Slashdot Mirror
NASA Goes SourceForge
refactorator writes "We have a lift-off! The NASA Ames Research Center has open sourced Java PathFinder , a JVM that is an explicit state software model checker, all written in Java. For the first time, the complete master development site of a live NASA software engineering project is hosted on SourceForge. Read the official press release for details. The team around John Penix, Willem Visser, and Peter Mehlitz fought long and hard to get the development hosted outside of NASA, to enable true collaborative software development. Now show the government that it works - join the fray. May Java PathFinder boldly go where no NASA program has gone before." (Both Slashdot and SourceForge are part of VA Software.)
The bigger question for me is if the open source software is used and fails then where does the accountability lie? consider the stress that would be required for anything NASA does, and consider the results of even slight errors. now imagine the sort of bugs that crop up in other open source projects... this could be bad.
This app spiders through all routes of an app through the bytecode. Not only will this become a very stable and usable debugging application, but the applications that borrow from this application are endless with possibilities. For NASA to OS an app, this was probably the best choice!
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
IANARS Damn.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
Poor guy. That name must be an endless source of amusements to his Linux-using colleagues.
Who thought of the PENIX man pages when I saw that guy's last name?
The availability of this tool does wonders for Java. I'd like to know the reasons behind NASA's decision to use Java for this kind of development in the first place, but having this tool available as a testing resource could be enough reason alone to choose Java for a wide variety of new projects.
Kudos, NASA!!
Doesn't our government exist to serve the general public? Why aren't more government software development projects open source? Why was it such a battle to make this particular application open source?
Don't get me wrong, this is a great feat by NASA-Ames, but it's something I already expect as a taxpayer...
Just when you make it idiotproof, some idiot builds a better idiot.
This can change things a lot. If the goverment sees open source work, imagine how many more projects(non security of course. Hell will freeze before those will be OS) will be opened up? Also, what about these OS authers? Do you think job offers might ever come to people? Is there a possibility that these Open Source Projects can change the way the Goverment operates?
What happenes if this project fails? Then what? OS will seem to be a failure then, and that would not be a good thing, at all.
All I can say is, this is one hell of a chance for OS.
Yay, I have a sig.
NASA WorldWind has been on SourceForge since September. Though most development happens over IRC.
World Wind ( http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/index.html )is also open source. I think there are other NASA open source projects as well. This definitely isn't NASA's first venture into open source, although it may be their first project release on SourceForge.
Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.
--Proverbs 9:7
Leave off the quotes in your query and the first hit that comes back is a pretty good definition I'd say.
Or just look for "explicit state software model checking".
I seem to recall that the reason they didn't release government-developed projects as open-source was because of prohibitions on commercial use of government software.
Basicallly, they didn't want a government agency to be making software (using your tax bucks) for the profit of someone else.
Before you say "corporations pay taxes too", let me remind you that corporate tax share has gone from about 50% in the 1950's, to about 2% today. Yep- the individual foots 98% of the government budget, but corporations get all the laws.
Please help metamoderate.
This is not the first app that NASA has open sourced, just the first one on sf.net. NASA has an OS website at
http://opensource.arc.nasa.gov/
Evolution or ID?
With NASA, for not validating/testing a solution enough, just as it would be my responsibility if I implemented a half-assed piece of software into a corporate environment without adequate testing. If NASA went down to the hardware store and bought a garden hose valve for a rocket fuel tank, slapped it on the night of a launch and it failed and sent a rocket into the drink- would you blame the garden hose valve maker? Course not. We like to point fingers all the time at things other than our decision-making process.
I help volunteer for a car club which teaches high performance driving at various racetracks. A lot of stuff becomes Really Important when you're driving close to the limits of your talent and the vehicle's equipment. Stuff does go wrong, although it's statistically very rare for there to be an incident caused by mechanical failure. Much of the time, it's driver error.
For example, a wheel falls off. The driver says "I crashed because my wheel fell off." No. The driver crashed because the driver forgot to check lug bolt torque, and the wheel came off because the torque on the lug bolts wasn't correct. A more complex example: "I crashed because my brakes failed". No. The driver crashed because the lap before he crashed, the driver didn't realize his brake pedal was getting really spongy- or worse, he did realize it, and didn't do anything about it (ie, he didn't pit in and bleed the brakes because he wanted to stay out on track).
Please help metamoderate.
If the code is open source, that means ANYBODY can work on it, improve it, or find and squash bugs. If one person makes a mistake somebody else will correct it, If somebody tries to do something harmful to the code. *several* other people will instantly remove the malware.
