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!

Tux Enlisted for U.S. Defense Program

samzenpus posted more than 9 years ago | from the free-as-in-bombs dept.

United States 312

An anonymous reader writes "Linux is a key part of the Army's massive $200B FCS (Future Computing System) initiative, it seems. RTOS vendor LynuxWorks was chosen to provide the OS for 18 weapons platforms under development, because its LynxOS-178 real-time OS can run Linux binaries -- including the "common operating environment" that Boeing is developing for FCS."

cancel ×

312 comments

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

Hardly suprising... (0, Flamebait)

firehorsey (867123) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200294)

.. I mean, come on - its either Linux or Microsoft, and the Navy is a little 'concerned' using MS products after their ship failed when NT crashed.

Re:Hardly suprising... (3, Interesting)

Aggamemnon (809791) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200302)

As far as I know, the Royal Navy is still considering NT for the Type 45 - maybe this will help to change their mind.

Re:Hardly suprising... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12200455)

firehorsey said
... the Navy is a little 'concerned' using MS products after their ship failed when NT crashed. ? Did a ship really fail because of NT? Not that I don't believe NT to be failing, but a battleship?

Re:Hardly suprising... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12200476)

No, it didn't, but don't tell the fanboys. What happened was that a database crashed when an operator entered a 0 in the wrong column, which caused a DIV0 exception and the application crashed. The anti-Microsoft fanboys like to describe that as something along the lines of "TEH BATTALSHIP EXPLOODEDED WHEN TEH NT BLOOSCREENED!!!1!1!!" because they don't know any better.

Re:Hardly suprising... (2, Funny)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200607)

Well, linux implements division by zero. So there.

No (4, Informative)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200575)

The USS Yorktown was a testbed for the AEGIS cruiser series. NT was(is?) used as the OS for the LAN.

Crappy application not fully tested (and they knew that and accepted the risks) didn't know how to handle an improper user input. A zero went into the database. The app couldn't handle the DIV0, and crashed.

The Navy report concluded it was the application and human error [gcn.com] , and not NT.

is linux guilty of murder now? (-1, Flamebait)

rambozo (2483) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200299)

is linux guilty of murder now?

Re:is linux guilty of murder now? (4, Funny)

markild (862998) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200310)

It will be. Then in comes SCO and takes the credit

Re:is linux guilty of murder now? (1)

mboverload (657893) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200330)

The use of an OS by the military is quite a mark on it's resume. You should be happy.

Re:is linux guilty of murder now? (1)

heavy snowfall (847023) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200485)

I for one don't need the US military to use linux for killing to know it's good. I know it's unavoidable though.. :(

But what about the corporations? Won't they think this is proof the penguin is good?
Who cares?

Re:is linux guilty of murder now? (2, Informative)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200377)

murder is just a legal term for killing not sanctioned by the government, so no murders will be done. Maybe some genocide and assassinations and such, but no murder.

The Tuxinator; he'll never stop EVER, until you are dead!

Re:is linux guilty of murder now? (5, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200433)

No more so than cars, truck, aluminum, steel, or coffee is. All of which is used by the military around the world, for good or evil.

Re:is linux guilty of murder now? (3, Funny)

pklong (323451) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200470)

Hmmm Tux joins the military.

All the hippy hacker types will be fuming. They might even have to get their hair cur ;)

Yay, no BSOD (-1, Flamebait)

Janitha (817744) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200301)

Well that cleared up my worry about weapons being put a certain other OS and getting BSODs.

Re:Yay, no BSOD (-1, Troll)

rambozo (2483) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200320)

well, a BSOD could save life or better yet, kill the murderer, sorry, soldier himself.

Re:Yay, no BSOD (0, Troll)

Janitha (817744) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200364)

Hmm, in a way I have to agree with that as well. Now that I think about it, I think it doesnt matter what OS that runs your weapons, war will never leave any winners, both sides will lose.

Re:Yay, no BSOD (-1, Troll)

DrinkingIllini (842502) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200421)

Go back to Switzerland, Hippie.

Re:Yay, no BSOD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12200390)

It doesn't matter; under this administration, MS is being forced to change it to the "Blue Screen Culture of Life". Also, I/O errors will now ask only "Invade, Retry, Fail"?

Re:Yay, no BSOD (5, Interesting)

hey! (33014) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200528)

Well, BSODs are pretty much a thing of the past, at least unless you have a defective hardware.

