unix. 1. It doesn't like to have the power shutdown on it suddenly. 2. It's a b1tch to reload all the software when this inevitably happens. Ever been on a Warship? The power has a tendency to be less than stable. UPS you say? Yeah, they work like crap on the old HP/UX machines the military likes to use. Maintenance training was "...if it breaks, call tech support." Heh, kinda hard to do when you are in the middle of a fire fight in the Persian Gulf. I hate windows, but it's more forgiving and more widely known to the average 18 year old kid that I have working for me. The Airforce guy was on the money.

    2. Re:Gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, newer Unix systems now have journalled file systems to address the exact problem you're talking about: making the filesystem survive a power outage. I believe they've been production quality for about ten years, so maybe you already have some experience on them?

  13. NMCI ? by SubTexel · · Score: 1

    Wonder how MS and the other vVendors on the NMCI (Navy Marine Corp Intranet) contract will take this.. (EDS being the main contractor...)

    1. Re:NMCI ? by isd_glory · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it would be nice if this research filtered into the Navy's IT-21 and NMCI initiatives. I can't say I really consider Windows 2000 to be "21st century technology." The only problem I see is that we're about ninety years short of the Navy starting work on an IT-22 project.

    2. Re:NMCI ? by unladen+swallow · · Score: 1

      Speaking for a vVendor that did work on NMCI (not EDS) I can say moving to open source or Unix would not be an problem. I am not 100% sure of the details on the project (since I was not involved) however I think you do not know all of the details as well and what really went into the NMCI work.

    3. Re:NMCI ? by quarkscat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      EDS?

      Not EDS, the contractor that trashed 60,000 MSFT
      computers at Britain's Health Services earlier
      this year?

      Not EDS, the contractor that is nearly 2 years
      behind schedule in the deployment of new MSFT
      servers and desktops to the US Marine Corps?

      I cannot help but wonder if these problems are
      what has led up to this OSS initiative. Glad
      to see that the US military is not quite as
      pig-headed as the DHS (Dept. of Homeland Security)
      who have spent/committed over $6 Billion USD
      (multi-year contract) for MSFT's products as the
      basis for their unified IT infrastructure.

  14. This log file is what spurred the decision by theurge14 · · Score: 0, Funny

    25.45.62.153 - - [25/Mar/2005:21:09:35 +0200] "DETECTED Incoming SCUD." "Baghdad/5.0" "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.5.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.12"
    2.12.33.136 - - [25/Mar/2005:21:12:07 +0200] "INIT Patriot Battery" "Kuwait/3.3" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; FunWebProducts; SV1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)"
    2.12.33.136 - - [25/Mar/2005:21:12:12 +0200] "WARNING Patriot Battery" "General Protect Fault in module TargetingSubSystem "Kuwait/3.3" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; FunWebProducts; SV1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)"
    2.12.33.136 - - [25/Mar/2005:21:13:51 +0200] Timeout reaching host
    2.12.33.136 - - [25/Mar/2005:21:14:22 +0200] Timeout reaching host
    2.12.33.136 - - [25/Mar/2005:21:14:53 +0200] Timeout reaching host
    25.45.62.153 - - [25/Mar/2005:21:09:35 +0200] "BROADCAST MESSAGE pwned!!!!" "Baghdad/5.0" "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.5.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.12"

  15. New OSS policy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Don't ask, don't tell."

    1. Re:New OSS policy... by mrchaotica · · Score: 0

      Ah, yes -- the official motto of Bastard Operators From Hell worldwide...

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  16. nice work by haxmtrx · · Score: 1

    Yes. This means it will only be a matter of time before total world domination via *nix. /*Sarcasm*/ This news makes me happy.

    --
    "Well then, my goal becomes clear, the broccoli must die." -Stewie
    1. Re:nice work by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Ditto! (minus the sarcasm)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  17. ethics by delirium+of+disorder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If Free and Open Source software aquires a stronghold in the US military, what will the effect be on the more idealistic side of the Free Software movement? Richard Stallman is known to be opposed to the military industrial complex. Could we see an anti-military GPL that allows normal use except in orginizations who's express purpose is to kill people? I think many open source coders would, if they could, liscence their software in a way that would ban or restrict the right of the US war machine to use it.

    --
    ------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
    1. Re:ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems then that Mr. Stallman is talking out of both sides of his mouth.... either he supports "free" software, or he doesn't. Which is it?

    2. Re:ethics by Trogre · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Could we see an anti-military GPL that allows normal use except in orginizations who's express purpose is to kill people?

      Not likely. RMS has already stated that Free Software should not be restricted from use for a particular purpose. He even used the example of Free Software being not restricted by use from either an abortion clinic or an anti-abortion campaigner.

      Since abortion clinics in the US have killed more people last year than the US Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines together in the last 20 years, I would think it unlikely GPL software would be denied to the Navy.

      Unless of course he doesn't consider unborn to be people, in which case he has much bigger problems, since it requires only one more step in logic to support killing babies and small children for convenience.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    3. Re:ethics by Rylz · · Score: 1

      Could we see an anti-military GPL that allows normal use except in orginizations who's express purpose is to kill people?

      Although you do make a good point, I believe that RMS would refrain from making any limitations as to who can use GPL software since the whole idea is freedom. In fact, I would go as far to say that a license that limited rights to use in any way, even the way you suggested, would immediately be taken off of GNU's list of acceptable free software and copyleft licenses.

      --
      Sometimes you've gotta roll the hard six.
    4. Re:ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Do you have any facts to back this up? I call total bullshit. Even if you DO count the unborn as living people (They AREN'T, and neither are 1 and 2 year olds, they have no conscious thought yet. People used to leave young born children out for the wolves, it's no big deal.) there is no way that more unborn clumps of cells half been disposed of then the Army et al has has killed.
      How about a real fact: More people have been killed in the name of that stupid Christian god than all other religions put together, ever.

    5. Re:ethics by rokzy · · Score: 0, Troll

      abortion clinics haven't killed a single person.

      I'm not so sure the same can be said for anti-abortionists though.

    6. Re:ethics by Trogre · · Score: 1

      I don't have recent military stats on hand but you might find these informative:

      http://www.htmlbible.com/abortstats.htm
      http:// www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.h tml

      More people have been killed in fighting over land than in the name of that "stupid Christian god". That doesn't make land evil, but by your implications, we should abolish all land.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    7. Re:ethics by Trogre · · Score: 1

      abortion clinics haven't killed a single person.

      neither did the workers at Auschwitz, eh?

      It's easy to de-humanize, isn't it. It's usually the first step in justifying murder.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    8. Re:ethics by gnuman99 · · Score: 1
      Since abortion clinics in the US have killed more people last year than the US Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines together in the last 20 years,

      Please back up your "facts". So far the estimates that the US armed forces directly contributed/caused more than 100,000 deaths in Iraq alone (since invasion)http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?s id=04/10/29/138232&tid=103&tid=219

      The amount of deaths caused directly (bombing) or indirectly in 1990s is unknown. If US took care of Saddam back in 1990, we wouldn't be in the shit we are in now. How many people died due to *messed up* operation in Somalia (US *was* involved)? How many in Panama?

      But these are still small numbers compared to the amount of death the US Army contributes (as well as Russian, French, etc.. armies) by selling weapons to nations at war. There are millions people getting killed per year by US weapons. What are the exact numbers? 400 billion buys a lot of death. The rest of the world spends about as much on the military as the US alone.

      Now, on to abortion. I came across some statistics here http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib14.html. According to them, there were 1,528,930 induced abortions in the US in 1992, 798,850 @ less than 9 weeks. Most of these were single women with annual income of less than $15,000. Most of the abortions were before 9th week. Only 320 were above 26 week. Also, for each 3 weeks of pregnancy there were about 5000 natural fetal deaths. Anyway, it seems the major cause of abortions is poverty.

