×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Indian Military Organization To Develop Its Own OS

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the there-are-drawbacks-to-this dept.

Operating Systems 466

An anonymous reader writes "Several newspapers have reported that DRDO (the defence R&D organization of the Indian military) is planning to create an OS. The need for this arose due to the cyber security concerns facing India and that all [conventional] operating systems are made outside India. About 50 professionals in Bangalore and New Delhi are expected to start work on this operating system." At least one of the linked articles says the new OS, though home-grown, would run Windows software.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

466 comments

I hope they name it CURRY (2, Funny)

PatPending (953482) | more than 3 years ago | (#33855906)

I hope they name it CURRY

Re:I hope they name it CURRY (-1, Redundant)

HoldmyCauls (239328) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856092)

Yeah, and make it available cross-architecture. Those people put CURRY on everything!

Re:I hope they name it CURRY (4, Funny)

jfengel (409917) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856096)

Only if they write it in Haskell [wikipedia.org].

Re:I hope they name it CURRY (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856178)

The same article links to an actual programming language called Curry based on Haskell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry_programming_language [wikipedia.org]

Re:I hope they name it CURRY (3, Interesting)

jfengel (409917) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856280)

Yep, but Haskell came first, and has broader name recognition (and so I thought it made the joke best). And Haskell apparently some real-world uses, which means it must have gotten a LOT better since I first beta-tested it, back when it was compiled into Common Lisp.

Huge fan of it, actually. I don't get to work in it but my coding style was heavily influenced by the things I learned coding in Haskell. My main fondness: by the time you got the damn thing to compile, the program would generally work. Aggravating at the time, but it made me really respect how much work the compiler could do in spotting bugs if your language is REALLY bondage-and-discipline strong typing.

The LP features of Curry won't endear it to anybody who didn't already grok Haskell, but they're certainly a neat addition, and a lot more than syntactic sugar.

Re:I hope they name it CURRY (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33856116)

Am I the only one who caught the reference to [Haskell] Curry?

Haskell eq Curry? You're the only one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33856326)

I didn't catch it, not redundant at all

Who can be trusted? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33855920)

I've always wondered about this. If I was a government I wouldn't trust any piece of software from the outside. Even stuff produced internally would need a lot of checks. Binary blobs from other countries would be totally banned. At least for all sensitive work. Who can be trusted?

Re:Who can be trusted? (5, Insightful)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856024)

Don't use Binary Blobs, I agree, absolutely, if you care at all about your Sovereignty. Get the source tree for an already very well secured OS like, say, OpenBSD, or perhaps Linux (though OBSD is, I believe, generally developed with practices that encourage better security - less focus on feature, more on audits and exploit finding/fixing). Have your 'trusted' developers from your nation go over every line of code, to make sure no trojans/backdoors/intentional exploits were added, then build it all yourself.

Of course, there is still always the possibility you have a hacked C compiler. Man, I can't remember the name of it now, but sometime in, I think it was the 80's, someone made a pretty famous presentation/paper about putting a self-perpetuating trojan into a compiler. You could give the compiler source code, and the binary of the compiler to the 'mark', but you could completely remove the exploit from the source code, as long as the exploit was coded to compile itself into subsequent builds of the compiler; that is, the binary was infected, but the source was not, but it didn't matter since the infected binary could build a copy of itself into the next build of the compiler. The exploit could then additionally do something like whenever it built other binaries or libraries, add some exploit code to them as well.

I suppose you need your own people to do a dis-assembly of the compiler to verify that. Or, build your own assembler in machine language, then build your own compiler with your assembler. Once you've done that, if you have a trusted compiler, and verified source code, you don't really lose security by using Open Source. If anything, it'll *probably* be more secure, if it's popular enough to have a lot of devs analyzing it and fixing problems.

Re:Who can be trusted? (5, Insightful)

simcop2387 (703011) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856112)

Of course, there is still always the possibility you have a hacked C compiler. Man, I can't remember the name of it now, but sometime in, I think it was the 80's, someone made a pretty famous presentation/paper about putting a self-perpetuating trojan into a compiler. You could give the compiler source code, and the binary of the compiler to the 'mark', but you could completely remove the exploit from the source code, as long as the exploit was coded to compile itself into subsequent builds of the compiler; that is, the binary was infected, but the source was not, but it didn't matter since the infected binary could build a copy of itself into the next build of the compiler. The exploit could then additionally do something like whenever it built other binaries or libraries, add some exploit code to them as well.

