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!

USS Zumwalt — a Guided Missile Destroyer Running On Linux

Soulskill posted 1 year,6 days | from the heavily-armed-tux dept.

The Military 229

New submitter SanDogWeps writes "Sean Gallagher over at Ars Technica reports that when the U.S.S. Zumwalt (DDG 1000) puts to sea later this year, it will be different from any other ship in the Navy's fleet in many ways. The $3.5 billion ship is designed for stealth, survivability, and firepower, and it's packed with advanced technology. And at the heart of its operations is a virtual data center powered by off-the-shelf server hardware, various flavors of Linux, and over 6 million lines of software code. From the article: 'Called the Common Display System, or CDS (pronounced as "keds" by those who work with it), the three-screen workstations in the operations center are powered by a collection of quad-processor Intel motherboards in an armored case, which gives new meaning to the nautical phrase "toe buster." Even the commanding officer's and executive officer's chairs on the bridge have CDS workstations built-in. Each CDS system runs multiple LynxOS-based Linux virtual machines, which can run on various networks partitioned by security level and purpose. '"

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

Death wants to be freeeeeeeeee! (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45168351)

Stallman would be proud.

Re:Death wants to be freeeeeeeeee! (4, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168453)

People don't kill people. Linux kills people.

Re:Death wants to be freeeeeeeeee! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45168667)

Between this ship and Hans Reiser, I think we have a strong case for renaming Linux to MurderOS.

Re:Death wants to be freeeeeeeeee! (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168783)

That's an interesting point. I wonder what filesystem these Linux systems are running? Perhaps the Navy is the organization that secretly bought Hans Reiser's assets a few years ago.

Re:Death wants to be freeeeeeeeee! (5, Interesting)

Megane (129182) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168743)

Linux doesn't kill people, Windows NT [wikipedia.org] kills people! [wired.com]

(Or at least it kills ships... got to watch out for those divide by zero errors!)

Re:Death wants to be freeeeeeeeee! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45169249)

because a divide by zero on linux actually produces a result instead of an error...

Score: 2, Blind Hatred

Re:Death wants to be freeeeeeeeee! (1)

steelfood (895457) | 1 year,6 days | (#45169327)

In Facist America...

Re:Death wants to be freeeeeeeeee! (1)

Peter Kingsbury (3046159) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168663)

He would be ashamed. Nowhere in the article does it reference "GNU/Linux".

And? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45168445)

Are we supposed to be happy that the blood, sweat and tears of the thousands of developers who gave their time to an ideal of free software are now being used by the world's favorite rogue state to bring death and destruction to far flung corners of the globe?

Re:And? (-1, Troll)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168465)

Are we supposed to be happy that the blood, sweat and tears of the thousands of developers who gave their time to an ideal of free software are now being used by the world's favorite rogue state to bring death and destruction to far flung corners of the globe?

Mod Up, x1000

 

Re:And? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45168531)

Hey, when you signed on to open source you agreed you had no control over what it ended up being used for. Stallman's rage could probably power a small city though.

Re:And? (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168597)

And this is another illustration of why you should know your license agreements! Don't just rely on summaries or pick-your-features selectors. If you care where your software goes or what it's used for, take the time to do the research and know what your license says.

Re:And? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168817)

Hey, when you signed on to open source you agreed you had no control over what it ended up being used for. Stallman's rage could probably power a small city though.

Actually, Stallman has no problems with free SW (even GNU stuff) being used for military applications, as long as any redistribution of the SW respects the license (said redistribution obviously not taking place for the custom SW powering the destroyer, so no license problems happening).

Re:And? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45168849)

Hey, when you signed on to open source you agreed you had no control over what it ended up being used for..

Absolutely, but the use of free software in machines designed to kill human beings should be seen a ghastly side effect of its freedom. Linux being used to create death and destruction is absolutely nothing to brag about.

Re:And? (5, Insightful)

tnk1 (899206) | 1 year,6 days | (#45169313)

Fire has been used by humans for 1.9 million years or so. It is very useful for killing people painfully. I'm still pretty happy with fire.