      So, how many people did the US military killed in the last 20 years directly? Probably less than 1.5 million directly, but certainly much more indirectly though arms sales.

      Provide numbers to justify your position. How many people did the US military killed in the last 20 years? How many were killed by US weapons?

    9. Re:ethics by FiReaNGeL · · Score: 1

      Please don't compare a mass of cells that doesn't have a past and doesn't think with innocent, thinking persons with distinct personality, thoughts, dreams, pasts, relationships with other human beings, murdered and tortured under a crazy regime for no good reason at all. You're only making a fool of yourself. Really.

    10. Re:ethics by gnuman99 · · Score: 1
      Once you eliminate poverty, provide knowledge and insentive, the number of abortions will drop drasticly.

      Personally, I am not "pro-life". I am "pro-choice", but there should be consequences for getting abortions. I mean, if people are stupid enough to get/cause pregnancy and do not *want* the child (ie. not a medical reason), then they should be able to get an abortion. Then you sterilize them so they will not make the mistake again.

      Is this is a fair compromise for "your side"?

      PS. Many "workers" in Auschiwtz were the prisoners themselves. You either worked or were killed yourself. Furthermore, abortions have nothing to do with it - no one hates their babies. Don't make the comparisons.

      Also, there are thousands of abortions done each year due to medical reasons. And then there are "abortions" where the baby is dead in the first place. Those seem to get counted in the statistics as well.

    11. Re:ethics by Trogre · · Score: 1

      I am curious:

      Do you really believe that your experiences and relationships are all that makes you more than just a "mass of cells"?

      Do you even know when neural activity develops in people? 45 days, dude.

      At 8 weeks in the womb you were completely formed: all of your organs were functioning, you even urinated and had finger prints. At this age you felt pain (you would have moved away from a needle had it been inserted at this point), you kicked, moved your feet, toes and fingers, and even made a strong fist. Yet your skull could have been crushed by a pair of tongs, your brain hygenically sucked out before the rest of you is expelled from your mother and put in the closest dumpster. Guess you got lucky, huh?

      Excuse me while I go 'abort' that man who lives under the local railway bridge now, since he has no established relationships, and has no life experience besides a bottle.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    12. Re:ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He even used the example of Free Software being not restricted by use from either an abortion clinic or an anti-abortion campaigner.

      Are you sure that was stallman? I can't recall him saying that but I know Bruce Perens used that example in Revolution OS.

      People bring this idea up every now and then, and yes it is terrible for reasons that should be obvious. Don't use software to try and control people. If you have a problem with the military, deal with it directly.

    13. Re:ethics by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

      Unless of course he doesn't consider unborn to be people, in which case he has much bigger problems, since it requires only one more step in logic to support killing babies and small children for convenience.

      Babies are a very close step, small children have gained significant out-of-womb experience (and include a pretty large age range, at which killing adults would be a small step from).

      I suppose I'd better take me and my gas-can far away from this debate though...

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    14. Re:ethics by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Essentially, this would be the same as focused political action groups taking on issues that stretch outside their regular domain. (For example, Sierra Club takes a particular stance on family planning in the US under the guise of population control.) What happens is that support for the organization wanes, as people who believe in the organization's original founding principles but not the arbitrarily added ones are forced to decide between dropping their support or compromising their beliefs.

      Besides, the use of software to kill people isn't as cut-and-dried as some would have it. Take the Cold War nuclear weapons program. Nary a nuclear-warhead-tipped missile has ever been fired in anger. So, is the purpose of the software in this case to kill people, or to prevent killing?

      Insert other examples here of the military being used to save lives, sometimes even while killing other people. If lives are saved by killing those who would take those lives, is the purpose of the software to kill people or to prevent killing?

    15. Re:ethics by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Personally, I am not "pro-life". I am "pro-choice", but there should be consequences for getting abortions. I mean, if people are stupid enough to get/cause pregnancy and do not *want* the child (ie. not a medical reason), then they should be able to get an abortion. Then you sterilize them so they will not make the mistake again.

      Is this is a fair compromise for "your side"?


      Not quite. It still results in a life being ended with no wrong done on their part, and them having no say in the matter. That is the essential axiom of "our side" - that every life begins at conception and is every bit as valuable as any other. It has nothing to do with trying to control people or the common "tell women what to do with their bodies".

      Your solution does have some potential though - except put the kid up for adoption rather than killing him/her.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    16. Re:ethics by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Ooer, you could be right there - no wonder I couldn't find a direct quote :)

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    17. Re:ethics by FiReaNGeL · · Score: 1

      I said that thoughts, experiences, relationship and dreams make us more than a mass of cells. The only thing a mass of humans cells have at the 8 weeks point is a relationship with it's parents; if they both decide that they made a very bad mistake and don't want the kid, then let it be and respect their decision. You can get emotional if you want, but I have my point of view.

      And if the bum beneath the bridge doesn't think, nor remember his past, nor has friends nor dreams, don't bother 'aborting' him, he'll probably suicide very soon if you don't help him.

      Oh and I'm glad they let Schiavo die; althought I'd gave her an injection. Letting her die from starvation just because we don't want to 'murder' her is stupid beyond belief.

    18. Re:ethics by lpontiac · · Score: 1
      Not likely. RMS has already stated that Free Software should not be restricted from use for a particular purpose. He even used the example of Free Software being not restricted by use from either an abortion clinic or an anti-abortion campaigner.

      I prefer Theo de Raadt's hypothetical baby mulching machines.

    19. Re:ethics by cjHopman · · Score: 1
      Oddly the stats you have linked to seem to disagree with those here. In fact, in a period of nearly twice as many years johnstonsarchive counts barely more than half as many abortions as your sources.

      Which source is correct? Who knows?... the bias of your source is painstakingly clear. My source's only reference that I am aware of is it's google PageRank.

    20. Re:ethics by Narchie+Troll · · Score: 1

      He hasn't said anything supporting a license that forbids use in the military. No contradiction.

    21. Re:ethics by st1d · · Score: 1

      Hey, RMS is a smart guy, so perhaps he views it another way. For example, perhaps having GPL'd software, and the community ideals it brings along, will do something to alter the MI complex, in a way that makes it more beneficial to everyone. Perhaps over the long term, as these "treat your neighbor as you want to be treated" ideas spread, there will be less need for the MI complex as it stands today.

      I can't speak for him, but I'd guess that even RMS would be hesitant to toss the military industrial complex away blindly. Items like that, that have some reason to exist, are better altered through social change, and the MIC is something that will probably only evaporate once these ideas are embraced on a large scale, worldwide.

      Besides, calling it a "Military Industrial Complex" makes it sound like these folks have their act together and are working in closely sync'd lockstep. From what I've seen so far over the last few decades, if they set a goal of changing a lightbulb, the MIC would spend their time arguing over who would remove the bulb, what kind of bulb it was, what kind of new bulb to replace it with, who would replace it, how tight to tighten it, who gets to flip the switch to test it, etc.

      Meanwhile, somebody outside the MIC would simply walk up, change the bulb, and the matter would be settled, so the MIC could then get back to important things, like arguing about who should get credit for deciding that the lightbulb needed to be changed, and who gets credit for the brilliant plan of arguing until somebody else fixed the problem.

      Just my observations, though. :)

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
    22. Re:ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really believe that your experiences and relationships are all that makes you more than just a "mass of cells"?

      I am not affiliated with the grandparent in any way, but the answer to this is a resounding "hell yes".

    23. Re:ethics by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Could we see an anti-military GPL that allows normal use except in orginizations who's express purpose is to kill people?

