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."
As far as I know, the Royal Navy is still considering NT for the Type 45 - maybe this will help to change their mind.
...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
It will be. Then in comes SCO and takes the credit
Scully: Should we arrest David Copperfield?
Mulder: Yes we should, but not for this.
Nothing says "feel-good bluegrass tech movement" like becoming part of the military industrial complex.
- Rory [Microsoft Employee] | Free dirt: neopoleon.com
Uniform of the Day is now a Tuxedo.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
of a penguin with a cigarette hanging out of the side of its mouth, cradling an assault rifle and wearing a helmet with 'Born to kill' written on it.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
The use of an OS by the military is quite a mark on it's resume. You should be happy.
That is all.
It's a linux RTOS, yes?
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Colonel Panic: Not just a reaction to incorrect artillery coordinates anymore!
Do you like German cars?
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.
At that price, supporting free software is a mixed bargain if I ever heard of one. Note that it supports Linux binaries, but it is not Linux as we know it.
Soli Deo Gloria
murder is just a legal term for killing not sanctioned by the government, so no murders will be done. Maybe some genocide and assassinations and such, but no murder.
The Tuxinator; he'll never stop EVER, until you are dead!
did you actually read the article??? The binaries are able to run on this other kernel... it's not the Linux kernel that's being used here, only applications compiled to run on the Linux kernel... it's all about the ABI...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
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.
http://request-header.info
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.
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
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?
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.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
expect a sharp ramp up in anti Linux/FOSS lobbying from Microsoft via supposedly worried parties... all worried about the US's defence being trusted to a "commie OS" written by "hacker"s and other "hippy" malcontents...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Freedom can be a real bitch when *your* agenda is trodden upon.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
If they'd put Windows on it, you've have bitched and jumped up and down.
They put Linux on it, and you're still wining.
Perhaps the world doesn't actually give a stuff of the opinions of a load of geeks in their bedrooms?
We already have military equipment running Windows. And this article isn't even about using the Linux kernel or a Linux distro, just an API on top of LynxOS. So what you said could be said about the military's use of any operating system x, what if someone develops a virus/trojan/exploit on x?
Hmmm Tux joins the military.
;)
All the hippy hacker types will be fuming. They might even have to get their hair cur
Philip
Signatures are broken
I hate it when I come up with a sure-fire, can't miss post and blow it with a typo or incorrect usage that ruins the whole thing.
Like the time I posted about a girl who drank so much she blew chunks, but I put "drunks" instead of "chunks", which changed the meaning slightly.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
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.
I for one don't need the US military to use linux for killing to know it's good. I know it's unavoidable though.. :(
But what about the corporations? Won't they think this is proof the penguin is good?
Who cares?
First, there's no requirement to release your modifications to GPL code unless you're charging a fee for binaries of the modified code. If you keep it in-house, it's yours.
Second, "the military" is the United States Government for the purposes of legal action, like contract disputes for example. The Supreme Court has allowed infringement upon individual rights where there is a "compelling government interest" for years. But there is no such thing as allowing a breach of contract (which is what a GPL violation amounts to) for such a purpose.
Stop drinking the goddamn "we are living in a dictatorship" Koolaid and LEARN SOMETHING about how things work (e.g. the US Constitution, the GPL) before you embarrass yourself again.
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
"I hate it when I come up with a sure-fire, can't miss post and blow it with a typo or incorrect usage that ruins the whole thing."
:)
I like to think that the comment wasn't ruined, but rather that a whole generation of h4x0rz isn't going to really know what "bluegrass" means thanks to my early morning pre-coffee slip
- Rory [Microsoft Employee] | Free dirt: neopoleon.com
I meant publically rather than internally.
Linux Wireless Hardware in the UK
Uhhhh.... FCS is the Future >>>Combat System.
Well, BSODs are pretty much a thing of the past, at least unless you have a defective hardware.
That said, when Windows is used where formerly an embedded OS is used, there is a tendency not to do a very good job stripping out all the stuff that's not needed. Since you aren't going to be patching things that much in the field, this could lead to known security holes on deployed systems for a long time. It may not matter, indeed usually the excuse is that it won't matter, but sometimes the unforseen happens. It's not unheard of for "embedded" versions of windows to have problems like windows file sharing turned on. The hardware engineers don't think like sysadmins.