Linux has been used from the early nineties, and now its going to kill people. I'm still pretty happy with Linux.

Granted, I'm not going to brag about that aspect, but I wouldn't go so far to say it is a ghastly aspect. Modern militaries use everything from brooms to paperclips in support of their mission to kill stuff. That's because militaries use systems to accomplish their tasks, just like everything else does. If you create a system to move food around the globe, you also create a system that moves food between war zones.

I'd be proud that Linux is deemed capable of underlying a mission critical system, even if I don't like the results of said system.

Re:And? (3, Informative)

gdshaw (1015745) | 1 year,6 days | (#45169033)

Hey, when you signed on to open source you agreed you had no control over what it ended up being used for.

Indeed, and for good reason. There are almost limitless ways in which a software author might want to discriminate against fields of use, and no prospect of achieving global consensus on what should or should not be allowed. One of the key benefits of Open Source is that you don't have to read the licence of every single package you install to find out whether it is safe to use. The most practicable way to achieve this is to prohibit restrictions on what you can use the software for.

Re:And? (4, Insightful)

n1ywb (555767) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168555)

Animals fight. Humans fight. It's stupd and sad and I hope we can move long term away from it. In the meantime, I for one am happy we have a strong defense. Do you honestly think Russia and China aren't interested in global hegemony?

That said, I'm not so happy about our offensive game.

Anyway freedom is a double edged sword. Nobody gets to pick and choose who uses FOSS for what purpose. That's sort of the point. You honestly don't think Linux has played a military roll before?

On the other hand they may contribute back to the community, and probably already have done so.

And it's a hell of a lot better than them running Windows. You'd be amazed how many mission critical Windows boxes are on a typical ship, to say nothing of a military vessel.

Re:And? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45168639)

I'm ecstatic.

Re:And? (2)

ericloewe (2129490) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168655)

Technically, it's not open source software. It's a proprietary Unix-compatible OS (yeah, that's still a thing).

The headline is wrong since it has essentially nothing to do with Linux.

Re:And? (1)

tb()ne (625102) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168941)

You have to actually read past the headline. From TFA:

...The design of the Zumwalt solves that problem by using off-the-shelf hardware—mostly IBM blade servers running Red Hat Linux...

Re:And? (1)

fnj (64210) | 1 year,6 days | (#45169047)

Bullshit. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is open source. Did you bother even skimming the short referenced article?

Re:And? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45168659)

To be fair, the Navy doesn't really do anything to small countries, only big ones that can also have Navies.

Re:And? (1)

bobbied (2522392) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168893)

Are we supposed to be happy that the blood, sweat and tears of the thousands of developers who gave their time to an ideal of free software are now being used by the world's favorite rogue state to bring death and destruction to far flung corners of the globe?

Calm down there AC.. This ain't the Linux you are looking for. The headline was very misleading. It runs LynxOS which is certainly not open source. There might be some GNU tools which are open source, but at the kernel level it is not Linux.

Re:And? (1)

tb()ne (625102) | 1 year,6 days | (#45169179)

The summary is misleading in that it mentions LynxOS running on particular subsystems. But TFA states that the ship uses "...mostly IBM blade servers running Red Hat Linux...".

Re:And? (1)

fnj (64210) | 1 year,6 days | (#45169183)

The headline was very misleading. It runs LynxOS which is certainly not open source.

From TFA:

The design of the Zumwalt solves that problem by using off-the-shelf hardware—mostly IBM blade servers running Red Hat Linux—and putting it in a ruggedized server room. ...
Systems that weren't built to be wired into an IP network—other "programs of record" within the ship, which are installed across multiple classes of Navy ships—are wired in using adaptors based on single-board computers and the Lynx OS real-time Linux operating system.

The headline was NOT misleading. It sounds like the main core is running Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and at the board level there are embedded systems running LynxOS to adapt modules not based on linux. The part that sets this class apart is the linux part. The only misleading part I can spot is the phrase "Lynx OS real-time Linux", which in no way detracts from the fact that there is both linux and LynxOS on board.