      No, because :

      (1) assassination guilds are illegal, and so ignore copyright law

      (2) The purpose of the military is to defend or sieze land, not kill people. (Military strategy holds that wounding is generally preferrable to killing--makes the casualty more of a drain for the other side.)

      (3) Amending the GPL couldn't do that much; either you'd have to make an incompatbile fork, or you'd see a version that had no teeth because folk could just use another verison of the license.

      (4) The GPL won't stop the USA's federal government. Copyright is administered by acts of congress, which rarely deal with copyright and rarely change. The military, OTOH, is authorized by an act of congress every two years.

    24. Re:ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a very interesting point of view when it comes to "freedom":

      Software should be "free" for everyone... ...except those we, the elitist geeks, do not like at the moment.

      Do I smell a hypocrite?

    25. Re:ethics by gnuman99 · · Score: 1
      Not quite. It still results in a life being ended with no wrong done on their part, and them having no say in the matter. That is the essential axiom of "our side" - that every life begins at conception and is every bit as valuable as any other.

      That axiom is a falacy, as with the assumption of life beginning with birth. Life does not begin at conception - life was there all the time. Life is from life, ALWAYS (at least life with any complexity; life as we know it).

      We also rely on bacterial life to remain alive. You and me, cell-count-wise (ignoring brain) are only 10% human. 90% of cells in ones body do not have human DNA. ALL complex life forms have a symbiotic relationship with bacterial life to remain alive.

      Also, why only focus on human life? Why not about other animans? I know that dogs, cats, cattle, hogs, parrots and others have virtually exactly the same emotions as humans. They get irritated, emotionally attached, angry, happy, sad, fearful, etc. just as we do (if you don't know first hand, then you can trust me on it!). Penguins actually "marry" for life, while we find that rather difficult (50% divorce rate. Premarital sex probably >95%)

      Why limit "pro-life" to only "pro-human-life-screw-other-life"? Is it the religious thing?

      Your solution does have some potential though - except put the kid up for adoption rather than killing him/her.

      That option was always available. But with about 1.5 million abortions per year, the population of the US would grow by additional 0.5% per year. I don't think you could get all of these children adopted. Every couple in the US would have to adopt one child in their lifetimes!

      I don't believe abortion needs to be made illegal, but with education and consequences as I stated before, it could be reduced to cases where it is medically necessary.

    26. Re:ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The military-industrial complex is a problem because it draws money from the public to sustain itself, and spends the extra on (possibly unnecessary) killing and destruction. On top of this, it does so in a very secretive and opaque manner.

      The military itself isn't inherently bad. Sure, we all wish we didn't need one, but the world really isn't there yet. Military use of F/OSS gives back to the whole world, while buying more Tomahawks only gives back to the communities surrounding the munitions plants.

      The intelligence agencies have already heavily subsidized F/OSS. Just look at what the NSA did with SElinux. I don't remember what agency it was, but one of the TLAs has been subsidizing a lot of OpenBSD development as well.

      The purpose of the military, at least in the US, is not to kill people. The military is authorized under limited circumstances to kill people if necessary to complete their missions, which ultimately come from civilian authority. Where do you draw the line? Do the police get to use F/OSS? They're trained to shoot to kill, not wound, when necessary to carry out their mission. They just do it less often, and generally with smaller guns. What about courts and prisons in states with the death penalty? It's a slippery slope. Perhaps the Treasury department, for their part in funding the war? Employees of the Treasury department?

      The beauty of the GPL is that it has absolutely no politics. It gives the same rights to anyone who enters into a very simple copyright contract, with no limitations on use. If you want to write code under a politically charged license, go for it. It'll be a big hit in the activist community, but it will never bring people together the way GNU/Linux has brought together academia, commerce, libertarians and government.

      Ten years ago I never would have thought I'd be sitting at a bar having a beer with an ex-military guy, and talking about the joy of working for a company that gives much of its work to the whole world. Last Friday I was sitting at a bar doing exactly that, at a party to send off the aforementioned ex-military man into his new job role, realizing how much we have in common despite our different backgrounds and worldviews.

      His name is Barry Duplantis.

    27. Re:ethics by gnuman99 · · Score: 1
      Do you really believe that your experiences and relationships are all that makes you more than just a "mass of cells"?

      Yes. We tend to be a bunch of cells. Our experiences make us who we are. Genetics don't do that. Look at identical twins - the longer they live, the more unlike they become.

      For example, if someone cloned Hitler and brought him up right, he would be a very tolerant member of the socienty. You see, Hitler's parents (and entire family, for that matter), were quite anti-semitic.

      But one can also conclude that one's experiences begin in the womb. Excuse me while I go 'abort' that man who lives under the local railway bridge now, since he has no established relationships, and has no life experience besides a bottle.

      Well, here are few example of what I would consider murder,

      • abortion
      • hunting
      • killing "domestic" animals (to a lesser extent)
      • homocide
      • war
      • poverty (causing death)
      • causing extinction of species

      The difference here is essentially the Law. These are the rules we make ourselves based on our collective sense of morality.

      I consider the last four to be the worst (most people affected), yet these are perfecly legal methods of killing people for political and economic gain. Hell, war is even celebrated! And the more you kill, the more medals you get.

      You are in your right to do whatever you want. But you must live within the law (no matter what you think of it). If you break it, you will break the most fundamental idea of our society - the Law. Without it, we don't have a society.

      So, you can try to influence the Law, but you must live within its limits. If you don't like it, well, too bad. Others don't like all of its parts either. Abortion is legal and that will not be changed any time soon.

    28. Re:ethics by CarlinWithers · · Score: 1

      I think a situation could arise in which the US military attacked a country which is home to an OSS contributor. In fact, it probably already has. But what if this contributor had given to a OSS project used by the US military while his nation had been at peace with the US? What sort of ethical dilemmas would this create. Especially if he were killed in the proceeding military action.

    29. Re:ethics by killjoe · · Score: 1

      "Why limit "pro-life" to only "pro-human-life-screw-other-life"? Is it the religious thing?"

      It's not even human life. Most pro life people are also pro war and pro death penalty. They have no qualms about dropping bombs on children once they are born. They also have no problems with sentencing children to the death penalty. Needless to say virtually none of them are vegetarians or even environmentalists.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    30. Re:ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about a real fact: More people have been killed in the name of that stupid Christian god than all other religions put together, ever.

      Is your fact trumped by the other fact of 100 million people killed by socialism? Or the more than 1 million babies aborted each year?(it's no big deal!? You can say that cause it didn't happen to you)

    31. Re:ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if you DO count the unborn as living people (They AREN'T, and neither are 1 and 2 year olds, they have no conscious thought yet. People used to leave young born children out for the wolves, it's no big deal.)

      Dude, that's cold.
      Very cold.

    32. Re:ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please don't feed the trolls, arguing with him only makes him stronger.

    33. Re:ethics by torako · · Score: 1

      Way to start an off-topic flamewar. Don't feed the troll, guys.

    34. Re:ethics by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      You limit it to human life because it is your own species. Are you telling me it is more important for pigs to survive than humans?

      All other life forms have a lower priority, simple as that. *If* we get enough resources, we might consider extending even more protections to other mammals and perhaps birds as a next step (curiously noone seems to like reptiles, insects, plants, or bacteria).

      You might say some people like plants, but I have never seen anyone claim they shouldn't eat vegetables because that is hurting their feelings. Never heard that you shouldn't take antibiotics to cure pneumonia because that is killing millions of pneumonia bacteria while you are only one person.

    35. Re:ethics by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is sheer hypocrisy. But war is sporadic and localized, while people get born all the time. Russia still has deep negative growth and never recovered their population level. Other countries with constant war, like Sudan, manage to keep their population going up.

