Slashdot Mirror
Linux in the Military
Tefkay writes "An Upside feature on how linux can be/is being used in the military." As you'd expect, it's much the same situation as the rest of the world-champions within the organization, tyring to get people to understand how useful it would be. The author does make some interesting points about how/why Open Source developers do what they do, however.
If you didn't want your code used freely, then why did you release it under a free license in the first place?
Oh well. If they get driven away from the GPL, maybe we'll get a railgun that runs FreeBSD. One can only hope.
I'm not by any means a security expert, so I hope someone else can help flesh this one out or point out mistakes if I'm screwing up. That said:
Operating systems aren't certified C2, systems are. That means a particular operating system installed in a particular manner with particular software on a particular piece of hardware. When Microsoft says, "Oh boy, NT is now C2 certified", they're yanking your chain: it's C2 when installed in a specific way.
I'm not familiar with the certification process any more than that, though. Anyone else?
Shoeboy - aspiring Onion jounalist? ;)
SirSlud
"Old man yells at systemd"
> Military is evil, making it work better is bad.
ROFL - are you that simpleminded?
Im sure the victims of the Holocaust would beg to differ with that - the US Army was a savior for them. The victims of the Saddam would disagree with that as well - or do you think they'd hate a military to intervene on their behalf when Saddams internal police force was using mustard gas on women and children?
Hmm - lets make the US Military terrible - and see how long it is until China kills tens thousands in their invasion of Taiwan - and then look at the repression that follows.
Please open your mind as well as your source.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
I know, right? Too bad I had to teach myself to do the Linux admin stuff...
Going through technical school in the Air Force for my career field (programmer), a friend of mine had a nifty saying:
"We are either underpaid programmers or overpaid gardeners".
-- My neighbors dog has a four inch clit.
Ever heard of Samba?
Linux can be integrated easily into NT domains. It can be configured to be more compatible with the windows network, or the windows boxes can be made compatible with the Linux box (installing an NFS client on the 95 boxes, for example).
You can set up Linux as the proxy server for the LAN/WAN or as a profiler, or as your web server...
You don't need to set up the clients with Linux, generally most users aren't very computer knowledgable, and Windoze is right for them. Linux should be used on the servers and in mission critical applications.
You could easily make Linux work in *your* unit. Mines not so much different than yours, yet we have a plethora of *NIX boxes scattered accross our network, and guess what? They are the ones that rarely ever go down....
-- My neighbors dog has a four inch clit.
Was browsing mail headers one day trying to figure out the delay in mail from home to work, and noticed the fleet navy boxes were running smap. Turns out they are running the fleet email at least in the pacific through some linux machines. I also know there are quite a few commands running it for mail servers and samba. The problem will be support, most enlisted IT people in the navy are complete idiots, and are usually thrown into the job. Funny thing is most the problem installations have those guys running them, while the commands that have their s__t together usually have a linux box or 2 on the premise, and someone who's putting resumes out because their enlistment is up. :) I think the Navy should just do their own distribution for the servers and be done with it. Enough upgrading because microsoft changed a file format in office and you can't read someone elses office document. (The MSWord 6.0 -> Office 97) cost tax payers dearly.
The biggest thing that cracks me up is they want open standards http://www.doncio.navy.mil/itsgpublic/ and then recommend Windows as the standard issue desktop/workstation. Some interesting reading, which they'll toss in the trash and go under political pressure to use MS products.
Some people (typically Americans), accept that the military is a necessary evil to protect democracy, but it is an evil nonetheless. What if Linux had been used to target Hiroshima and Nagasaki or napalm Vietnamese children? If I contributed to the Linux code base I'd find that prospect rather disgusting.
I work for a defense contractor ... a bit unfortunate ... and we have had "interesting" stories dealing with the GPL. BTW, I am running RH5.2 on a PII for awhile now upgraded from an SGI O2,b/c it was too slow.
My arguments here are based on my ideals. I would sincerely hope that the abolition of military and violence would fall under everybody's ideals; however, because we live in a society which is not ideal, it appears we need to violate our own ideals.
I just think it needs to be noted that violating ideals comes close to violating ethics. And it should only be done with utmost care.
Although I "ideally" wouldn't want it, thank you for your sacrifice.
I can't waste my time on this. If you're serious about actually trying to convince me instead of rambling on with your mindless rhetoric, mail me. You've got the address.
However, your logic is poor because you read: X results in Y, and X also results in Z. You assumed it meant (nothing else) results in Y, or (nothing else) results in Z. I didn't say or imply this, and you're argument against me is founded upon it.
I really suggest e-mailing me.
The military rarely "adopts" software in a wholesale manner. Basically, IT/IS people in the military are not unlike their counterparts in the civilian world. They buy what they need/like.
Inexpensive items like a Linux distro can be bought with an IMPAC card (basically a credit card) with no contract or justification required. For big ticket items, you can either use a GSA contract (most all major vendors have GSA contracts) or tack your order on to one of the many other special purpose contracts floating around.
Linux is already in widespread use in the military. I personally set up my first Slackware Linux box (when I was in the military) in 1995. Since then I set up and administered several others with both Red Hat and SuSE. I knew lots of other people in the military running Linux too. In fact, I believe the military (Air Force anyway) is further ahead than the commercial world in adopting Linux.
They do use BSD in a *lot* of sections of the DoD. Ask anybody in geographic surveying..
Just ignorant of history.
Grap a history book and read on. There are bad people out there with bad intentions. Every generation has a few bad apples that wish to control large groups of people and will do _anything_ to maintain their control.
I believe recent developments (last 200 years) in democratic governments and open free societies provide for the first time a strong counter to totalitarian regimes and a antidote to the would be Hitlers, Stalins, and Caligula's.
Remember if you were a Jew in 1940 in eastern Europe you would believe that the armies of the allies was a very good thing or even Chinese being attacked by the Japanese.
Yes, I work for the industrial military complex and Linux is quite prevalent where I work.
They do use BSD. The trend today is "Commercial, Off-The-Shelf" which is usually used in the same breath as "Windows NT". Sometimes it's used in polite company as a way to refer to NT without causing ladies to puke.
Many installations use Solaris and some use BSD variants of one shade or another. The problem comes down to enlisted people learning how to do system administration. When an enlisted person became competent (and despite what you may think, many enlisted are seriously competent people [can you tell I'm an officer yet?]), they had no incentive to stay in the military.
The gov't gets really pissy about upholding the law and respecting copyrights and lefts. They won't "end run" it. If the gov't doesn't uphold and respect the law, who will?
-scooter
I'm not in the military, but I work with them fairly regularly. There's actually some pretty impressive programming going on in the military (they have lots of civilian on-site hackers). The sad thing is the tools they use: much is completely proprietary, and they use a fair amount of NT (with Visual Studio, etc.). The scariest example I've seen lately is an important database hosted on SQL Server, which is going to soon be several exabytes huge (yes, exabytes, not terabytes). I'm just glad they're keeping it fairly SQL-based (thus somewhat retargettable), because M$ products just don't scale that far, regardless of what they may say. Since Oracle and IBM are doing their databases for Linux now, at least there are better options.
Personally, I do my programming using IBM's VisualAge for Java (NT version (boo!) because the fancy version isn't available for Linux yet). But the code I turn out is portable to _anything_, especially Linux and freeware databases (mSQL, MySQL, etc.) and such (truly amazing for portability). Too bad more companies don't recognize the great flaw of the M$ (and many Borland/Inprise) tools, that even though the tool itself is good, you can't run it's target code on something better than the development platform. Code is only as good as its runtime machine.
Good comment.
