Beta
×

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!

Linux For Navy Drone Ground Stations

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the open-drone dept.

Robotics 78

garymortimer writes "Raytheon will help the U.S. Navy transition to using Linux software at ground control stations for unmanned air vehicles, the Defense Department announced Wednesday. The company's intelligence and information systems unit won a $27,883,883 contract to implement the tactical control system software, used for directing vertical take-off UAVs."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

IF IT IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE RED CHINESE !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40253741)

It's good enough for you, too !! They own your hardware, anyway !!

Re:IF IT IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE RED CHINESE !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40262873)

I'm only posting because there's 68 comments... and I couldn't leave it that way.

What if? (1)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 2 years ago | (#40253749)

Will the GPL allow any code changes to be classified? If the end user is the DOD or other entity with access to that level of classified material and they get the source code I believe that is correct.

Re:What if? (5, Informative)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | more than 2 years ago | (#40253791)

IIRC the GPL only stipulates that you provide the source code to whoever you give the binaries to. If they don't release it to the public, then they don't have to release the source to the public either.

Re:What if? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40254501)

That's interesting, because there's a JSF debacle over not including the source code with the British jets. Maybe it's common to supply binaries and not source when equipping allies. It's unlikely, but it'll be amusing if an ally sues over the GPL at some point to get the source for some kit.

Re:What if? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40255227)

Been that way for the F-16 for decades. IIRC, when the Japanese wanted to develop the F-16 into their F-2, source code for the flight control computers was a huge sticking point.

Re:What if? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40255911)

Its worth noting, US legal precedence says the government is except from copyright for matters national defense. Whle they do make an effort to comply, the fact is, if they decide they are exempt, they'll simply do whatever they want. Code licenses such as the GPL are very likely ignored daily in the US by the US government.

Re:What if? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40256407)

I would disagree on that - It's EXTREMELY rare for that exception to be used.

At my company, the lawyers are EXTREMELY paranoid about open source - Rather than figure out how to properly comply with the license (which shouldn't be hard, after all most contracts require the customer to have access to the source code anyway.), the lawyers just say NO GPL SOFTWARE ANYWHERE IN A SHIPPED PRODUCT. :(

Re:What if? (1)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 2 years ago | (#40258745)

So... they have money to burn in rewriting existing software that is freely available, and probably has been developed by people with a passion for what they're doing and thus have spent more time gaining expertise in the area, and probably has been available for a number of years and thus has had many people test it, uncover bugs, and fix them? Not to mention money to burn in trying to replicate the amount of testing needed?

Seriously, they need a clue transplant. I thought the corporate lawyers at $my->work were sticklers, but they at least let us ship GPL software as long as we can certify that there's no cross pollination of licensing (i.e., our code doesn't become GPL, too). And sometimes even then we can ship the GPL code (if we can find a way to keep the GPL from affecting key propietary code). Though non-GPL is definitely easier. Thankfully most of what I do is in perl where most things (nearly everything) are dual-licensed GPL/Artistic, giving us the freedom to keep our proprietary code proprietary while still leaving us on the hook to ensure distribution of the code we get from the community.

Re:What if? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40259299)

Annecdote is not data.

Re:What if? (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 2 years ago | (#40263695)

Anecdote is data. its not proof, or statistically valid research, but it most certainly is data.

Pick a different sentence coward.

Re:What if? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40264607)

Perhaps you should bother to learn what the phrase means. Since you're obviously inept and need nothing to resort to ad hominem, I'll be real frank with you. Yes, its data but meaningless data. Also known as garbage, just like your post. Meaningless data is dropped from any real science. What you're left with is no data. Thusly, for everyone who is capable of independent thought, anecdote is not data.

Next time, learn to think before you post as otherwise, you clearly alert everyone to your low intelligence. Though perhaps your intelligence is lower than either of us believe it to be else you would have likely already known you're not the sharpest tool in the shed and would therefore have know to shut the fuck up about things you know nothing about.

Here's a good idea. If you can't contribute to a discussion in any way, shut the fuck up else you look like the idiot as you've clearly presented yourself to be here.