This problem is not intrinsic to Windows; I've seen the same thing recently on a box that controlled an under vehicle scanner. It used stock SUSE with an old verison of BIND and samba, trhe3 works. The customer wanted to connect it via wireless to a central guard station. This was a bad idea. The security holes in the box are harmless as long as it is stand alone, but on a network they are huge liabilities.
At least with Linux, you can go the Linux from scratch route, which minimizes you exposure to security holes in ancient software.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You know, now that I think about it that's absolutely true.
Still, the mental image of a UCAV (or any other military equipment for that matter) going crazy due to this sort of thing strikes me as humorus and scary all at the same time.
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.
Best Slashdot Co
He whips out his prime Alabama tux-snake and tells you it ain't too god-damned beaucoup.
contributed back to the community
To the extent that the government is using non-proprietary OSes and and other cheaper/free pieces of infrastructure to conduct critical activities (like defense, or emergency response), we're looking at using up fewer tax dollars, and that's plenty of "giving back." Of course, the defense/intel community does very much distribute enhanced goodies where it can, and we've had plenty of conversations here about things like open source CAD stuff from the Navy.
Probably the most important thing, though, is that you get thousands of federal techies using different systems, and a lot of them will leave their stint with the DOD and head out into the wild with an appreciation for alternate ways to handle IT problems. Those folks, showing up at private sector HR desks looking for more lucrative jobs, will have more to do with corporate acceptance of things like Linux than any amount of code the feds might publish.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I disagree. Security through obscurity has been proved not to work time and time again. Granted it may perhaps buy you a little time, but in the long run it won't work.
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.
"First, there's no requirement to release your modifications to GPL code unless you're charging a fee for binaries of the modified code. If you keep it in-house, it's yours."
I'm not sure if charging a fee has anything to do with it, but I think if this very broad distribution of binary code (embedded systems aren't going to lug around source code) qualifies as "in house" than anything can.
"Stop drinking the goddamn "we are living in a dictatorship" Koolaid and LEARN SOMETHING about how things work (e.g. the US Constitution, the GPL) before you embarrass yourself again."
The US Constitution has been violated by the US government on numerous occasions. I don't think they'd be shaking in their boots over the power of the GPL.
If someone working on a classified project were to provide code to the FSF that proved the goverment was violating the GPL, that person could go to jail for a very long time.
Thank goodness Slashdot doesn't have an icon for Liunx in the military. Knowing Taco, it would probably be Tux wearing an adorable little camoflage outfit, in the same vein as the Tux wearing a suit icon.
Adorable.
Taco, about that Tux in a suit icon as a symbol for Linux in the business realm, Tux himself would not be wearing the suit. He's already got a tuxedo, for chrissakes. It would be the suits who were USING Linux. Linux/Tux himself would not be the one changing himself to suit the situation, it would be the suits.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
If boeing is distributing binaries to the Army then Boeing *is* required to do so (they are distributing it to a sole proprietor, but still distributing!).
IMO the GPL applies, and since Boeing is a commercial company, sueing for a violation would open up interesting pieces of code.
However, I think it's remotely improbable that they actually modify key linux components, and their control systems most likely will be covered (decently) by closed licenses that do not conflict with the OSS components they use.
Another thing is that the military can subcontract boeing to write code based on the GPL exclusively for themselves, and since the milittary is not distributing (merely using these changes), they are not bound by the GPL to redistribute their source changes.
the good thing is that it's nice to see that OSS is not scaring away big players anymore. Even tho it may not look like a victory for OSS, it certainly is.
*sigh*
Forgot where I'm posting. Need to remember to put quotes around historical references and add full reference information. Like this:
"Arsenal of Democracy" - Franklin Delano Roosevelt, December 29, 1940
nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
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.
Like Win CE?
Self Serving Sig: Hosting Comparison
Well, linux implements division by zero. So there.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Isn't this just another mono-culture waiting to be exploited?
A mono-culture needs a specific software+hardware combination.
So a buffer overflow exploit use a specific bit of exceutable code for a specific processor.
So, that UCAV running vxWorks-on-ARM with the Linux compatibility ABI won't be affected by the exploit that has x86 code in it.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
"The Skynet Funding Bill is passed. The system goes on-line August 4th, 1997. Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th."
;)
It was only postponed. The future is inevitable.
----End Sarcasm----
In other news, this is a great victory concering progress in *nix.
- Adam
The Computations of AdamR
http://www.adamreyher.com
"Another thing is that the military can subcontract boeing to write code based on the GPL exclusively for themselves, and since the milittary is not distributing (merely using these changes), they are not bound by the GPL to redistribute their source changes."