Plus... you don't have to be American to contribute to Linux right? (I'm no linux coder)
Imagine the irony of getting killed with your own code. Or even your country getting bombed with code that you helped develop.
Maybe a pacifist version is in order? or something. Useful to think about anyway.
I am against violence, but I understand that a military might be necessary for defense. If free GPL software can reduce military spending and increase the reliability of military software, then I think GPL software should be free from for military use. Also consider that any improvements made by the many skilled military programmers will be returned back to the GPL community!
I am not sure if this what you are talking about but. kha0s linux They are working on a "secure" version of linux.
Worst Sig Ever
The GPL is not a magic pill that automatically makes all code it infects "special" or "better". It is a license, nothing more. Licenses have little (or nothing) to do with the quality of code.
The U.S. Military sees its role as protecting freedoms against those who would take it from you. This is indoctrinated into new recruits starting at boot camp, and is built into the military culture on purpose, due to the constant fear of military coup that terrorizes other nations. The hope is that if any general got the bright idea to break out the tanks and march on the White House, the troops would refuse because it's incompatible with their indoctrination.
The GPL is about protecting our software freedoms. As such, it naturally appeals to military recruits who see their own role as being the protection of freedoms.
Yes, U.S. military power has been misused from time to time over the past hundred years. But don't forget that every one of these times, it is because the military was ordered to do so by civilian leaders (which is another area of military indoctrination -- following the orders of the civilian leadership, even when said civilians are total morons).
I realize this is a shock to the youngsters who think that the military is all about being war-mongers. In reality, it is the civilian leaders, not the military, who are the war-mongers. I have never met a single military man who was hankering to go to war. As trained killers they know that war is not about guts and glory, but rather about death and destruction. The words and works of William Tecumseh Sherman are required reading in war colleges. If only our civilian leadership had similar understanding...
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
> line-by-line security audit
It's called OpenBSD.
They state that one of their goals is to pay attention to security problems and fix them before anyone else.
Re: [C|B|A][3|2|1] Security
The cost is non-trivial.
You also have to remember that these classifications include the hardware platform that they're tested on. The minute that the hardware platform is changed in any way, the system is no longer certified. You therefore have to sell a specific hardware platform with a specific software installation installed via a documented method for it to be "blessed".
-- Improve Windows - Buy a Mac!
It would help me take this seriously if you weren't hiding behind that "AC" label.
We need more people like you. Thanks.
Avionics software is very specialized and is generally written in ADA (although many older systems use Jovial). The requirements and design methodologies for avionics software are totally different from anything you will find in the commercial world. So you certainly won't find any flight control systems running on Linux for example. *nix is in use in many, many military systems though - at least in the Air Force (where I was). Pretty much all maintenance, logistics, and supply systems are implemented in *nix. Also mission planning, command and control, some communications. Almost all modeling, simulation, and analysis is done on *nix systems. Windows is becoming dominant on the desktop for MS Office and email, but nearly all of the "real" work is done using some form of *nix. Sun hardware is the most common in engineering modeling, analysis, and development. SGI is becoming dominant for simulation. Alphas running OpenVMS are mainly used to replace VAXes. SCO is very common in fielded systems because it offers some very desirable multi-level security features not found elsewhere (people generally hate it but there is no alternative). Linux is growing in use, it is currently used in many web & file servers and is starting to replace Solaris as people gradually port engineering software.
Perhaps it's time for a distribution to do a line-by-line security audit of a full Linux distribution for use in secure/mission critical situations. There are a lot of OS's which promise this, but I think very few of them actually deliver this for a low cost (ie: free).
What sort of cost is involved in getting something C2 secure certified? Imagine if Linux could be considered secure, even if connected to a network?
æeee!
I just got out of the Air Force, and I was also a Linux hacker. I found that the level of support for Linux varied a lot from office to office. There seems to be a difference between the offices that deploy computers just for typical office work (MS Office, databases, forms, email) and those that also use computing power for research, development, modeling, simulation, engineering, etc.
In offices that fit the former model, there is definately a push to eliminate *nix and VMS and go all NT. The point is to standardize on one OS so that admin & tech support staff can be minimized. There are few people available that are fully qualified to work with multiple operating systems, so you end up having duplicate staff performing the same functions for multiple OSs. The reason why NT wins is that 1) it runs MS Office, which is a definate requirement, and 2) it is easier to find staff with NT experience or training.
In offices that fit the latter model, you're usually free to use whatever OS you want. Everybody has an NT box for MS Office & email, but everybody does their real work on *nix machines like they did in the past. Usually, in these types of offices & labs where engineering work is done, there is no push to get rid of *nix and no objection to bringing Linux in. Multiple OSs are less of a burden on the MIS staff because the engineers themselves do a fair amount of admin tasks and need tech support less often. Also, there are usually a lot of legacy software & systems that would be difficult and expensive to port to or replace with NT.
Since the millitary uses "National Security" and "Classified" a hell-of-a-lot, won't they start trying to get around the GPL?
LOAD "SIG",8,1
LOADING...
READY.
RUN
Does anyone else get the sense of conflicting ideologies between the open-source/free software community and what the military is here for?
Militaries protect national interests. Free software has no concern for national interests, it's international, it's about the freedom of mankind, not the slaughter of innocents.
I may be sounding like a pinko here, and yes, more linux boxes out there == good thing, but, something doesn't feel right about the technology we've created to help further the rights of men might be used to take those rights away.
-Ben
bensmith@biz1.net
After reading your responses to the above posts, it is clear that you either have NO understanding of free software or you do understand it but simply don't believe in it. You are saying that you want your software to be used only for the purposes you want and only by the companies you want. That's not free software. So the question is, why are you writing free software in the first place?
I learned about Linux in grad school in '94, but my first install was in '95 using Slackware on a P100 in the Air Force. Since that time I have deployed 6 other Linux systems in the Air Force (Red Hat and SuSE) and have taught about a dozen people how to use and maintain them.
I first found Rob Malda's page while surfing from an Air Force computer running Solaris and bookmarked it. This was before he started Slashdot.
Some years since I read the book, but still troubled by that sort of thinking.
Was Oppie above humanity, like a god giving us fire. No he was part of humanity and he chose to create the technology of mass descruction.
>Armies kill people NOW by BLOWING THEM TO BITS.
I'm a smoker, and I know that every drag I take off a cigarette shortens my life ( I remember hearing a figure of 30 seconds per puff, but I'm not sure where).
Just as surely the men who invade other countries know that their actions can shorten their lives when someone retaliates.
>To make your cigarette company connection, you lessen the shame of killing people.
There is no shame in killing when it's necessary.
If some animal were raping your wife/mother/sister and you had a gun, would it be shameful to kill him?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Am I a crack-baby, or did the link to see the paper written up by the gentleman didn't work? In any case, if someone did get to see it, or it's just down for a short count, can ye let me know what it said? heh.
Robert Oppenheimer, great man that he was, had no qualms about creating the atomic bomb. He knew fully what it was and what it could do.
It was only after it was demonstrated in New Mexico and in Japan, the reality sunk in like the catharsis expereinced after a 10-hour Veda-reading marathon. To his credit he did oppose the hydrogen bomb; lesson learned.
What was my point? Uh...
A stable OS for the military is good thing, regardless of where one stands.
The party's over
I agree with you, the ethics of the technology should be involved. The disscussion of whether or not the military itself is ethical/justifiable/necessary should not be involved as that has nothing to do with the technology.
If its stupid but it works, its not stupid.
Yes, and I don't want my code to be used by religious organizations because most wars are caused by religions.
Others won't want their code to be used for doing genetic engineering, polluting the environment, experimenting with animals or who knows with what nonsense they will come up.
