Slashdot Mirror
Lockheed Martin Selects Linux for Missile Defense
m3lt writes "Business Wire is reporting that Concurrent announced today that Lockheed Martin Space Systems has selected RedHawk(TM) Linux as the operating system for their United States Army Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) program." From the article: "Lockheed Martin selected RedHawk for the THAAD program due to the precision and guaranteed response time of Concurrent's RedHawk Linux real-time operating system. Only RedHawk Linux was able to ensure the high frame rates required in their HIL simulation without frame overruns, thereby ensuring the highest quality of system test."
Unfortunately you cannot have free software if you place arbitary restrictions upon who can use it or what it can be used for.
Its an embedded Operating system for use in a monitor and control system - not unlike the automatic cars we just cheered on around the desert or the bots on mars, just because it may have several tonnes of high explosives taped to its back doesn't make it any different.
liqbase
Don't be stupid. The GPL states that Linux may be used for any purpose the user sees fit. That can be good or bad. Things to note:
You really cannot be serious "all the people who ... have taken part in building weapons that kill". They didn't build weapons, they built general purpose software. They can have completely clear consciences about this. Don't let one application of this software politicise Linux or the Free Software movement in this way.
If you value survival, you do. Not that I advocate war or anything, but I would like the baddies to believe I have a reasonable ability to kick their ass.
That would not be a good thing. Let's see where it would lead...
#1 : All military contractors and personnel would suddenly stop contributing to any OSS efforts.
#2 : Any non-popular group would then be given a "free for non-(non-popular group) use" statement / clause.
Fundamentalist Christians could be placing a "free for non-gay use" clause in their releases. African Americans could place a "free for non-white use", Lesbian Americans a "free for non-straight use," and Left-Handed-Americans a "free for non-right-hand use" clause.
Slippery slope, my friends. Free is free.
Oh, and wouldn't you prefer the finite number of tax dollars available to be spent as wisely as possible? Sorry... I forgot that Anonymous Cowards typically don't pay taxes.
Well, it's probably best not to let what you call these things limit your thinking about them. Looked at from the other side of the chessboard, many "defensive" systems clearly have offsensive implications. There may be offensive applications for many components (e.g. shooting down satellites). Even if a system is purely defensive in nature, one of the limiting factors in offensive action is the way it exposes you to harm.
This is why many peaceniks are against defensive systems: because they create the illusion that we can attack others with impunity. As we're finding out in Iraq now, it's not enough just to have the military strength for victory. There are bound to be consequences outside your planning framework.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
> Linux isn't really a realtime OS.
You are wrong. Linux is a hard realtime OS (and you can get soft realtime without making a big effort) when you have the right hardware and the right scheduler. This Linux OS has independent timers and a special scheduling system, which makes it run realtime with granularity of microseconds in the simulation. Now you will ask how I know that... Ill tell ya, I work with this product, as a control engineer, and help desk for this product.
The difference of this version Lockheed purchased is that its not an Operating System, but a full HIL/MIL (hardware in the loop, man in the loop) system, which means the software, the computer, special acquisition I/O cards, the special timer system AND a special set of realtime debugging tools that are the hottest thing available. I could try to explain you what these tools are all about, but i) people would tell Im doin marketing bla bla bla and ii) I doubt you understand industrial simulation, so I must assume you are some student repeating like a parrot that QNX this, vxworks that. But just to prove Im not lying, these tools are able to hot patch a running code without stopping the process (when you have the source available, in C, C++, Fortran and ADA), kernel intrumentation, graphical view from the scheduler taks, execution time of process and syscall, cpu isolation to run a dedicated simulation in a certain cpu, you can monitor critcal vars and setpoints in a GUI, so you can run the simulation and check they are never out of the sweetspot, running distributed simulations in high speed deterministical networks, etc, etc.
But goin back to the topic, these debugging tools are amazing and a great add-on to the package. Im not surprised of the choice, the product is very good. And its something the RTLinux (from FSM Labs) and Wind River versions (of Linux - ya, they are doing linux too, or even its VxWorks doesnt have).
The reason Linux is not so popular is that these guys are really really traditional people, and they dont change very often their tools, its hard to break the stablishment. In the other hand, some simulations users loves using Linux in their simulation systems. Others are using other solutions for years, and dont feel the need of changing them, no matter how painful it is to run old/legacy applications.
