6 ms·

US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet

24 points by stfu 14y ago

mtgx 14y ago
They were controlling drones...with Windows XP? Oh my. Don't tell me they were logging through IE6, too.
- ktizo 14y ago
  Military procurement methods plus a culture of contract outsourcing do produce some amusing outcomes sometimes.
- petercooper 14y ago
  Had some fun on a Virgin Atlantic flight the other day. Entertainment system wasn't working and got to watch an attendant rebooting into Windows 98 over and over.. turns out the reason it takes 30+ minutes for the system to "reboot" is because ScanDisk is forced to run on every boot.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
tantalor 14y ago
The US government can directly combine GPL and proprietary/classified software into a single program arbitrarily, as long as the result is never conveyed outside the U.S. government Just to be clear, this is true for any organization using GPL materials, correct?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- pmorici 14y ago
  Yes, though, as I understand it in this case the government is the user and the developer where as a lot of large companies avoid sharing changes by offering their software as a web service (ie: they don't have to distribute the binary) something which I believe changes to the GPL in v3 were supposed to address.
  - angusgr 14y ago
    You're thinking of AGPL for requiring source distribution when offering a service over a network. IANAL but I don't believe GPLv3 changes anything over GPLv2 in this case, although it does tighten up some loopholes in v2 over what does and does not qualify as "distribution" (although in all cases the end user is still sent the software to run on their hardware, not just the results of the software.)
  - ConstantineXVI 14y ago
    The AGPL variant has a clause for web services, AFAIK the vanilla GPLv3 does no such thing.
  - zerohp 14y ago
    Even if the government was buying it from Raytheon, this would only mean that the government must receive a copy of the source code under the GPL. It does not mean the software must be distributed freely to everyone. As I understand it.
    - ams6110 14y ago
      That's my understanding as well. If you distribute the software, you must distribute the source upon request. You're under no obligation to distribute something you develop for your own use, however.
voodoochilo 14y ago
asked rms few months ago if it wouldn't make sense to change the gpl in the direction of "no military use allowed". he replied that would destroy the "free software philosophy". i disagree. hate the idea that human beings are killed with the help of gnu/linux and/or free software.
- espeed 14y ago
  Douglas Crockford's JSLInt and JSON license include the clause: The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. http://www.json.org/license.html http://www.json.org/license.html And JSLint was not used in Red Hat because of this (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455507 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455507) or Pylons (https://groups.google.com/d/msg/pylons-devel/rggWC8JVeAM/rQ64CnZqM3sJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/pylons-devel/rggWC8JVeAM/rQ6...).
  - cema 14y ago
    Many people would claim the military use is intended for the Good. Opinions differ.
- why-el 14y ago
  I have to agree with rms here. No X allowed is inherently anti-free software. In cases like this one has to think long term, as in how freer software can lead to freer societies, i.e. societies that escape government coercion. That itself I think will lead to a significant decrease in military activity because free uncoerced citizens can stop their governments from engaging in such self-destructive acts.
  - voodoochilo 14y ago
    i know this all-or-nothing-argument and yes it is correct. it's about purity of the idea of free software, but killing humans is not pure. so how can the idea stay pure therefore? and what do i tell my grandchildren if the ask me one day: "grandpa, why exactly did you write that big while-switch-statement which killed 6.000.000 people in 2016?"
jen_h 14y ago
First of all, how in the world are they "buying" Linux from Raytheon? They're apparently buying 28M of "services" from Raytheon, not "Linux." Second of all, what's up with all the stuff that one would think should be classified info showing up all over the media lately?
- PKop 14y ago
  Political cheer-leading in an election year. http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/08/obama-im-offended-that-my-hyperpolitical-administration-is-being-accused-of-leaking-classified-info-for-electoral-gain/ http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/08/obama-im-offended-that...
- cldrope 14y ago
  Linkbait.
niels_olson 14y ago
Now if only I could get Linux on my Navy desktop, instead of winXP under NMCI. I have all but fired my issued desktop and do as much as possible on my iPad and MacBook.
- michaelcampbell 14y ago
  Is virtualbox (or some other VM) not an option for you?
koala_advert 14y ago
Guess they went with Redhat then?