We will then have dozens of different licences and the community will fragment and die.
Armies kill people NOW by BLOWING THEM TO BITS.
To make your cigarette company connection, you
lessen the shame of killing people.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
see the Linux Weekly News' Security page for information on Linux security projects which are already under way:
Secure Linux Projects Bastille Linux
Khaos Linux Secure Linux
Security List Archives
Bugtraq Archive
Firewall Wizards Archive
ISN Archive
Distribution-specific links
Caldera Advisories
Debian Alerts
Red Hat Errata
SuSE Announcements
Miscellaneous Resources
CERT
CIAC
Comp Sec News Daily
Crypto-GRAM
Linux Security Audit Project
OpenSEC
Security Focus
SecurityPortal
Definitely written in the same style.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
I would strongly suspect that there are military organizations already taking heavy advantage of Linux. For instance, Iraq is embargoed, and any shipment of supercomputers to Iraq would be closely monitored. So it's likely they are instead using something like a Linux clustered architecture for their advanced weapons development. The machines are shipped into the country as innocent Windows 95 boxes for the hospital, then reconfigured, etc.
Beowulf is "supercomputers for the masses" after all.
Maybe MS can start bundling GPL programs with windows. If they bundle but do not modify, then MS's own code can stay proprietary and they can profit from all those stupid fools working for free. I guess this is OK with you too, huh pal?
just remember what they thought they would be using the bomb for -- against Nazi Germany, this century's personification of evil. Moreover, a big chunk of the guys in the Manhattan project had just recently come from Europe (being Jewish and all, they were driven out before the pogrom started), and knew intimately what was going on overseas. So yes, Oppie and crew chose to create a mass destruction device, and were ready to use it, to stop something actually happening, right then and there. That were will be implications for the future is obvious, and was obvious to them, but hey, do what you gotta do. Life's full of hard choices. Saving millions of people seemed like a good choice in 1943. PS: a new weapon sounded like a great idea to allies in WWII -- the Germans were the greatest tactical fighters in the war, by a wide margin. With the exception of Denmark and Norway, not once did they outnumber their opponents. (Poland had a larger army than them, but it was very poorly mechanized -- poland also f'cked up _so_ bad, too. They even tried invading east prussia.) Their weaponry was usually worse than the allies, too. So basically, you've got these fantasically skilled people who are chewing 10-20 times the number of troops sent at them, have expanded to 20-30 times their original size, and are doing it all with outdated weaponry. Sounds like a great time to develop a weapon of mass destruction.
The other reply covers the importance of a military, so I feel I should point out something about the 2 a-bombs: they saved japanese lives. Yes, Japanese. By 1945, Japan had damn near no industry, no shipping fleet, many cities had been burned to the ground, and food production was heading towards zero at a terrifying rate. That's problem 1: famine and disease. Problem 2: fanaticism. Look up the final defense of Berlin in 1945. I'm amazed that a single german came out of that alive. Most of the rest of Germany wasn't fanatical enough to fight that hard, and got to surrender relatively peacefully. The same claim might not apply to Japan. So basically, without the atom bombs, Japan would have been completely fucked. _Total_ Devastation. Make the call. Personally, I think those 2 bombs were amongst the most painless weapons used in history.
Yes, I have, actually. My *personal* machine is a 98/NT/Linux tripleboot, running on a ip masq'd intranet. :)
...
..
.milFox
The problem is, again
A) Linux has no place as a client. *G*
B) USARC is a NT administered system. I'm not high enough on the totem pole to change things, neh? After all, I'm only some weefle brigade compy tech. *G* The only possible use, really, is to replace our SMP local fileserv, but again, I'm not the only person admistering things,
That's enough of that.
the
What are you talking about??? The military is evil???? I guess that you don't realise that we need the military to at least support your freedom of speech? I don't understand people like you, other then that you might have not served a day in your life.
You can be replaced by a very small shell script.
Reboot camp. How fitting. I've been to reboot camp and I can tell you it will make you a hardened killer. I've seen NT on manufacturing line powering 400 horsepower motors and talk about property damage when the OS or Visual Basic goes out of control and starts hammering parts and it starts to fly. Its a technician's worst nightmare. And the only thing you can do is to reboot. You can't fix closed source, just hit the reset button and fix the real world damage that it caused. I'm not mad. Just pissed off!
This is rediculous. prohibiting the military access to linux because, it MAY run a system that MIGHT fire something at someone else that could kill them. Of course it will, its a fantastic OS, and will probably take hold in any number of military uses. Does this make Linux evil? Does it make the military evil? What about the company that makes the standard issue socks for the military? Are they evil? I mean, they made the socks that enabled a soldier to run through cold or damp weather to go complete his objective. Or, how about the companies that supply the military with food? Are they evil? Dirty greedy whores that feed our baby killing war hounds? Look at it, without a ready supply of food..there wouldnt be anyone to even turn on those shiney new linux boxes to fire killing salvos of rockets at a school.
The fact is, you can make anything be as evil...or as good as you like. For instance, wont those Linux boxes be used to run medical equipment? Coordinate disaster relief plans? Maybe they're being used to run systems that locate terrorist's bombs, or drugs, or any number of nasty nasty things that could ruin someone's day.
The tool is only as evil or good as the person using it. If it were you or someone you love that could benefit from some of these other uses the military might have for linux, wouldnt that be something to be proud of? If the code you wrote, helped to save just ONE life...wouldnt that be worth it for you? You cant stop bad things from happening, you could get beaten to death with a teddy bear tomarrow...not very likely, but it could happen, and Im sure the teddy bear was never intended to be a weapon. The likelihood of it happening is probably about the same as our military going out and roughly oppressing some poor helpless nation, you know...just because they can.
I think that if just one life was saved, then your efforts would be validated. Certainly, whoever it helped would think so.
"people who need shit, do shit"
I don't think anyone who would worry about Linux being used to kill people understands much about how the military works.
/world/enemies; rm -r *?
cd
I'm sure not a single fatality has every been directly related to a computer operating system, except perhaps someone snapping at the sight of one "Blue Screen of Death" too many.
But as far as linking the use of Linux to the "deaths of innocents", this conjures up images of Rambo slinging a Micron over his shoulder and screaming Eat My GPL!!
A more realistic picture is a pilot receives a weather report before take-off. That weather report was sent to his Air Base via a classified network. The source of the report (somewhere in the U.S.) generated the report using data readily available from the Weather Channel and software that is mostly COTS. This software, I can assure you, is, and always will be, run on a commercial OS, if only because of Support - I'll get back to this. The machine that is used for the weather report development is part of a subnet, pushing data back and forth. Perhaps one of the machines is using Linux as its OS, to push some files from here to there. The people administering such a machine would surely be Airman - techies - computer people who most likely have fired an M-16 once in their lives, and who will go the next 50 years without killing anyone.
Now just because the pilot decides to fly between some cables at a ski resort for fun, can you possibly say that Linux was used to kill?
As for the military following the GPL movement, it'll never happen large scale. Upper echelon military people THRIVE on blame. If something goes wrong, there HAS to be someone to point the finger at. With Linux, there is no 24-hour hotline to call. There is no vendor to boycott. There is simply no accountability, and that's what the military is all about.
But remember: Code doesn't kill people. People kill people.
What if I gave you three dollars? How much? Thr-- four dollars? Keep talking, I'm listening.
...that great story a year ago of a new Navy
battleship that had all its firing and navigation
systems ported over to run on NT. They went to
test the ship in a war game and NT crashed,
leaving the ship dead in the water for 20 hours.
It had to be towed back to base.
Yeah, that's the technology I want defending
my nation.