That said, when Windows is used where formerly an embedded OS is used, there is a tendency not to do a very good job stripping out all the stuff that's not needed. Since you aren't going to be patching things that much in the field, this could lead to known security holes on deployed systems for a long time. It may not matter, indeed usually the excuse is that it won't matter, but sometimes the unforseen happens. It's not unheard of for "embedded" versions of windows to have problems like windows file sharing turned on. The hardware engineers don't think like sysadmins.

This problem is not intrinsic to Windows; I've seen the same thing recently on a box that controlled an under vehicle scanner. It used stock SUSE with an old verison of BIND and samba, trhe3 works. The customer wanted to connect it via wireless to a central guard station. This was a bad idea. The security holes in the box are harmless as long as it is stand alone, but on a network they are huge liabilities.

At least with Linux, you can go the Linux from scratch route, which minimizes you exposure to security holes in ancient software.

Re:Yay, no BSOD (2, Informative)

the_bard17 (626642) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200646)

BSODs are pretty much a thing of the past...

I suppose these [microsoft.com] are why you chose "pretty much," huh?

;o) On the other hand, I agree with everything else you said.

open source used to kill babies and oppress YRO (-1, Troll)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200303)

Heh..

Hate on Windows all you want kids, all you're doing is supporting the mighty american military machine.

At least I know that longhorn won't be killing babies. Maybe those security holes are a good thing.

Its an interesting fact that Mac OSX was considered, but was passed over for violating the military's "dont ask, dont tell" policy.

Lots of open source in FCS... (5, Informative)

tcopeland (32225) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200309)

...this paper [ie.org] talks about using the open source, BSD-licensed agent framework COUGAAR [cougaar.org] to run FCS modeling tests.

Also, there's a bunch of COUGAAR support software written in Ruby, i.e., ACME [cougaar.org] .

Re:Lots of open source in FCS... (1)

tcopeland (32225) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200491)

Oh, and since parent is up to +5 now, more conference papers and presentations on Cougaar are here [cougaar.org] .

Yay! (5, Funny)

Neopoleon (874543) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200313)

Nothing says "feel-good bluegrass tech movement" like becoming part of the military industrial complex.

Re:Yay! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12200341)

You mean "grassroots", genius, not "bluegrass". Put the banjo down.

Re:Yay! (0)

Neopoleon (874543) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200407)

"You mean 'grassroots', genius, not 'bluegrass'. Put the banjo down."

Yourmomroots.

Re:Yay! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12200349)

I think you mean "grassroots"...

Re:Yay! (1)

Neopoleon (874543) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200353)

Yeah - "grassroots" too!

[fuck! and I thought I was being so funny...]

Re: thought I was being funny (1, Funny)

lheal (86013) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200475)

I hate it when I come up with a sure-fire, can't miss post and blow it with a typo or incorrect usage that ruins the whole thing.

Like the time I posted about a girl who drank so much she blew chunks, but I put "drunks" instead of "chunks", which changed the meaning slightly.

Re: thought I was being funny (1)

Neopoleon (874543) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200497)

"I hate it when I come up with a sure-fire, can't miss post and blow it with a typo or incorrect usage that ruins the whole thing."

I like to think that the comment wasn't ruined, but rather that a whole generation of h4x0rz isn't going to really know what "bluegrass" means thanks to my early morning pre-coffee slip :)

ARPA-NET (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Luddite (808273) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200392)

You're shooting for the Funny mod, but think about it.

- The precursor to the web we're both using right now was pentagon (ARPA) funded.

Re:ARPA-NET (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12200442)

That's not what Al told me...

Re:ARPA-NET (0, Offtopic)

Neopoleon (874543) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200472)

"You're shooting for the Funny mod, but think about it."

Yeah - "shooting" with my DOD Tux-Powered DeathRifle 9000.

"The precursor to the web we're both using right now was pentagon (ARPA) funded."

I didn't know that, and I am going to UNPLUG MY COMPUTER RIGHT NOW.

Drafted? Guess he's going in before you.. (3, Funny)

infonography (566403) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200324)

Uniform of the Day is now a Tuxedo.

Now I have a mental image (3, Funny)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200328)

of a penguin with a cigarette hanging out of the side of its mouth, cradling an assault rifle and wearing a helmet with 'Born to kill' written on it.