That would be Ken Thompson. [bell-labs.com]

Re:Who can be trusted? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33856122)

You're thinking of the "trusting trust" attack, where a compiler is compromised, and passes malware onto some important system program, or onto itself, when asked to compile the source code for each.

Re:Who can be trusted? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33856048)

Then you would need to be a national socialist style government because that is the level of effort and dedication that would be required from even a large citizenry to deliver completely in country development of not only the OS but all user space tools.

The entire time you will be hamstrung by the interop requirements of existing in world of other nations that aren't going to trust the tools your people build and you won't have a leg to stand on demanding more commitment to standardization, after all you don't want to play on a communal field.\

Sounds like the biggest time-sink of a unintended consequence shit storm that I have ever heard.

The cherry on top is that all of your legitimate enemies can forget about the rest of the world and focus on taking the fight right to your door. Your entire stack needs to be managed from a central location to insure the bloodlines of the Fatherland's tech architects, so why not just narrow focus and hammer on the target's civilian assets night and day until the Fatherland can't bear the cost of supporting a false strategic faith in the intrinsic goodness of their citizenry.

Re:Who can be trusted? (5, Insightful)

Logic Worshipper (1518487) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856154)

What the fuck? A government checking the code it runs on computers with sensitive data is "national socialist"? You think the United States government doesn't do this on CIA and DOD computers? Or are you a nut against building roads?

We're talking about doing this only for government computers used for sensitive government data.

Oh For Chrissakes (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#33855928)

Oh for Chrissakes, another nation rebranding an existing OS and calling it their own. It's fucking pathetic. What do they think, that the hackers will be fooled and won't think it's just Windows?

Re:Oh For Chrissakes (1)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856064)

I wonder why they don't just make a fork of OpenBSD?

Mod parent up. (2, Interesting)

khasim (1285) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856126)

Seriously, if you think your people are good enough to write a SECURE operating system from the ground up, then shouldn't they be good enough to take existing code and determine whether that is secure enough for them?

Even Linux for that matter. The NSA has already done some of the work with SE Linux.

Re:Mod parent up. (2, Insightful)

slashqwerty (1099091) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856314)

Seriously, if you think your people are good enough to write a SECURE operating system from the ground up, then shouldn't they be good enough to take existing code and determine whether that is secure enough for them?

Security needs to be designed in from the ground up. Take a look at Windows, Linux, and MacOS. New exploits are constantly being discovered in those systems because security was not a key part of the development process when they were written.

Windows, Linux, and MacOS were all written in C which burdens the developer with safeguarding against all manner of possible security holes. In C a security hole is as likely as a bug with the exception that a bug is likely to be discovered and fixed by the developer while a security hole will go unnoticed until an attacker discovers it. If you want to build a secure OS today you should start with tools that eliminate the most common security holes. That would include automatic bounds checking which none of the aforementioned systems were built with.

If you want a secure system you make sure every action and every module of code is authenticated before it runs. The system will work a lot better if it is designed that way from the ground up. Existing operating systems would at minimum have to be modified to do this.

A secure system would be developed with best-practices that reduce the likelihood of exposing a vulnerability. For example, the potential attack vectors for shell injection attacks would go through a centralized library that safeguards against it.

All of these things are best done by writing a new system from scratch with more secure tools and practices. At the same time, the developers can look to Linux or BSD for example algorithms on how to solve common problems but make sure the actual implementation uses the aforementioned best practices.

Re:Oh For Chrissakes (2, Insightful)

nashv (1479253) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856174)

I find it amusing that some people think that a nation's defense research organisation, which helps build ICBMs, supersonic aircraft, tactical software and so on, needs advice from someone who reading slashdot on how to write an operating system.

Re:Oh For Chrissakes (5, Interesting)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856268)

I find it amusing that some people think that a nation's defense research organisation, which helps build ICBMs, supersonic aircraft, tactical software and so on, needs advice from someone who reading slashdot on how to write an operating system.

Well, in the US -- I don't know about the Indian military -- the same defense establishment that operates those ICBMs etc. also mostly runs Windows. Which is a pretty clear indication that they do need help, and the Slashdot crowd would probably be a good place to get it.