And if you care, I have a five digit UID. I just don't use it any more because of the wonderful stupidity, like yours, which now constitutes the majority of slashdot these days. Beyond that, since we've already established you're dumb, its worth pointing out, there was nothing cowardly about the post. Perhaps you should work on your biased ignorance too.

Re:What if? (2)

Verunks (1000826) | more than 2 years ago | (#40254589)

does that mean they need to provide the source code after distributing the bombs with the uav?

Re:What if? (4, Funny)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40254771)

All you have to do to comply with the license is include a copy of the source code with each device. If you put it on a TF card and attach that to the explosive, no problem :)

Re:What if? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#40256491)

All you have to do to comply with the license is include a copy of the source code with each device. If you put it on a TF card and attach that to the explosive, no problem :)

Hmmmm... I think I'd like a dud, please.

This reminds me of an old joke: what did the irish man think when he learned a nuclear bomb cost millions to build? "I hope they'll drop one in my backyard; either way, I'll have enough money for whiskey my entire life"

Re:What if? (1)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 2 years ago | (#40266937)

I would argue that is only applicable to paying or authorized distributees, throwing them at someone ... I am ambivalent.

Re:What if? (0)

daem0n1x (748565) | more than 2 years ago | (#40254901)

GPL should include a clause prohibiting the use of the software to murder people. If you want to kill people, code your own shit.

What has the defense industry ever done for us? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40255503)

...Oh wait, other than inventing computers, the internet, and the funding, research, basis and advancement of every technology your using right now, they should just "code their own shit".

Re:What has the defense industry ever done for us? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#40256709)

...Oh wait, other than inventing computers, the internet, and the funding, research, basis and advancement of every technology your using right now, they should just "code their own shit".

You mean... the military invented the wine I'm drinking or the glass I'm using right now?

Somehow, ah don' believe you... but y'know wot?... jus' you waait-acouple o' glasses moar an' (hips... pardon me)... maaaybe I'll fiiiind'you riiight... cheers

Stallman is against that and so is the OSS people (2)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#40255941)

the typical F/OSS line is that they practice 'non discrimination' in what 'field of endeavor' their licenses cover.

you can see it in the official open source defintitions, its one of their top rules.

the reality is that GPL and F/OSS software have always been closely linked to the high levels of the military industrial complex. the biggest funders of linux are big corporations with huge defense contracts. universities in the CS field are all closely linked to the military. For @#$ sake, Internet used to be DARPAnet - essentially it was a military program.

now there have been -some- licenses out there that discriminate against certain 'fields of endeavor', but they are very few and far between.

Re:Stallman is against that and so is the OSS peop (1)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 2 years ago | (#40266947)

And hear I thought Linux was a penguin in a nice Che hat. Damn you for spoiling my delusions.

Re:What if? (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | more than 2 years ago | (#40255995)

You need to learn the morally significant difference between killing and murder.

Re:What if? (1, Flamebait)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40256041)

There is such a difference, but the military escapades of the US are well on the murder side, and have been since WWII.

Re:What if? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40261269)

What difference is that? As far as I can tell, the 'difference' between killing and murder just boils down to where you got the order, permission, or idea.

Re:What if? (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 2 years ago | (#40263699)

There's courses on ethics. Take one. Its actually fascinating.

Re:What if? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40256561)

GPL should include a clause prohibiting the use of the software to murder people. If you want to kill people, code your own shit.

But... but... it's the ministry of peace... errr... dept. of defence. It's not like they are murdering people, just... you know?... self defence. Yes, sometimes one need to be pro-active.... err... pre-emptive strikes and such... but it's still defence.

Re:What if? (1)

Vaseline Hero (2658169) | more than 2 years ago | (#40266583)

Is there anything in this thread other than passive-aggressive political attacks?

Re:What if? (3, Informative)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 2 years ago | (#40253799)

While granting that TFA is almost completely detail-free, it does say the $27,883,883 is for "tactical control system software", which would be a proprietary app running on Linux. So no, don't hold your breath to see it being GPL'ed.

Re:What if? (2)

siddesu (698447) | more than 2 years ago | (#40253821)

Well, we can always hope that some Chinese hacker will prove to be a kind soul and release them for everyone's benefit.

