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.
Shoeboy - aspiring Onion jounalist? ;)
SirSlud
"Old man yells at systemd"
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.
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!
We really need a GPL FAQ... but since there's not one that I know of, let's hash it out all again ;-)
:-P
Okay, have you READ the GPL? Do you know what it says?
1) If you make changes / modifications / bug fixes, then they are under the GPL.
2) IF you redistribute, you must make the source availible (or inform them where the CAN get the source) and may not charge more than a media fee for the source.
Therefore, ergo, if they don't redistribute their changes, then they don't have to release the source.
I took a GPLed app and changed a button to say something else. Hahah. you're never gettting it from me!!
Couple of things -
1. GPL only applies if they modify GPL code. If they code new stuff (from scratch) it doesn't matter.
2. I thought GPL only applied if you sold/distributed the code. I might be wrong and I know this is against the spirit of the GPL, but can't I modify a GPL'd piece of code, and keep it to myself if I'm the only one using it? What if my company is just using it in-house? I thought under these conditions it did not have to be released. And in that way the gov't could use it for secret stuff.
3. If they just use it as an OS why would they release the database they are running?
-cpd
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!
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.
If the military (in a democracy) does its job, it's invisible and gets a lot of ill-placed flack from people who don't see all of the good things it does.
If an operating system does its job, it's also invisible. It takes technical knowledge to determine if a web or ftp server is running Solaris vs. Linux vs *BSD (excluding any banner messages, of course!)
In contrast, there are some operating systems which *don't* do their job well ("gee, this web page says that I should run this spreadsheet which contains an embedded command to download and install this virus program. I better do it!") and which are anything but invisible. In fact, most of us would say that one company in particular bends over backwards to ensure we know that it is singlehandledly responsible for the unusually long economic boom and that investigations into its alleged misdeeds threaten to bring on a depression worse than the 1930's....
I really don't intent this to be a Microso~1 flame, but I think you (and many others who complain about the military, the vast majority of gun owners who never commit a violent crime, etc.) have lost track of just how well our civilization works. I'm reminded of David Brin's observation that few prior civilizations could have survived gas stations on every street corner.
If anything, I think the OSS culture is a better fit with the military culture than the proprietary culture. We both want to get the job done with minimal fuss and disruption to all involved, and generally prefer to stay out of the limelight. Proprietary firms, on the other hand, want to leave you no doubt who was responsible.
("This village bombed thanks to the DuPont Company! Better living through chemistry!")
P.S., you'll find very few soldiers in the NATO nations that view the death of non-combatants as anything other than a horror -- and those soldiers are quickly removed when found. As for combatants, name one other historical period where attacks were timed to *minimize* casualties on *both* sides. (That's not the only reason for nighttime attacks, but it's a major one.)
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
(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!
Like it or not, if you're a U.S. slave^H^H^H^H^Htaxpayer, the government steals your money and uses it to buy hardware and software for the military. Would you rather they piss your money away on Microsoft products, or use Open Source and (hopefully) at least spend it on better hardware--and maybe return some of our "investment" in the form of useful code?
I, for one, am tired of the feds stealing my money and feeding it to Microsoft for crappy software. I'd much rather see our destroyers run by Linux or BSD than by NT--at least we wouldn't have to worry that our multi-billion dollar investment in warships wouldn't be subject to BSODs in the heat of battle. I'm sure if you're rear-end were riding on one of these boats, you'd be happy to know that the main console didn't have a "Start" button in the lower left-hand corner. Remember that thing called "The Draft?" You never know when you might end up having to trust your life to the software the military use. Stranger things have happened.
slashdot broke my sig
>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
The idea behind GPL is that software should be free(speech). Copyright law pretty much makes that impossible; if you leave software in the public domain, someone will edit, copyright, and enslave it. You use a copyright on GPL to keep the copyright law at bay.
It is the same thing with guns. Guns are lethal; then can be used to kill, and are designed to kill.
So why do we give police officers, sworn to protect our lives, such deadly weapons? Because that is how you counter guns in evil hands.
Guns in good hands counter guns in evil hands. Copyrights in good hands (copylefts) counter copyrights in evil hands. You twist the tool of evil to keep the evil at bay. It's a dangerous game, but the only alternative is to get trampled by the evildoers.
So what is the difference?
--The basis of all love is respect
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. . .
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)
I don't think the GPL licensing would have much impact in this case. IF the military were to "adopt" Linux I can see it being done in a very specific manner:
1) Pick a distro and version number. That's it . Period. No other versions allowed. (i.e. must be consistant)
2) Look over the source code for the sections/tools the military wants. Thow out everything else. (i.e. make sure there are no back doors / trojan horses / whatever)
3) Make a new "distro" that is military only - with the unwanted stuff removed. Now they own this distro and don't change it except under extreme scrutiny - see 2) above. (i.e. Make sure no one can sneak in a back door / Trojan horse)
4) Fix bugs on a case by case basis, as needed.
5) Publish this as the official USA Linux.
No GPL conflicts there. When they add features or applications there is no preasure to openly publish or sell them. The GPL makes allowances for "in house only" modifications. They do not have to be made available in source code.
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
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.
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.
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