Re:And? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | 1 year,6 days | (#45169187)

Would it being "pure Linux" or "fully open source" make things automatically somehow more holy then?

Re:And? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | 1 year,6 days | (#45169219)

Are we supposed to be happy that the blood, sweat and tears of the thousands of developers who gave their time to an ideal of free software are now being used by the world's favorite rogue state to bring death and destruction to far flung corners of the globe?

I also heard that a screwdriver was used in assembling the computers. The same kind of screwdriver which is used to put together computers targeted to run peaceful operations with open source software. This must end.

Re:And? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45169311)

They were dumb enough to work on an open source project for free, they had it coming.

Seriously. If you losers can't see now why open source is a bad deal, I'm not sure if you ever will.

Weapons purposes in license (1)

morphotomy (1655417) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168469)

Isn't there a provision in the license stating the software cannot be used for weapons purposes or something of the like?

Re:Weapons purposes in license (4, Informative)

gdshaw (1015745) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168645)

Isn't there a provision in the license stating the software cannot be used for weapons purposes or something of the like?

No, and if there were then it would not be considered Open Source (clause 6 of the OSD, 'No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor').

Re:Weapons purposes in license (1, Troll)

morphotomy (1655417) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168681)

But if its being used by a tyrant, is the code really free?

Re:Weapons purposes in license (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45169207)

Are you referring to Obama as a tyrant? On Slashdot? Or are you referring to Linus Torvalds as a tyrant?

Re:Weapons purposes in license (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45168761)

No, and if there were then it would not be considered Open Source

LynxOS is not open source.

Re:Weapons purposes in license (1)

fnj (64210) | 1 year,6 days | (#45169205)

LynxOS is not open source.

So what? Red Hat Enterprise Linux IS open source. They are both used.

Re:Weapons purposes in license (1)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168653)

No.

Re:Weapons purposes in license (1)

alen (225700) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168837)

and so what?

the US just has to pass a law saying any OS or code can be used in military applications

Re:Weapons purposes in license (1)

Megane (129182) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168839)

That's iTunes. [cultofmac.com]

But then again, unless it's powered by a nuclear reactor, it's not a "nuclear, missile, or chemical or biological weapon". Score!

And the OS X EULA only says that it's "not intended for use in" a list of things which doesn't specifically include naval navigation! (Except when failure of the Apple software could lead to death, personal injury, or severe physical or environmental damage. So that depends on if getting stuck on a reef counts.)

Re:Weapons purposes in license (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168885)

Wait, NOW you're trying to say licenses should be used to restrict how one uses software?

Would you people please make up your minds!

The military was supposed to be fighting communism (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45168487)

Now they're using it to run their warships.

Not to mention all of Obama's "czars."

Looks like Larry McDonald was right!

Re:The military was supposed to be fighting commun (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45169335)

Why did this get modded down?

Left out the best part (4, Informative)

RetiredMidn (441788) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168493)

The captain's name is James Kirk.

Re:Left out the best part (5, Informative)

Sarten-X (1102295) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168541)

Citation [navy.mil] no longer needed.

That's pretty awesome.

Re:Left out the best part (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168619)

How does he fight the urge to change his name to one that can be abbreviated James T. Kirk?

Re:Left out the best part (2)

Sarten-X (1102295) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168651)

Clearly, the military has beaten all sense out of him.

Re:Left out the best part (1)

RetiredMidn (441788) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168633)

Thank you; it was mentioned in TFA, but your link is better.

Re:Left out the best part (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168933)

RTFA? WTF?

Re:Left out the best part (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45168745)

Just waiting for his next posting on CVN-80 then....

Re:Left out the best part (2)

fishybell (516991) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168953)

I'm sure he has the same problem as Major Major Major Major [wikipedia.org] , as in he'll never advance beyond captain because it fits his name.

But... (1)

nayrbn (2704751) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168509)

does it run linux?