Re:What if? (2)

quarkscat (697644) | more than 2 years ago | (#40254423)

Well, we can always hope that some Chinese hacker will prove to be a kind soul and release them for everyone's benefit.

Exactly so.
Just because Raytheon is likely using an off-the-shelf Linux release as the platform for their Ground Control Software, that doesn't specify which shelf it came off of. IIRC, 'Red Dragon' is the vetted official People's Republic of China release of Linux.
That makes the jobs of the repo (re-possession) men contracted to the PRC to help settle the USA's massive sovereign & trade debts that much easier. (And don't think That Isn't Coming. If so, you're in denial.)

OTOH, I am familiar with another Defense Contractor's Ground Control Software of 10 years ago, and they were using a heavily customized version of Linux for a portion of their project (Java coding & Oracle Back-end). That didn't make their Ground Control Software any safer -- exactly the opposite considering how both the kernel & core system software have been repeatedly patched by the open source community. (Contractor-wise, can anyone say "Job Security"?)

Considering the nature of the UAVs they will be controlling, perhaps the better choice for that OS would be OpenBSD, widely advertised as only having had "2 remote holes since forever". Of course, that would represent a new challenge with a big "pay-off" for hackers everywhere.

Re:What if? (1)

siddesu (698447) | more than 2 years ago | (#40254647)

Just because a Linux distro might be heavily customized by a subcontractor of Raytheon does not make it, or the networks of Raytheon or the subcontractor, impenetrable to Chinese (or other) hackers.

Re:What if? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40255181)

And that's my point, except not as eloquently stated.

Red Dragon Linux VS NSA approved Linux VS MIC "Special" Linux VS RedHat Linux -- all are vulnerable to hackers, be they government, government-sponsored, or independent. And that is why I referenced OpenBSD.

WHOOSH!

Re:What if? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40255215)

Agreed...!

That's why they should use Windows. Invulnerable to any known and unknown exploit since it's inception.

Re:What if? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40268147)

No, it's OSX that is invulnerable. Haven't you seen those cool ads with the Mac guys and the PC guy??

Re:What if? (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | more than 2 years ago | (#40256037)

Don't get your hopes up. Most defenze development networks are only accessible by cleared sneakers, and the data goes only one way (in, not out). A Chinese spy might get access, but not likely a hacker.

Re:What if? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40256121)

The Army has been using Linux for a very long time. I know for a fact they use Linux for at least some elements of their Apache Longbow simulators. I've seen the Linux kernel boot messages when they flipped the switch to turn everything on.

Re:What if? (5, Informative)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 2 years ago | (#40253833)

As AlphaWolf pointed out, that clause only has to do with distribution.

Additionally, just because they make software that runs on Linux, doesn't make everything fall under the GPL.
If they modify the Linux kernel or similar parts of Linux then yes the modifications fall under the GPL but they are probably using off the shelf Linux and putting their own apps over the top.

Re:What if? (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 2 years ago | (#40254153)

The DOD is probably the largest user of Linux in the world. DARPA has been funding Free software development for decades.

Re:What if? (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 2 years ago | (#40256243)

I'm sure it's actually RTLinux a custom flavor used by DOD and NSA and OGA for hardware.

It doesn't have to be GPL because they're not releasing it for use.

Re:What if? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40257407)

I've worked quite a few projects for the navy. We have used redhat for the last decade. Redhat 7.3, EL5.5, and EL5.6.

We don't do kernel mods, otherwise, it loses some of the juju, and redhat won't support it.

And I thought Linux was free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40253911)

What is it called Raytheux? Did they choose it because it has a "killall" tool?

Linux makes money (5, Insightful)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | more than 2 years ago | (#40253969)

There are people who don't understand that with GNU/Linux you can make good money. Not with selling an operating system (although that works fine for Microsoft, Red Hat etc) but with the systems you can build on top of the whole GNU/Linux infrastructure. This allows a lot of other companies to make money, not just the operating system vendors. The Linux kernel and GNU components may be free, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a whole lot of financial value in it.