    36. Re:ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just described Terry Schiavo, so I hope you have no problems with pulling her feeding tube.

    37. Re:ethics by siplus · · Score: 1

      christian beleif's aside, do you know ANYTHING about human development? A beating heart 2 weeks after conseption... that's right! before most people know of the pregnancy the human baby already has working organs. weeks later the skeleton is already ossifying and the human form is taking shape. by the time the human is born, it is a fully functional THINKING human being. what do you think babies do? they are constantly taking in data and processing it. one reason why they sleep so much is because of the magnitude they have to process and learn from.

    38. Re:ethics by EmilyE · · Score: 1

      If the use of free software in the military becomes very widespread, the free software movement is going to have to respond in some fashion or risk losing a lot of developers to an alternative license. The free software movement is largely ethics-driven; people who have a problem with their free software being sold as proprietary software will almost certainly have a problem with their software being used to kill people in an unjust war.

    39. Re:ethics by gnuman99 · · Score: 1
      Wait a minute. In the other thread you say we must take care of our own species and then here you say "war is sporadic and localized, while people get born all the time". Whaaaa???

      Why then worry about abortion? Children are born all the time. Human population will never collapse due to negative population growth. The only way we can kill ourselves is either drown in our own shit or nuke ourselves to extinction. Also, WWII was not localized and thanks to the resources spent on killing ourselves more effectively, a war involving countries like North Korea or Iran would NOT be localized.

      About the environemnt, well, if we continue the way we are doing things, our ecosystem will collapse (aka the Earth's ecosystem). This is what happens when a species consumes everything they can consume. Then the human population will collapse (starvation, wars over resources). Wouldn't it make sense for the pro-lifers to be environmentalists? Isn't anything else simply illogical? (in the same way as Taliban was calling itself god's will)

    40. Re:ethics by gnuman99 · · Score: 1
      You limit it to human life because it is your own species. Are you telling me it is more important for pigs to survive than humans?

      Well, pigs will survive as will humans. You should have phrased your question "is it more important for a pig to survive than a human". And the answer to that depends on a situation. For example, would you kill your pet pig (assume you have one :) to feed a death-row inmate? On the other hand, would you kill that same pig to feed yourself (assume starvation)? The situation is relative.

      You should also keep in mind that in case of starvation of your pet pig and yourself, the pig will most likely try to eat you (pigs are omnivores, just like us).

      On the other hand, the ethics are straight forward if we talk about pigs (as species) and singular human(s), or vice-versa. In this case, it is illogical and unethical for one species to cause extinction of the other. (And please, I'm not talking absurd things like killing people to feed pigs!!)

      All other life forms have a lower priority, simple as that. *If* we get enough resources, we might consider extending even more protections to other mammals and perhaps birds as a next step (curiously noone seems to like reptiles, insects, plants, or bacteria).

      Well, we rely on bacteria, plants and insects to survive (in that order). We start affecting bacteria to any significant extent, and we will kill ourselves. So far we can't do (bacteria) that or know not to do that (regarding insects).

      As I said before, life is from life. Life doesn't appear magically at conception or fertilization or whatever. We, as a species, can only survive on this planet because of the environemnt created by other life. If you affect other life, especially bacterial and plant populations, we will affect our environemnt that we depend on. This will affect many, many more lives than does abortion.

    41. Re:ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck that shit. I'll code a web interface for a nuclear bomb anyday and post it on sourceforge.net. Now if you'll kindly tell me what the registers on this missile do... :)

    42. Re:ethics by jotok · · Score: 1

      Interesting points.

      Please consider:
      Our experiences may make us who we are (that is, differentiate you from the person next to you), but it isn't apparent that they can make us what we are--human beings.

      If you posit this is the case, it begs the question, which experiences are necessary to make us human? What quality or quantity of experience?

      There have been plenty of abuses in the past (we don't need to go into the litany) because some people with power decided that it was ok to mark other people as "less than human." They made this decision because they decided that, on the sliding scale of factors that determine humanity, the victims were below some arbitrary point, and the abusers were above it.

      These atrocities have served to convince me that the very act of trying to determine such a scale, and of basing your decisions about "who to kill" upon it, are at least morally suspect. It would be far better to do away with the very notion, don't you think?

      There may still be reasons to kill other human beings. I'm not convinced on that issue yet. I'm simply proposing that to suppose "It's ok, because the person under my gun is less human than I" is wrong.

    43. Re:ethics by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      Tell that to Germany. They have had negative population growth for several years and they are not having any war. By definition, if their negative growth continues, eventually they will become extinct. Sudan has positive population growth.

      War does not kill as many people directly as it kills indirectly. Most people who die in wars, they die of famine and disease caused by the collapse of support structures, not the bullets or bombs.

      Regarding Malthusian catastrophes, they are overrated. The fact is we have managed to increase productivity in agriculture by about 200x since medieval times. There is no reason to believe this process will cease, now that we are unlocking the secrets of life itself. The so called environmentalists like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club are myopic. Current technology already allows to feed the entire population on Earth given current production levels, let alone after the next agricultural revolution happens. Advanced technology means less land and resources will be required for agriculture. We see this in Europe, where vast tracts of land which used to be farmed now lie fallow and are turning back into wilderness, while we burn and trash excess food production.

      Our only current resource shortage problem is in the energy sector, even that has long term solutions based on current technology that will provide power for the human species for the next millenium at least.

      There is enough nuclear fuel, coal, wind, solar thermal, hydro, etc, to last us for the next millenium and beyond.

      Given enough energy to do desalination, water shortages are irrelevant since two thirds of our planet surface are covered by water.

      I will tell you what is an ecological disaster. The slash and burn farming methods used in Africa or South America. Elsewhere we have learned that land must be treated better to remain productive, with crop rotation or fertilizer.

    44. Re:ethics by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      The notion that by killing any other species we are killing ourselves is a fallacy. Mammoths and other animals have been hunted to extinction and yet our species thrived and multiplied until it filled every corner on this planet. Humans do not depend on every single other lifeform in this planet to survive. Especially because, as you pointed out yourself, we are omnivores.

      The fact is we have selectively bred specific plant and animal species (even fungi) to feed us already. Those are in no danger of extinction, quite the contrary.

      We are preserving other species not because we need to, but because we can and we want to.

      National parks were created for this purpose, as were nature preserves.

    45. Re:ethics by Benanov · · Score: 1

      Stallman believes in 'free' software--and part of that belief states that a software license cannot dictate what someone DOES with the program. The GPL reflects that belief.

    46. Re:ethics by killjoe · · Score: 1

      " Yes, it is sheer hypocrisy. But war is sporadic and localized"

      I might agree with localized but it's hardly sporadic. Every day someplace in the world there is a war going on.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    47. Re:ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mammoths hunted to extinction?!?!

      Man, that was a breath of fresh air. Now I KNOW you have no idea what you're talking about. You had me for a second there. Whew.

      Such short-sightedness in you "pro-lifers" - you only seem to care about what's good for your species. Even what's good for each individual in your species - specifically, what you'd want to happen to you. Maybe if you backed up a bit you could see that we're in danger of overpopulating the planet. Or that diseases and their cures change over time, necessitating the need for obscure life forms. Or that our existence on this planet relies on trees above ground and nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the soil.

      But you refuse to see the greater trends that affect everyone. All you know is that you can buy a t-bone at Outback Steakhouse. Who needs biodiversity when you can get pepperjack cheese with your baked potato. Pshaw!

      The grandparent made a very salient point: there's a trend to the American abortion rate, and it's linked heavily to poverty. But do you want to do something about it? Shit no. Just think of the little boy who'll never get the chance to play catch with his old man. Doesn't that just tug at your heartstrings? Take your fucking blinders off.