But the changes the contractor made would have to be made public under the GPL because they distributed it to the military. If the military decided that they didn't want the changes to be revealed, you're back to the same conflict.
BSODs are pretty much a thing of the past...
;o)
On the other hand, I agree with everything else you said.
I suppose these are why you chose "pretty much," huh?
It seems like slashdot runs a story on this every six months:
0 2/ 0216215&tid=163&tid=103
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/03/
Oh, and its a joint Boeing - SAIC contract.
-a former FCS sys admin
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?
The Dude abides.
Is it just me, or is the idea of weapon systems build on opensource software troubleing?
It's just you, and in any case LynxOS isn't open source... it just provides linux emulation so you can run non-open-source Linux applications on top of it.
So you can sleep easy, because your basic assumptions are all wrong: FOSS isn't less secure, and this isn't FOSS anyway.
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.
You forgot my favorite one, paper products. Example: toilet paper. The evil government of your choice most likely uses toilet paper or standard office paper. You should find out who supplies them and try to boycott them. (That's humor more than anything. You'd be surprised were your toilet paper, tissue paper, and office paper come from. Hint: made in the USA.)
If Linux is modified as part of this program,
RTFA, Linux isn't even involved except as an emulated environment.
Which window manager do we go with!? - of course.. we all know that we wish the Pentagon would use Macs... just think of all those white on black outfits... and commands coming through your iTuner fitted iPod, whilst carrying your iMK45.
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."
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).
They'll pull him out of combat to visit right?
In America, you spam computers In Soviet Russia, computers spam you!
-Perhaps the world doesn't actually give a stuff of the opinions of a load of geeks in their bedrooms?
No, but they sure seem to love thier code??? Oui?
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
it would need to distribute them to the army.
but anyways, boeing would probably end up selling the machines to a whole lot of other people as well..
not that it maters since lynxos isn't linux based in any way.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
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.
SELinux? That was a US government project. Would you want to secure your server with software written to help kill people? If you didn't want them to use your code don't OpenSource it. Then they could say you can't use theirs, but of course that can't happen because it *is* OpenSource and you are free to use it if you like. Just like no one can tell users of SCO Unixware they can't use their OpenSource project because they want to run it on SCO Software.
The world of free software is give and take. If you give it, anyone can take it for whatever reason they see fit.
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.
But the changes the contractor made would have to be made public under the GPL because they distributed it to the military. If the military decided that they didn't want the changes to be revealed, you're back to the same conflict.
No. The GPL only requires you to give source to your customers if they ask for it. Making it avaiable to anyone via the web is not required, it is just a convenient way to implement the preceeding for some. Subcontractor give source to Boeing and Boeing gives source to Pentagon, public never sees it, and no GPL violation has occurred.
But the changes the contractor made would have to be made public under the GPL because they distributed it to the military. If the military decided that they didn't want the changes to be revealed, you're back to the same conflict.
No. For two reasons.
First of all, under most "work for hire" contracts, a contractor's work is considered to have been performed by the contracting agency. If I hire you to modify Linux for me, you are not distributing the changes to me, because you are "me", effectively, with respect to all work done under contract to me. There's not much difference between a contractor and an employee in this regard.
Second, even if the terms of the contract create a greater separation, such that the contractor is actually acting independently to modify the code and then delivering the result to the DoD, the terms of the GPL do not require that the code be "made public". The contractor can fulfill the terms of the GPL by delivering source code along with the binaries, and then neither the DoD nor the contractor are under any obligation to give it to anyone else. If the US DoD gives software or equipment containing the software to an ally, they probably also have to distribute the source in order to comply with the GPL. Of course, if the recipient doesn't complain about not getting the source, who will?
IANAL, BTW.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
recycled electrons
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
that the military uses the internet, and TCP/IP, to communicate? For that matter, so do the intel agencies. I seriously doubt that the NSA developed selinux out of the goodness of their hearts.
Best Slashdot Co
Once you start making exceptions it is no longer free software.
Stupid things kids do.
"Buying a little time" is an essential part of a military operation. Encrypted communications, for instance. You have to assume that they will be broken, and your communications decoded. Eventually. But if you can keep the other guy in the dark for a month, a day, even an hour, you can get the jump on him.
You fit a missile with a Linux kernel. Does this mean that every time you distribute the software by nuking someone you have to drop a copy of the source code in the crater afterwards :)?