This is at least partly personal experience talking. When I was a medic in the USAF, one of my secondary duties was "computer systems security NCO" for the ER where I worked. Which mainly meant light sysadmin duties, trying to keep machines patched and virus-free with absolutely zero support from the actual hospital IT staff, and debunking "I LOVE YOU virus" warnings and similar bouts of hysteria that Col. So-and-so forwarded to everyone's e-mail ("it must be true, the Colonel said it!") Actual security was a joke.

Re:Oh For Chrissakes (2, Informative)

nashv (1479253) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856324)

Granted, militaries are usually incompetent when it comes to IT. But this isn't the military, this is the DRDO, which typically includes people like this. [iitb.ac.in]

I like it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33855934)

LOLOLOLOL

Confusion (5, Funny)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#33855944)

WINE doesn't stand for "Wine is not a complete, Windows-compatible operating system sans the security vulnerabilities".

Re:Confusion (4, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#33855996)

Mod parent insightful.

If you are going to run windows software you can bet they will start with with a Virtual Machine approach or Wine, and neither one buys them much security without diligence.

he idea that a government funded military lab would develop from the ground up and achieve something that would run windows but wasn't as vulnerable seems highly unlikely.

Budgets lapse. People Come and Go. It would be a mess.

Re:Confusion (1)

Lobachevsky (465666) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856262)

Most attacks can be avoided by having a secure firewall. The cyberattacks were all successful because the machines were connected to the internet "naked" - no firewall device.

is it gonna be open sauce? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33855948)

cause the summery makes it sound like they will use Wine

Have you ever met? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33855956)

Have you ever met a india IT worker that has one speck of innovative thinking? I certainly haven't, they are fantastic of doing what they are told but ask them to come up with something on their own and expect to be disappointed. I cannot say I am surprised they want to install a branding wall paper and call it the new India OS.

Re:Have you ever met? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33856040)

Mod parent -1 Racist

Absolutely no "racism" at all. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33856222)

"Indian" is a nationality, not a race. So right off the bat there's absolutely no racism involved, as the GP didn't even mention any race at all! Only a nationality was mentioned, and you can't express "racism" towards something that isn't even a race.

At least make sure that race was at least mentioned, if you're going to cry "racism".

Re:Have you ever met? (1)

Punto (100573) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856146)

I've met a bunch of people who tell themselves that to keep feeling superior to them

Re:Have you ever met? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33856332)

Exactly, my work with them has shown me that they are smart. They maximize pay by only doing exactly to the letter what I told them to do. If I don't mention to validate input every way I want it validated, they won't validate it that way.

So you can't just say "Make sure input is validated", you actually have to spell it out in every single way. "User should be able to drag X into Y" isn't enough, you need to explain exactly how you want this to go down. Anything you don't not explicitly spell out will not be done.

It's a pain in the ass, but it keeps them paid.

Cost (5, Funny)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#33855958)

I can't wait for the poor bastards to try outsourcing development to India.

Re:Cost (0, Troll)

masterwit (1800118) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856066)

I can't wait for the poor bastards to try outsourcing development to India.

Um...this is India that is developing this? I do understand the sarcasm though.
On that note, from India's Economic Times [indiatimes.com]

"We have to protect it (data)," Saraswat said, adding, "Only way to protect it is to have a home-grown system, the complete architecture...source code is with you and then nobody knows what's that."

He said DRDO is putting in place a dedicated team of 50 software professionals in the Bangalore and Delhi software development centres to accomplish the task.

I am not trying to be demeaning, but that is a small number of people for one task...considering this is India.

Re:Cost (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33856226)

They will - eventually - to private India.

Re:Cost (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856302)

You forgot about the ongoing economic calamaties?

In a few years they might consider outsourcing development to the US.

SHIVA (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33855962)

"SHIVA just went down!"

"Re-summon! Re-summon! VISHNU is also under attack!"

Buzz words, no content (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33855966)

If it's running Windows apps, there's not a lot of room for a "custom os". It'll either be a POSIX based OS so it can run WINE (I doubt they'll rewrite that part since it's a really large piece of code to duplicate) or Windows with their own branding*.

