Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

Linux in the Military 162

Posted by Hemos from the in-the-navy dept.
Tefkay writes "An Upside feature on how linux can be/is being used in the military." As you'd expect, it's much the same situation as the rest of the world-champions within the organization, tyring to get people to understand how useful it would be. The author does make some interesting points about how/why Open Source developers do what they do, however.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux in the Military More

Linux in the Military

Comments Filter:
  • I'd hate to know that code I submitted (now incorporated into the Linux kernel) was used to kill people. I think the GPL should be modified to disallow use of code in weapons.

    If you didn't want your code used freely, then why did you release it under a free license in the first place?

    Oh well. If they get driven away from the GPL, maybe we'll get a railgun that runs FreeBSD. One can only hope.

  • I'm not by any means a security expert, so I hope someone else can help flesh this one out or point out mistakes if I'm screwing up. That said:

    Operating systems aren't certified C2, systems are. That means a particular operating system installed in a particular manner with particular software on a particular piece of hardware. When Microsoft says, "Oh boy, NT is now C2 certified", they're yanking your chain: it's C2 when installed in a specific way.

    I'm not familiar with the certification process any more than that, though. Anyone else?
  • Shoeboy - aspiring Onion jounalist? ;)

    SirSlud
  • > Military is evil, making it work better is bad.

    ROFL - are you that simpleminded?

    Im sure the victims of the Holocaust would beg to differ with that - the US Army was a savior for them. The victims of the Saddam would disagree with that as well - or do you think they'd hate a military to intervene on their behalf when Saddams internal police force was using mustard gas on women and children?

    Hmm - lets make the US Military terrible - and see how long it is until China kills tens thousands in their invasion of Taiwan - and then look at the repression that follows.

    Please open your mind as well as your source.
  • I know, right? Too bad I had to teach myself to do the Linux admin stuff...

    Going through technical school in the Air Force for my career field (programmer), a friend of mine had a nifty saying:

    "We are either underpaid programmers or overpaid gardeners".
  • Ever heard of Samba?

    Linux can be integrated easily into NT domains. It can be configured to be more compatible with the windows network, or the windows boxes can be made compatible with the Linux box (installing an NFS client on the 95 boxes, for example).

    You can set up Linux as the proxy server for the LAN/WAN or as a profiler, or as your web server...

    You don't need to set up the clients with Linux, generally most users aren't very computer knowledgable, and Windoze is right for them. Linux should be used on the servers and in mission critical applications.

    You could easily make Linux work in *your* unit. Mines not so much different than yours, yet we have a plethora of *NIX boxes scattered accross our network, and guess what? They are the ones that rarely ever go down....
  • No, I won't hate you for it, and I apologize for blurring the line so much between "in the military" and "killer." I agree with what you say, in fact; it just makes me sad.

    My arguments here are based on my ideals. I would sincerely hope that the abolition of military and violence would fall under everybody's ideals; however, because we live in a society which is not ideal, it appears we need to violate our own ideals.

    I just think it needs to be noted that violating ideals comes close to violating ethics. And it should only be done with utmost care.

    Although I "ideally" wouldn't want it, thank you for your sacrifice.

  • Your reply shows that you OBVIOUSLY did not read what I said.

    I can't waste my time on this. If you're serious about actually trying to convince me instead of rambling on with your mindless rhetoric, mail me. You've got the address.

  • This would be a LOT easier, and a LOT more civil if we could take our personal debate outside of the public realm of /.

    However, your logic is poor because you read: X results in Y, and X also results in Z. You assumed it meant (nothing else) results in Y, or (nothing else) results in Z. I didn't say or imply this, and you're argument against me is founded upon it.

    I really suggest e-mailing me.

  • They do use BSD in a *lot* of sections of the DoD. Ask anybody in geographic surveying..
  • They do use BSD. The trend today is "Commercial, Off-The-Shelf" which is usually used in the same breath as "Windows NT". Sometimes it's used in polite company as a way to refer to NT without causing ladies to puke.