--- witty signature
Many many years ago I was a tanker in the US Army, and learned that in trials, the German-made Leopard tank had beaten the Detroit-made M1 tank in *every* category, in *every* type of scenario. But the Army had to buy the M1, under political pressure. :(
I'm quite sure the same dynamics come into play with software. Oh well
I tend to find GPLed code to be of higher quality and more stable than it's non-GPLed counterparts. Possibly not faster but all the speed in the world won't help you if your OS crashes when you enter a zero in the wrong place. You might not be willing to trust your life to Linux, but I have major concerns with trusting mine to NT.
True, GPL is not a magic pill, as Netscape is finding out, but it does tend to lead to better code if enough people take an interest.
I am not asking that the military or other gun enthusiasts be forbidden under GPL terms. I am stating that these bodies should not exist, which I think is the seed of a larger debate.
My point was, and still is this: If the GPL is an ethical choice for one who is a gun advocate, I will question his/her ethics. If there are no ethics involved in making the choice, then I have no qualms about combining the two.
I have qualms that this one made a choice without thinking about ethics.
"Last time I checked, at least in the Western Nations, the military was there to protect us from people who decide that they have a better right to our land, property, and people than the citizens of those nations do."
Exactly! We've been having so many problems lately with those damn serbs trying to snatch rhode island.
A military's purpose is twofold:
1) protect the nation, its land and its people, as you have described
2) project the power and political interests of that nation, which are mostly ideological or economical in nature (Cold War=ideological, Gulf War=economics)
Doug
Venn ist das nurnstuck git und Slotermeyer? Ya! Beigerhund das oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
One does not have to release the source to previously GPL'ed code that they have modified, but not distributed. This is why the NSA has their own Linux distro, they don't have it for download on ftp.nsa.gov so they don't have to give away the source for their super secret modifications.
Think about it, how would you enforce the stipulation "if at all you ever modify this you have to redistribute your modifications"
1) its infeasible to track down each change.
2) most of the new code would be useless to the project as a whole.
What on earth are you babbling about?
You would question the ethics of a gun enthusiast who used Linux?? Since when does your operating system have to make a political/ethical statement?
Would you question my ethics if I used a different brand of hammer than you do?! Can I question YOUR ethics if your shoes were made in a sweatshop in bangladesh?? I fail to make the connection between which brand of plastic I choose to purchase and which set of morals or ethics I follow. I'm a gun enthusiast, a Political Anarchist, a martial artist, and I love Linux. I don't see any contradictions there....
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
As a member of the linux community, who *codes* some of the systems that are used in the battlefield, I can also vouch that most of these boxes are running some flavor of unix -- primarily Slowlaris. Our systems made the jump from SCO to Solaris x86 a while ago, but have yet to go all out to Linux. We use GNU tools almost exclusively for development.
Several developers here use linux everyday, and in fact, I've compiled and run most of our deliverable code on my linux box. There's really no reason (technologically) why the Gov't can't use it. They've bought the MS line, and have been actively trying to get us to port to NT for some time. It stinks, but that's life.
[Long rant deleted]
You sound like you're trying to rationalize to yourself, and really hard too. Computers can be used to kill people. If you contribute to such a system, then you are partly responsible for their deaths. If Saddam Hussein ASKED you for permission to use some GPL module you wrote to fly new hi-tech cruise-SCUDS to Tel-Aviv. What would you say? Now imagine him saying, well it's GPL, so I'm gonna use it anyway. Thanks buddy, you've been a great help!
actually ADA would probably be used for aiming the missile. ADA is the only thing the military trust for coding in real time systems.
(from the GPL)
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
---
You can't modify the GPL to restrict the right of the military to use your code if it is based on a GPL program. I suppose you could write a version of a GPL with that provision, and then rewrite the entire operating system + applications yourself. Good luck!
Well, substitute 'open source'. Then, at least, if the military runs into trouble with their software, they can attempt to fix it without going through a vendor. Given that they probably stress their systems in unusual configurations, and that the consequences of any equipment failure of theirs can be *very* serious, that's a good thing.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
It looks to me like your argument is trying to say something to the equivalent of "non GPL users are killers."
"these are the set of ethics which made me choose the GPL, these are the set of ethics which made me choose not to be a killer."How I can read that is this way: Your same ethics that made you choose the GPL are the same ones that give you your sense of right and wrong, and therefore you are not a killer.
Consequently, you are saying that anyone who say... chooses a restrictive, non-open source license is a killer.
But, of course you don't think that. But be careful what you say, because it's very easy for people to misunderstand what you say. Moving on...
"If the GPL is an ethical choice for one who is a gun advocate, I will question his/her ethics."Well, the GPL is about FREEDOM! It's all about FREEDOM. Including the freedom to own a gun for protection and sporting. The GPL is about "Free Speech", not free beer. Well, guess which amendment to the Constitution follows the "Free Speech" one? The one that says "Right to bear arms."
So, you don't understand the ethics of a gun owner choosing GPL. Well, I don't understand how a gun owner could NOT choose the GPL.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Yes, I know, I'm being silly again. . .
What's wrong with Microsoft bundling "Liberating" software with Windows or whatever? As long as they accept and respect the terms of the license, anyone can distribute such software. It would probably be good for the community if Microsoft did such a thing; of course, they probably would not like to include software that potentially comptese with their own products.
I'd only be pissed if they started bundling old, buggy version of free software just to show people how "unreliable" it is...
I am in the military. Hate me for it if you want. I am proud to be in. I like what I do. I am not a killer, rather, I am a computer specialist, and a linux advocate. I come to work every day, and I like to think that what I do gives people like you (and everyone else at /.) the right, the FREEDOM to say what you want, even if you say that you disagree with what I do. That's cool...it gives our society the balance that it needs. Rock on and keep writing.
Our military is used to subvert democracy abroad and encourage tyranny. Stopping the USSR or fighting a war on drugs is a cover story. Look at Latin America... what we've really done there is insured a cheap source of materials and labor, and a market for US goods. To do it, we've had to put a bunch of cronies in power who would serve international investors. That means diverting resources away from domestic consumption. That means smashing the poor, if necessary.
I vote NO for letting the military use Linux. They're just the arm of Corporate America.
I am in the military. Hate me for it if you want. I am proud to be in. I like what I do. I am not a killer, rather, I am a computer specialist, and a linux advocate. I come to work every day, and I like to think that what I do gives people like you (and everyone else at /.) the right, the FREEDOM to say what you want, even if you say that you disagree with what I do. That's cool...it gives our society the balance that it needs. Rock on and keep writing.
I have never met a single military man who was hankering to go to war. As trained killers they know that war is not about guts and glory, but rather about death and destruction.
My clearest memory of army training would have to come from when I'd finished basic and I was down at Fort Gordon for signal school. I was nearly booted out for refusing to sound off to this cadence:
You go to the local playground
Where all the kiddies play
You pull out your Uzi
And you begin to spray
or another verse:
You go to your local church
Where people go to pray
You pull out a claymore
And blow them all away
I was told by the drill sergeant that the cadence didn't make it clear that we were dealing with communist or nazi babies... not 'normal' ones. I was impressed by his improvisational skill, offended at his assessment of my intelligence.
I was invited to talk to the chaplain, who invited me to declare myself a conscientious objector. I conscientiously objected that he was offering an inappropriate option, since I had a pretty clear distinction in my mind between 'kiddies' at 'my local playground' and someone trying to do me or my team mates harm in a combat zone.
The company commander repeated the invitation, and I ended up consulting with a civilian minister. I ended up not taking the opportunity to be declared a CO because it would have been a lie, and it would have demeaned the memory of people who have suffered to secure the right to claim that status.