* Actually, it could be a completely custom OS whereby the Windows apps are run via a remote session ala nx or something similar. However, all that stuff has its own set of problems (at the end of the day you're still running Windows behind a firewall in a trusted environment).

Re:Buzz words, no content (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856012)

Exactly.

If you run windows apps, you have to replicate or emulate, and that would be wine.

They could run VMs that get fresh loaded images each reboot, but that's still windows, and still vulnerable while its running.

Not the best track record (4, Interesting)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | more than 3 years ago | (#33855968)

I hope the DRDO does better than their previous projects. For example, the Arjun tank has not been a good use of Indian taxpayer money, but internal politics seem to keep it and similar projects alive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjun_MBT [wikipedia.org]

Re:Not the best track record (1)

ZDRuX (1010435) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856014)

Sounds exactly the same as their counterpart in the U.S.. Oh, and Canada too, wait.. make that most countries.

Re:Not the best track record (1)

iammani (1392285) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856094)

Mmmm, I wouldnt call it internal politics. Its rather to encourage local development of military hardware. In this case, it was the first attempt at an indigenous (completely indian made) tank. Due to improper planning, the project was delayed by years and they even ended up purchasing some of the components from other countries (Israel mainly). Though not a success, I would consider it a good start, and would expect future indian made tanks to be build cheaper and better

There are many other such DRDO projects, like Tejas (indigenously build light weight combat aircraft) which would have been much cheaper to acquire from Russia or US.

There are many instances of internal politics in DRDO, but this is definitely not one of them.

Re:Not the best track record (1)

webminer (1619915) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856136)

Arjun MBT is one of the finest tanks in our part of the world. The problem with its development is not because of just DRDO. It has to do with the govt policy, the army constantly changing its requirements and finally the penetration of Russian arms agents in the Ministry of Defense. All these factors have delayed the induction of a tank that kicked Russian T-90s in every environment that the Indian Army fights in. The comparative field trials of the Indian Army a few months ago showed Arjun MBT has consistently performed better than T-90. So, DRDO came out with a better tank that Russians who have decades of tank-building experience.

Re:Not the best track record (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856242)

Arjun MBT is one of the finest tanks in our part of the world. The problem with its development is not because of just DRDO. It has to do with the govt policy, the army constantly changing its requirements and finally the penetration of Russian arms agents in the Ministry of Defense. All these factors have delayed the induction of a tank that kicked Russian T-90s in every environment that the Indian Army fights in. The comparative field trials of the Indian Army a few months ago showed Arjun MBT has consistently performed better than T-90. So, DRDO came out with a better tank that Russians who have decades of tank-building experience.

The real question is:"Who ran these tests?" In my experience, I have never seen a military or defence contractor (from any nation) run test that did end up with "Hooray for our side. We won."

In general, someone who says "Wait a minute. Things aren't as good as they seem" generally gets marginalized and run out of town. See Boyd, John.

What's the point? (1)

sea4ever (1628181) | more than 3 years ago | (#33855970)

I suppose they want to make their own OS to be sure of the security.
..but then if you're going to allow it to run Windows software..what's the point?
Windows software is the epitome of insecure, it defeats the whole purpose of making your own OS.

Re:What's the point? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33855998)

Right, so they should use your cum guzzling half shit Linux garbage. You're the epitome of gay.

Re:What's the point? (1)

dmomo (256005) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856008)

I can imagine that if their os runs windows programs it would be in some sort of sandboxed environment. I didn't rtfa, but I wouldn't suppose that it is capable of running any windows program. There would probably be restrictions on what input/output ports can be accessed. Same for disk / memory access and network connectivity. Maybe it just has a virtual windows machine on it, in which case, the "bad windows" can be wiped. Heck.. the "good windows" could be wiped daily.

Re:What's the point? (1)

Lobachevsky (465666) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856322)

WindowsNT/WindowsXP has vastly better security than Windws95/WindowsME, even though they all run windows applications. The big difference is that Windows95/WindowsME lacked a memory model that sandboxed each application's memory. That meant one rogue application on Windows95/ME could start modifying kernel memory, or other applications' memory. Instead, under WindowsNT/WindowsXP, an application exits with a general protection fault.