Re:Linux makes money (5, Informative)

paugq (443696) | more than 2 years ago | (#40254139)

I know already three countries in three continents which have moved their Navy's (bespoke) SCADA and ship and control systems from Windows to Linux. A fourth country is already in the planning stage. How do I know? Because I ported the software, created a custom Linux distro, etc. Years of work.

Fun fact: at the beginning we charged a premium for the Linux version. Customer's answer? We want Linux. Windows was deprecated 3 years ago for this software due to no demand. But it's also understandable: I can tell you at least three countries which had to put their frigates and submarines in "manual sailing mode" due to Windows viruses (!!!). Not to speak of many countries not trusting the US more-than-influence on Microsoft, and also some features which were simply impossible to support on Windows due to Windows limitations.

Re:Linux makes money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40254225)

No shit. Windows is a piece of crap.

You'd have to be a moron, or totally corrupted, to think putting Windows on weapons systems is a good idea.

Re:Linux makes money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40254259)

unless of course, you wish to sell said weapons systems to your "enemies"...
then it makes perfect sense :D

Re:Linux makes money (1)

tibman (623933) | more than 2 years ago | (#40260605)

But wouldn't your enemy's weapons be pointed at you? *shrugs* depends upon the nature of the "malfunction" i guess.

Re:Linux makes money (1)

rastilin (752802) | more than 2 years ago | (#40255053)

I dunno, after using both I still trust Windows more than Linux. That being said, Windows had loads of problems in the past so it's not surprising that governments moved away from it in their weapons.If you were implementing a Solaris based solution or something custom based on a real-time OS I could understand wanting to use a UNIX based system. However, it's possible for someone to submit a slightly broken feature as part of a patch and insert a backdoor into a linux system; you're assuming that you'll actually bother to look through all the code eventually or that you'll know the security holes when you see them.

Re:Linux makes money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40255639)

vs. not having the option to look through any code from Microsoft and continuing the forever fail with viruses.

Re:Linux makes money (2)

paugq (443696) | more than 2 years ago | (#40255705)

If you were implementing a Solaris based solution or something custom based on a real-time OS I could understand wanting to use a UNIX based system.

I was talking about supervision (SCADA) and control, not about weapons. Combat systems run on real-time operating systems such as VxWorks or QNX.

Re Solaris: there are several major reasons this kind of customers do not trust Windows:
1. Developed by a US company (Windows: check, Solaris: check)
2. Source code not available (Windows: check, Solaris: check)
3. Support on old/new hardware in the future (Windows: check, Solaris: check)
4. Common viruses (Windows: check)

A customer which does not trust Windows for reasons 1-3 will usually not trust Solaris either.

motherboards are made where now? (1)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#40255991)

considering that most motherboards are made in china now, i find it laughable that so many people think their systems can be 'secured' because its running 'intel/amd and linux'.

Re:Linux makes money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40256749)

> However, it's possible for someone to submit a slightly broken feature as part of a patch and insert a backdoor into a linux system;

How is this less plausible in a proprietary closed system? If anything, the chance of a proprietary closed OS having backdoors is a lot higher than any open source system (Linux included). Or do you believe closed proprietary software makers are immune to cracking? I'd say, based on copious anecdotal evidence, that closed proprietary is far easier to penetrate and alter -- and more importantly, harder to figure out it was tainted!

> you're assuming that you'll actually bother to look through all the code eventually or that you'll know the security holes when you see them.

And you're assuming that someone will do it for you (for instance, after being paid to do that), which is pretty naive (to say the least). Either that or you're saying there's no solution because nobody will check the code. That's not true, at least the cracker will do it -- and in the process of attacking the enemy, will fix the code he himself uses...

> after using both I still trust Windows more than Linux.

I'd like to learn about a Linux cracker which would, after being caught, recommend that users protect themselves by using Windows. That would be... curious...

Re:Linux makes money (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#40256811)

... you're assuming that you'll actually bother to look through all the code eventually or that you'll know the security holes when you see them.

Aaahhh... but there's a solution for that... release your source code in open source. You know... "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"?

