Slashdot Mirror
Linux Powers Military UGV
An anonymous reader writes "Linux powers a new autonomous unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) that learns routes by following along behind foot-soldiers, after which it can retrace the route solo, avoiding obstacles. iRobot's "R-Gator" UGV is based on John Deere's 658cc, diesel-powered M-Gator military utility vehicle platform, with control, navigation, and object-avoidance systems based on BlueCat Linux from LynuxWorks. I wonder how Linux idealists feel about their cute little OS being deployed in machinery of war?"
If Linux can go to war, it's almost ready for the corporate desktop!
I am certain that there are many Linux idealists that will have no problem with their cute little OS being depoloyed in the machinery of war. Many of them will be more than happy to port new weapons to this platform. I suspect that some of the first batch of weapons will include the rocket launcher, the plasma rifle and the BFG2000.
I'd rather have linux do something like that, even if I don't agree with the 'that'. I'd rather have tax money saved on something like that, and also it furthers the robotics field from the open source point of view.
;)
And best yet, no blue screen of open fire
DYWYPI?
/dev/random
"Nothin' runs like a Penguin"
...not a religion. I am one of the those GNU/Linux advocates, and yet I don't see the big deal about Linux powering military equipment. Something's gonna power it, so in my mind it may as well be Linux. It's just an OS, a tool. And I'd trust Linux with a job of that nature, having been involved with Linux-powered ROVs first-hand.
Working in a DevOps shop is like playing in a band made up entirely of keytarists.
I wonder how Linux idealists feel about their cute little OS being deployed in machinery of war?
Oh, that's nothing. They'll totally blow a gasket when they find out what the "D" in DARPA stood for. Perhaps a mass boycott of the internet will result.
Well, inventions get used in different ways. Scientists easily dismiss such notions. As would software developers, I suppose. But since the poster touched upon this topic I would really like to know how the Slashdot crowd feels about this issue. Should scientists be more sensetive about possible missuse of their findings?
One argument would be: If I don't figure it out, someone else will come along later on. So by not discovering dangerous stuff it merely prolongs the danger.
A good example would be genetic research, which bears huge potential as well as risks.
IMHO researchers should not stop researching altogether, but be more sensitive and think about possible missuse beforehand. Also they should be much more vocal about the possible dangers that come with using the knowledge they helped to gain.
sed 's/Iraq/Iran/g' *.c
/etc/init.d/ugv reload
make install
If you don't want crime to pay, let the government run it.
...the last thing I need is fucking Clippy popping up in my rifle sights.
"It looks like you are attempting a center-of-mass shot at 250 meters. Would you like help?
O Get help taking the shot.
O Just take the shot without help.
O Get help relocating your target, who is long-gone by the time you've finished mousing around this lame-assed help interface."
blog |
I am pretty sure that Linux is really the only option for something like this for several reasons: /var/enemy/combatants/"
-OS X would simply look too damn sleek and sexy for military use
-Windows
*Blue Screen of Death (not helpful in tactical situations)
*As mentioned before, Clippy would probably be a liability in the field
*Do you really want something like Sasser to cripple the military?
*In a battlefield situation is one Tuesday a month enough?
-The proprietary Diebold voting machine system
*hahahahhahahahahaha
-Arm this thing with some serious firepower and "rm -rf" means something
-Arm this thing and alias pWn="sudo rm -rf
-BeOS just flashes the things headlights
You only have to release the source code to people you distribute the hardware to. (If you always distribute the source code with any purchase, there's no need for a 'public release').
This does, however, raise an interesting question: Does physical capture of a UGV classify as 'distribution' requiring a source-code disclosure?
More importantly, would enemy lawyers applying for a source-code release order be declared 'unlawful combatants' and shipped off to Guantanimo for 5 years of cross examination?
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
First off. This ATV/Golf cart thing isn't going to be killing anyone unless it runs them over....probably several times considering it's size. There isn't a single piece of weaponry, automated or otherwise aboard this thing. Though Marines will probably figure out a way to attach a manned M240 to one, but if the shooting starts, it's probably going to be taken off autopilot. At least I would hope.
In any event the "practical" uses of this thing aren't practical at all! I mean, it's cool and all, but there is no way in hell the military is going to let these things roam around Iraq unmanned. They will never leave eyesight.
Consider my deployment in Iraq. My Marine Reserve unit built a 100 mile temporary fuel supply line from Kuwait up into southern central Iraq. Every few miles along this pipeline at "booster" stations a fire team of Marines were stationed to man the pumps. Every day a manned convoy would leave the central logistical support area and resupply the troops along the line with food, water, mail, ammo, etc.