Instead, I spent the rest of training with the drill sergeants saying I didn't belong in the army because I was weak-minded, and that it upset them to have to allow me to eat their food.
I ended up in Korea a few months later with a couple of classmates, who thoughtfully told a senior enlisted soldier in our section that I was a 'pacifist.' He was kind enough to inform me that he'd shoot me in combat if I was too weak to follow orders.
Amazing, to me. I won the platoon marksmanship award in basic training, went to airborne school, and then weaseled personnel people to keep my orders to go to Korea, which was considered the most likely flashpoint in the world at the time, but none of that was enough in the face of the thought that I might not be willing to shoot or maim American civilians.
Others' experiences in/with the military will vary, and I accept them as valid, too. On the other hand, trying to claim that the military exists in some sort of indoctrinated moral perfection while civilians go around screwing things up is naive, to say the least.
----------
mphall@cstone.nospam.net
----------
mphall@cstone.nospam.net
"A horse laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms"
I first LEARNED about Linux, AND Slashdot, working for the Air Force on the 4th floor of "C" Ring in the Pentagon. And that was well over a year ago: closer to two years ago. . . .
Slashdot is begginning to get funny again... Since the last time MEEPT! appeared it's been _boring_.
I work in an area that does DoD work and we are picking up support for linux. In our environment we like that linux allows us to use hardware from Sun, X86, Apple, etc. and not work at porting software between the different OS.
Most of the customer types I talk with don't care what the system is running, they just want to log into the operator workstation and have the software load and run 100% of the time. Most of the time a menu bar with a button for the different applicaitons is all they need to be happy.
There are a couple of things WRT to
Linux, and C2 on a network. First of
all, Orange Book (err, TCSEC) addresses
only single system security, and does
not deal with networks.
Secondly, Orange Book doesn't look at
the availability of a system (wonder
whether NT would be C2 if it did?) or
authenticity (ensuring that information
really did come from the proper user)
C2 certification is mostly (IMO) of
little value except to those vendors
who go through the process and get
their little gold star.
Remember that C2 certifies complete
systems (hw and sw), not just sw.
So saying "NT is C2" is bogus - it's
considered C2 only if it's running in
the exact hw/sw config that achieved
certification.
Maybe you should stop paying taxes altogether, since they support the military, state and local police, etc. all of which kill people (whether for right or wrong). Also, that car you drive, which puts out hydrocarbons and releases potential carcinogens which could kill someone; maybe you should sell it. And the electricity you use, to power your computer, probably is produced by burning coal (at least somewhat), which was stripmined, or possibly deep-shaft mined, which is dangerous, and which has killed many workers over the years; better boycott that.
Free software is FREE software. You start making restrictions on how it can be used, and for what, you open a messy can of worms. That's fine if you really want to put restrictions on software you develop. But take comfort in the fact that, on the whole, your software will probably be used for "good" purposes when people are given the freedom to understand and modify it.
General Jack Ripper...
I take it you've been watching Dr. Strangelove?
#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}
F(#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}%cF(%s))
I like GPL because I get to see the code and learn from others. Not because it goes well with my {lack of} religion / political views / ethics.
I could care less who also is using GPL'ed programs its not my place as a user, or even as a developer to censor code that is GPL'ed. The fact remains that if you write something that you GPL'ed you are in fact saying "here everyone you can look at this I don't mind." If you wanted to only give it to hippies / soccer moms / students you need to pick a different license.
Well then, I guess you have to accept the consequences for your actions. This is real life, and not everyone is going to cater to your every whim. Sure, be mad about it, be incensed...but place the blame where it lays.
On another note, your comparison of our military to saddam hussein is analogous to comparing an apple to an orange. Or, perhaps Sir Winston Churchill to Hitler.
The only justification happening here is that of the people responsible for a free software movement. Whether this software is for the enlightenment of man or cultural advancement is of no import. What is important is that when you support a movement for free anything, you have to deal with the repurcussions. this isnt a perfect world, and creating boogeymen to wash away the nightmare that something you created to be free might just be used for something horrible wont change a thing. Is the military not comprised of men, like you or I? Or does it change them into something else, perhaps the boogeymen you've created to soothe your conscience? If there is a distinction for you, then the problem isnt with what your software is used for, but instead the hypocrisy that was coded along into it. If this issue nettles you so deeply now, where were these implications then? Noone had the foresight to see this? Instead of preparing for this eventuality, it was cast aside. Time was wasted, time that could have been spent preparing for this, safeguarding. Shakespeare said " I have wasted time, and now doth time waste me."
"people who need shit, do shit"
Why do you want to limit the options of the entire free software community?
If you don't want YOUR code to be used to kill people, or to count beans, or to molest baby ducks, you're free to write your own license that reads that way. Even if you're writing changes to GPLed code you can modularize your changes and release them under a GPL+your limits.
What you're talking about is changing the GPL to limit the use of ALL other programmers' GPLed code to conform to your political agenda.
I thought that was part of what we were fighting.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Let me see if I have this straight, I need to show that guns "do not imply oppression."
First off, your attempt to label a tool as oppressive appears somewhat strange given our context and the common use of oppressive in the English language. It would appear consistent if you believe that firearms have an inherent evil quality (inherent as in that they themselves wake up one day and think "time to go out and oppress me some peasants.")
Personally, if you believe things other than people and their associated institutions (govt and
corporations) can be oppressors, I don't really think your point of view will generate anything other than ridicule.
That being said, I would assert that almost _any_ weapon can be used as a tool to oppress another person. On the other hand, I would also assert that the very same weapon can be used against the oppressor by the oppressed. It seems to me that the only way you remain logically consistent is if you believe that fighting oppression == oppression.
I'm curious to see your refutation of the above.
I would have thought that military applications
were similar to commercial aviation systems, and
space missions, where fault tolerance techniques like triple modular redundancy, and defensive
programming are deployed to aid in controlling
a degraded vehicle or subsystem in the presence
of faults.
On the other hand, if you're just gonna get blown
up anyway, I suppose it doesn't matter what OS
you run. Or does it?
And how is my logic "poor?"
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
>I'd hate to know that code I submitted (now incorporated into the Linux kernel) was used to kill people.
How would you feel if you found out that the code that your submitted was used to save people's lives?
The military does kill people, but it's (usually) to prevent even larger numbers of people from dying if our enemy wins.
What do you think the Japanese would have done to Asia and the pacific islands if they hadn't been beaten back?
What do you think woud have happened in Nazi occupied europe if the Allies hadn't beaten them back? Weren't 12 million murders enough for you?
If some code that you submit improves memory management so that a howitzer can zero in on an enemy tank 0.423758 seconds faster, I'd say that you just did your part in saving lives.
>I think the GPL should be modified to disallow use of code in weapons.
Does this mean no GPLed code can be used for the atomic disruptor in Quake XXII?
>While this won't stop 3rd parties from using GPL code this way, it should head off any major gov't and private sector projects.
You're mistaken. According to the US Constitution they can take property if just compensation is awarded. Grandted GPL isn't a US only thing, but where does US weapons development occur? In the US! While on American soil the US constitution is supreme.
It would be legal for them to TAKE GPLed software and pay for it, but since the software in question is free, they amount of compensation necessary would be nill.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
How about used by people who stop killing, for example the military? The military in the past decade has been involved in more peacekeeping missions than conflicts/wars. As far as I know so far from my experience as a communications and information officer at a military installation, linux is not used in any current "weapon" system. Unix, however, is used in command and control computer & information systems, as well as on the SIPRNET.
I admit that my views are biased because I am part of one of the organizations in question, so take this for what it's worth. However, I don't see how modifying the GPL would hav any significant impact on the current computer operations that the US military (or any other military) takes part in -- because there are other OS's that the military can (and will) use to accomplish the mission.