Re:Now I have a mental image (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12200391)

It's taken the BSD devil on in the killer-OS (pun intended ;) ) market, now let's see who'd win in a fight to the death!

Re:Now I have a mental image (2, Informative)

czarangelus (805501) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200474)

Do you mean this little fellow?

bonzai! [phlak.org]

Then... (1)

paranode (671698) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200541)

He whips out his prime Alabama tux-snake and tells you it ain't too god-damned beaucoup.

Re:Now I have a mental image (1)

freshman_a (136603) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200574)


with 'Born to kill'


i was thinking more along the lines of 'Born to Frag' [ls-la.net]

It's Future COMBAT system... (5, Informative)

WonderSnatch (835677) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200334)

That is all.

Re:It's Future COMBAT system... (3, Informative)

WonderSnatch (835677) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200382)

That was not all: See also: http://www.army.mil/fcs/ [army.mil]

Re:It's Future COMBAT system... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12200616)

Mod the parent UP.

I'm a defense contractor. I _work_ on the FCS. Future Computing System it's not.

Here's a very simple guide to some of the concept vehicles involved.

http://www.ausa.org/PDFdocs/Hooah_Guide_web.pdf/ [ausa.org]

Whoops - wrong hooah guide. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12200648)

Same poster here. Made a google faux pas. Hit the wrong hooah guide. Try this one.

http://www.ausa.org/www/armymag.nsf/FutureCombatSy stems/ [ausa.org]

what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12200335)

what

so now i do not have to program in ADA!?

Why wouldn't it run linux binaries? (1)

winkydink (650484) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200339)

It's a linux RTOS, yes?

Re:Why wouldn't it run linux binaries? (1)

Some Bitch (645438) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200397)

No, it's a proprietary OS with a Linux ABI.

Re:Why wouldn't it run linux binaries? (4, Interesting)

Big Mark (575945) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200478)

No, it's a real-time OS that can run Linux binaries. Linux isn't really a real-time OS, although there's been a lot of hackery recently to change this.

Beating a dead horse (5, Funny)

Scoria (264473) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200348)

Colonel Panic: Not just a reaction to incorrect artillery coordinates anymore!

Re:Beating a dead horse (3, Funny)

Scoria (264473) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200376)

Hey, moderators, the parent is not a troll. Stop using the new Red Hat "Curveball" theme; it's distorting your intelligence. :-(

Re:Beating a dead horse (5, Funny)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200417)

He's outranked by General Protection Fault.

Re:Beating a dead horse (0)

OAB_X (818333) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200615)

In Solviet Russia, General faults YOU

Peace, Love, Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12200352)

I'm sure this is what Linus had in mind, yo.

That's alright, You don't even need an os for a basic roadside bomb. Simple, cheap, effective.

Re:Peace, Love, Linux (2, Funny)

REBloomfield (550182) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200453)

Can't win with you guys can you?

If they'd put Windows on it, you've have bitched and jumped up and down.

They put Linux on it, and you're still wining.

Perhaps the world doesn't actually give a stuff of the opinions of a load of geeks in their bedrooms?

Does LynxOS really contain Linux code? (4, Informative)

Florian Weimer (88405) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200354)

Apparently not. The press release states that they provide ABI compatiblity using special shared libraries ("[...] compatibility is implemented through the use of dynamically linked shared libraries[...]", similar to WINE). Maybe they have ported GNU libc to LynxOS and use some free software. But apparently, no Linux kernel code is involved.

Re:Does LynxOS really contain Linux code? (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200423)

SCO / Sun use something similar called lxrun. It runs ELF / a.out Linux programs, trapping certain system calls and translating them to the native equivalent. Combined with the same base libraries as Linux (i.e. glibc) and you have a Linux compatibility layer. Apparently the performance hit is fairly small.


Maybe this system uses lxrun or something like it.


As an aside I suppose in theory you could do the reverse. Wouldn't it piss off SCO no end if someone produced a scorun app?

Re:Does LynxOS really contain Linux code? (4, Interesting)

Darkon (206829) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200505)


Wouldn't it piss off SCO no end if someone produced a scorun app?

They already did [demon.co.uk] , and as I remember SCO were mighty pissed off [computerworld.com.au] .

Don't expect compliance with the GPL (0, Troll)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200355)

If Linux is modified as part of this program, don't expect any changes to be contributed back to the community. The military can pretty much get away with anything under the guise of national security.

