Slashdot Mirror


Work Progressing on Army's Future Combat Systems

El_Oscuro brings us a Washington Post update on the progress of Future Combat Systems, the U.S. Army's Linux-based operating environment that has been under development for several years. The project, which currently surpasses 63 million lines of code, has received criticism for having a scope greater than that which the Army can manage. Since the program's inception, integration of commercial applications has increased the amount of code, but has also saved the developers time and money. "Boeing and the Army said they chose not to use Microsoft's proprietary software because they didn't want to be beholden to the company. Instead, they chose to develop a Linux-based operating system based on publicly available code. Boeing's Schoen said that it is designing software so that if soldiers lose their connection, the software will automatically "heal itself," retrieving the information within seconds without rebooting."

20 of 217 comments (clear)

  1. And Appropriately by AndGodSed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes. It does run Linux.

    1. Re:And Appropriately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You guys would be appalled at the bad software that's in this thing. From a bizarrely dysfunctional display system to a completely unstable and ever changing target OS. Yes, it runs linux but Boeing has decided that linux isn't good enough and is rolling out their own operating environment that we're all forced to use.

      Blecch. Blecch. Blechh.

      Oh, and the whole thing hinges on futuristic radios that don't work.

      Yeah, I think I've been working FCS for too long. Sigh...

    2. Re:And Appropriately by dave1791 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The job of the army is not to "prevent" future combat, but to prepare for it and execute if if needed. The diplomatic job of preventing it falls to... well, diplomats and politicians.

      And I hate to say it, but we do live in a Bismarkian world where military strength, like economic clout, is an asset on the scorecard of diplomatic maneuver. If you are poor and weak, nobody will listen to you. If you are rich and weak or poor and strong, people might listen. If you are rich and strong, your diplomats carry the most clout.

    3. Re:And Appropriately by casi0qv · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not worried about our diplomats carrying insufficient clout. I am worried about the victims of our numerous pointless wars in the past and present. I do not see the world as a giant game of monopoly where we are endlessly seeking to increase our power and wealth. The world is full of people who all share a common desire to live a happy and fulfilling life, yet millions die for the pointless greedy ambitions of a few powerful men. As people gifted with technical skills we cannot let ourselves be blinded to what is going on in the world, for an opportunity to play with expensive toys and use our skills to develop weapons that kill innocent people. We cannot afford to have a frail grasp on how our actions fit into the bigger picture when a few lines of code can be part of a machine used to murder for political ambition.

    4. Re:And Appropriately by vbraga · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When the only thing you have is an army, all problems looks like wars.

      Call me utopian, but if you - and the biggest player of our democracy game - keeps acting in a Machiavellian (or Bismarkian, as you say) our future has no space for peace. If you don't keep your ideals in sight, the only thing you're left is the (international) politics game.

      Yes, I understand your pragmatism and having people like you is an asset at any negotiation. But, please, just remember that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is an unalienable rights of man, as your Declaration of Independence states, not a right of the americans, but of man. So, let the other countries do it too.

      The only winning move is not to play. Not to play the Bismarkian game.

      --
      English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
    5. Re:And Appropriately by cshotton · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Be VERY afraid. FCS/SoSCOE (System of Systems Common Operating Environment) is your worst, worst nightmare. It all squats upon an antiquated CORBA infrastructure and is the most bloated, incredibly poorly engineered PoS that has ever been birthed by an aerospace contractor. And I should know. As chief architect for the Common Operating System component of DARPA's J-UCAS program, we fought Boeing long and hard over their insistence that this architecture form the basis of the J-UCAS software infrastructure. While the idea stems from the long-running quest within the DoD to develop a true cross-service network-centric software architecture, it was built by people who completely ignored the last 15 years of lessons learned about large scale distributed systems from the Internet. It has multiple single points of failure baked into the architecture, requires outrageous amounts of RAM and CPU power to run (making it incredibly unsuitable for embedded systems use), and is licensed in such a way as to make it virtually impossible to obtain and modify without Boeing's involvement.

      Furthermore, Boeing has expressed in public on several occasions that they intend for SoSCOE to make them the "Microsoft" of military systems. They are purposefully engineering a system designed to cement their position as a sole provider of OS components for network centric platforms. Nice bastardization of the open source components they are using to say the least.

      Having tried repeatedly to get 2 SoSCOE nodes to communicate, we subsequently replicated 100% of the functionality that J-UCAS required using less than 150,000 lines of code and $2M of budget. Makes you wonder how long we need to support the programmer welfare for Boeing's "software engineers" and their 60 million line monstrosity if it can all be done with 400 times less code than that?

      --

      Shut up and eat your vegetables!!!
  2. BSOD tradeoff. by bobdotorg · · Score: 5, Funny

    So by avoiding Windows, no BSOD on the battlefield. But instead we risk a Colonel Panic? (sorry)

    --
    __ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
  3. Re:Game by drDugan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As I recall, the computer very much wanted to play chess, not war. In a beautiful commentary on human stupidity and aggression it was the person who forced the computer to play war. It was the point of the movie.

  4. Born to Kill by clarkn0va · · Score: 5, Funny
    So are we going to see an official logo featuring Tux with "Born to Kill" scratched on his helmet?

    db

    --
    I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
  5. Re:Oh please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    To top it off, this news comes from a group who actually DID start a land war in Asia.