    Many installations use Solaris and some use BSD variants of one shade or another. The problem comes down to enlisted people learning how to do system administration. When an enlisted person became competent (and despite what you may think, many enlisted are seriously competent people [can you tell I'm an officer yet?]), they had no incentive to stay in the military.

    The gov't gets really pissy about upholding the law and respecting copyrights and lefts. They won't "end run" it. If the gov't doesn't uphold and respect the law, who will?


    -scooter
  • I'm not in the military, but I work with them fairly regularly. There's actually some pretty impressive programming going on in the military (they have lots of civilian on-site hackers). The sad thing is the tools they use: much is completely proprietary, and they use a fair amount of NT (with Visual Studio, etc.). The scariest example I've seen lately is an important database hosted on SQL Server, which is going to soon be several exabytes huge (yes, exabytes, not terabytes). I'm just glad they're keeping it fairly SQL-based (thus somewhat retargettable), because M$ products just don't scale that far, regardless of what they may say. Since Oracle and IBM are doing their databases for Linux now, at least there are better options.

    Personally, I do my programming using IBM's VisualAge for Java (NT version (boo!) because the fancy version isn't available for Linux yet). But the code I turn out is portable to _anything_, especially Linux and freeware databases (mSQL, MySQL, etc.) and such (truly amazing for portability). Too bad more companies don't recognize the great flaw of the M$ (and many Borland/Inprise) tools, that even though the tool itself is good, you can't run it's target code on something better than the development platform. Code is only as good as its runtime machine.
  • Good comment.

    Plus... you don't have to be American to contribute to Linux right? (I'm no linux coder)

    Imagine the irony of getting killed with your own code. Or even your country getting bombed with code that you helped develop.

    Maybe a pacifist version is in order? or something. Useful to think about anyway.
  • I am not sure if this what you are talking about but. kha0s linux [kha0s.org] They are working on a "secure" version of linux.
  • The GPL is not a magic pill that automatically makes all code it infects "special" or "better". It is a license, nothing more. Licenses have little (or nothing) to do with the quality of code.
  • The U.S. Military sees its role as protecting freedoms against those who would take it from you. This is indoctrinated into new recruits starting at boot camp, and is built into the military culture on purpose, due to the constant fear of military coup that terrorizes other nations. The hope is that if any general got the bright idea to break out the tanks and march on the White House, the troops would refuse because it's incompatible with their indoctrination.

    The GPL is about protecting our software freedoms. As such, it naturally appeals to military recruits who see their own role as being the protection of freedoms.

    Yes, U.S. military power has been misused from time to time over the past hundred years. But don't forget that every one of these times, it is because the military was ordered to do so by civilian leaders (which is another area of military indoctrination -- following the orders of the civilian leadership, even when said civilians are total morons).

    I realize this is a shock to the youngsters who think that the military is all about being war-mongers. In reality, it is the civilian leaders, not the military, who are the war-mongers. I have never met a single military man who was hankering to go to war. As trained killers they know that war is not about guts and glory, but rather about death and destruction. The words and works of William Tecumseh Sherman are required reading in war colleges. If only our civilian leadership had similar understanding...

    -E
  • > line-by-line security audit

    It's called OpenBSD.

    They state that one of their goals is to pay attention to security problems and fix them before anyone else.

    Re: [C|B|A][3|2|1] Security

    The cost is non-trivial.

    You also have to remember that these classifications include the hardware platform that they're tested on. The minute that the hardware platform is changed in any way, the system is no longer certified. You therefore have to sell a specific hardware platform with a specific software installation installed via a documented method for it to be "blessed".
  • It would help me take this seriously if you weren't hiding behind that "AC" label.
  • OK. You've convinced me. Everybody who is still actually wasting their time reading these posts and using the most illogical and inane insults to try to convince me to be a patriot and kill someone, stop.

    We need more people like you. Thanks.