Re:But... (0)

bobbied (2522392) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168831)

Um, apparently not. It runs LynxOS. Which is NOT Linux, even if it looks a lot like Linux to the user.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45169083)

It actually is not running LynxOS. It is running LynxSecure. LynxSecure is a separation kernel and hypervisor. The hypervisor bit enables running Linux, or any other guest OS, in a virtualized environment.

http://www.lynuxworks.com/virtualization/hypervisor.php

Re:But... (1)

fnj (64210) | 1 year,6 days | (#45169237)

It runs LynxOS. Which is NOT Linux

Bzzzzt. Fail. From TFA:

The design of the Zumwalt solves that problem by using off-the-shelf hardware—mostly IBM blade servers running Red Hat Linux—and putting it in a ruggedized server room.

Both LynxOS and Red Hat Enterprise Linux are on board.

Resistant to anti-ship missles? (3, Interesting)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168557)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that anti-ship missile technology has been ahead of defence systems now for quite some time, such that basically any ship that gets within range of them is basically always sunk. What's more, Russia, Iran and China all have such missiles. What exactly are these ships being built for, beyond the jobs they produce?

Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? (4, Interesting)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168719)

Sorry, did you just ask what's the purpose of building ships when they can be sunk?

Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45169355)

Sort of, but it's more like he asked what's the purpose of building a weapon whose sole purpose is to fight a specific enemy who has already mastered a method of countering said weapon.

But really, the stated purpose of the ship is surface warfare, anti-aircraft, and naval fire support. There are plenty of third-world types who have some paltry navy or air-force that this ship will totally dominate. Woo.

And, in theory, it's supposed to be stealthy, so hopefully the first-world powers with anti-ship missiles won't know it's there and won't shoot it.

But yeah, building a boat as a threat against first-world NUCLEAR powers. How quaint.

Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45168757)

The arms race changes day-to-day, but AFAIK, the CIWS system, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS [wikipedia.org] , when armed, is quite capable of handling current airborne missiles.

Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45168851)

Until it runs out of ammo. Simply fire AMMO + 1 Missiles, and you are good! So the secret is cheap missiles with some effectiveness in large numbers.

Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45168967)

We can afford more Vulcan rounds than they can afford any kind of missile, for all values of "they".

Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45169233)

The Phalanx is pretty good but it's range is poor. It can damage a missile in flight, but the speed of most missiles these days is so great that by the time it's engaged by the CIWS, even if shot the wreckage of the missile will still likely impact the ship and cause a lot of damage, just not as much.

Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45168819)

Because a guided missile destroyer can fire those guided missiles that sink other ships.

Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? (3, Insightful)

Antipater (2053064) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168825)

a) I doubt anyone outside of classified weapons research actually knows whether offense or defense currently has the advantage.
b) The Zumwalt is a guided missile destroyer, which means that it will be the thing launching said anti-ship missiles at the other side's ships. It doesn't matter how deadly the enemy is, if you take them out before they take you out.

Yes, you're wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45168845)

'nuff said.

Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? (2)

Shatrat (855151) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168877)

What ship has ever been invincible? I think the idea here is that between stealth for defense and enhanced radar and electronics for offense, this ship will shoot first.

Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45168977)

What ship has ever been invincible?

The Titanic.

Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168939)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that anti-ship missile technology has been ahead of defence systems now for quite some time, such that basically any ship that gets within range of them is basically always sunk.

You're wrong.

A quick check shows that only one "modern" warship has been sunk by anti-ship missiles, and that was in the Falklands war 31 years ago.

Note that "modern" label above is NOT intended to imply that Sheffield had any modern defenses or anything.

The only "modern" warship with even rudimentary missile defenses hit with an anti-shipping missile had to sail home to be repaired. And was in service for another dozen years afterwards.

Note that one Iranian frigate was hit with three antiship missiles, but didn't sink until it was hit with another rocket-propelled bomb, several laser-guided bombs, and several iron bombs (that means a bomb that's just dropped, no propulsion, no guidance).