Re:Linux makes money (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 2 years ago | (#40263759)

You don't follow the Linux mailing lists at all, do you? Source code makes a huge difference in bug detection and fix development time. For the record, I'd likely use OpenBSD over Linux for audited releases, but Linux does have better hardware support.

and then there was tunisia (1)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#40255977)

where Bill Gates himself signed a deal with the government, claiming that all the linux computers they were using were being re-installed with windows, and then allowing Tunisia's dictator to modify the acceptable-cert-list in IE (and giving access to the source code of windows to the dictatorship).

Re:and then there was tunisia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40259371)

Citation please. No really, I'd like a citation to pass around.

Re:Linux makes money (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 2 years ago | (#40260079)

There are people who don't understand that with GNU/Linux you can make good money.

That's like saying "there are people who don't understand that with little rubber feet for appliances you can make good money". It's rubbish. The expertise here lies in the specialized domain of providing complex control and management systems - the OS is almost irrelevant, as it's something small shops and startups don't have.

Re:Linux makes money (1)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | more than 2 years ago | (#40260987)

I think the point went right by you. There are people who say by developing for and deploying on Linux you cannot make money (inferring only Windows should be developed for) - and then point to Microsoft's sales figures. My point is that the operating system doesn't matter for just about anyone other than Microsoft or its distrubution channels, the value lies elsewhere (as you point out).

Whats with the 883 (repeated) (2)

maroberts (15852) | more than 2 years ago | (#40254231)

Is this some kind of mystic number in contract value?

Re:Whats with the 883 (repeated) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40254299)

Mark of the beast in MIL speak.

Eight plus eight is sixteen. Three six-teen. 666-teen. Mark of the beast-teen.

Re:Whats with the 883 (repeated) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40254891)

Well, it's good to know that the beast has not yet grown up, but it's still a teen

Re:Whats with the 883 (repeated) (2)

chromas (1085949) | more than 2 years ago | (#40254415)

It was a nice round number until they converted from metric dollars.

Re:Whats with the 883 (repeated) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40255291)

I guessed it had something to do with "x/12" for the number of months, but the closest I could come to it was 10/12 of 1,000,000 being 833,333.

Re:Whats with the 883 (repeated) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40255961)

their first estimate was $27,883
marketing said, "too small make it bigger" so: $27,883,883

Transition to linux from... what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40254973)

Windows or something custom/obscure OS?

Re:Transition to linux from... what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40256863)

Windows or something custom/obscure OS?

CP/M... booting from 8" floppies... 360 kB/side.

Re:Transition to linux from... what? (1)

tibman (623933) | more than 2 years ago | (#40260619)

Windows 98?

Re:Transition to linux from... what? (1)

tibman (623933) | more than 2 years ago | (#40260629)

nevermind! for some reason i was thinking about the subs/ships from the earlier threads. Not the flight control software : /

What does Stallman think, I wonder? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40255037)

I'm sure his it was a part of his vision for free software to be used to kill and terrorize people. I guess I should be glad I'm not brown, and I don't have any oil.

Re:What does Stallman think, I wonder? (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | more than 2 years ago | (#40255881)

Linux has been in the defense industry almost since it has been around. In fact, this is only the second time I've heard of a major system #not# using linux.

In your anti-defense industry world, linux would be the OS of death.

Re:What does Stallman think, I wonder? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40258299)

And I'm sure he didn't create Linux, even though he likes to pretend he did.

Why Linux? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40255585)

Surely there will be several reasons, but I think these people think on strategic terms: fixes in battle times. A professional contracted support simply won't do in battle time. They need something that can close a vulnerability in Free Software time -- in one to two days -- instead of next Patch Tuesday, next month or next release (which might happen in 3 years from now).

Where I work, people get the wrong idea that paying more will change reality...

Re:Why Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40257975)

"Patch Tuesday" doesn't work - I don't think "ground control stations" are attached to the Internets in order to take advantage of patch tuesday, or any other patch day. Well, at least not directly - connections are thru trusted networks protected quite strongly. Patches are pushed, not solicited.