  • Perhaps it's time for a distribution to do a line-by-line security audit of a full Linux distribution for use in secure/mission critical situations. There are a lot of OS's which promise this, but I think very few of them actually deliver this for a low cost (ie: free).

    What sort of cost is involved in getting something C2 secure certified? Imagine if Linux could be considered secure, even if connected to a network?

  • Since the millitary uses "National Security" and "Classified" a hell-of-a-lot, won't they start trying to get around the GPL?
  • Does anyone else get the sense of conflicting ideologies between the open-source/free software community and what the military is here for?

    Militaries protect national interests. Free software has no concern for national interests, it's international, it's about the freedom of mankind, not the slaughter of innocents.

    I may be sounding like a pinko here, and yes, more linux boxes out there == good thing, but, something doesn't feel right about the technology we've created to help further the rights of men might be used to take those rights away.
  • When I first read this, I thought the same thing. I am also curious why they do not use one of the BSDs instead, after all, they paid for it.
  • We really need a GPL FAQ... but since there's not one that I know of, let's hash it out all again ;-)

    Okay, have you READ the GPL? Do you know what it says?

    1) If you make changes / modifications / bug fixes, then they are under the GPL.

    2) IF you redistribute, you must make the source availible (or inform them where the CAN get the source) and may not charge more than a media fee for the source.

    Therefore, ergo, if they don't redistribute their changes, then they don't have to release the source.

    I took a GPLed app and changed a button to say something else. Hahah. you're never gettting it from me!! :-P

  • Couple of things -
    1. GPL only applies if they modify GPL code. If they code new stuff (from scratch) it doesn't matter.
    2. I thought GPL only applied if you sold/distributed the code. I might be wrong and I know this is against the spirit of the GPL, but can't I modify a GPL'd piece of code, and keep it to myself if I'm the only one using it? What if my company is just using it in-house? I thought under these conditions it did not have to be released. And in that way the gov't could use it for secret stuff.
    3. If they just use it as an OS why would they release the database they are running?
    -cpd
  • >Armies kill people NOW by BLOWING THEM TO BITS.

    I'm a smoker, and I know that every drag I take off a cigarette shortens my life ( I remember hearing a figure of 30 seconds per puff, but I'm not sure where).

    Just as surely the men who invade other countries know that their actions can shorten their lives when someone retaliates.

    >To make your cigarette company connection, you lessen the shame of killing people.

    There is no shame in killing when it's necessary.

    If some animal were raping your wife/mother/sister and you had a gun, would it be shameful to kill him?

    LK
  • Am I a crack-baby, or did the link to see the paper written up by the gentleman didn't work? In any case, if someone did get to see it, or it's just down for a short count, can ye let me know what it said? heh.
  • Robert Oppenheimer, great man that he was, had no qualms about creating the atomic bomb. He knew fully what it was and what it could do.

    It was only after it was demonstrated in New Mexico and in Japan, the reality sunk in like the catharsis expereinced after a 10-hour Veda-reading marathon. To his credit he did oppose the hydrogen bomb; lesson learned.

    What was my point? Uh...

    A stable OS for the military is good thing, regardless of where one stands.
  • Ahh, I just read the article. It appears as though our friendly (biased) editor here at Slashdot felt that only Linux deserved mentioning in the blurb.
  • Everyone I know in the military says only the enlisted personel are competent :)

    But then again, none are in tech areas. I had no idea how BSD was still being used. I figured there were a great many 4.1-4.4BSD installations floating around just because it ran fine and hasn't been touched in 5+ years. Aside from that, I had no idea.
  • I agree with you, the ethics of the technology should be involved. The disscussion of whether or not the military itself is ethical/justifiable/necessary should not be involved as that has nothing to do with the technology.
  • Think about it, why did the same thing happen with Linux at all? BSD was there (and had been for years) when Linux started. All it needed was a few subsystems rewritten out from AT&T and William Jolitz had nearly completed that at the time.
  • Armies kill people NOW by BLOWING THEM TO BITS.
    To make your cigarette company connection, you
    lessen the shame of killing people.
  • see the Linux Weekly News' Security page [lwn.net] for information on Linux security projects which are already under way:
    Secure Linux Projects Bastille Linux [bastille-linux.org]
    Khaos Linux [kha0s.org] Secure Linux [reseau.nl]
    Security List Archives
    Bugtraq Archive [geek-girl.com]
    Firewall Wizards Archive [nfr.net]
    ISN Archive [jammed.com]