  6. OR by AndGodSed · · Score: 5, Funny

    General: "Where are my tanks!?"
    Tech Officer: "Coming sir, we're having some dependency problems..."

    1. Re:OR by XnPlater · · Score: 5, Funny

      Tech Officer: "Anyway, now that we're compiling them with -O3, the enemy won't stand a chance, sir!"

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
  7. Re:Uptime? by ianezz · · Score: 4, Informative
    I'm just curious how you ran uptime with no users logged in?

    Just ssh user@host uptime.

    SSH does not perform a real "login" (in the sense of allocating a pty and writing in utmp) when specifying a remote command to execute. Thus, havin zero users loggged in is normal in that case. Try it yourself.

  8. Blame game by Wowsers · · Score: 5, Funny

    If anything goes wrong with the project, they could always say it's General Protection's Fault.

    --
    Take Nobody's Word For It.
  9. hey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    torrent plz

  10. Insightful? by HBI · · Score: 4, Informative

    OK.

    The software in question will never see the public Internet because it's all classified Secret and above. Well, the data and operating environment are. The kernel itself will be unclass but FOUO, most likely, so that could conceivably be contributed back out if something interesting were in it. My guess is that there won't be. Military systems, even the classified variety, tend to be very vanilla by commercial standards and rarely have interesting features. It is how they are deployed that makes them redundant or otherwise suitable for their task.

    So expecting contributions back will be kind of ...limited. I'm sure *some* things will find its way back out, but in practice, if a hack needs to be made on the code to make things work in an actual theater of operations, I wouldn't count on it appearing outside in the real world anytime soon.

    This isn't the first military program to use Linux as a basis, btw. Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade and Below (FBCB2) uses a RTOS optimized kernel for its work, having converted from Solaris.

    That said, DA has a huge Microsoft ELA contract which everyone is pushed towards. So I don't expect a lot of OSS innovation from the Army.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:Insightful? by AciDLnx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >> The software in question will never see the public Internet because it's all classified Secret and above.

      This is incorrect. I've worked on FCS / SOSCOE. Specifically, integrating the current FBCB2 systems into FCS. Nothing was classified Secret. It was all just FOUO.

  11. Re:Licensed to kill by Gilesx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So what are you saying here? That violence was "pointless" and "ineffective" when dealing with Hitler?

    --
    Sunday you're Thinking Different, Monday you're a huge tool, paying too much and waiting to think like everyone else.
  12. Re:Licensed to kill by donscarletti · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'd love to see a software license that says something to the effect of "This software will not be used to wage war or to kill any humans".

    Why?

    Take WWII as an example, you've got a whole bunch of Japanese moving east killing 3M Chinese soldiers defending their homeland, murdering 17M unarmed Chinese civilians mainly with swords and small arms. Germans get in on the action, invading Czechoslovakia and Poland. They get bored and ramp up action invading Scandinavia, France and the Soviet Union killing 23M soviets (half civilian) while they were at it. Jews of course were shot on site or sent to an automated death factory, 3M all up. The Germans start bombing the crap out of the UK and the Japanese exploit the distraction and invade Singapore, capturing the defenders then starve or torture them to death in prison camps. This was the bad kind of killing, because they were killing because they desired more power.

    But we all know this story and what happened next. The British Commonwealth, U.S. and Soviet Union killed a truly amazing amount of people and fixed the problem. It is completely thanks to violence that German and Japanese people are now nice rather than nasty. The US military helped get the Japanese out of China / South East Asia and the Germans out of the bulk of Europe and thus prevented them from killing any more people while they were there. This was the good kind of killing because they only started killing when they had killers to kill and they always aimed to make peace when the killers were killed. I bet you can't think of any non-violent organisation that cut short such an evil set of events.

    This is why violence is only bad if you're violent to the wrong people and why I wholly endorse any of my works to be used for violence against the right people. It's not as if the Third Reich or Japanese empire would have cared about your stipulations. If someone did honour it, they must be the sort of people who care about individual freedoms and intellectual property and thus those who you'd probably want to win the conflict anyway.

    Of course the problem is that the military forces of the US and my native Australia spends most of its time invading irrelevant countries to look like it is dealing with terrorists, but that does not mean that its role in the world is wholly a negative one, they beat up a lot of bad people too, like the Taliban who had it coming to them long before they helped hide Osama bin Laden. Our Aussie guys went over and kept away a bunch of armed militia that was trying to stop East Timor from regaining its independence, NATO did some bombing to stop the Serbs from killing the Muslims in Kosovo. When the military isn't killing people you get things like the Rwandan genocide in the mid 90s when nobody got around to killing the aggressors so they were able to kill whomever the hell they wanted.

    Thus, killing in general is a completely morally neutral action.

    --
    When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
  13. FCS Should be Cancelled by tjstork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The thing about FCS is that, when early versions of it have been tried in our present war, soldiers have found that the extra computerization is often not worth the weight of the computer. It seems to me that if the Army is going to be spending billions of dollars developing anything, they ought to be looking for a way to detect hidden explosives. FCS doesn't do a damn thing to aid against insurgencies whose primary weapon is the booby trap.

    --
    This is my sig.