24 points by stfu 14y ago

mtgx 14y ago

They were controlling drones...with Windows XP? Oh my. Don't tell me they were logging through IE6, too.

ktizo 14y ago
Military procurement methods plus a culture of contract outsourcing do produce some amusing outcomes sometimes.
petercooper 14y ago
Had some fun on a Virgin Atlantic flight the other day. Entertainment system wasn't working and got to watch an attendant rebooting into Windows 98 over and over.. turns out the reason it takes 30+ minutes for the system to "reboot" is because ScanDisk is forced to run on every boot.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

tantalor 14y ago

The US government can directly combine GPL and proprietary/classified software into a single program arbitrarily, as long as the result is never conveyed outside the U.S. government Just to be clear, this is true for any organization using GPL materials, correct?

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
pmorici 14y ago
Yes, though, as I understand it in this case the government is the user and the developer where as a lot of large companies avoid sharing changes by offering their software as a web service (ie: they don't have to distribute the binary) something which I believe changes to the GPL in v3 were supposed to address.
- angusgr 14y ago
  You're thinking of AGPL for requiring source distribution when offering a service over a network. IANAL but I don't believe GPLv3 changes anything over GPLv2 in this case, although it does tighten up some loopholes in v2 over what does and does not qualify as "distribution" (although in all cases the end user is still sent the software to run on their hardware, not just the results of the software.)
- ConstantineXVI 14y ago
  The AGPL variant has a clause for web services, AFAIK the vanilla GPLv3 does no such thing.
- zerohp 14y ago
  Even if the government was buying it from Raytheon, this would only mean that the government must receive a copy of the source code under the GPL. It does not mean the software must be distributed freely to everyone. As I understand it.
  - ams6110 14y ago
    That's my understanding as well. If you distribute the software, you must distribute the source upon request. You're under no obligation to distribute something you develop for your own use, however.

voodoochilo 14y ago

asked rms few months ago if it wouldn't make sense to change the gpl in the direction of "no military use allowed". he replied that would destroy the "free software philosophy". i disagree. hate the idea that human beings are killed with the help of gnu/linux and/or free software.

espeed 14y ago
Douglas Crockford's JSLInt and JSON license include the clause: The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. http://www.json.org/license.html http://www.json.org/license.html And JSLint was not used in Red Hat because of this (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455507 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455507) or Pylons (https://groups.google.com/d/msg/pylons-devel/rggWC8JVeAM/rQ64CnZqM3sJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/pylons-devel/rggWC8JVeAM/rQ6...).
- cema 14y ago
  Many people would claim the military use is intended for the Good. Opinions differ.
why-el 14y ago
I have to agree with rms here. No X allowed is inherently anti-free software. In cases like this one has to think long term, as in how freer software can lead to freer societies, i.e. societies that escape government coercion. That itself I think will lead to a significant decrease in military activity because free uncoerced citizens can stop their governments from engaging in such self-destructive acts.
- voodoochilo 14y ago
  i know this all-or-nothing-argument and yes it is correct. it's about purity of the idea of free software, but killing humans is not pure. so how can the idea stay pure therefore? and what do i tell my grandchildren if the ask me one day: "grandpa, why exactly did you write that big while-switch-statement which killed 6.000.000 people in 2016?"

jen_h 14y ago

First of all, how in the world are they "buying" Linux from Raytheon? They're apparently buying 28M of "services" from Raytheon, not "Linux." Second of all, what's up with all the stuff that one would think should be classified info showing up all over the media lately?

PKop 14y ago
Political cheer-leading in an election year. http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/08/obama-im-offended-that-my-hyperpolitical-administration-is-being-accused-of-leaking-classified-info-for-electoral-gain/ http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/08/obama-im-offended-that...
cldrope 14y ago
Linkbait.

niels_olson 14y ago

Now if only I could get Linux on my Navy desktop, instead of winXP under NMCI. I have all but fired my issued desktop and do as much as possible on my iPad and MacBook.

michaelcampbell 14y ago
Is virtualbox (or some other VM) not an option for you?

koala_advert 14y ago

Guess they went with Redhat then?