Besides, the problem isn't vulnerabilities per se, but the doofus people at the ground station violating policy by plugging in their own flash drives, usb hard drives, usb cdroms, prepared on their own systems with files - software or otherwise - which aren't well-secured hence riddled with viri & malwares from their Internet wanderings. Sitting at a ground station console watching second after second, minute after minute, hour after hour of boring desert imagery is very boring, so such behavior is understandable in spite of policies & regulations. A little human "engineering" would reduce the temptation of such bad behavior, but security officials don't believe in that sort of thing - the stick always trumps the carrot with these people.

Porting away from Solaris (1)

PseudoCoder (1642383) | more than 2 years ago | (#40255943)

This is most likely prompted by the fact that the most well-respected and versatile ground control software package has been hosted on Solaris for a long time, but has also been transitioning to Linux over the last few years. Couple that with the fact that Solaris is becoming more and more difficult to support and procure hardware for and this is a natural progression. I myself had to ask the company that makes this software to port the software to x86 so I could use it in a UAV training system and surprisingly they were more willing to port it to Linux than to OpenSolaris which I thought would be a shorter path, but since it was OpenMotif based and Linux is way easier to support the Linux path made more sense. The Linux version was not "flight certified" and was only useful for the training system. Now the universal ground station software is Linux native and that's probably what they're transitioning to.

that explanes the drone in iran (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40256689)

So all china had to do was hack windows to land the drone in iran. Nice job DOD live and learn on that one.

Hey i.. maybe I can get a Job there ? (1)

jerryjnormandin (1942378) | more than 2 years ago | (#40260871)

I used to make Jokes that Raytheon uses Java for all the user interfaces since I think when it comes to weaponry, Java is slow. It's good to see they are moving to Linux, but I hope it's a hardened Linux. Also I'd like to see all the devices used in the drone to be able to authenticate authenticity. I build vertical take off drones, I've got a quadcopter and I'm building a new one based on the APM 2.0 controller. I mounted a small micro car remote camera to my quadpod and record video to an sd card. My larger quadcopter will be able to lock on gps position, heading, and altitude.. awesome for photography. It will also support an upload of gps waypoints from google maps. I'm working on object avoidance sensors and code. I'm thinking about using the proximity radar sensors that have been available in the net for a while. I've got down facing sonar for auto takeoff and landing. I was going to arm the quadpod with a 100mw laser module to blow up balloons and melt r/c airplanes made of EPO foam, but I chickened out because it's not exactly eye safe, even with goggles. If you get a relection from the side you are in trouble. I might arm it with an airsoft gun. That would be cool.

what about LPS the US Air Force linux Distro (1)

tikal808 (2622665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40261035)

I have not read all the comments, but the United States Air Force has it's own Linux distro called LPS. My guess is that they will use that, or use it as a starting point so they are not starting from scratch. Here is more info:
http://www.spi.dod.mil/lipose.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Portable_Security
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=LPS
LPS is designed to serve as a Secure End Node. It can run on on almost any Intel-based computer (PC or Mac). LPS boots only in RAM, creating a pristine, non-persistent, end node. It is capable using Common Access Card (CAC) software for authentication into DoD networks.

Herp! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40262819)

Derp!

End the Dell Blacklist of Linux NOW... (1)

PaulGrins (2611371) | more than 2 years ago | (#40299783)

If you feel passionately about Linux support this petition to get Dell to stop the blockade and blacklisting of Linux and to stop forcing customers to buy Windows 7 and Microsoft Office if they want the latest Dell hardware. Make a difference and tell them to stop now....They have setup a petition website for the posting of new ideas and comments called Ideastorm, lets up-vote the issue and support the breaking of the Microsoft Cartel at Dell...

"Pre-Installed Linux | Ubuntu | Fedora | OpenSUSE | Multi-Boot" Link: http://www.ideastorm.com/idea2ReadIdea?id=0877000000006ixAAA&v=1339437474096 [ideastorm.com] [ideastorm.com]

"Give the user a choice of Ubuntu/Fedora/RHEL or Windows on all desktops..." Link: http://www.ideastorm.com/idea2ReadIdea?Id=087700000008iglAAA&v=1339424370822 [ideastorm.com] [ideastorm.com]

Please support this effort...
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?