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."

Comments

ARPA-NET

[Anonymous Luddite]

You're shooting for the Funny mod, but think about it.

- The precursor to the web we're both using right now was pentagon (ARPA) funded.

Re:ARPA-NET

[Atrax]

Arpanet never directly killed anyone, that I know of. The post talks of 'weapons systems', i.e. people being fucking killed.

We ain't logging in to the World Wide Howitzer

Re:ARPA-NET

[Anonymous Luddite]

>> Arpanet never directly killed anyone, that I know of. The post talks of 'weapons systems', i.e. people being fucking killed.

GPP: >> Nothing says "feel-good bluegrass tech movement" like becoming part of the military industrial complex.

ARPA-NET and the earliest incarnations of the internet were certainly a "feel-good" tech movement, yet they were funded with military bucks. My point is not that the "internet is a weapon" (how the hell did you get that?). My point is that it shouldn't be surprising when a progressive, open technology like Linux is used by the military. They have some smart folks working for them. Sometimes good things come of it.

Re:ARPA-NET

[damiam]

Guns don't kill people, either, bullets do. Right? No, the gun contributes to the death by shooting the bullet. Likewise, all military projects, whether they are weapons systems or communications systems, are intended to further military goals, which basically involve killing people. What level the involvement is at is irrelevent, if you want to be idealistic and take a complete no-war stance.

Or, you could be sane, and realize that the military is going to kill people no matter what, and it might as well use safe, reliable, accurate, well-built systems to ensure that it kills the right people and no more people than necessary. In that sense, Linux is a good thing.

Re:ARPA-NET

[Anonymous Coward]

Actualy, the whole reason that the internet was designed the way it is harkens back to the cold war. The idea behind a packet-switching distribured network is that they can nuke your communications systems and you can still communicate. That way, if they strike first, you still have the communications infastructure to strike back. So, in reality, the internet IS designed to kill people. LOTS of people.

Re:ARPA-NET

[jonadab]

> to further military goals, which basically involve killing people.

You've greatly misunderstood the military. Killing people is seldom if ever a military goal. Almost always the goal is to force people to accept certain terms. Killing people is often employed as a way of furthering that goal, but it is not itself the goal.

Re:ARPA-NET

[feloneous cat]

My point is that it shouldn't be surprising when a progressive, open technology like Linux is used by the military. They have some smart folks working for them. Sometimes good things come of it.

If you mean good by "creating ways to kill people" -- then no, it is not good.

As my wife was saying the other day, with every discovery there is the question "can we kill someone with it".

Good would be if we could learn to stop asking that question.

Re:ARPA-NET

[Anonymous Coward]

>>War will NEVER go away as long as there exists in the hearts of madmen the lust for control and power

Like the current Whitehouse incumbent?

Re:ARPA-NET

[kbielefe]

Okay, so I'm somewhat biased because I work for a military contractor, but that also gives me an insider's perspective.

The reasoning behind recent research hasn't been to kill the enemy more efficiently, but has been how to win necessary wars with the least friendly and enemy casualties possible. Ideologies have changed a lot since WWII. We no longer go to war against a country. We go to war against dictators and pockets of terrorists while trying to defend everyone else in the country. It requires a different mindset and different technology. We already have effective weapons of mass destruction, but mass destruction is not how we want to win anymore.

Name any modern shooter video game and I will bet it has some kind of cue to differentiate between friendlies and known enemies, like a reticle that turns green or red. Now imagine the same sort of thing in the hands of our real life armed forces, and you will get some idea of just one of the (albeit lofty) goals of projects like FCS.

GNU

[MSG]

Since Linux isn't actually involved in this project in any way, shouldn't the summary state that GNU is a key part of the FCS initiative?

Tux is actually sitting this one out.

All it would take is just one Linux Virus / Trojan

[INetUser]

While we all know that Windows is easily subjugated by trojans and viruses, and with the penetration of windows system on the market and connected to the Internet, it's a real problem. Some attribute this to the Windows mono-culture.

Isn't this just another mono-culture waiting to be exploited? Consider the risk. One trojan or virus with a trojan let lose in the military network, and there is no telling what it would / could do. All of a sudden, zillions of fake targets are buzzing around the UCAV's radar as it starts shooting mindlessly at them.

Granted, this assumes, and it's probably a big assumption, that one could connect to the military network in a clandestine nature and remain hidden. But is the risk worth the mono-culture savings?

Re:is linux guilty of murder now?

[LWATCDR]

No more so than cars, truck, aluminum, steel, or coffee is. All of which is used by the military around the world, for good or evil.

Re:the new gpl

[gatkinso]

Freedom can be a real bitch when *your* agenda is trodden upon.

There's quite a bit of Linux in USG

[wiredog]

It's just not well publicized. Often because the department using it doesn't want any publicity. But Linux was highly visible at FOSE lats week.

Skynet

[BongoBen]

A Boeing employee recently gave a presentation on the FCS for a class I'm in, and while I think it would be a swell idea give all of our units and soldiers access to all possible information on the battlefield, it seems that they are not going to stop there.

The guy said something to the effect of "once all the information is centralized, we'll be able to automate much of the decision making during a battle".

They are planning on putting a computer system in charge of our military! Not that I'm on the tin hat brigade, but that really frightens me. Imagine someone hacking into that system? And furthermore, who is to blame when the system orders an airstrike of an innocent village?

For what it's worth

[Anonymous Coward]

Such a far cry from the 70's university computer lab (geek version of the hippy) and the drumming of do no harm/free as in freedom, to 2005 and the weaponizing of Linux.

Re:the new gpl

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny that uou don't seem to have a problem with using technology that was originally developed for military use (TCP, the Internet, public key encryption, the list is damn near endless).

Re:Peace, Love, Linux

[Hasai]

Fact of life: There are precious few tools that cannot be utilized as a weapon.

Welcome to the world.