4 ms·

Join the military to work on leading edge technology like XML and SAML? Why do people think the military has advanced technology? Aside for aerospace stuff, it

Join the military to work on leading edge technology like XML and SAML? Why do people think the military has advanced technology? Aside for aerospace stuff, it seems like they're hugely behind the commercial world.

ethbro 8y ago
The innovation is mostly in hardware, albeit they're trying to move as much of that as possible to CotS. At a tactical level, better hardware with dated but tested software > inferior hardware with the newest software. Edit: To elaborate, there are almost no startup spaces where someone is actively trying to degrade your systems as they're being used. That changes a lot of calculus.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  That's not my understanding, based only on reading foreign policy publications. For many years, the U.S. military has seen software as the key and hardware as just a platform to carry it (to oversimplify a vast domain of technology). With the F-35, for example, many critics focus on the hardware while the military focuses more on the software. For example, if your signal processing is better then you detect the enemy before they see you, shoot first, and win. If your networking is better, then you share information faster, adjust operations and tactics too fast for the enemy to keep up with, and win.
nightski 8y ago
Seriously? You are judging the project on the serialization format they use? Who cares what it does or how it serves it's users right? Not to mention that XML is actually not all that bad of a technology. Not my first choice, but it is fine.
- dean177 8y ago
  Why isn't it your first choice?
  - nightski 8y ago
    Just because it can be a bit heavy. But honestly it's a capable and proven format.
- ramoz 8y ago
  It matters though, doesn't it? Context is military data transmission, and if things like compression and speed matter, shouldn't they aim to use something like protobufs?
stillmind 8y ago
Especially as it pertains to the cyber world the military is slow to adopt, yes. IMO this is largely due to the amount of vetting, documentation, the number of people who must approve it, and the security measures taken in order to use a product or process. This is frustrating, because as soon as a product or process is approved there is almost always been a shift in the industry to a better way of doing the same task or better product. The workaround here always seems to be the pairing up the military with commercial industry, which isn't hindered in the same way. However, you then risk having the commercial industry not following proper protocol for securing information and leaking secrets to foreign countries, amongst other issues. Problems are abound, and the military is still trying to figure out the best way to approach innovation in the cyber world.
- otakucode 8y ago
  I'm active in this space and the vetting and documentation is going to be what makes this never happen. They will say they want agile, they want continuous integration, they want speedy development........ but they will turn around and say they want exactly the same amount of contract deliverable documentation, want exactly the same process of requesting approval (which takes 9+ months to get) for any new technology, library, or module, etc. Several years ago the government said Agile development should be used for any software projects going forward - without dropping a single one of their documentation requirements. The fact that one of the pillars of Agile is "Working software over comprehensive documentation" is something they seem to think they can just ignore.
TickleSteve 8y ago
Having worked in defence for over 15 years, I can say with certainty that in general the level of technology in your average military product is well behind the times. This is by design since the products tend to have 20 year support requirements and you fix the level of technology at the design stage (say 5 years development). Its therefore commmon to be ten years out of date.
yread 8y ago
What's wrong with SAML?

ethbro 8y ago

The innovation is mostly in hardware, albeit they're trying to move as much of that as possible to CotS. At a tactical level, better hardware with dated but tested software > inferior hardware with the newest software. Edit: To elaborate, there are almost no startup spaces where someone is actively trying to degrade your systems as they're being used. That changes a lot of calculus.

forapurpose 8y ago
That's not my understanding, based only on reading foreign policy publications. For many years, the U.S. military has seen software as the key and hardware as just a platform to carry it (to oversimplify a vast domain of technology). With the F-35, for example, many critics focus on the hardware while the military focuses more on the software. For example, if your signal processing is better then you detect the enemy before they see you, shoot first, and win. If your networking is better, then you share information faster, adjust operations and tactics too fast for the enemy to keep up with, and win.

nightski 8y ago

Seriously? You are judging the project on the serialization format they use? Who cares what it does or how it serves it's users right? Not to mention that XML is actually not all that bad of a technology. Not my first choice, but it is fine.

dean177 8y ago
Why isn't it your first choice?
- nightski 8y ago
  Just because it can be a bit heavy. But honestly it's a capable and proven format.
ramoz 8y ago
It matters though, doesn't it? Context is military data transmission, and if things like compression and speed matter, shouldn't they aim to use something like protobufs?

stillmind 8y ago

Especially as it pertains to the cyber world the military is slow to adopt, yes. IMO this is largely due to the amount of vetting, documentation, the number of people who must approve it, and the security measures taken in order to use a product or process. This is frustrating, because as soon as a product or process is approved there is almost always been a shift in the industry to a better way of doing the same task or better product. The workaround here always seems to be the pairing up the military with commercial industry, which isn't hindered in the same way. However, you then risk having the commercial industry not following proper protocol for securing information and leaking secrets to foreign countries, amongst other issues. Problems are abound, and the military is still trying to figure out the best way to approach innovation in the cyber world.

otakucode 8y ago
I'm active in this space and the vetting and documentation is going to be what makes this never happen. They will say they want agile, they want continuous integration, they want speedy development........ but they will turn around and say they want exactly the same amount of contract deliverable documentation, want exactly the same process of requesting approval (which takes 9+ months to get) for any new technology, library, or module, etc. Several years ago the government said Agile development should be used for any software projects going forward - without dropping a single one of their documentation requirements. The fact that one of the pillars of Agile is "Working software over comprehensive documentation" is something they seem to think they can just ignore.

TickleSteve 8y ago

Having worked in defence for over 15 years, I can say with certainty that in general the level of technology in your average military product is well behind the times. This is by design since the products tend to have 20 year support requirements and you fix the level of technology at the design stage (say 5 years development). Its therefore commmon to be ten years out of date.

yread 8y ago

What's wrong with SAML?