    Distribution-specific links
    Caldera Advisories [calderasystems.com]
    Debian Alerts [debian.org]
    Red Hat Errata [redhat.com]
    SuSE Announcements [www.suse.de]

    Miscellaneous Resources
    CERT [cert.org]
    CIAC [llnl.gov]
    Comp Sec News Daily [mountainwave.com]
    Crypto-GRAM [counterpane.com]
    Linux Security Audit Project [lsap.org.]
    OpenSEC [opensec.net]
    Security Focus [securityfocus.com]
    SecurityPortal [securityportal.com]
  • I choose freedom. I choose the GPL.

    I choose the GPL. Since when does this mean I have to abandon my feelings, personal experiences, beliefs, or ethics simply because some other guy who also chose the GPL does? I like ESR. I like his essays, I like what he has done and said, I like his support of the GPL.

    But I am getting really damn sick of all these people who want me to abandon my personal beliefs and do as ESR or Linus or any other notable geek does. I whole-heartedly believe the great and intelligent ESR is wrong on this issue.

    ESR is wrong. And I use Linux.

    Gosh. If I wanted to embrace an ideology in which I didn't have to think for myself, I'd be running MacOS or Windows 9x. But I happen to agree with the ethics of the GPL, and though it is a stretch, I do not believe that these are compatable with the "ethics" of killing another person.

    Drooling groupies with no self-reflection belong in Redmond. However, so long as I compile my kernel, I will stand by my beliefs.

    And I swear to God, I'll kill anyone who tries to take them away! ...wait a minute...

  • I was thinking the same thing. :)

    Definitely written in the same style.

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

  • I would strongly suspect that there are military organizations already taking heavy advantage of Linux. For instance, Iraq is embargoed, and any shipment of supercomputers to Iraq would be closely monitored. So it's likely they are instead using something like a Linux clustered architecture for their advanced weapons development. The machines are shipped into the country as innocent Windows 95 boxes for the hospital, then reconfigured, etc.

    Beowulf is "supercomputers for the masses" after all.
  • Yes, I have, actually. My *personal* machine is a 98/NT/Linux tripleboot, running on a ip masq'd intranet. :)

    The problem is, again ...

    A) Linux has no place as a client. *G*

    B) USARC is a NT administered system. I'm not high enough on the totem pole to change things, neh? After all, I'm only some weefle brigade compy tech. *G* The only possible use, really, is to replace our SMP local fileserv, but again, I'm not the only person admistering things, ..

    That's enough of that.