There are stricter security models that go beyond merely sandboxing memory pages. Windows Vista introduced privilege escalation dialogue. It allows you to run applications with lower privileges (non-admin), and when the application attempts to do something that requires admin privileges, a dialog is brought up to prompt you for approval. I can imagine finer grained capabilities. E.g. your web browser should only have file access to its caching directory. If it attempts to read or write anywhere else, the operating system pauses the application and prompts the user for approval.

The Wheel (5, Funny)

Voulnet (1630793) | more than 3 years ago | (#33855974)

The Wheel: It's tired of getting reinvented.

Re:The Wheel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33856056)

I'm fine with my rubber/steel-belted, how are your wooden`s one ?

Re:The Wheel (2, Insightful)

mdemonic (988470) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856090)

If it weren't for repeated reinvention of the wheel, they would still be hexagonal rocks. Reinvention is what drives technology forward. Invention is a rare treat.

Re:The Wheel (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856244)

It's necessary in this wheel-within-wheel universe.

Do not despair. Kali Yuga, too, will come to pass. Init command is forthcoming.

Fulfill your dharma.

Ohm.

Re:The Wheel (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856338)

If the wheel is 'windows'; it desperately needs to be re-invented.

I would welcome a well-designed, secure, stable OS, that can run Windows apps reliably.

However, I think Duke Nukem Forever will be released before that has a prayer's chance of happening.

offtopic but hilarious (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33855978)

A buddy of mine just revealed some news to me. He's been reliable about this shit in the past and he's in a position to know, so I trust it but YMMV.

Backstory: Microsoft eats their own cooking ("dogfood") except in cases of epic failure. Like Hotmail running on NT. Or Visual Safe Source for Windows's RCS. They use a heavily modified version of perforce and a hierarchy of repositories. Yeah, it's a mess and there are a number of technical as well as human/social problems.

Well, multiple groups within Microsoft have had enough and switched to git for day-to-day work (using a gateway to push their changes to an upstream p4 repo). They're trying hard to drop 4 entirely and go with git. From what I know of their development practices, they really need something like git (Linus, himself, agrees). But who's going to tell Balmer that they're switching to software written by arch-enemy Linus Torvaldes? You might think they'd prefer that (we're using your free software, faggots!), but chances are VSS 2011 will contain some sort of half-assed distributed RCS support.

Re:offtopic but hilarious (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856106)

Well, multiple groups within Microsoft have had enough and switched to git for day-to-day work (using a gateway to push their changes to an upstream p4 repo).

Are you trying to give the network auditors more work? ;)

Iron (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 3 years ago | (#33855992)

This is going to be like the iron of the OS world; the exact same code base with some user settings and code changed.

Why against this? (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856006)

So many 'fun' comments... If there is one country that is good in software it's this country. Hell, even MS probably has coders working for them there. And if they really manage to make an os that can run windows binaries without all the overhead and presumed NSA-backdoors (not that they need one given the rate new remote exploits come out for every windows version) this is a very smart thing to do. Nothing to make fun about. I would have great interest in an OS that can run windows binaries without all the windows-shit.

Re:Why against this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33856032)

I would have great interest in an OS that can run windows binaries without all the windows-shit.

I would not want to use a proprietary operating system that is home-grown for "security" reasons.

Re:Why against this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33856076)

We do. It's called WINE.

And if you think that, for some reason, India is a better country than, say, China, to create its own OS, you really don't know the situation in either of those two countries. Most graduates from most universities in China and India are empty shirts with degrees who can't even get jobs selling computers, much less coding jobs. It is a point of pride (and good business) to claim that India and China are awarding technical degrees to a huge number of trained engineers, but the sad truth is that many universities are doing their students a disservice by pushing them through just to award them the degree at the end of the year. Please, talk to anyone who has been through the university system in either of those countries (and, in my case, these are the people who were able to avoid that situation by going to the rare "good" universities) and they will paint you a sad picture of the state of computer science students there, all for the sake of national pride and encouraging foreign investment.

Re:Why against this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33856098)

Because, grasshopper, as you will learn as you grow older and more experienced, "write my own OS" is virtually never the solution.

I know you see "virtually never" and assume:
1) The old guy typing this is just afraid to take a chance;
2) It's a big problem but 50 people should be able to knock it down, no sweat;
3) "virtually never" doesn't mean "never".