Here's what would happen if the Military let this thing re-supply the troops autonomously.
1.) By the 3rd out of 17 booster stations all the good MRE's would be rat-fucked out of the boxes.
2.) By the 4th booster, all MRE's would be gone and somone would have pissed in the remaining water.
3.) The next day, when the thing hadn't come home and booster stations 6 through 17 called in wondering where their water was, a convoy would find it between booster station 5 & 6 with no engine, no wheels, and no usable sheetmetal left.
4.) The bedouins across the way would have an oxcart with brand new wheels a new engine on their generator and a new green metal patch on the roof of their tent.
So, it's really not unmanned. It's only a toy that Marines are going to be responsible to look after, take care of, and never let out of their sight. I suppose it could be useful to carry things while you are on a patrol, but that's what your pack is for anyway.
Be Safe! Sleep with a Marine. Semper Fi!
Not all inventions are products of warfare or hostility. In general, inventions are a product of need, with greater need yielding greater inventions. War generates need, so all wars will see inventiveness increase, but need does not require war. It is a one-way relationship.
Should the military use GPLed technology? Provided they honor the license and the spirit, yes. I believe they should. In fact, I'd almost prefer it if it were mandatory. Why? Because if you share what you are doing - even with a limited few - and reduce the secrecy, you will also reduce the sort of paranoia that tends to lead to conflict. If you look at the recent war with Iraq and the building tensions with Iran, what is the common factor? Secrecy on all sides, paranoia on all sides, resulting in tension and finally hostilities. Furthermore, it is between highly unequal forces, leading to the notion of an eventual "victory". Near-equal forces, as existed in the "Cold War", are much keener to avoid conflict. GPLing the armed services, therefore, could be one step towards reducing the need for military interventions.
Then there's the "viral" nature of the GPL. Again, this assumes that the GPL is honored in spirit and in letter. The technology will be sold to close allies, who can then alter the sourcecode for their own needs - within that particular system and for other devices. Those other devices will therefore carry GPLed code. Eventually, through enough such steps, the code will reach dual-purpose technology. Probably pretty quickly, too. When that happens, all of the improvements will flood back into the civilian world.
Finally, I believe that there are members of the armed services who value the Open Source community and want to sustain it. The military, more than anyone else, know how to make software secure. In this day and age, with viruses, trojans and worms running rampant, I certainly think that the military could play a major role in reducing or eliminating malware. They know more about trust systems, authentication of information, controlling access without debilitating operations, fault tolerence in hostile environments, high volume information processing without inflicting DDoS attacks on themselves, etc, than anyone else. That knowledge, donated back into the F/OSS community, could revolutionise computing as we know it. I don't think it can hurt to give them the opportunity.
Yes, Einstein regretted the bomb. Arguably, nuclear weapons technology was a bit of a mistake - it wasn't needed to get Japan to surrender and has opened up more cans of worms across the world than I care to imagine. Arguably, though, it was inevitable. There have been natural runaway reactions, so someone would have discovered how to cause one eventually through simple geology. Either that, or through a nuclear reactor accident.
(Knowing more about the nature of critical mass reactions may actually have prevented far worse accidents than have been caused through malice. We'll never know the answer to that one, but it seems a possibility.)
Uncontrolled nuclear explosions, through proposed derivatives of the Orion Project, may yet have a valuable function in space exploration, too, in a way that might not be practical by other means. When people say that something can cut both ways, they usually mean that there's a negative side to something appearing positive. What they forget is that the statement doesn't stop there. It also means that - if you choose to seek it out - there can be a positive side to something that appears negative.
I'm not sa
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
LOL. The GPLv3 does not seem to explicitly cover this case either. My take would be that distribution needs to be intentional for the rules governing full source code disclosure to apply. Otherwise, a thief entering the premises of a bank's EDP department and leaving with tapes containing program binaries would be entitled to copies of the source code if the programs were based on GPL code.
"I wonder how Linux idealists feel about their cute little OS being deployed in machinery of war?"
The same I feel about Linux servers being used for spam: I'd like to slowly disembowl the spammers, but what does the OS (by definition a general-purpose tool) have to do with that?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Maybe some of our Linux idealist understand some things are worse than war. Just ask some of the poor folks in N. Korea, or some of the folks that survived and are witnesses of the holocost. Linux in defense of human dignity and fredom is beautiful thing.