    the .milFox

  • What are you talking about??? The military is evil???? I guess that you don't realise that we need the military to at least support your freedom of speech? I don't understand people like you, other then that you might have not served a day in your life.
  • Reboot camp. How fitting. I've been to reboot camp and I can tell you it will make you a hardened killer. I've seen NT on manufacturing line powering 400 horsepower motors and talk about property damage when the OS or Visual Basic goes out of control and starts hammering parts and it starts to fly. Its a technician's worst nightmare. And the only thing you can do is to reboot. You can't fix closed source, just hit the reset button and fix the real world damage that it caused. I'm not mad. Just pissed off!
  • This is rediculous. prohibiting the military access to linux because, it MAY run a system that MIGHT fire something at someone else that could kill them. Of course it will, its a fantastic OS, and will probably take hold in any number of military uses. Does this make Linux evil? Does it make the military evil? What about the company that makes the standard issue socks for the military? Are they evil? I mean, they made the socks that enabled a soldier to run through cold or damp weather to go complete his objective. Or, how about the companies that supply the military with food? Are they evil? Dirty greedy whores that feed our baby killing war hounds? Look at it, without a ready supply of food..there wouldnt be anyone to even turn on those shiney new linux boxes to fire killing salvos of rockets at a school.
    The fact is, you can make anything be as evil...or as good as you like. For instance, wont those Linux boxes be used to run medical equipment? Coordinate disaster relief plans? Maybe they're being used to run systems that locate terrorist's bombs, or drugs, or any number of nasty nasty things that could ruin someone's day.
    The tool is only as evil or good as the person using it. If it were you or someone you love that could benefit from some of these other uses the military might have for linux, wouldnt that be something to be proud of? If the code you wrote, helped to save just ONE life...wouldnt that be worth it for you? You cant stop bad things from happening, you could get beaten to death with a teddy bear tomarrow...not very likely, but it could happen, and Im sure the teddy bear was never intended to be a weapon. The likelihood of it happening is probably about the same as our military going out and roughly oppressing some poor helpless nation, you know...just because they can.
    I think that if just one life was saved, then your efforts would be validated. Certainly, whoever it helped would think so.

  • I don't think anyone who would worry about Linux being used to kill people understands much about how the military works.

    cd /world/enemies; rm -r *?

    I'm sure not a single fatality has every been directly related to a computer operating system, except perhaps someone snapping at the sight of one "Blue Screen of Death" too many.

    But as far as linking the use of Linux to the "deaths of innocents", this conjures up images of Rambo slinging a Micron over his shoulder and screaming Eat My GPL!!

    A more realistic picture is a pilot receives a weather report before take-off. That weather report was sent to his Air Base via a classified network. The source of the report (somewhere in the U.S.) generated the report using data readily available from the Weather Channel and software that is mostly COTS. This software, I can assure you, is, and always will be, run on a commercial OS, if only because of Support - I'll get back to this. The machine that is used for the weather report development is part of a subnet, pushing data back and forth. Perhaps one of the machines is using Linux as its OS, to push some files from here to there. The people administering such a machine would surely be Airman - techies - computer people who most likely have fired an M-16 once in their lives, and who will go the next 50 years without killing anyone.

    Now just because the pilot decides to fly between some cables at a ski resort for fun, can you possibly say that Linux was used to kill?

    As for the military following the GPL movement, it'll never happen large scale. Upper echelon military people THRIVE on blame. If something goes wrong, there HAS to be someone to point the finger at. With Linux, there is no 24-hour hotline to call. There is no vendor to boycott. There is simply no accountability, and that's what the military is all about.

    But remember: Code doesn't kill people. People kill people.
  • ...that great story a year ago of a new Navy
    battleship that had all its firing and navigation
    systems ported over to run on NT. They went to
    test the ship in a war game and NT crashed,
    leaving the ship dead in the water for 20 hours.
    It had to be towed back to base.

    Yeah, that's the technology I want defending
    my nation.
  • Many many years ago I was a tanker in the US Army, and learned that in trials, the German-made Leopard tank had beaten the Detroit-made M1 tank in *every* category, in *every* type of scenario. But the Army had to buy the M1, under political pressure.
    I'm quite sure the same dynamics come into play with software. Oh well :(
  • Alas, you seem to have forgotten something. Code is code, and politics are politics. You stated that Linux and guns don't mix: I refuted that. In fact, I know quite a few Linux enthusiasts who are also gun enthusiasts.

    My point is this, and I've said it elsewhere: the relationship between Linux/Open Source and ANY political ideology is purely coincidental. Accepting the GPL does not forever bind you to a particular viewpoint on any other issue than GPL'ed software. It is, after all, the GNU Public License, not the GNU Political Lockdown. . .

  • If the military (in a democracy) does its job, it's invisible and gets a lot of ill-placed flack from people who don't see all of the good things it does.