Re:Don't expect compliance with the GPL (1, Informative)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200380)

did you actually read the article??? The binaries are able to run on this other kernel... it's not the Linux kernel that's being used here, only applications compiled to run on the Linux kernel... it's all about the ABI...

Re:Don't expect compliance with the GPL (4, Informative)

NetNifty (796376) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200399)

Under the GPL I don't think they'd have to submit anything back unless they distributed it publically anyway.

Re:Don't expect compliance with the GPL (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12200438)

Launching a missle at someone might be construed as distributing the binary.

Re:Don't expect compliance with the GPL (0, Offtopic)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200473)

I'm not sure what you mean by adding the word "publically". Distribution is distribution.

Re:Don't expect compliance with the GPL (1)

NetNifty (796376) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200507)

I meant publically rather than internally.

Re:Don't expect compliance with the GPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12200498)

and you have to provide source only for those whom you distributed to anyway.
I bet the army will get the sources.

Re:Don't expect compliance with the GPL (1)

sofar (317980) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200597)


If boeing is distributing binaries to the Army then Boeing *is* required to do so (they are distributing it to a sole proprietor, but still distributing!).

IMO the GPL applies, and since Boeing is a commercial company, sueing for a violation would open up interesting pieces of code.

However, I think it's remotely improbable that they actually modify key linux components, and their control systems most likely will be covered (decently) by closed licenses that do not conflict with the OSS components they use.

Another thing is that the military can subcontract boeing to write code based on the GPL exclusively for themselves, and since the milittary is not distributing (merely using these changes), they are not bound by the GPL to redistribute their source changes.

the good thing is that it's nice to see that OSS is not scaring away big players anymore. Even tho it may not look like a victory for OSS, it certainly is.

Re:Don't expect compliance with the GPL (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200639)

"Another thing is that the military can subcontract boeing to write code based on the GPL exclusively for themselves, and since the milittary is not distributing (merely using these changes), they are not bound by the GPL to redistribute their source changes."

But the changes the contractor made would have to be made public under the GPL because they distributed it to the military. If the military decided that they didn't want the changes to be revealed, you're back to the same conflict.

Re:Don't expect compliance with the GPL (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12200492)

The military can pretty much get away with anything under the guise of national security.
Bullshit. You're poorly informed, and just repeating what you've been told to repeat.

First, there's no requirement to release your modifications to GPL code unless you're charging a fee for binaries of the modified code. If you keep it in-house, it's yours.

Second, "the military" is the United States Government for the purposes of legal action, like contract disputes for example. The Supreme Court has allowed infringement upon individual rights where there is a "compelling government interest" for years. But there is no such thing as allowing a breach of contract (which is what a GPL violation amounts to) for such a purpose.

Stop drinking the goddamn "we are living in a dictatorship" Koolaid and LEARN SOMETHING about how things work (e.g. the US Constitution, the GPL) before you embarrass yourself again.

Re:Don't expect compliance with the GPL (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200586)

"First, there's no requirement to release your modifications to GPL code unless you're charging a fee for binaries of the modified code. If you keep it in-house, it's yours."

I'm not sure if charging a fee has anything to do with it, but I think if this very broad distribution of binary code (embedded systems aren't going to lug around source code) qualifies as "in house" than anything can.

"Stop drinking the goddamn "we are living in a dictatorship" Koolaid and LEARN SOMETHING about how things work (e.g. the US Constitution, the GPL) before you embarrass yourself again."

The US Constitution has been violated by the US government on numerous occasions. I don't think they'd be shaking in their boots over the power of the GPL.

If someone working on a classified project were to provide code to the FSF that proved the goverment was violating the GPL, that person could go to jail for a very long time.

Re:Don't expect compliance with the GPL (2)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200552)

contributed back to the community

To the extent that the government is using non-proprietary OSes and and other cheaper/free pieces of infrastructure to conduct critical activities (like defense, or emergency response), we're looking at using up fewer tax dollars, and that's plenty of "giving back." Of course, the defense/intel community does very much distribute enhanced goodies [nsa.gov] where it can, and we've had plenty of conversations here [slashdot.org] about things like open source CAD stuff from the Navy.

Probably the most important thing, though, is that you get thousands of federal techies using different systems, and a lot of them will leave their stint with the DOD and head out into the wild with an appreciation for alternate ways to handle IT problems. Those folks, showing up at private sector HR desks looking for more lucrative jobs, will have more to do with corporate acceptance of things like Linux than any amount of code the feds might publish.