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
If only the majority of the people who actually provide meaninful contributions to the linux kernel where Geeks in their bedrooms then your comment would mean something, but umm its not.
The Tuxinator; he'll never stop EVER, until you are dead!
Or his time_t overflows, whichever comes soonest.
I disagree. Security through obscurity has been proved not to work time and time again. Granted it may perhaps buy you a little time, but in the long run it won't work.
Buying a little time is good. Public examination of source code can be viewed as giving the enemy a head start. Public examination is also highly overrated. What is really useful is that some third party has reviewed the software. In commercial over-the-counter software that is generally not an option so you could argue that FOSS has an advantage there. However the Pentagon doing an internal audit and review would probably be just as useful or more useful than a public review.
1. The name for the computer language to which I am assuming that you are referring is Ada, not ADA (it is not an acronym). This is a common error on the part of many people.
2. All mission critical, safety critical systems should be written in Ada, but that is my personal opinion which others my not share.
Hmm, in a way I have to agree with that as well. Now that I think about it, I think it doesnt matter what OS that runs your weapons, war will never leave any winners, both sides will lose Someones been playing a lot of tic-tac-toe!
http://www.nata2.info/humor/flash/switchlinux3.swf
Linux is so versatile, it's amazing we didn't switch to it before to run our armies of robots :)
Mens et Manus
The perhaps people around the world can stop using US technology developed to commit "war crimes" like the internet, TCP/IP...
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Don't worry about it until it actually happens -- which just might be never.
FCS's failure seemed likely to me years ago, and that impression has only been reinforced with time.
Let's just focus on doing constructive things, ourselves.
-- TTK
The special indemnification for internal corporate distribution stems from the legal status of corporations as "individuals". The military doesn't qualify as a corporation (although maybe they have become a subsidiary of Haliburton now). That being said the US Gov. can still ignore copyright on GPL'ed code and nobody can do anything about it.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
It's the warrior of the future
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
They put Linux on it, and you're still wining.
Wining and dining! And winning.
Or were you referring the whining, Windows-using slashdotters, who winge about both sides of every issue? No, that would mean you made a typo.
See what I've been reading.
In Windows, since the system processes run at System (root) level, and users are usually forced by their apps to run at the Admin (root again) level, all it takes is one slip-up for the entire system to be compromised. In Linux, however, since it was designed from the ground-up to be multi-user, users and daemons do not run as Root (System/Admin), and therefore any penetration of the system is compartmentalized to that single user/daemon while the remainder of the system remains secure.
Looking at this, I think one can see that writing a successful Linux virus would be quite a bit more difficult than writing one for Windows, as not only does the writer have to compromise a user or daemon on the Linux system, but then they have to figure out a way to pry themselves out of that user or daemon's little security sandbox and somehow attain root.
Regards;
It is just if you are charging for binaries. It is if you are making a profit. Think Linksys routers. And in this case, it isn't the government that is developing this, it is Boeing or SAIC or whatever other sub they use. So even though there is only one customer (Pentagon), they are charging for product derived from GPL. So I would think they would be required to give back.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Is the _yorktown some king of a private vessel? Or is it a undocumented feature?
Fact of life: There are precious few tools that cannot be utilized as a weapon.
Welcome to the world.
Regards;
Only a really topheavy organization can make this kind of mistake.
The compatibility ABI isn't going to pass muster when it hits the QA phase, they never do. You can't realistically develop an application for one OS and expect it to work perfectly on a "compatible" OS.
When developing vertical applications like this, it's most wise to develop for the actual physical installation that it's going to end up running on. Not just the *version, the actual functioning OS image that will ultimately be used.
There's a term for what this is gonna end up being. The first part is cluster and the last part rhymes with truck.
This is just like television, only you can see much further.
Well I wasn't just referring to the Linux kernel. There are thousands of utility programs and applications as well as development tools that are developed or at least started out as stuff developed by folks as a hobby (where ever they happened to be sitting when they were typing).
If we were to rely on corporations for an alternative to linux, then behold OS/2, err no. It may not be as much of a hobby now as it was then, but open source started out as geeks writing code in thier spare time.
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
They put Linux on it, and you're still wining.
Yes, except that they haven't put Linux on it in any way, shape or form.
You've just been misled by another hopelessly retarded Slashdot summary.
And it looks like you've wasted a perfectly good troll on it as well. Never mind - there's bound to be another opportunity in the future and it will give you some time to work on the spelling as well!