    If an operating system does its job, it's also invisible. It takes technical knowledge to determine if a web or ftp server is running Solaris vs. Linux vs *BSD (excluding any banner messages, of course!)

    In contrast, there are some operating systems which *don't* do their job well ("gee, this web page says that I should run this spreadsheet which contains an embedded command to download and install this virus program. I better do it!") and which are anything but invisible. In fact, most of us would say that one company in particular bends over backwards to ensure we know that it is singlehandledly responsible for the unusually long economic boom and that investigations into its alleged misdeeds threaten to bring on a depression worse than the 1930's....

    I really don't intent this to be a Microso~1 flame, but I think you (and many others who complain about the military, the vast majority of gun owners who never commit a violent crime, etc.) have lost track of just how well our civilization works. I'm reminded of David Brin's observation that few prior civilizations could have survived gas stations on every street corner.

    If anything, I think the OSS culture is a better fit with the military culture than the proprietary culture. We both want to get the job done with minimal fuss and disruption to all involved, and generally prefer to stay out of the limelight. Proprietary firms, on the other hand, want to leave you no doubt who was responsible.

    ("This village bombed thanks to the DuPont Company! Better living through chemistry!")

    P.S., you'll find very few soldiers in the NATO nations that view the death of non-combatants as anything other than a horror -- and those soldiers are quickly removed when found. As for combatants, name one other historical period where attacks were timed to *minimize* casualties on *both* sides. (That's not the only reason for nighttime attacks, but it's a major one.)
  • I disagree. I have one set of ethics; these are the set of ethics which made me choose the GPL, these are the set of ethics which made me choose not to be a killer.

    I am not asking that the military or other gun enthusiasts be forbidden under GPL terms. I am stating that these bodies should not exist, which I think is the seed of a larger debate.

    My point was, and still is this: If the GPL is an ethical choice for one who is a gun advocate, I will question his/her ethics. If there are no ethics involved in making the choice, then I have no qualms about combining the two.

    I have qualms that this one made a choice without thinking about ethics.

  • "Last time I checked, at least in the Western Nations, the military was there to protect us from people who decide that they have a better right to our land, property, and people than the citizens of those nations do."

    Exactly! We've been having so many problems lately with those damn serbs trying to snatch rhode island.

    A military's purpose is twofold:
    1) protect the nation, its land and its people, as you have described
    2) project the power and political interests of that nation, which are mostly ideological or economical in nature (Cold War=ideological, Gulf War=economics)

    Doug

  • Operating systems aren't certified C2, systems are. That means a particular operating system installed in a particular manner with particular software on a particular piece of hardware. When Microsoft says, "Oh boy, NT is now C2 certified", they're yanking your chain: it's C2 when installed in a specific way.

    Specifically, NT 3.51 without a floppy drive or networking support. As for the actual certification, if you're interested, I highly recommend getting the appropriate book (My rainbow series is at home, can't remember whether it's orange or red). Price is right too (Assuming reader is US citizen - sorry).

    1. yup.
    2. well, i think you're right. you're just choosing not to distribute it. perhaps it is akin to the version of gnu-utility-x you customized for yourself, but diddn't post on sunsite or freshmeat or wherever because there really is no good reason to. but i agree, that is against the spirit of the gpl. if you make free software worthy of use by others, to distribute it somehow would be the right thing to do.
    3. to take advantage of the free labor provided by "the open source community". we (the public) get a database package to use, and improve. then, if the mil. likes the improvements, they can use them.

    Then again, they may just be jumping on the open-source buzzword bandwagon.

  • One does not have to release the source to previously GPL'ed code that they have modified, but not distributed. This is why the NSA has their own Linux distro, they don't have it for download on ftp.nsa.gov so they don't have to give away the source for their super secret modifications.