    48. Re:ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I have a few more things to say to you. Nature preserves, for God's sake...

      Have you ever been to Yellowstone National Park? It's beautiful, wild, and forbidding. The entire thing sits nestled in the crater of a semi-dormant volcano so huge, that if it did erupt it would take out most of the United States. It's full of wild animals - truly wild, because we learned the hard way that feeding the bears was a bad idea. Anyone who can go there and say, "We preserved this land out of charity," has no soul.

      We preserve natural landmarks and wildlife habitats out of awe. Awe for the beauty of the landscape, certainly, but also for it's depth; for the fact that it represents mysteries we may never truly unravel. Those mysteries would never be uncovered if we tried to pave over all the prairies and cut down all the forests. Anyone who has spent time outside can tell you this.

      I am ashamed to think that your insipid, selfish philosophy and this deep, almost religious sense of awe both go by the name of "preserving life."

  18. In the Naaavy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Navy needs to implement and adopt as many open source solutions as they could possibly find. They should also look into using more Linux based systems for some of the different operational systems in use today. I managed a WinNT 4.0 based network at sea, and im sorry it wasn't cut out for the high seas as it crashed ALL the time. I got tired of people waking me up just so I could reboot the damn system.

    Try getting a security update or a fix on a shared 56K satellite network in the middle of the Gulf!

  19. Good to hear by 33degrees · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think government is one of the areas where going open-source makes the most sense; I'd much rather see tax-payer money go into FOSS than Microsoft's pockets...

  20. CRADAs by geomon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've worked on two CRADAs and I don't think you should put too much hope in them.

    I came in at the last part of one CRADA were we deveolped a new way of doing geologic testing. By the time the finalists had been selected we began testing, running qual/quant analysis on the data, and made improvements to increase productivity. The product was offered almost immediately for private work. That was the great promise of the CRADA; faster time to market for high frontier scientific advances.

    It has been 12 years since that CRADA was completed and the technology is just now beginning to adapt to the demands that the orignal development agreement envisioned. While the time to commercialize the product outside has been slow, we did use the technology for selected drilling projects.

    The second one started about when the last one ended. We are just now (10 years later) getting to the field with our other remote sensing projects. And as in the case of the drilling CRADA, the only customer at this point is the federal government.

    Which brings up an interesting question: "Would the development happen faster or slower without the government involvement?" I think the getting the govenment involved just muddies the water. The only benefit to government agencies from a CRADA is the intellectual property aspects. But if you only had only one customer in the world, would you make your IP an issue, or you you just quote a price?

    Know what I mean?

    --
    "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
  21. The true power of open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    I'd like to see the Navy demonstrate the true power of open source by outfitting an entire aircraft carrier. Imagine an ensign entering a zero into a MySQL database running on Fedora Core 4, causing a ship-wide crash that leaves the most formidable weapons system on the planet totally helpless and dead in the water.

    This would be a level of power that proprietary software hasn't even touched yet: crashing not just some puny cruiser, but a flattop... And if wireless support were thrown in, maybe FOSS could strand an entire battlegroup! The possibilities are limitless.

    1. Re:The true power of open source by SirTalon42 · · Score: 1

      Didn't that already happen to some of the UK's battleships running NT?

    2. Re:The true power of open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I read "outfitting an entire aircraft carrier", I thought you were going to say: "outfitting an entire aircraft carrier with images of Tux".

  22. That's not the biggest reason by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

    The important reason why the entire government should use open source is that it's taxpayer money that they're using, so it should provide as much benefit to the taxpayers as possible.

    Granted, sometimes this isn't possible (e.g. national security), but it ought to be factored into the cost/benefit analysis.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    1. Re:That's not the biggest reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree! I'd much rather benefit directly from military spending than wait for some kind of trickle-down effect.

    2. Re:That's not the biggest reason by MerlinTheWizard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree, and not only that: but as institutions that live on public money, they should promote public research - and OSS is a form of public research in my opinion. It promotes a healthy behavior of the citizens: sharing knowledge, learning, creating, making, and not just for personal money but for the benefit of knowledge itself: the exact point of academia and public research. Therefore, beyond mere cost analysis, OSS *should* be promoted by every public institution. Besides, mixing private and public interests is always bound to yield problems (corruption...)

    3. Re:That's not the biggest reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what do most tax payers use as their operating system...?

    4. Re:That's not the biggest reason by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      So they can write portable open-source software; even better! Most projects probably aren't the kernel, you know...

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    5. Re:That's not the biggest reason by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 1

      I think if the US wants to have any chance of maintaining its strong scientific and technological global standing, this kind of attitude must take root. And soon. (Particularly in the face of what seems to be a very anti-science sort of government at the moment - and I say this as someone quite skeptical of "the other side's" own agenda as well.)

      And if it doesn't, any bets on which country (or countries) will be taking over as top bastion of science-and-technology research and when?

    6. Re:That's not the biggest reason by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      The important reason why the entire government should use open source is that it's taxpayer money that they're using, so it should provide as much benefit to the taxpayers as possible.

      Granted, sometimes this isn't possible (e.g. national security), but it ought to be factored into the cost/benefit analysis.


      There are several factors that hinder Linux:

      Many COTS (Commercial, off the shelf) packages only run on Windows, and have no Linux equivalents.

      Somebody has to put in a bid to sell Linux boxes and equipment for contracts, and many contractors simply don't sell them. Plus, pricing can be an issue - if you give something away for free you can get into trouble charging the government for it. Go to www.gsa.gov and search for linux.

      Retraining cost - despite the beliefthat you can simply switch, that's not true in the real world. People will need and want training, which costs time and money. Thta often comes out of a different pot of money, and disrupts operations, so bosses go with the easier solution.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  23. That's right folks by geomon · · Score: 1, Informative

    "causing a ship-wide crash that leaves the most formidable weapons system on the planet totally helpless and dead in the water."

    Just like NT did with a naval destroyer a few years back.

    Linux has just reached at the very least the NT level of complexity.

    --
    "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    1. Re:That's right folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was more about the code than the OS. The same app would have crashed under linux. the OS might have responded differently, but an unhandled divide by zero can't be fixed by a different OS

    2. Re:That's right folks by geomon · · Score: 1

      Oh, man....

      I guess I really screwed up the joke if you took it that seriously.

      I apologize to the entire slashdot community.

      I will keep my day job.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    3. Re:That's right folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You flat out dont know what you are talking about and spreading FUD with your anti-microsoft BS! Navy destroyer control systems are not based on no freakin OS. They are hard wired electronic control systems with TWO triple redundant serial data busses. One
      for control one for information. I worked on these control systems for 13 years. Some newer systems have a PC based control systems and even then they are redundant. Get your mind right before posting bullcrap.

    4. Re:That's right folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a sore point with me --- and I'll leave it at that.

    5. Re:That's right folks by geomon · · Score: 1

      It was a JOKE. I'd rather it were a 2:Funny (or 5:Funny, of course).

      Instead it is getting modded as Insightful.

      Oh, bother.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
  24. Navy's been doing great for a while by Effugas · · Score: 4, Informative

    More of the same, not that I've got any problem with that!

    For instance, the Navy's Proteanforge is fantastic on so many levels it's not even funny. Besides being one of the few public Sourceforge deployements outside of sf.net, the code there is just wildly interesting, and has been for several years now.

    Not to mention the funding the Navy put into Onion Routing Research and it's very popular implementation.

  25. good points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful


    what about companies that profit from war ?
    what about companies that create weapons ?
    what about companies that pollute the enviroment ?
    what about companies convicted of fraud ?

    ethics should be a of concern to everyone, because its in short supply in the so called "developed" world, greed is the trend , fuck you and your kids and my kids , gimme my 30,000ft golden palace now !