The real solution, to give you the back of the book answer, is to institute stricter security measures, including physical security (destroying/removing/disconnecting ports, physically secured perimeter with controlled access), network security (separate networks or no networks for highly sensitive material; redundant firewall measures), software security (staying on top of updates to software, most notably), extensive logging and log monitoring, frequent security reviews and regularly changing passwords, etc.

It's not sexy, but it'll work much sooner and likely provide better results almost immediately. That new OS, however, is unproven, has limited use and thus a limited petri dish to analyze attack patterns and weaknesses. Which means if this project comes to fruition, within 18 months there will doubtless be a severe breach with sensitive data loss.

As to the knowhow of the country: Yes, certainly there is a robust software industry with great talent. However, any team is only as good as its worst engineer. The worst Indian engineers have been every bit as bad as the worst American, European and other Asian programmers I've worked with. Likewise, the best are every bit as good as the best from any other nationality. There is no mythical talent that is unique to the subcontinent for programming. It simply happens to be a highly desirable career path for a host of reasons locally.

Bottom line, this is a tremendously dumb idea and they would have been better off:
1) grabbing a linux/BSD derivative of their choice and implementing good security procedures, and potentially modifying source for their unique needs;
2) getting a contract with Microsoft, implementing good security procedures, and using their large customer status to leverage Microsoft into modifying code for their unique needs.

Re:Why against this? (3, Interesting)

cupantae (1304123) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856100)

I would have great interest in an OS that can run windows binaries without all the windows-shit.

Then maybe you can join the ReactOS [reactos.org] team. If you're really interested, you might be allowed to become the project leader.

Re:Why against this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33856152)

If there is one country that is good in software it's this country.

The only reason they are good is because they are taught Microsoft, live on MSDN and are raised to memorize.

I have yet to find an Indian that can think outside the box or one that develops for non-Microsoft technology.

Re:Why against this? (0)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856210)

Wow, lot of biased people here. AC's off-course. Be a man, use your account. And comments like: have yet to see a indian think outside the box... Never been out of your redneck state have you?

Re:Why against this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33856236)

Hypocrite much?

And who said I live in the States?

Re:Why against this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33856300)

one word: Monkeys.

Yes, they can all code. When told what to do. But if they've to come up with it by themselves, it's gonna be tripe.

Example, the commonwealth games.

When I say "they", I really mean "we" - this isn't trolling, coz I know what apparently-"my" ppl can do.

Why not do *BSD or Linux code review and use it? (5, Insightful)

ad454 (325846) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856016)

I know this is obvious, but come on...

Seriously, why not take a *BSD or Linux OS release and do a full source code review on it? It will take a lot less effort than creating anything from scratch, plus they can submit bug reports and code fixes back to the corresponding opensource projects. (Everybody wins!!!) Any mature OS would not be plagued by bugs that commonly occur in large new code bases. After reviewing and approving the OS, they can simply track changes of future releases in order to maintain trust.

Re:Why not do *BSD or Linux code review and use it (5, Insightful)

thoughtsatthemoment (1687848) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856058)

Simple reason: "Everybody wins" is not an option in real wars.

Re:Why not do *BSD or Linux code review and use it (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856138)

Exactly, and sharing vital technology with the enemy is mostly just a good way to ensure that everybody loses. Parity and equilibrium aren't good once the war starts getting hot, because then you end up with WWI.

Re:Why not do *BSD or Linux code review and use it (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856200)

The answer is to not have an unnecessary war. And besides, they could not contribute back if they really want to 'wage war,' although keeping up a fork would bear an added cost, but still probably be less than starting from scratch.

Re:Why not do *BSD or Linux code review and use it (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856230)

The idea that an OS is equivalent to a weapons system is absurd, and thinking of it that way (which means it should be kept secret from potential enemies) is pretty much a guarantee of failure. "Everybody wins" is very definitely an option in the network security realm.

Re:Why not do *BSD or Linux code review and use it (3, Informative)

dachshund (300733) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856250)

Seems to me that plenty of countries (including the US) manufacture weapons for use and for distribution to other countries. Thing is, you're not at war most of the time, and you're almost never at war with everyone.

Re:Why not do *BSD or Linux code review and use it (1)

thoughtsatthemoment (1687848) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856286)

An OS is more like the blueprint for the weapons sold. Most countries sell weapons (often old versions) but most of time not the technology.