$18,000 per developer seat! (2, Interesting)

freeio (527954) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200360)

At that price, supporting free software is a mixed bargain if I ever heard of one. Note that it supports Linux binaries, but it is not Linux as we know it.

Go on small dick mod me down! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12200363)

Networking
Music
Robotics
Patents
Shit Wars

the new gpl (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12200387)

should prohibit the military use of gpl software.

Re:the new gpl (0)

Aggamemnon (809791) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200398)

Why?

Re:the new gpl (0, Offtopic)

woodsrunner (746751) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200489)

Parnell: Ever been to Utah? Ra-di-a-tion. Yes, indeed. You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense. Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They ought to have them, too. When they canceled the project it almost did me in. One day my mind was full to bursting. The next day - nothing. Swept away. But I'll show them. I had a lobotomy in the end.
Otto: Lobotomy? Isn't that for loonies?
Parnell: Not at all.Friend of mine had one. Designer of the neutron bomb. You ever hear of the neutron bomb? Destroys people - leaves buildings standing. Fits in a suitcase. It's so small, no one knows it's there until - BLAMMO. Eyes melt, skin explodes, everybody dead. So immoral, working on the thing can drive you mad. That's what happened to this friend of mine. So he had a lobotomy. Now he's well again.

Re:the new gpl (3, Insightful)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200444)

Freedom can be a real bitch when *your* agenda is trodden upon.

GNU (4, Insightful)

MSG (12810) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200394)

Since Linux isn't actually involved in this project in any way, shouldn't the summary state that GNU is a key part of the FCS initiative?

Tux is actually sitting this one out.

All it would take is just one Linux Virus / Trojan (2, Insightful)

INetUser (723076) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200401)

While we all know that Windows is easily subjugated by trojans and viruses, and with the penetration of windows system on the market and connected to the Internet, it's a real problem. Some attribute this to the Windows mono-culture.

Isn't this just another mono-culture waiting to be exploited? Consider the risk. One trojan or virus with a trojan let lose in the military network, and there is no telling what it would / could do. All of a sudden, zillions of fake targets are buzzing around the UCAV's radar as it starts shooting mindlessly at them.

Granted, this assumes, and it's probably a big assumption, that one could connect to the military network in a clandestine nature and remain hidden. But is the risk worth the mono-culture savings?

Re:All it would take is just one Linux Virus / Tro (2, Interesting)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200466)

We already have military equipment running Windows. And this article isn't even about using the Linux kernel or a Linux distro, just an API on top of LynxOS. So what you said could be said about the military's use of any operating system x, what if someone develops a virus/trojan/exploit on x?

Re:All it would take is just one Linux Virus / Tro (1)

INetUser (723076) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200534)

You know, now that I think about it that's absolutely true.

Still, the mental image of a UCAV (or any other military equipment for that matter) going crazy due to this sort of thing strikes me as humorus and scary all at the same time.

Re:All it would take is just one Linux Virus / Tro (1)

Nutria (679911) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200620)

Isn't this just another mono-culture waiting to be exploited?

A mono-culture needs a specific software+hardware combination.

So a buffer overflow exploit use a specific bit of exceutable code for a specific processor.

So, that UCAV running vxWorks-on-ARM with the Linux compatibility ABI won't be affected by the exploit that has x86 code in it.

Exploits (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12200409)

Is it just me, or is the idea of weapon systems build on opensource software troubleing? I mean, wouldn't a highly proprietary/secret embeded system that no one has the source code to be more secure?

Re:Exploits (2, Informative)

INetUser (723076) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200558)

I disagree. Security through obscurity has been proved not to work time and time again. Granted it may perhaps buy you a little time, but in the long run it won't work.

Re:Exploits (1)

jrrl (635743) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200604)

Like Win CE?

Tux goes to war! (0)

aelbric (145391) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200431)

Cool, can we get some WWII style posters that show Tux working for the Arsenal of Democracy? Maybe something like this one [northwestern.edu] only with Tux instead of the Minuteman telling people to buy Linux instead of stamps.

Better not let the **AAs get any ideas though. Hate to see a campaign like McCarthy's against communism targeting Open Source or P2P apps.

Re:Tux goes to war! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12200529)

"...Tux working for the Arsenal of Democracy?"