    1. Re:good points by dn15 · · Score: 1

      Absolutely it should be a concern to everyone. But given the sharing, community-driven bent OSS, it seems that on average they'd be more more inclined to care about this sort of thing.

  26. Don't you mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't ask, don't Dell?

    hah, I kill me

    try the fava beans
    Hannibal is here all week

  27. Nothing new, but a really big step by happyslayer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just a little background info first. I was stationed as Naval Air Station Meridian as the air wing's network administrator for 3-1/2 yrs starting in 2001. (I was also an instructor for the jet program.) So, my comments are from direct, personal experience.

    Things have probably changed in the last year since I left, I'm sure, but a little perspective might be in order.

    While I was there, I did software development for personal interest, fun, and the thrill of making something that would help everyone. No glory, no money, just because I enjoyed it. I also did some development for some Coalition projects for multinational forces, basically because they needed it and no one else had anything that was even close to being finished ("close" meaning a beta version in less than a year.) I've used a lot of different OSS, but my own personal favorites were Java or Java+Tomcat. (Go ahead and email me directly if you want to criticise those choices; I can take it.)

    During my tenure, internal software development was on the run. The NMCI project (Google for "EDS" and "NMCI" and you'll find out plenty) worked to specifically kill any applications that weren't "approved." There were legitimate reasons for this, but the end result was that practically only MS and MS-compatible products were allowed...bad news for anyone who wanted to write software.

    One of the reasons I left (amongst many, none bitter) was that I enjoyed working with software but knew that I would have absolutely no future in it if I stayed in. Glad to find out I was wrong.

    It's a very small step, but to have it officially announced that OSS is being used for a project shows that someone, somewhere, is paying attention to the (God forgive me for using this term...personally, I hate it) changes in "paradigms" about how software is developed, used, and implemented.

    I like to program; I know dozens of other military guys/gals who also like it. It's good to see that they may have a future that allows them to do some good and enjoy it.

    --
    Never confuse movement with action. --Hemingway
    1. Re:Nothing new, but a really big step by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      As a current network admin, I can understand the Navy's efforts to standardize software. There is a rediculous amount of redundant development work going on in the Navy. We have too many software guys (including at my site) that love to reinvent the wheel and develop in-house software when a suitable product can be bought off the shelf. Plus, there is also a huge potential cost saving in buying DOD-wide software licenses.

      The problem is that this high-minded ideal of standardization ignores that some commands really do have unique software requirements that can't be met with the approved apps or even off-the-shelf products.

      The same policies that are trying to enforce standardization for the sake of reduced costs and better compatibility (for example getting every using the same recent version of Office) also make it very difficult to get leading edge software approved.

      One of NMCI's problems is that they are contractually required to enforce all of the Navy IT policies that everyone has been ignoring for years. That includes only running Navy approved software. Sorry no more potentially back-door loaded freeware for you.

  28. The navy and OSS by jd · · Score: 4, Informative
    The Navy Research Labs (NRL) produced both BSD and Linux IPSec implementations for a while, along with one-time password versions of things like login, telnet and ftp. (The latter project was called 'opie'.)


    Since then, I've discovered that they've been involved in multicasting, network testing suites and a whole bunch of other stuff. They've a site based on the Sourceforge software for developing such projects, called ProteanForge.


    So far, so good. They're obviously into Open Source in a big way. Despite the fears of some posters, this has not caused the end of the world. Yet, anyway.


    Two drawbacks, though. They may be good coders - and they are! - but they are LOUSY at keeping projects going and even worse at posting news items. The last news posting is dated November 14, 2003. Ok, sure, they might have decided to put their efforts elsewhere. That happens. So why not hand the code over to someone else? The stuff isn't classified, it's Open Source, why not keep the good stuff alive?


    Make that three things. They're lousy at letting anyone know they ARE doing Open Source work. I happen to keep a close eye on groups I know are involved in Open Source, but I only found out about the newer projects relatively recently and I'm damn sure that most people don't know about them at all.


    (Well, up until this post on Slashdot, anyway.)


    True, nothing is "owed", but this isn't about owing. This is about establishing yourself as a credible source, thereby not only increasing the interest of coders who might be of value, but also enhancing the testing of these products, and finally establishing a rapport with a sector of the IT industry that has become wary of Government involvement.


    It wasn't so long ago that IBM was the "Evil IT Baron". These days, their relationship has mellowed, their older product lines have a new lease of life, their reputation has recovered and they've even made some impressive strides into the extreme high-performance computing world.


    This is where the US Navy could have been, seven or eight years ago. They were already releasing Open Source products then, and may well have been years earlier. Instead, their Open Source products are shrouded in secrecy, even though they're plastered over the Internet and GPLed/BSDed to boot! Instead of learning from their own experiences, they are pulling away.


    Yes, I find that annoying. There are some damn good projects out there, that they're letting rot for no reason at all. (Like I said, even if they didn't want to maintain them, they could always hand them to someone else. As IBM did recently, for example.)


    It's good that the Navy is now starting to back Open Source R&D, but I will only believe that they understand what that means when I see some real understanding from them over what they already have.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:The navy and OSS by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 1

      Two drawbacks, though. They may be good coders - and they are! - but they are LOUSY at keeping projects going and even worse at posting news items. The last news posting is dated November 14, 2003. Ok, sure, they might have decided to put their efforts elsewhere. That happens. So why not hand the code over to someone else? The stuff isn't classified, it's Open Source, why not keep the good stuff alive?

      Check the individual projects, they release updates that don't qualify as news. Yeah, yeah, they're still from half a year ago, but maybe the Navy hasn't quite adopted "release early, release often". New releases are most likely dictated by DARPA demo deadlines...
      --
      [o]_O
    2. Re:The navy and OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New releases may also have to get cleared by whatever the local security department is, which could delay them substantially. It doesn't matter if the material is classified, for instance my girlfriend is trying to get her thesis cleared right now, and it certainly isn't on anything classified.

    3. Re:The navy and OSS by iandow · · Score: 1

      FYI: We've updated our news items.

      Thanks for the feedback.

      -ian :-)

  29. Oh lovely...... by Darth_brooks · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sit down and read "Skunk Works" by Ben Rich. he details trying to deal with the Navy on a couple aircraft design projects while heaidng the skunk works at lockheed, and his work on the stealth ship program. The Navy will overburden you with silly, expensive, useless crap. (The stealth ship, for example, had to have a paint locker built in. A ship that would never, ever be painted again. But all navy ships had one, so by God the stealth ship needed one too...)

    Bottom line (from the book anyway): the Navy is an insular community of officious, small minded, power hungry folks who value a project on two things: How many men will I command, and how much does it cost? Bigger, high budget projects obviously mean better projects.

    Doing things cheaper, better, faster, and more efficiently doesn't seem to be the Navy way. I'd like to be wrong, but i seriously doubt I will be. The Navy was born to use NT 4.0.

    --
    There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    1. Re:Oh lovely...... by happyslayer · · Score: 1
      --
      Never confuse movement with action. --Hemingway
    2. Re:Oh lovely...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This explains why the Navy has an Army and an Air Force.

    3. Re:Oh lovely...... by N8F8 · · Score: 1

      The Code Of Federal Regulations requires that you store paint in a paint storage locker. The outside uses special paint the inside does not.