:: period
Just because anybody CAN work on code and deal with bugs, doesn't mean anybody WILL. There is no evidence that bugs in any given OS projects are 'instantly' removed.
As for accountability? Why do we always have to have some poor soul to point the finger at? why do we have to make any one person in particular accountable?
Because if you are going to use a product for any serious use it is customary to look for guarantees that the product is fit for use. Some open source projects have sufficient reputation that they they are trusted in most areas without any such legal or commercial guarantees (such as the Linux kernel). OS in itself is no guarantee of quality.
Would you leap into and drive a free car built by someone you don't know just because they are willing to show you the blueprints and parts list?
If the project fails then we have ALL failed, and, friend, the accountability will be found in the fact that we WILL improve upon the code, we WILL learn from our mistakes, and we WILL prove that Open Source (free) software IS the best way to spend tax payers money when it comes to computer programming
The key to the best way to produce software is to have skilled and motivated developers. The Open Source-ness is not always relevant.
How many NASA employees got fired on their first day at work when being introduced to this "John Penix" fellow and giggling uncontrollably right in front of him?
Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
Recently, several large corporations, which (apart from other things) develop commercial software, released a number of projects on sourceforge.net. Among them were: Microsoft (3 projects), Google (4 projects), IBM (30 projects), Adobe (1 project). The reasons they gave for such move are often somewhat "foggy". My personal opinion is that it finally became "cool" to have a project on sourceforge.net, which is great of course.
The team around John Penix, Willem Visser, and Peter Mehlitz fought long and hard to get the development hosted outside of NASA
Long and hard indeed.
(I'm going to hell for this.)
'nuff said.
sigs, as if you care.
- The freedom to run the program, for any purpose
- The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
- The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
From what I can tell, this is definitely a true Free Software license. However, you have to register with an agency of the United States government in order to muck with the code. Some may have a problem with this, be forewarned."Could it be that NASA is finally giving up on Ada and embracing the safety, reliability, and simplicity of Java?"
BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Oh, man. I needed a good laugh today.
Aside from the compulsory Slashdot Java FUD, it's really not a joke. Java has a big advantage in that the the bytes codes produced can be verified, and so the program tested, without any concerns of the final deployment platform. This is a major advantage for an organisation like NASA which most likely has a wide range of hardware on which software is deployed.
The halting problem basically says that you can't write a program that will determine whether or not any arbitrary program will halt. It doesn't say that you cannot determine the halting properties of a specific program or class of programs. Java Pathfinder works. Model-checking in general works, and has been used for many years in many applications. Examples of model-checkers that have seen fairly wide use include (off the top of my head) SPIN, SMV, FDR, TLC, and Verisoft.
"Good to see the gov't is realizing the benefits of SF and OSS..."
Sorry to deillusion you, but in this case the only benefits will be PR and, maybe HR, nothing too technical, specially not "to enable true collaborative software development" which, in this case, just can't happen.
This software, even if it is not directly involved with something launched to space (it's a code validator) it is still a political issue (as anything related to the space race) and that means there can't be "real" collaborative software development as in "hey, Ax0R, your last three patches are good enough, so I'll give you a write-allowed account to the repo for you to directly check in your code", and then just checkout and build. No: every code will have to be scrutinized by NASA people and then, if accepted, checked in to the *real* source code repository well protected within NASA facilities so, for practical purpouses, the public repo will be a "read only" one.
"True collaboration" is all about mutual confidence, and this cannot be grown at a NASA project, no matter SF or not.
--
"Do you think," said a Woodpecker who had been busy making a hole in the table, "that there might be a problem with the name 'UNIX'? I mean, it does sort of suggest being less than a man."
"Maybe we should try another name," suggested the Job Sparrow, "like Brut, or Rambo."
"Penix," suggested a Penguin.
http://www.davar.net/HUMOR/UNIXLAND.HTM
-jp
The federal govenrment can't hold a copyright.
Copyright (C) 2005 United States Government as represented by the
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA). All Rights Reserved.
The above statement from the license is not legal.
By defn all copyrightable materials produced by the feds are Public Domain... in the most legal sense of the phrase.
Someone at NASA wasn't paying attention.
Furthermore, since the copyleft principle relies on Copyright to grant certain permissions, the fact that the Feds can't hold copyright means that they can't use "traditional" open source licenses.
That's why you don't see this whole flood of OSS from the feds.