Vint Cerf was Canadian? APRANET was a Canadian govt undertaking? Damn, I (along with the rest of the world) must have been mistaken all these decades....
Go back to sipping your Moosehead and staring at women in baggy sweaters.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Why not fork?
It's obvious why they wanted Linux for this project, I mean, who hasn't seen this picture.
Neutron bombs just kill you with radiation poisoning , no melting eyes or exploding skin.
Just fatal DNA damage, etc.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Buying a little is good, especially if you have troops and operations in the field that are dependant on the secure communications. Yes, buying a little time is good, but insufficient.
How are you going to re-secure the compromised network? You can't pass any sort of security update via the compromised communications channel, that would be insecure.
Granted, you could have a secondary 'updates only' communications channel. But I wonder how secure that channel would be once the primary communications channel has been compromised.
The US government violated the constitution long before the ACLU and Slashdot existed.
Look at the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent during WWII. Are you seriously saying that wasn't a violation of the constitution?
The source provision of the GPL only requires than you can't give someone a binary without also giving them the source at no more than reasonable media costs, correct?
For example, let's say a company extends a GPL application for in-house use. They don't have to give that code, binary, source, or otherwise to anyone. But if they decide that they want to give it to company "B", they have to give "B" a copy of the source (if "B" wants it) and they can't put any restrictions on what "B" does with it. ("B" still has to follow the GPL, of course...)
In the actual story, if LynuxWorks uses GPL code, and they sell it to the Pentagon, LynuxWork's only obligation is to provide the Pentagon with source if requested. The only way Joe Citizen is going to see this code is if LynuxWorks decides to give it to someone who then decides to redistribute it. (Which is unlikely...)
Is this correct?
FCS is short for Future Combat Systems not Future Computing System.
Its the whole shooting match not just the computational infrastructure.
Well, BSODs are pretty much a thing of the past, at least unless you have a defective hardware.
Or flaky drivers. I still remember switching from Win2k to WinXP. Creative didn't have any XP drivers but they told everyone that the 2k ones were compatible. They were... mostly. Actually they caused my Windows to turn into a wild, exciting Bluescreen-o-rama every once in a while.
Once Creative released the first drivers that were actually made to be XP-compatible everything was fine again, but with the old driver XP felt less like an NT than like an improved version of 95c.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Yes, but also a lot more expensive
if you knew anything about military procurement, you'd know that they get the source of everything they use unless they don't want it, not the other way around.
Its the only way they can potentially ensure the security of what they use.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
hey, it's a moovie quote from repoman A story about a mad scientist, J Frank Parnell, who kidnaps aliens.
I was trying to give a lighthearted response to Aggamemnon's question. Certainly the production of such lethal weapons is a grave topic. Neutron Bombs really don't leave buildings standing. They are a highly focused explosion and release incredible amounts of radioactivity to kill surrounding populations immediately rather than the hours, days or weeks that the radioactive fallout regular nuclear bombs produce. Additionally, it is ideally suited to frying tank crews, since the nutron rays aren't shielded by the tank as normal nuclear device's gamma rays would be.
Would there be melting eyes and exploding skin? I don't know but I am guessing there would be. This radiation is extremely destructive to living tissue. I mean we are talking about accelerated radioactive exposure that would kill in minutes.
And just for the record, the nutron bomb designer, Sam Cohen is nothing like Frank Parnell. He's crazy in a different manner. Rather than eaten away by guilt over his invention he has a sort of obsession with the weapon, seeing every problem to have a nutron bomb answer. He even insisted that the Iraqi's were building a nuetron bomb.
In reality, I think building weapons systems would drive me insane. The few people I know who do the death and destruction design need to be heavily medicated to function somewhat normally. I think that if you couldn't build up some super gungho facade as Cohen seems to have, the guilt would be detremental.
This said, I don't think creators of free software need to loose sleep over the moralaty of their work being used for nefarious means. That is the whole bargain of freedom -- freedom means the ability to choose for one's self. For the small number of psychopaths who use open source for weapons, organized crime and whatever variety of activity that could be deemed immoral on some scale there are equal if not greater amounts of people using free software to make life better.
Consider the risk. One trojan or virus with a trojan let lose in the military [Linux] 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?