      --
      "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
  30. Real Products in the Fleet by airider · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Work in the research and development area of the military and can tell you that OSS is prevelant everywhere. If you look at the venders the military is asking to build it's products you will see if you can dig deep enough linux kernals in many of the systems. Primary reason...they can use COTS hardware, a license free kernal, and then just build a proprietary app on top and viola, a robust and reliable product that's easy to write to software-wise (using C and other well documented standards), and allows a fairly good profit margin from the start if they win the contract. Unix is dying or just about dead for the license reason. Don't get me started on NMCI. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE in the military hates it (totally inflexible to the ever changing needs we have). EDS is being investigated by the FTC, and if the military is lucky, won't get their NMCI contract renewed in 2007. Microsoft will remain the desktop of choice as long as DoD continues to bankroll DELL into continued high profits. This will also keep INTEL in the black as well due to DELLs inability to see the value in AMD and other processors. It's become too easy for our purchase agents to just hit the MS/DELL/INTEL "buy" button. Until this changes, we'll be stuck with their stuff whether we like it our not.

    1. Re:Real Products in the Fleet by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

      Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE in the military hates it
      You got that right. NCMI is the ill thought out, poorly implemented and costly. Where I work everyone now has two computers on their desk, their legacy system where the work gets done and the NMCI email kiosk. What a waste.

    2. Re:Real Products in the Fleet by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Unix is dying or just about dead for the license reason.

      Warcraft confirms it.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  31. -1, Tangential Rant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You go, girl.

  32. Already in use? by snStarter · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think the the photonics masts for the VIRGINIA that replace periscopes run Red Hat Linux on Apple server hardware. At least the prototype software I saw seemed to indicate this.

  33. Trolls at the Bridge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The trolls at the bridge never seem to sleep.
    They are there always nashing their tooth.
    They live in their covetous world worried about their stock price.
    They know that their company is a lieing fraud.

    They have no power. They are like a dirty snowbank melting in the Spring time of what comes next. And it isn't them.

  34. What happens when by ryturner · · Score: 1

    a navy program using open source software becomes classified?

    1. Re:What happens when by sPaKr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Does the program source become classified or does the data the program operates on become classified. If its the latter then you could even gpl and release the code. Having worked on classified data sets I can say they tend to hold that much closer then programs chomping on them. DOD was more then happy to watch people publish the code, but the images (data sets) the code worked on were held tightly.

    2. Re:What happens when by Mithrandir · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I can definitely confirm the data/code classification split. I've worked both sides of the fence in my career. My current company (Yumetech) does almost all OSS software development. One of our primary customers is the US Navy - both the Naval Postgraduate School and the Naval Undersea Warfare Center. It's been an explicit requirement of theirs for quite a number of years now that they release as much code as possible under an open source license (typically LGPL or BSD-style). You'll find quite a number of their libraries up on SourceForge. Only one of our applications is required to be closed-source, and at that, only a small part of it dealing with some simulation algorithms (terrorism related so you can imagine why they'd be not willing to release that source).

      For all the other applications, it is only the data that they care about being classified. In a lot of cases, they encourage us to seek non-naval funding for our development efforts. For example, recently, one of our apps also got some NIST and NASA funding as well.

      You'll find the proprietary code, such as the big C4ISR systems etc are that way more at the insistance of the contractors developing it, rather than the military. This is so that the contractors can then repackage it and sell it to other countries or so that they government has their hands tied for getting long-term maintenance of the code.

      --
      Life is complete only for brief intervals in between toys or projects -- John Dalton
    3. Re:What happens when by 51mon · · Score: 1

      The they are exempt from the GPL requirement to supply source because they aren't distributing classified code (we hope), except for the spies who sell it to the enemy, they have to include the source because they are distributing it.

  35. Maybe it wasn't the Unix by wasted · · Score: 1

    He didn't like UNIX much in the service because he said their equipment didn't work well often.

    It may be that the applications written for the UNIX boxes were the problem. Windows doesn't have a monopoly on poorly written applications. If a application uses a lot of the memory and dives into a memory hogging infinite loop, it isn't pretty, whether it is a Windows box or UNIX box.

    It could possibly be the hardware itself. The military often has their computers in places that aren't the most hardware-friendly environments.

    It could also be poor documentation. If the documentation is written for a comp-sci grad, assuming that obvious points that would be obvious to a comp-sci grad are known, the rifleman fresh out of high school/boot camp will probably have a few problems with getting the software to do what he wants.

  36. zerg by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 1

    The Navy uses alot of open source, check out Protean Forge, the Naval Research Lab's sourceforge server...

    --
    [o]_O
  37. That is hilarious! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had to work today, have to work tomorrow, and I haven't seen my girlfriend for more than a few minutes for the past several days, so I am not in the best of moods. Even so, the parent made me laugh out loud for a long time. Luckily I had swallowed the Scotch before I read it.

    I'm glad I browse at -1, or I would have missed that gem of humor.

  38. Cruiser, Not Destroyer by wasted · · Score: 1

    The ship in question was the USS Yorktown, and it happened in September 1997, I think.

  39. Nazi commissions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For a second there I thought it was "Nazi Commissions Open Source R&D.
    Looks like there will be a new benevolent dictator.

  40. Is there an OSS license that would prevent this? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

    Normally I just BSD shit I write, but the more I think about it, I'd just as soon the military (and probably the government in general) couldn't legally make use of my code for their own purposes.

  41. Baby Mulching Machines? (OT, and quite tasteless) by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 1

    Ah, so THAT'S how they make "Baby Oil"! (I mean, if you make "Olive Oil" by squishing Olives...)

    Hey, I warned you that it was tasteless and off-topic...

  42. Re:Is there an OSS license that would prevent this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about you learn English, soldier? Err, sailor.

  43. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is hardly a troll. While it's debateable at what point a fetus becomes a viable human being, there is no debate over the fact that antiabortionists have murdered viable, living, thinking, breathing, functional human beings who didn't agree with the presumed "righteousness" of their cause.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP by thryllkill · · Score: 1

      So when do you think a fetus becomes a viable human being? Conception? When the blastocyst embeds itself in the endometrium? Maybe when it starts to develop a brain and spinal chord? Perhaps when its heart starts to beat? Maybe when it starts to beat regularly? When it is no longer called an embryo and is called a fetus? Birth? Maybe when it can walk? Perhaps feed itself and wipe its own ass? Kindergaten?

      The reason I believe it is a viable human being from conception is simply the fact that you know it is going to be human, and there is no step in the development process that suggests it might be something else. No one ever carried a fetus to term and found out it was a koala bear, or a jeep.

      --

      Note to self: No more arguing with the faithful.

    2. Re:MOD PARENT UP by killjoe · · Score: 1

      It's different for every birth and every fetus. Legally the cut off date is the third trimester. Sure it's arbitrary but then so is the legal age for drinking, voting etc.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    3. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So.. because one or two people fighting for a cause go too far, that cause is rendered invalid?

      I guess the United States really should have its independance from England revoked, since people fought wars and killed for the cause.

      And the blacks should have voting rights revoked, too, because Malcolm X didn't like whites.

      Idiot.

  44. ALL YOUR SUBMARINE ARE BELONG TO US! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think its great they going open source, as long as they follow the GPL and release their new stuff, that way we can all look for bug that could provide free tactical nuclear weapons to launch at will! weeeee!

  45. Re:An interesting anecdote I know the team leader by puto · · Score: 1

    Well being from Louisiana, the name Duplantis is a familiar one, Barry more so, and some quick googling confirmed my suspicions.

    Barry Duplantis is from the same town as I am and was my company commander in military school. A special forces cat who went to military college(marion military) while he is the service, imagine a guy at 23 leading 40 14-16 year cadets. And pulling it off.

    That being said, Barry is super intelligent and resourceful, so and knows his way around a machine, used to site in front of my apple 2 in the barracks. Plus can whip most peoples asses in under ten seconds. But heart is a great cajun man.

    As for people in the military who use computers. Two of my best friends who are ex marines, and they are unix whizzes, total geeks.