So just to finish my point. This is a full simulation system that can do the job even better than other proprietary solutions, and with a better cost-benefit. Its not "clever trick". The people who make this product are not newbies (they are playing this games for decades, check their history), neither their users. They didnt pick up this solution because they are cheap, or they look beautiful, or they like tux. They picked because its the finest one available.
>Something that was...well, designed to do RT, and designed so you can easily take >out all the stuff you're not using (think less room for bugs).
You can do that with Linux OS. FSM Labs has versions that can boot in 300 miliseconds to full operational status and as small as some kbytes. If you use google a little, you will find some harcore realtime systems with linux
> I haven't even thought about mission critical yet!
> I love Linux as much as the next geek, but tools for jobs folks.
You obviously does not work with that.
What an assinine statement. This was well known, by EVERYONE involved, well before the war started.
;-)
Alas, this is 20/20 hindsight. Sure, people paid lip service to this. There was lot of talk of "hard work", but not an inconsiderable amount of verbiage about "low hanging fruit" as well. By in large, most people were deluded as to the extent of our post-war involvement. Present company excepted of course.
If you recall, Mr. Lindsey lost his job a White House economic advisor because he predicted the war would cost in total as much as $200 billion, which we now know to be a gross underestimate. The White House said the war would cost between $50-$60 billion. I think it's fair to say the difference between these estimates is the cost of the aftermath of the initial campaign -- the part that cannot be accomplished with military strength. You can do a 2x2x2 matrix and place yourself in it: for the war then/against the war then. For the war now/against the war now. Underestimated the cost of victory/correctly estimated the cost of victory. I'm against/against/correct. Perhaps you are a for/for/correct, but I think there's quite a few people in the for/against/underestimate box, as well as the for/for/underestimate box.
I don't think we've done a bad job in Iraq, though no doubt things could be better. Remember, it's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback.
Indeed. However since I protested the war before we went in, I believe that I have a bit of a right to say "I told you so" to the people who were for it then and against it now. Those people have no right in my opinion to say they were duped. As you say, you'd have to be pretty stupid to think this was going to be easy, and right now it's going very nearly exactly as I expected it would.
Naturally, if you were for it then and are still for it, you might be able to justifiably claim that you knew this all along, that you were a for/for/correct. However, I believe you wouldn't have much company in that box. But you'd have problems establishing your bona fides. Everybody who is for/for wants to say they they knew all along, just as the for/against want to say they underestimated the costs because they were lied to.
BTW, I hope you realize that much of the criticism of postwar Iraq mirrors criticism of postwar Germany after World War II...and look how that turned out.
Ah, I see. You're suggesting that Iraq is going to end up carved into two or more states who are mortal enemies. That they'll spend decades facing each other over frozen battle lines. That the fate of the region will remain in balance only through a combination of exhaustive militarization on either side of the line with the added threat of global nuclear conflict? I'd say then that you are most prescient.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Strawman argument. Missile defense is not protecting us against any of those things in a realistic sense.
Missile defense has not proved anything near the ability to prevent an attack by multiple advanced missiles, particularly those which would use even relatively simple anti-simulation decoy techniques.
For the newbies to missile defense, "decoys" are typically large mylar balloons which inflate in space to create radar targets as large or larger than a warhead. They are extremely cheap and light, so anybody able to make an ICBM can afford to put many decoys in their missiles. "Anti-simulation" means you put the warhead in a balloon, or in some other way make it look very similar to the cheap, plentiful decoys.
Now your putative missile defense system has to somehow deal with dozens of things that all look like cheap decoys, but only a handful are actually warheads.
The missile defense folks will hem and haw about how their system is not meant to deal with a sophisticated enemy, which is code for "we think North Korea can't really make fancy warheads that maneuver like we think Soviet warheads can" but ignoring the fact that mylar balloons are not sophisticated. Or that it is only meant to handle single isolated launches, like might occur by "accident." Or they'll say they are only deploying the system to provide the opportunity for more realistic testing. Or that they really need a launch-phase system (before the decoys get a chance to deploy), which needs to be very near the launch site, so you need to post sailors or soldiers very near North Korea (because you can't get close enough to China or Russia's launch sites without invading their territory) whenever you think a launch is probable, and keep them ready enough to respond in minutes.
As opposed to sitting around in Alaska waiting for a single warhead, with at most a few decoys, to come sailing up from North Korea, and hoping that North Korean missile designers never heard of mylar balloons. Then you get to see if the *many* billions of dollars we've spent on this system pay off or not.