By gosh, you're right! To prevent this risk of a Linux monoculture, the military should require the FCS project to run only Windows. That way, we won't have a monoculture. There will be a variety of systems running: Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000. That should take care of the monoculture problem.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Frequency hopping secure radio traffic, for instance. If you publish the algorithm used to determine what freq's and how far and fast you hop, you've given the other guy a toehold on listening in. Let him figure it out on his own. By the time he does, the battle may be over and it makes little difference.
Back in the amiga era, a lot of freeware/shareware said explicitely that the software could not be used by the military. Can you add a similar clause to your own software and still distribute it under the GPL? I mean, then the software is only free for some to use, not everyone..
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
At the time of its creation, that was the opinion of the Department of Defense too.
I didn't say that the executive branch was the only branch that violates the constitution. This is one of several examples where the Supreme Court did the same.
Some of the Court's most flawed decisions have come during the heat of war when they were too timid to challange the executive branch. We're seeing some of that same timidity today due to the so-called "War on Terror".
If they only distribute the binaries to the army, then the army is the only one they must distribute the source to.
The army is, of course, allowed to distribute the source and binaries under the GPL if it choses. Boeing may not be (depending on the contracts). The army is also likely the copyright holder, so they could distribute the non-standard pieces under any license that they chose, and allow the recipients to put the pieces together with a "supported linux distribution".
This isn't the kind of thing the GPL even tries to prevent, limit, or constrain.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
- it is free as in Operation freedom
- they can blame all project delays on it
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
Some don't, except by the most tenuous "Kevin Bacon" routes. This one didn't, at least not intentionally, when I worked there. The military pioneered a lot of modern medicine, from plastic surgery (to fix disfigured casualties) to pretty much anything related to trauma.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
As an aside, the FCS project is also making heavy use of Jabber. Word!
However, if the first party simply provides an offer of the source to the second party, then the first party must provide the source to anyone who asks (ie. any third party.)
r eSourcePostedPublic
I don't think so. You only have an obligation to someone who has your binaries. It doesn't matter how they received the binaries, directly or indirectly. From the FAQ:
"The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization. But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL."
"If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer."
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequi
...because there was no source printed on the casing? Or insisting on calling your new SDI weapon a GNU/Laser?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
"My aircraft's flight software has crashed, which means it's going to crash, so the enemy are escaping."
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
... soldiers can put up webpages online to allow people to control the military's FCS systems just like some people do it for webcams and such. Or even better, host Counter-Strike-like servers. Cool!
Carpe Diem: Seize The Day!
"Natrually, the common people don't want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. Tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and endangering the country. It works the same in every country" - Herman Goering (Hitler's Reichsmarchall)
See any patterns here?
Yes, I do.
What's great (from the politicans point of view) is that the "War on Terror" has no realistically defined goals that could be achieved. Since there are no goals, there is no basis to end the war. So the individuals in power can continue to use the war as long as needed.
Should public opinon finally turn against it, they can just declare victory and go home. Nixon essentially did this in Vietnam where "peace with honor" finally meant turning tail and running as soldiers from the North invaded Saigon.
Aah. I believe the trick this time is to prevent public opinion from shifting. The trick about "terrorism" is this: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. In our case, Osama has been both. The point is that terrorist is such a vague and subjective term. All you have to do is make terrorist refer to larger segment of your opposition. Eventually you could eliminate all opposition in this method. As an extra added bonus: War boosts the econonomy (in the short term) and the people rally behind their leader (at least enough to make a difference in the election.) Even better: when the economy collapses it will be after you conveniently end th war. Result: economic failures get blamed on the next administration (when the shit really hits the fan). It's like Maxing out your credit card and having your parents pay the bill.
Lots of friends of Bush will get piles of your money thrown at them in the interests of our nations self defence. Behind closed doors ("it's classified sir") they are free to do whatever they please. The reason the government will pay $10,000 for a hammer is becuase somebody has a friend in the hammer company. I'm surprised people chock things up to area51 shit when the simplest explanation is greed.
The good thing about this system is that it will self destruct. Becuase products are purchaced out of favoritism and not quality, aircraft carriers run windows (and literally have to be docked because of crashes). Similarly, incompetant managers get promoted. Your bosses cousin (who just might have an IQ of 25 is promoted to uber-manager.) All hierarchies like this collapse gloriously reliably and predictably. I hope this one will be no exception. Google "The SNAFU Principle" for a similar philosophy.
This is always accompanied by a lovely blue screen chock full of almost useless stack dumps, etc; hence, Blue Screen of Death
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.