    Puto

    --
    The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
  46. Re:An interesting anecdote I know the team leader by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

    Jarheads get a bad rap. I've known three ex-marines, and all were quite intelligent.

    --
    It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  47. The usual way DOD gets OSS is demos & bids by museumpeace · · Score: 1

    ules about certification [verified levels of security and resistance to hacking] that DOD applies to systems software have been set up to favor the standard UNIX and Windows offerings. It is only within the last year that Red Had got a particular version. The hurdle is obviously NOT the quality or inherent security of the product but the enormous expense of the certification process. The money is nothing to MS but a big deal to Red Hat. IBM and Oracle, if I remember correctly, helped pay for the RH certification.

    On the other hand, while fighting to get a DOD contract in the first place, many would-be contractors with limited funds do use OSS to put demo systems together to support their bid. So yes, I have shown the Air Force a huge wargame simulator ported to RH and no, they didn't buy it.

    --
    SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
  48. NMCI Sucks Rocks by HangingChad · · Score: 1
    At least one Navy department is showing some clue. The NMCI project is an absolute disaster and the taxpayers are the biggest losers.

    NMCI is actually installing developer machines with SQL 7, IE 5.5 and several other 7 to 10 year old software packages. It's like a working sofware museum piece. The Navy has to pay for all those licenses, then pay for the licenses so their developers can upgrade to last week.

    Developers can't access their email at the same time they're logged in to do development. They have to log out and log back in with a different account. There's efficiency in action. It's insane.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:NMCI Sucks Rocks by fluffy99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree NMCI has it's problems. I am an NMCI user. I'm also a govt site rep so I see more than just the users perspective. Once some of the major issues are sorted out, it will improve in both usability and flexibility. Speed will continue to be an issue because the Navy has not put any emphasis on speed. Usability is not the number 1 item on the priority list. Security and the ability to understand what the Navy is spending on IT are the top two requirements.

      Since when are NMCI and OSS software mutually exclusive? The Navy Approved Software (DADMS) list does have a fair amount of OSS software listed.

      As for your comment "Developed can't access email without logging out..." - that's just plain false. You can either run Outlook and put in your normal account credentials when prompted, or simply use the runas command (think su). I'm always logged in with my regular account and use runas for anything that needs admin rights. No need to wait 15-minutes to log in/out.

  49. Get a life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you think the government has a monopoly on "evil"?

    Better expand the restrictions on your license a bit, wouldn't want spammers, say, to use it either. Or what about the medical tech that pulled the feeding tube? Or that nice Father Flanigan at the local parish, who when he's not to busy helping the poor and homeless, might preach a moral view that conflicts with yours. Then there's you NRA member neighbor, who managed to stop a mugging of a little old lady last week.

    And then there's those slimy GPL fan boys. They might just take your BSD code and wrap it up in the GPL. We can't have that, can we?

    Oh wait, what about that Military that was extremely instrumental in the Tsunami releif effort? Who else in the world do you think is equipped and organized to deliver that much materiel in time to save lives?

    Damn, I guess the world isn't exactly black and white.

    Maybe I shouldn't poke holes in your bright and shiny idealism, time (or a mugging) will do that soon enough.

    1. Re:Get a life by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      I could care less about what people say, or what email they send.

      I don't want any software I write being used to murder people (or support the murdering of them). That's not an unrealistic condition to place on the free use of that software.

    2. Re:Get a life by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Then why don't you say THAT, instead of "THE US MILITARY". The UN and every country around the world murdered people by remaining neutral (or supplying murders) in Kosovo, Rwanda, and countless other fucked up conflicts throughout the world. Hell, we're STILL refusing to help in the Congo. You want to talk about murder? That's millions dead.

      The US Military has been, especially in the last century, really good at mainly targeting some pretty bad dictators recently. I mean unless you think we should've sat down for a mutual wank session with Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Milosevich, or Saddam. Even Ho Chi Minh was a pretty bad dude. The US Military has also been extremely good about only going places and killing people your elected politicians have sent them to... wait a minute. I forgot, they don't do what they're told by scumbag politicians. That's not what a military does these days.

      Why don't you make a copy of GPL, then add in some little line like:

      7. This program may not be used to further any efforts to kill any living human being without prior, written authorization from the author.

      OR the anti-arbortion/pro-life version:

      7. This program may not be used to further any efforts to kill any human being (born or unborn) without prior, written authorization from the author.

      OR the vegan version:

      7. This program may not be used to further any efforts to murder any living organism (plant or animal, born or not-yet-born), even with prior, written authorization from the author.

      OOOOR the environmentally-friendly version:

      7. This program may not be used in conjunction with anything else which would continue or further the destruction of the earth's natural resources. This statement expressly prohibits the use of this program in conjunction with any fossil-fuel-burning technology, or products, or the use of this program on a computer that is being powered by electricity produced from fossil fuels.

      OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR even more radical. We COULD just make the software free and open. And then anyone could use it... even soddomites, Saddamites, adulterers, blasphemers, lusters, gluttons, females, males, extremely intelligent chimps, somewhat-more-evolved monkeys... And YES, even politicians, murderers, and, yes, your most hated of all: the military.

      Holy crap. I should write a license that'd do THAT. Then I could call it........ copylefting.

      I hope you realize what makes this idea so grand, so novel. Gates thinks it's immoral to use software without paying for it, even if the creator doesn't WANT to be paid for it. You think it's immoral for software to be used by the military, even when the military spends most of their time NOT killing people. I think it's immoral for software to be used by spammers and the only surviving cousin of King Mathldefi of Nigeria, who only needs my help because his birth certificate was burned in the great war of 1841. This IS the point. Once you cross that line and start putting down those arbitrary decisions based on your own little moral code, the software loses its freedom. And that makes Baby Jesus cry.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    3. Re:Get a life by jasonditz · · Score: 1


      The US Military has been, especially in the last century, really good at mainly targeting some pretty bad dictators recently. I mean unless you think we should've sat down for a mutual wank session with Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Milosevich, or Saddam. Even Ho Chi Minh was a pretty bad dude. The US Military has also been extremely good about only going places and killing people your elected politicians have sent them to... wait a minute. I forgot, they don't do what they're told by scumbag politicians. That's not what a military does these days.


      Wait... the US didn't sit down for mutual wank sessions with Stalin? The US used the full force of its military to bring down Mao?

      You think it's immoral for software to be used by the military, even when the military spends most of their time NOT killing people.

      The military spends most of its time either killing people or coming up with more efficient ways of killing people.

      I don't even neccesarily think its immoral to let your software be used to that end, I just don't want mine to be used that way.

      Once you cross that line and start putting down those arbitrary decisions based on your own little moral code, the software loses its freedom.

      Call me crazy, but when it comes down to people or software losing their freedom, I'm going to side with people. Not that the two are neccesarily mutually exclusive, but since I wrote the software, it seems like its my call.

  50. Check The Current Issue of Linux Format Magazine by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

    They have an article about the alarm caused by the "Windows for Warships" project in England.

    Seems the history of Windows on warships in the US is not good (read the sidebar about how US warships have been taken out of action by Windows crashes) - and people do NOT want Windows on nuclear submarines - isolated from critical (read: "nuclear launch") subsystems or not.

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  51. Where are the bodies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay, mass graves containg 300,000 bodies of those killed by Saddam have be excavated. Where are the mass graves will all of those dead killed by American bombs and U.N. sanctions? How is it 300,000 can't be hidden, but 100,000 can? Why are the Iraqi's hiding the 100,000 bodies?

    The 100,000 dead because of American bombs and U.N. sanctions is as big a lie as the WMD. After all, according to Michael Moore, before the U.S. invaded, Iraqi kids were not dying, they were flying kites.