Just my 2 cents.
The military allocates funds for computer specialists & even computer centralized services. The source code is open, no? So what's the problem?
Assign a colonel to general to run the linux O/S support infrastructure for the armed forces. Attach a couple of crack programmers for kernel support. Standardize on linux. Operate on approved previous version kernels, until they obtain a kernel that meets their requirements, or their submitted fixes allows them to standardize on the latest kernel.
If something breaks, they can go flame that department's ass. Hell, they could probably contract the support from IBM or HP in two years.
And face it, linux will only be adopted for the low security, general use stuff where they get a killer price break by using it. I'm sure the Navy is discovering that flaming the world's richest man's ass on the AEGIS stuff is not getting anywhere. But the USN still use it...
I'll simplify this for simpler minds: You need to show me one thing from this list:
Okay, how about almost all of them?
1) It is OK to make a decision (like what OS you use) not based on ethics. (This is a hard route to take... saying "it is OK" seems to say "it is ethical")
How about utility? I know there's a long list of things Win32 is still better than Linux for. (New computer users, for example.) I think it's perfectly acceptable to use an operating system that suits your purpose, no matter the vendor or the license. That's part of freedom. Freedom to choose. It would be unethical for you to try and restrict that freedom from others.2) Guns do not imply opression. (I cannot understand how this argument would work, but if you can make it, go for it!)
Of course they don't. A tyrant can only rule with the consent of the people, no? People are opressed because they choose to do nothing about the opression. You can cite incidents like those that happen in China every so often, but obviously those people aren't willing to die for their causes.
Further, remember that the American colonies were very opressed just before the revolution. It took guns to get us where we are now, the most powerful nation on the planet.
3) Linux/GPL does not imply freedom.
It does. So does the right to bear arms. Freedom to defend yourself. Freedom to practice sport shooting (which is an Olympic event, I might add.)
4) Every choice one makes is independant from one's other choices. (This seems to be the path you are taking. If you prove this, however, I think you de-centralize life from the individual, which seems to me a bad thing.)
That is the basis of freedom. You can do what you want, and I can do what I want. Of course, to maintain order, one must submit to the rule of law. You trade freedoms for rule of law. That is the price paid by you to live under the law.
5) There is no such thing as "ethics."
If you look at the world around you, it is pretty hard to prove the existence of ethics, isn't it? We have an American President who lies and commits adultery. We have tabloids. We have abortionists, murderers, and whatnot. But we all know that ethics really do exist. But not everyone's ethics are the same. Here's why:
Ethics and morals are based entirely on perception. Perception of right and wrong. The mice living in my house eating my dry foods think they are right to be doing so... it keeps them alive and gives them a home. I trap the mice to get rid of them. I, too, think I am right to get rid of the mice. My cat thinks they are dinner, and kills the mice... all the while thinking he is right. The guy who sold me the mouse traps thinks it's right to sell the tools to assist me in removing the mouse.
So, which of us is right? Me, my cat, the guy selling the traps, or the mice? Is it ethical for someone to sell me mouse traps knowing what I will be doing to the mice with them? Is it ethical for my cat to eat mice when I feed him cat food? Is it ethical for me to dispose of the mice? Is it ethical for the mice to eat my food?
So, an individual cannot hold other people to his/her own ethical standards like you are trying to do. Your perceptions of right and wrong, morality, and ethics are different from everyone else's.
Just remember, murderers think that they are right. Their perception is very different from yours and mine, but they think they are right.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
As a member of the military I happen to know that some of the systems that are used on the battlefield (and I mean that literally) run on unix. I think it would be easy for the military to use linux in place of those systems, however as far as what kind of modifications that would take and how the GPL would affect them I wouldn't know. I don't know for sure that the government is restricted by copyrights much less copyleft.
In response to the conflict of interest post: please do not bring your personal beliefs into a discussion of technology, I would like to debate your points but as this is not a thread about military ethics I won't.
If its stupid but it works, its not stupid.
..they said military inteligence was an oxy-moron. (sp?)
OK naive part of me says "Where does the USAF take rights away?" But I do see your argument.
At the same time though -
Any country can use Linux.
Any company can use Linux.
Any person can use Linux.
While you can say that linux is to forward the rights of users, how can you deny that right too anyone? This is comprable to denying Free Speech to a group like the KKK, or Nazis, or Communists, or Religious Right, or any group you don't agree with.
So you want only good people to use the Linux?
Define good.
-cpd
Does anyone else get the sense of conflicting ideologies between the open-source/free software community and what the military is here for?
No. Should we ?? Last time I checked, at least in the Western Nations, the military was there to protect us from people who decide that they have a better right to our land, property, and people than the citizens of those nations do.
Militaries protect national interests. Free software has no concern for national interests, it's international, it's about the freedom of mankind, not the slaughter of innocents.
Friend, Free software has NO interests whatsoever. It's about good, solid code, that can be modified easily, and is freely available. Anything more than that is spin. Linux, despite its' merits, will not bring world peace, end hunger and disease, or even cut back waxy yellow buildup. And if the taxpayers get better value for their hard-earned tax dollar by any part of the Government using Linux, that's great, and in fact adds even more evidence that Linux and Open Source is not a fad, but a solid way of assuring reliable systems.
I may be sounding like a pinko here, and yes, more linux boxes out there == good thing, but, something doesn't feel right about the technology we've created to help further the rights of men might be used to take those rights away.
Methinks you've got some issues here that have little, if anything, to do with Linux, and more to do with your politics and/or ideology. Code is a tool, which is by itself, neutral. Only people can put a tool to good use or to evil use. . .
I'm a programmer in the US Air Force, and am a Linux hacker. There are a few Linux boxes in use on base, including the one sitting right behind me, (my baby). Unfortunately, _they_ are trying to push NT down our throats. If you call up the sysadmins on base and ask them to reboot a *NIX server, the answer you'll hear is "I thought that box wasn't an running NT". The techie people who know what works and what doesn't unfortunately aren't the same people that make the decisions. In my neck of the woods, Commercial Off the Shelf software is being used more and more than stuff we develop.
In order to get the Linux box in my cubicle, I had to whine and whine for a month and write up all sorts of crap before it was approved. Since then, I've been coming up with all sorts of excuses to use it. They use Red Hat on a few servers, like the profiling box and others, but for some strange reason, they put NT on the proxy, which explains why the web is down half the time....
The funny thing is though, the military is supposed to buy from the lowest bidder and spend as little money as possible, and here we have a free OS that could be used and they go NT (WTF?!). Oh, they tend to think maintenence costs are higher for *NIX systems too (another WTF?!).
Oh yeah, and the opinions I've stated here aren't necessarily the views of the USAF (but they should be).
-- My neighbors dog has a four inch clit.
Any tool can be used as a weapon.
Linux is just a tool, yes it COULD be used to support armed forces taking over the world and removing all your rights.
Or they could take hammers and instead of building houses, beat us over the head, and take away all our rights.
I am not gonna take their OS or thier hammers away
I'd hate to know that code I submitted (now incorporated into the Linux kernel) was used to kill people. I think the GPL should be modified to disallow use of code in weapons. While this won't stop 3rd parties from using GPL code this way, it should head off any major gov't and private sector projects.
Ethics and Technology are intertwined issues. Think of encryption and privacy, think of nuclear weapons, think of biological weapons.
If you think that ethics and technology shoulden't be discussed, you're wrong. If we ignore ethical and moral issues in our pursuit of the betterment of technology, we will destroy ourselves.
Oppenheimer knew this...
