Slashdot Mirror
Tux Enlisted for U.S. Defense Program
An anonymous reader writes "Linux is a key part of the Army's massive $200B FCS (Future Computing System) initiative, it seems. RTOS vendor LynuxWorks was chosen to provide the OS for 18 weapons platforms under development, because its LynxOS-178 real-time OS can run Linux binaries -- including the "common operating environment" that Boeing is developing for FCS."
...this paper talks about using the open source, BSD-licensed agent framework COUGAAR to run FCS modeling tests.
Also, there's a bunch of COUGAAR support software written in Ruby, i.e., ACME.
The Army reading list
That is all.
Apparently not. The press release states that they provide ABI compatiblity using special shared libraries ("[...] compatibility is implemented through the use of dynamically linked shared libraries[...]", similar to WINE). Maybe they have ported GNU libc to LynxOS and use some free software. But apparently, no Linux kernel code is involved.
Under the GPL I don't think they'd have to submit anything back unless they distributed it publically anyway.
Linux Wireless Hardware in the UK
LynxOS is older than Linux. Development on LynxOS began in Dallas, TX in early 1986. The system was built for the 68000 architecture originally, targetting a custom-built 68010 VME bus CPU. The software was compiled with the C compiler sold by Megamax for the Macintosh. LynxOS was ported to the IA86 for the 386 in 1988-1989. The LynxOS ABI compatibility history goes back to about 1989 also, when SVR3 compatibility was added to the system. No UNIX or (of course) Linux code was used in the development of the OS.
FCS is getting scaled back because of the extreme cost.
1 18-2005Mar14.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Crappy application not fully tested (and they knew that and accepted the risks) didn't know how to handle an improper user input. A zero went into the database. The app couldn't handle the DIV0, and crashed.
The Navy report concluded it was the application and human error, and not NT.
LynxOS is not Linux. It's a completely different, and much smaller, kernel. It's not as minimal as QNX; LynxOS has drivers in the kernel. But it's far smaller than Linux. It's small enough to get through the expensive and difficult examination process required for avionics.
Confusingly, the company that sells LynxOS recently changed their name to LynuxWorks, and also distributes BlueCat Linux, an embedded Linux distro based on the 2.6 Linux kernel. LynuxWorks had a huge booth at the Embedded Systems Conference last month.
LynxOS, BlueCat Linux, and QNX all use the GNU compilers and tools. All are POSIX compatible, and will run most commmand line programs with a recompile.
Hi all,
o s-02-17-05.asp
Lynxworks can say whatever they want, but the Army isn't picking an OS until 2006. See this link: http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2005/0214/web-fcs
Here is one quote that may be interesting:
"Cartwright and Muilenberg downplayed rumors that they decided not to use Microsoft's Windows operating system in FCS because of security issues. The officials said they have made no such decision to date."
In a letter to the "Comment and Discussion" department, published in the Aug 98 _Naval_Institute_Proceedings_, page 22, Captain Richard T. Rushton, then-CO of _Yorktown_, categorically states, "The _Yorktown_ was never towed as a result of any Smart Ship initiative. During my command, we lost propulsion power twice while using the new technology. Each time, we knew what caused the interrupt and were underway again in about 30 minutes. The September 1997 incident was caused by incorrect data insertion by a well-trained crewman. The _Yorktown_ returned to port using two FFG-7 emergency control units that specifically had been requested by me, and supported by other commands as a risk reducer. We knew there were some risks in the engineering development model propulsion-control system installed under a rapid prototyping development effort. The bottom line: The data field safeguards found in production-level systems were not installed yet in the _Yorktown_ by intention, until complete wring-out was accomplished."
Further: ... She went on to execute a five-month Caribbean deployment that included extensive Smart Ship assessments by the Operational Test and Evaluation Force and Navy Manpower Analysis Center. Both organizations evaluated the _Yorktown_ as fully capable in meeting the required operational capabilities in a projected operating environment. ..."
"The _Yorktown_ never missed an operational commitment, nor did she suffer a mission-degrading casualty during the Smart Ship assessment period. During that time she certified to deploy under the normal fleet training and assessment process.
Not really, I work for ESA and most of the contracts for development have clauses in them that state that all the products 'belong', 'are property of' the organization, and not the subcontractor.
This is legally fine, because if you can hire an 'employee' and have him write some code for you, you retain all rights to that code. It would be silly if you lost it because you hire an employee to write code for you.
Nothing unusual.