4 ms·

Thank you. I guess it is a good start. But, as a solution - develop new protocols and standards, and declare that military does not buy _anything_ that does not

by tandr 6y ago

Thank you. I guess it is a good start. But, as a solution - develop new protocols and standards, and declare that military does not buy _anything_ that does not interoperate on these standards, no matter how advanced your shit is?

tablespoon 6y ago
> Thank you. I guess it is a good start. But, as a solution - develop new protocols and standards, and declare that military does not buy _anything_ that does not interoperate on these standards, no matter how advanced your shit is? But that wouldn't likely make it any easier to update the software. Say the military makes the PowerPC ISA (e.g. RAD750 processor) and IEEE_1394 bus the new standards. If you have to port a program written to run on a MIL-STD-1750A processor with a MIL-STD-1553 data bus, you're dealing with an entirely different ISA, new drivers, and probably a lot of behavioral differences between the old and new bus behaviors. And given this is aerospace, some options for dealing with those differences (e.g. emulators) may be totally off the table (for instance, I think I read somewhere that coding standards for one of the recent US fighters forbids dynamic memory allocation). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAD750 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAD750 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_1394#Military_and_aerospace_vehicles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_1394#Military_and_aerospa...
nl 6y ago
New technology often needs new standard (eg, bandwidth requirement change) Here's an example where they went down the "standardise things" route: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/06/how-to-blow-6-billion-on-a-tech-project/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/06/how-t... How well did that work? Well: "The Marine Corps, tired of waiting for new equipment, built its own battlefield network system for the war in Iraq, called CONDOR—based on off-the-shelf satellite phone and encrypted WiFi technology."

by tandr 6y ago

tablespoon 6y ago

> Thank you. I guess it is a good start. But, as a solution - develop new protocols and standards, and declare that military does not buy _anything_ that does not interoperate on these standards, no matter how advanced your shit is? But that wouldn't likely make it any easier to update the software. Say the military makes the PowerPC ISA (e.g. RAD750 processor) and IEEE_1394 bus the new standards. If you have to port a program written to run on a MIL-STD-1750A processor with a MIL-STD-1553 data bus, you're dealing with an entirely different ISA, new drivers, and probably a lot of behavioral differences between the old and new bus behaviors. And given this is aerospace, some options for dealing with those differences (e.g. emulators) may be totally off the table (for instance, I think I read somewhere that coding standards for one of the recent US fighters forbids dynamic memory allocation). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAD750 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAD750 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_1394#Military_and_aerospace_vehicles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_1394#Military_and_aerospa...

nl 6y ago

New technology often needs new standard (eg, bandwidth requirement change) Here's an example where they went down the "standardise things" route: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/06/how-to-blow-6-billion-on-a-tech-project/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/06/how-t... How well did that work? Well: "The Marine Corps, tired of waiting for new equipment, built its own battlefield network system for the war in Iraq, called CONDOR—based on off-the-shelf satellite phone and encrypted WiFi technology."