Your government is NOT fighting for democracy (or freedom).
It is fighting for kapitalism,

BIG DIFFERENCE

Re:Tux goes to war! (1)

aelbric (145391) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200601)

*sigh*
Forgot where I'm posting. Need to remember to put quotes around historical references and add full reference information. Like this:

"Arsenal of Democracy [ibiblio.org] " - Franklin Delano Roosevelt, December 29, 1940

Re:Tux goes to war! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12200555)

You mean like these? [google.com]

The gloves will now come off... (3, Interesting)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200441)

expect a sharp ramp up in anti Linux/FOSS lobbying from Microsoft via supposedly worried parties... all worried about the US's defence being trusted to a "commie OS" written by "hacker"s and other "hippy" malcontents...

Those immortal words... (0, Offtopic)

HogynCymraeg (624823) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200460)

At least now we know it wont be the OS that's at fault when that dude turns to the systems and goes "WHAT IS YOUR MAJOR MALFUNCTION?!?!?!?!"

Mistake in the submittal... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12200469)

Actually, FCS stands for Future COMBAT Systems, not COMPUTER.

If you can't win the desktop... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12200471)

...the deathtop ain't so bad.

LynxOS (5, Informative)

pointym5 (128908) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200481)

LynxOS is older than Linux. Development on LynxOS began in Dallas, TX in early 1986. The system was built for the 68000 architecture originally, targetting a custom-built 68010 VME bus CPU. The software was compiled with the C compiler sold by Megamax for the Macintosh. LynxOS was ported to the IA86 for the 386 in 1988-1989. The LynxOS ABI compatibility history goes back to about 1989 also, when SVR3 compatibility was added to the system. No UNIX or (of course) Linux code was used in the development of the OS.

Mod parent up. LynxOS is not Linux (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200602)

Mod parent up. He's right.

LynxOS is not Linux. It's a completely different, and much smaller, kernel. It's not as minimal as QNX [qnx.com] ; LynxOS has drivers in the kernel. But it's far smaller than Linux. It's small enough to get through the expensive and difficult examination process required for avionics.

Confusingly, the company that sells LynxOS recently changed their name to LynuxWorks [lynuxworks.com] , and also distributes BlueCat Linux [lynuxworks.com] , an embedded Linux distro based on the 2.6 Linux kernel. LynuxWorks had a huge booth at the Embedded Systems Conference last month.

LynxOS, BlueCat Linux, and QNX all use the GNU compilers and tools. All are POSIX compatible, and will run most commmand line programs with a recompile.

Future Computing Systems? (1)

kenblakely (768899) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200516)

Uhhhh.... FCS is the Future >>>Combat System.

There's quite a bit of Linux in USG (3, Insightful)

wiredog (43288) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200536)

It's just not well publicized. Often because the department using it doesn't want any publicity. But Linux was highly visible at FOSE lats week.

Tux's Wardrobe (2, Funny)

Le Marteau (206396) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200588)

Thank goodness Slashdot doesn't have an icon for Liunx in the military. Knowing Taco, it would probably be Tux wearing an adorable little camoflage outfit, in the same vein as the Tux wearing a suit icon.

Adorable.

Taco, about that Tux in a suit icon as a symbol for Linux in the business realm, Tux himself would not be wearing the suit. He's already got a tuxedo, for chrissakes. It would be the suits who were USING Linux. Linux/Tux himself would not be the one changing himself to suit the situation, it would be the suits.

Tax payers money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12200627)

Since the research/development is done using the tax payers money, will the public have access to the nonmilitary fruits of these projects?!

Judgement Day? (1)

AdamReyher (862525) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200631)

"The Skynet Funding Bill is passed. The system goes on-line August 4th, 1997. Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th."

It was only postponed. The future is inevitable.

----End Sarcasm----

In other news, this is a great victory concering progress in *nix. ;)

- Adam

Nothing new... (1)

ccwaterz (535536) | more than 9 years ago | (#12200655)

It seems like slashdot runs a story on this every six months:

http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/03/0 2/ 0216215&tid=163&tid=103

Oh, and its a joint Boeing - SAIC contract.

-a former FCS sys admin

Free software to "free" the world? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12200657)

This sucks. The GPL/BSD licenses etc. should be extended to forbid military usage. Weapons and war has nothing to do with freedom.

We will all die, thanks america!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?