-Ben
bensmith@biz1.net
Don't flame me.
-- My neighbors dog has a four inch clit.
"Why use Linux, or GPL s/w in general, to kill people?" or "Why does the government mostly use MS stuff ?" is looking at the situation too simplistically.
There are atleast two forces at work here:
a. The "IT-21" program emphasizes PCs, MS and the web browser. Many of our apps are being web-ified. The reasons are training and maintenance. They do not have to train people at work when they can learn the MS environment at home surfing. IT-21 also reduces the number of workstations on a worker's desk. Hence, fewer things to maintain.
b. The government does the public's bidding. We use these systems to provide disaster relief, provide early weather warning, perform humanitarian missions. Yes, we also kill people.
If u are interested in reducing government waste of ur money, please make the followng points with ur representatives:
a. Consolidation of many systems to one on a worker's desk is a good thing. It saves money. If we standardize applications to work over the web via a browser would further save money. This is because we can use any h/w running any OS on the worker's desk - as long as it can run a browser. So the emphasis should not be on winning the fight between Intel/MS and Intel/Linux. Why lock out Mac, Netwinder(Strong Arm?), even the upcoming Sega game machines?
b. It is a big deal when one company controls the apps used to conduct routine military business WORLDWIDE. Do we want to continue taking that risk? One good virus.....
c. Using Linux to atleast perform office automation tasks is cheaper and safer, i.e. one company does not control the destiny of the OS or the apps.
d. Many of the systems I work with use Solaris/Oracle servers. Converting to Linux would not be impossible.
Wouldn't we love to see things like Eschelon crashing daily?
Military is evil, making it work better is bad.
You give people Windows NT or 98, and yes, you will probably get a pretty rough, tough, mindless military force.
Why?
Other than it being crud, because it encourages people not to think, not to cooperate and not to see others as people. And when you stop thinking, stop cooperating and stop thinking of other people as people, what is to stop you from harming them?
Now, what happens if the military starts adopting Linux, with a multinational, cooperative, supportive attitude? Some of that attitude may rub off, for a start. A military comprised of people who think is a military where people will question orders they believe are wrong. A military that believes in cooperation, especially multinationally, is one where there is less incentive to label foreigners as sub-human. A military that sees other people as people will be less inclined to use lethal force, where at all possible.
I'm not saying the military would become pacifists by adopting the penguin, but rather their attitude would necessarily shift, albeit only very very slightly, away from needless destruction of life, and towards alternative ways to achieve their goals. However slight that shift, that has to be a good thing.
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)
someone watches too much tv. ^^
I am stating that my ethics lead me to choose the GPL. The same set of my ethics opposes the ownership and/or use of firearms.
I believe that all decisions in life should be based on a set of ethics; if you disagree with me here, I think we have a fundamental breach. To me, guns and opression go hand-in-hand. Linux is the farthest thing from opression.
I am not stating that gun owners who use Linux are unethical. I am (and have been, if you care to read what I've said) asking how they can go hand in hand under the same set of ethics.
I'll simplify this for simpler minds: You need to show me one thing from this list:
1) It is OK to make a decision (like what OS you use) not based on ethics. (This is a hard route to take... saying "it is OK" seems to say "it is ethical")
2) Guns do not imply opression. (I cannot understand how this argument would work, but if you can make it, go for it!)
3) Linux/GPL does not imply freedom.
4) Every choice one makes is independant from one's other choices. (This seems to be the path you are taking. If you prove this, however, I think you de-centralize life from the individual, which seems to me a bad thing.)
5) There is no such thing as "ethics."
There might be other options. In fact, I will probably get belligerant replys to this stating "You forgot to say 6) ESR likes guns," or "6) The Gnu should be hunted to extinction."
Again, I think this debate has gotten too off-topic and too extensive for the realm of /. I would love to continue it via e-mail.
a few military domains/other government domains have visited my site repeatedly including air force and nasa.
:).
guess they really are learning about this crazy scary thing they call linux
Sensei
Sensei
Linuxnewbie.org home of the NHF's
Avionics are a quite a ways off from what Linux or any other desktop OS can provide because they are so specialized. I'm sure most military systems have multiple redundancy flight systems.
Where Linux or any other OS comes into play is battle planning/communication where the multiple talents of a desktop system can be utilized. In that case the ultimate redundancy is the humans operating the system. They check the data which is in turn handed up to the commanding officer to check. If there is ever any discrepancies they are found and corrected.
Ultimately, on more advanced weapon systems a computer is responsible for guidance. The guidance systems are also highly specialized and would not use a desktop OS either.
If its stupid but it works, its not stupid.
You sound like some rich kiddie student with no real life experience who listens to left wing college professors in between poetry writing sessions. If it wasn't for the US Mil, sweet cheeks, you'd be speaking Chinese, if not Russian, German, or Japanese. Get a life or go live in Beijing. I hear they're lookin for a few good little Reds.
==============================
Windows NT has crashed,
I am the Blue Screen of Death,
The military does use Linux. I have seen it used as mail servers, file servers, and web servers. The percentage of Linux systems in the military seems to be running about the same percentage as in the general public. Unfortunately, that is not very high.
For what it's worth. I manage 4 Linux systems for the Navy under contract. 3 of them are intranet servers on internal networks, and the 4th one will be coming on line on the internet here shortly.
The contract was awarded on the basis of my company being able to maintain the Linux servers.
Sorry. Poor logic on your part. I suggest picking up "Introduction to Logic" by Irving M. Copi (you can probably find in on Amazon).
The military does use Linux. I have seen it used as mail servers, file servers, and web servers. The percentage of Linux systems in the military seems to be running about the same percentage as in the general public. Unfortunately, that is not very high.
For what it's worth. I manage 4 Linux systems for the Navy under contract. 3 of them are intranet servers on internal networks, and the 4th one will be coming on line on the internet here shortly.
The contract was awarded on the basis of my company being able to maintain the Linux servers.
Speaking as reservist in the military, you need to get a less pedestrian and provincial view of what the armed forces do. Perform a rectal craniotomy while you're at it. The fact that someone in a military research lab somewhere (NRL, Mitre, The Aerospace Corportaion, Rome Labs, DARPA JPO) is looking at deploying Linux should not come as a surprise.
..."
If any of you all recall last year's incident with the USS Yorktown (needing a tow because all NT systems controlling propulsion crashed), maybe Linux is a step forward. Look it on Wired. It's certainly more cost effective and it really is more reliable than NT.
And c'mon, just 'cos the military uses it doesn't mean that mean that storm troopers will pour out of the sky and invalidate the GPL. The military is not about taking rights away. There are borders to this world, whether we like it or not, that must be defended. The US armed forces are dedicated to preserving the Constitution of the United States and the rights thereunto contained from all foreign enemies. (Yes, that may sound a little idealistic, but that's why I signed up -- to put my mouth where my beliefs are: The US Constitution's preservation.)
Guess who the last people who want to fight conflicts are? Military commanders! Why? Because they are the ones responsible for sending the letter home that reads, "Dear Mrs. Smith: We regret to inform you that
I'm in the air force... I work in the Network Control Center on an overseas base. We take care of all the base network functions, run the servers, and make sure the general's wife's computer don't crash (the last task being the hardest, since it's a Gateway P200 runnin' 95).
Right now I'm tryin' to get slackware to work on our network (got strange routing problems for some reason) for an SNMP monitor (nothin' big, our main monitor runs NT and HP OpenView, but this will let us see at a glance if somethin's down). My Superintendant chose linux because of my supervisor's recommendation that UNIX does a good job of this sort of thing, and Linux was free. However, my NCOIC (guy under the superintendant and over my supervisor) seems to think linux is some watered-down version of DOS, no matter how much I try to convince him otherwise. Fortunately, with the superintendant's blessing, he can't stop me from usin' linux on this box.