    Think about it, how would you enforce the stipulation "if at all you ever modify this you have to redistribute your modifications"
    1) its infeasible to track down each change.
    2) most of the new code would be useless to the project as a whole.
  • What on earth are you babbling about?
    You would question the ethics of a gun enthusiast who used Linux?? Since when does your operating system have to make a political/ethical statement?
    Would you question my ethics if I used a different brand of hammer than you do?! Can I question YOUR ethics if your shoes were made in a sweatshop in bangladesh?? I fail to make the connection between which brand of plastic I choose to purchase and which set of morals or ethics I follow. I'm a gun enthusiast, a Political Anarchist, a martial artist, and I love Linux. I don't see any contradictions there....

    Kintanon
  • (from the GPL)
    6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
    ---
    You can't modify the GPL to restrict the right of the military to use your code if it is based on a GPL program. I suppose you could write a version of a GPL with that provision, and then rewrite the entire operating system + applications yourself. Good luck!
  • Well, substitute 'open source'. Then, at least, if the military runs into trouble with their software, they can attempt to fix it without going through a vendor. Given that they probably stress their systems in unusual configurations, and that the consequences of any equipment failure of theirs can be *very* serious, that's a good thing.

  • It looks to me like your argument is trying to say something to the equivalent of "non GPL users are killers."

    "these are the set of ethics which made me choose the GPL, these are the set of ethics which made me choose not to be a killer."

    How I can read that is this way: Your same ethics that made you choose the GPL are the same ones that give you your sense of right and wrong, and therefore you are not a killer.

    Consequently, you are saying that anyone who say... chooses a restrictive, non-open source license is a killer.

    But, of course you don't think that. But be careful what you say, because it's very easy for people to misunderstand what you say. Moving on...

    "If the GPL is an ethical choice for one who is a gun advocate, I will question his/her ethics."

    Well, the GPL is about FREEDOM! It's all about FREEDOM. Including the freedom to own a gun for protection and sporting. The GPL is about "Free Speech", not free beer. Well, guess which amendment to the Constitution follows the "Free Speech" one? The one that says "Right to bear arms."

    So, you don't understand the ethics of a gun owner choosing GPL. Well, I don't understand how a gun owner could NOT choose the GPL.

  • To be technically correct, it was General Jack ***T.*** Ripper, USAF, so the Army wouldn't be involved. But in that case, wouldn't they require the General Purity Of Essence License, not the GPL ???

    Yes, I know, I'm being silly again. . .

  • I am in the military. Hate me for it if you want. I am proud to be in. I like what I do. I am not a killer, rather, I am a computer specialist, and a linux advocate. I come to work every day, and I like to think that what I do gives people like you (and everyone else at /.) the right, the FREEDOM to say what you want, even if you say that you disagree with what I do. That's cool...it gives our society the balance that it needs. Rock on and keep writing.
  • I am in the military. Hate me for it if you want. I am proud to be in. I like what I do. I am not a killer, rather, I am a computer specialist, and a linux advocate. I come to work every day, and I like to think that what I do gives people like you (and everyone else at /.) the right, the FREEDOM to say what you want, even if you say that you disagree with what I do. That's cool...it gives our society the balance that it needs. Rock on and keep writing.
  • This is pretty much over the off-topic cliff, but I feel compelled to respond.

    I have never met a single military man who was hankering to go to war. As trained killers they know that war is not about guts and glory, but rather about death and destruction.

    My clearest memory of army training would have to come from when I'd finished basic and I was down at Fort Gordon for signal school. I was nearly booted out for refusing to sound off to this cadence:

    You go to the local playground
    Where all the kiddies play
    You pull out your Uzi
    And you begin to spray
     or another verse:
    You go to your local church
    Where people go to pray
    You pull out a claymore
    And blow them all away

    I was told by the drill sergeant that the cadence didn't make it clear that we were dealing with communist or nazi babies... not 'normal' ones. I was impressed by his improvisational skill, offended at his assessment of my intelligence.