So, no, there's no real evidence that anti-shipping missiles are automatic death for any ship in range - just a lot of wishful thinking on the part of people with anti-shipping missiles and no Navy to speak of.

stealth (1)

schlachter (862210) | 1 year,6 days | (#45169041)

one of the features of this ship is stealth. they won't shoot it down if they don't see it.

but it is a scary idea that a $10K missile can take out a $3.5B ship.

Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? (1)

intermodal (534361) | 1 year,6 days | (#45169071)

To put it simply, there are three being built because we've already sunk so much (pun intended) money into them. There's really no significant advantage over a major refit and overhaul (or even new, more advanced builds) of the far, far cheaper Arleigh Burke-class.

Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45169223)

It has some stealth features and it was supposed to get a railgun. I will agree that it is pretty expensive for a test bed, but we started planning this boat a long time ago as the replacement for the Burke class. At least it is better than the LCS Frigates.

Re:Resistant to anti-plane missles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45169287)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that anti-ship missile technology has been ahead of defence systems now for quite some time, such that basically any ship that gets within range of them is basically always sunk. What's more, Russia, Iran and China all have such missiles. What exactly are these ships being built for, beyond the jobs they produce?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that anti-plane missile technology has been ahead of defence systems now for quite some time, such that basically any plane that gets within range of them is basically always destroyed. What's more, Russia, Iran and China all have such missiles. What exactly are these planes being built for, beyond the jobs they produce?

Not linux (4, Informative)

mwvdlee (775178) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168569)

LynxOS is a proprietary Unix, compatible with Linux binaries.
It does not contain the Linux kernel and is closed source.

Re:Not linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45168713)

I was thinking the same thing.

Re:Not linux (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45168725)

STFU! What are you? A Micro$oft shill?!?!

Re:Not linux (1)

bobbied (2522392) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168753)

Yea got to love the media hype. New Flash guys: JavaScript isn't JAVA..

But, I can assure you that Linux is alive and well in the Department of Defense. But so is Windows XP, MP, 98 and beyond...

Re:Not linux (1)

intermodal (534361) | 1 year,6 days | (#45169039)

But, I can assure you that Linux is alive and well in the Department of Defense. But so is Windows XP, MP, 98 and beyond...

Is Windows MP use restricted to the military police?

Re:Not linux (1)

synapse7 (1075571) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168861)

I stopped following ars since their horrid change of format, is it surprising or not surprising ars pushed it as Linux?

RTFA (2)

jklovanc (1603149) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168895)

The design of the Zumwalt solves that problem by using off-the-shelf hardware—mostly IBM blade servers running Red Hat Linux—and putting it in a ruggedized server room.

Many servers are running Linux not Lynx.

Re:Not linux (4, Informative)

NoKaOi (1415755) | 1 year,6 days | (#45169143)

LynxOS is a proprietary Unix, compatible with Linux binaries.
It does not contain the Linux kernel and is closed source.

And I didn't see anywhere in the summary or article that said runs Linux exclusively. The component they refer to as running LynxOS is only one part of the whole.

FTA:

mostly IBM blade servers running Red Hat Linux—and putting it in a ruggedized server room. Those ruggedized server rooms are called Electronic Modular Enclosures (EMEs), sixteen self-contained, mini data centers built by Raytheon.

I'm pretty sure anything called Red Hat Linux is going to contain the Linux kernel.

Re:Not linux (1)

fnj (64210) | 1 year,6 days | (#45169333)

LynxOS is a proprietary Unix, compatible with Linux binaries.
It does not contain the Linux kernel and is closed source.

And your point is? From TFA:

The design of the Zumwalt solves that problem by using off-the-shelf hardware—mostly IBM blade servers running Red Hat Linux—and putting it in a ruggedized server room.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux certainly IS open source.

WOW Linux!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45168591)

Using linux we can kill those sand niggers much much faster

235 server racks in one ship? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45168617)

I mean yeah redundancy and all, but that seems a bit out of proportion?