This type of thing is typical, in that the ones who have no idea what's goin' on have complete control over what we run. My situation is a fortunate one, but most of the linux guys here don't have a chance of gettin' away from NT. Quite sad, actually...
Anyway, back to tryin' to get this routing problem fixed...
spauldo da hippie
Agreed, you make a very good point. But free speech and killing are 2 different issues. If the klan uses a linux server to spread their ideology, that's one thing. If the DoD uses a linux computer to ensure that a missile destroys a truck convoy (or an embassy) that's quite another.
They should be allowed to use them, I'm not saying they don't have the right, I just feel queesy at the idea of a tool built around the premises of freedom is used to take it away.
-Ben
bensmith@biz1.net
The link to the orginal research paper is bad. Here is the correct link:
u ments/99-184.html
http://skyscraper.fortunecity.com/mondo/841/doc
US military to deploy linux enthusiasts against hostile powers
WASHINGTON D.C. In a landmark victory for the renegade OS, the United States Army has changed its recruitment and training procedures in order to make military service more attractive to Linux Users.
"We're going all out to get as many of these penguin people into the ranks as we possibly can." Stated General Jack Ripper "These geeks truly are americas finest."
The military became interested in geek warriors after observing multiple flame wars on the popular web site slashdot.org. "We used to think that the Army Rangers were the meanest mothers on earth, then we watched KDE and Gnome users face off." Explained Gen. Ripper. "We then had an elite team of rangers engage in the discussion. When I saw those hardened troops break down in tears from the geek onslaught, I knew we had found the perfect source of violent maladjusted zealots."
Assimilating the new geek recruits required something of a change in the standard training regimen. Instead of boot camp, recruits are now put through reboot camp where they are forced to support mission critical applications on Windows98. This teaches them to hate. Recruits are then put through what is known as the 'burma road' drill - where they attempt to stay abreast of the most recent 2.3.x kernel using a 486sx/25 for compiles and a 1200 baud modem for downloads. After a few short weeks, the perfect killing machine is created. Geek troops are capable of untold attrocities in combat, including roasting prisoners over an overclocked celeron, installing MS Bob on enemy hardware and moderating down 'first posts.'
"Some governments have complained that these troops don't abide by the geneva convention." Admitted Gen. Ripper "But I say that the geneva convention is a closed, proprietary protocol funded by Microsoft - screw em."
--Shoeboy
Intresting thread. Anyhow, I'm in the army, enlisted, for now, doing a lot of sysadmin and repair stuff for my organization.
... 100+ boxen is a pain to administer without someone on it full time, which I am not.
.. 9x is just too dared embedded in our setup to bother with linux. When NT Server and Linux can interchange user info, plus an exchange client (that being the protocol of choice) .. exists on linux ... And then we can teach everyone about X/linux ... too . but in the meantime? Not a chance.
.milFox
A few reasons why linux can't work in *my* unit, at least...
a) We have a large installed base of 9x and NT boxes to administer. Adding linux to the mix would only add to the headache,
b) User retraining. Yes, we're using 9x/NT/Exchange/Office/blahblahblah for networking. Corel (my choice), or Staroffice, are diffrent enough to *need* retraining, which is not practical without disrupting operations.
c) WAN - Other units on the WAN are also running 9x networking.. without a SOP for a complete changeover, any smaller change would result in chaos.
Yeah, in short
the
One thing to remember is that the military did a lot of soul-searching after the Vietnam War. Not only did the draftee army perform poorly (it's estimated that less than 1/4th of the U.S. soldiers in any given firefight even fired their weapons!), but the reports of rampant drug use, atrocities such as at My Lai, and rampant fragging of officers who tried to rein in their troops shocked both civilians and those in the chain of command.
Today's military personnel are no angels by any means. The bureaucracy is still stifling, the officers are still stiff-necked and often more concerned about what high-paying consulting jobs they can land after retirement than about what they're supposed to be doing today, and the Marines are still jar-heads, no matter how much better shape the Corps is in today (grin). But I repeat that it's not the military that rattles sabres. Whenever we go on one of these foreign adventures, the Chiefs consistently tell the President that we shouldn't. About the only thing the military CAN be accused of is repeatedly saying that if we're going to go into a fight, then do it, don't just play at it with all of this "gradual escalation" BS. I.e., go in with overwhelming force, kick rear, and get it over with, don't drag things out because that'll just mean more people killed.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Where do you live? Would it be as nice a place if there was no military to protect it? I suppose armchair philosopher wannabes can say dumbass whiny things about the military when they would never have the balls to step up and be counted.
>The military does kill people, but it's (usually) to prevent even larger numbers of people from dying if our enemy wins.
.By what you say you actually say yes to the killing of people if your Big Brother tells you that's ethical.Ok.Burn the fucking japs with the A-Bomb you're home ,right?Why the fuck should you care about it.Kill the yugoslavs you can watch it on CNN like you watch a football game.But there are people with ethics and ideals.I'm coding and i percieve thoses lines of code as expression of My ideals.I definetely don't want them to be used against any living being.That mere thought gives me the creeps.And now i shall make my version of the GPL(for all that it's worth) to disallow this.For you are the true sheep but others are slaughtered by your sheppard.Your turn will come eventually.
> What do you think the Japanese would have done to Asia and the pacific islands if they hadn't been beaten back?
You fucking hypocrite
Anything to do with the military will raise ethical questions related to technology and humanity. I won't debate this issue except to point out the response of Oppenheimer when asked about the atomic bomb. I can't find the exact quote so I'm have to paraphrase it. I hope I don't butcher it too much.
Q: Isn't it a tragedy of science for your invention to be used for destruction.
A: No, it is not a tragedy of science. It is a tragedy of humanity.
This "quote" was taken from Jacob Bronowski's excellent PBS series called "The Accent of Man." Many of you have not seen this as it appear many years ago. The book is still available (AFAIK); read the chapter about the quest for absolute knowledge.
1) Some people ask if GPL code should be used to kill other people. That's a military ethics debate; you ask, "Is it OK to kill people" and it turns out that some people just need killing. We've determined that, which is why we have a military force. We give our leaders the tremendous responsibility of having to decide when to use it (In some cases you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.) It isn't nice and it isn't pretty but that's life.
2) I get really pissed off when I hear that the government wasted another $100 million of my money on unstable microsoft crap that will probably end up costing some of our soldiers their lives. What if the smart boat OS crashes during a military engagement? So I think that GPLed code should not only be used in the military and in the government, it should be mandatory unless they can show good reason why it shouldn't be used (Like B2 security requirements or something, in which case they should use Multics or DG/UX.)
You're on crack! hehehe.. anyhow, i would hate to see something like that happen. next you know there will be a anti-porn gpl where you can't server porn off the aformentioned software. or a anti-bestiality measure where the said program can not be used to encourage anal sex with dogs. let's keep morality out of legalities .. besides, some people deserve to die.
What if that truck convoy is carying nuclear weapons into your backyard? What would you rather?
NT running the code that guides a missle at the truck to defend your house
Or Linux aiming the missle.
Yes people will die. You or them.
Yes I know the military does not always act in what some people think is a good way. But every military action will be frowned upon by somebody. But it is true (or seems to have been proven repeatedly) that sometimes military force is nessecary.
On a side note who ever said they were gonna use Linux to kill people? I'd think they would still use it for the main uses you use it for. Most of the targeting systems were extremely customized code that is part of the hardware.
If you have a problem with Linux being used as a file server for the AirForce, that's really a stretch.
-cpd