Re:Why not do *BSD or Linux code review and use it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33856068)

Or at least base their version on it.
IBM uses RH Linux as the basis of their client for E-business SW. IBM used a stripped down version called micro-Linux for their Blue Gene supercomputers.

Re:Why not do *BSD or Linux code review and use it (0)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856206)

They probably think obscurity = security. By having their own proprietary OS will give them some kind of extra layer of security.

Which we all know is a fallacy. Like hiding valuables out of sight when locking your car. My wife still insisted she hide her handbag under the seat despite assuring her that security experts beg to differ. *Sigh*

Or could they be wrong?

Re:Why not do *BSD or Linux code review and use it (1)

cupantae (1304123) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856238)

Like hiding valuables out of sight when locking your car.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that intended to not let the potential burglar know that there's any reason to break into the car? I think the analogy you need is something like developing an alternative to keys, rather than just improving the current designs as much as you can...

They might want to review basic security (0)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856132)

Their model essentially is "Security through obscurity". Just because nobody else can see the source to your OS doesn't mean it won't be hacked. Indeed experience has shown us the exact opposite is true.

Re:They might want to review basic security (1)

amirulbahr (1216502) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856184)

Not about that. It is about having a basic level of trust in the software they are using to be sure that nothing malicious is coded in there.

Re:They might want to review basic security (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856202)

Yeah, thats my point, it's a really misguided trust. Unless they are so foolish as to believe that the same coders they do not trust to find potential hacks in Linux can code a secure operating system.

Re:They might want to review basic security (1)

sloomis (1326535) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856292)

If it is anywhere near some of the code I have seen from some India based developers, no one will ever be able to figure that shit out.

If the 90s are to be a guide. (1, Troll)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856150)

6 months after the OS is declared done, all of the developers will have anchor babies in the US and their replacements will determine that the code base is a mass of unintelligible crap.

LK

Re:If the 90s are to be a guide. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33856176)

I suspect that if any of the developers of this OS want to move to the USA, they could easily get their green-cards as long as they went to work for the CIA. (posted anonymously to throw off the CIA monitor)

Perhaps (1)

raind (174356) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856158)

They could recruit the Indian recruiters who come to the USA, who call and ask - do you know AD, SQL, Oracle, Cisco, and are you certified in each?
 

question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33856192)

Does any modern military actually use Windows or other none open source in any critical systems?

Would anyone want to have their lives hanging on whether your Windows system won't malfunction or lag?

ReactOS anyone ? (1)

Anne Honime (828246) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856194)

Didn't read TFA, but running windows apps in a reasonable time frame without windows pretty much entails a linux+wine stack or capitalizing on ReactOS. I'm leaning toward the latter in this case, I don't think the military needs something like directX, but a win2k substitute could do the trick if they have a massive windows based investment in terms of existing custom softwares.

Re:ReactOS anyone ? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856312)

Or maybe they had to promise "window" apps to their leaders and will deliver apps which do indeed have "windows", just not the microsoft kind. I doubt anybody will notice the difference.

A new OS that runs Windows programs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33856204)

Perhaps they should take over the development of ReactOS. (http://www.reactos.org)

How long til they use wine/ reactos source code? (1)

youn (1516637) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856240)

Of course it is possible, but for some reason I don't see them reimplementing the whole win32 api on their own

Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33856334)

So they download one of those Fedora or Unbutu Linux source code, rename the Linux to Hinux or some such
and download WINE and say "We now have our own OS, and it will runs some window Apps"

Whoooopeeee, does it runs some windows WORMS too?

Oh please, these people can't even do a CGI (0, Flamebait)

Sarusa (104047) | more than 3 years ago | (#33856344)

Has India ever produced any decent software? No. Every time we've outsourced to them (against my fervent objections every time but the first) they've been unable to deliver something robust, secure, or even functional - it always consists of code snippets they've Googled (TM), pasted together then flailed on till it compiles and produces the exact same output as the specification calls for (hard coded).

There's no freaking way they could write anything as complex as Windows compatible from the ground up (this is a gargantuan task for anybody), so it's going to be WINE on top of Linux or BSD with some splash screens stuck on it. 50 Indian outsourcers sounds about the right amount of people for that.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...