Re:235 server racks in one ship? (1)

alen (225700) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168997)

figure you have to track multiple fast moving threats like missiles and lots of other potential targets and non-combatants. that's a lot of processing power

Re:235 server racks in one ship? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45169361)

Bet 234 of those racks are serving porn to the rest of the fleet.

Perhaps... (1)

St.Creed (853824) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168623)

Perhaps it's appropriate that the first commanding officer of the Zumwalt will be Captain James Kirk (yes, that's actually his name).

Come on US Navy, you can tell us: you saw the name and went for it :)

As for the article, very nice! I never did get what "DDG-1000" stand for, but I think it's ominous. The T-800 and T-1000 were not the best names for hardware, and anything close to it is suspect by default.

A commenter said: "Also of note: the ship has a totally electric propulsion system, and has an integrated power system that will support future weapons like railguns and laser/RF system" - pretty interesting.

Re:Perhaps... (1)

BitZtream (692029) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168833)

Most ships use all electric propulsion when built now days, this nothing new..

So do all sorts of things, like locomotives.

They just use combustion or nuclear to power the electronics, so it's not really all electric power, they certainly don't run on batteries

Re:Perhaps... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45168857)

Perhaps it's appropriate that the first commanding officer of the Zumwalt will be Captain James Kirk (yes, that's actually his name).

Come on US Navy, you can tell us: you saw the name and went for it :)

Only if they're planning on grooming him for CVN-80 when she comes off the ways (CVN-80 is the next USS Enterprise aircraft carrier, and the ninth ship to bear the name).

As for the article, very nice! I never did get what "DDG-1000" stand for, but I think it's ominous.

It's not. DD is the NATO standard designation for Destroyer-class ships; DDG is Destroyer-Guided, referring to the primary armament being Guided Missiles, generally Guided Cruises Missiles, but could be otherwise especially if designed for fleet defense actions.

"1000" is the Navy's way of designating that this is the next generation of DDG, as it represents a major design and development departure from previous generations.

Re:Perhaps... (2)

jklovanc (1603149) | 1 year,6 days | (#45169013)

"DD" = destroyer
"G:" = guided missile
"1000" = Generally warships are numbered sequential but they moved to an easily identifiable number to designate a new generation of ships.

Anyone else... (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168657)

mis-read that as the USS Zubaz [youtube.com] ?

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these! (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45168727)

Their displacement would raise the global sea level another few inches.

Re:Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these! (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45168791)

Do people call them Beowulf clusters anymore?

good for them (1)

Pharoah_69 (2866937) | 1 year,6 days | (#45168773)

if it's running on linux, then all those on board could play Kbattleship then. On another note, I would have preferred the name be: USS Kumwalt.

Yet another reason to run FreeBSD. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45168797)

Yet another reason to run FreeBSD.

--libman

It was designed (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45168813)

to transfer taxpayer dollars to the pockets of MIC CEOs - all else is padding.

Re:It was designed (1)

NoKaOi (1415755) | 1 year,6 days | (#45169175)

to transfer taxpayer dollars to the pockets of MIC CEOs - all else is padding.

That is not true. It was, in fact, designed to transfer taxpayer dollars to the campaigns of certain politicians. The CEOs are just the middlemen.

Virtual? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45168865)

What's a "virtual data center"? It's either a data center or it isn't.

Re: Virtual? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45168911)

16 containers and 235 racks is hardly virtual.

world domination at last (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45169063)

If Linux can't dominate the world, no one else will either, after Linux destroys the world!!!

So that ship gets 3 screens (1)

Rinikusu (28164) | 1 year,6 days | (#45169121)

And I still can't get dual screens to work reliably/painlessly. Sigh.

gotta know (1)

Tablizer (95088) | 1 year,6 days | (#45169197)

But does it run Windows?

I want to see... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#45169277)

..what happens when they run psdoom on the buggers....as root.

Named after... (1)

BenSchuarmer (922752) | 1 year,6 days | (#45169293)

the lead character in Rick Cook's Wizardry books?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?