    I was invited to talk to the chaplain, who invited me to declare myself a conscientious objector. I conscientiously objected that he was offering an inappropriate option, since I had a pretty clear distinction in my mind between 'kiddies' at 'my local playground' and someone trying to do me or my team mates harm in a combat zone.

    The company commander repeated the invitation, and I ended up consulting with a civilian minister. I ended up not taking the opportunity to be declared a CO because it would have been a lie, and it would have demeaned the memory of people who have suffered to secure the right to claim that status.

    Instead, I spent the rest of training with the drill sergeants saying I didn't belong in the army because I was weak-minded, and that it upset them to have to allow me to eat their food.

    I ended up in Korea a few months later with a couple of classmates, who thoughtfully told a senior enlisted soldier in our section that I was a 'pacifist.' He was kind enough to inform me that he'd shoot me in combat if I was too weak to follow orders.

    Amazing, to me. I won the platoon marksmanship award in basic training, went to airborne school, and then weaseled personnel people to keep my orders to go to Korea, which was considered the most likely flashpoint in the world at the time, but none of that was enough in the face of the thought that I might not be willing to shoot or maim American civilians.

    Others' experiences in/with the military will vary, and I accept them as valid, too. On the other hand, trying to claim that the military exists in some sort of indoctrinated moral perfection while civilians go around screwing things up is naive, to say the least.


    ----------
    mphall@cstone.nospam.net

  • Friend . . .

    I first LEARNED about Linux, AND Slashdot, working for the Air Force on the 4th floor of "C" Ring in the Pentagon. And that was well over a year ago: closer to two years ago. . . .

  • Like it or not, if you're a U.S. slave^H^H^H^H^Htaxpayer, the government steals your money and uses it to buy hardware and software for the military. Would you rather they piss your money away on Microsoft products, or use Open Source and (hopefully) at least spend it on better hardware--and maybe return some of our "investment" in the form of useful code?

    I, for one, am tired of the feds stealing my money and feeding it to Microsoft for crappy software. I'd much rather see our destroyers run by Linux or BSD than by NT--at least we wouldn't have to worry that our multi-billion dollar investment in warships wouldn't be subject to BSODs in the heat of battle. I'm sure if you're rear-end were riding on one of these boats, you'd be happy to know that the main console didn't have a "Start" button in the lower left-hand corner. Remember that thing called "The Draft?" You never know when you might end up having to trust your life to the software the military use. Stranger things have happened.

  • I work in an area that does DoD work and we are picking up support for linux. In our environment we like that linux allows us to use hardware from Sun, X86, Apple, etc. and not work at porting software between the different OS.

    Most of the customer types I talk with don't care what the system is running, they just want to log into the operator workstation and have the software load and run 100% of the time. Most of the time a menu bar with a button for the different applicaitons is all they need to be happy.
  • General Jack Ripper...
    I take it you've been watching Dr. Strangelove?
  • I like GPL because I get to see the code and learn from others. Not because it goes well with my {lack of} religion / political views / ethics.

    I could care less who also is using GPL'ed programs its not my place as a user, or even as a developer to censor code that is GPL'ed. The fact remains that if you write something that you GPL'ed you are in fact saying "here everyone you can look at this I don't mind." If you wanted to only give it to hippies / soccer moms / students you need to pick a different license.
  • Well then, I guess you have to accept the consequences for your actions. This is real life, and not everyone is going to cater to your every whim. Sure, be mad about it, be incensed...but place the blame where it lays.

    On another note, your comparison of our military to saddam hussein is analogous to comparing an apple to an orange. Or, perhaps Sir Winston Churchill to Hitler.

    The only justification happening here is that of the people responsible for a free software movement. Whether this software is for the enlightenment of man or cultural advancement is of no import. What is important is that when you support a movement for free anything, you have to deal with the repurcussions. this isnt a perfect world, and creating boogeymen to wash away the nightmare that something you created to be free might just be used for something horrible wont change a thing. Is the military not comprised of men, like you or I? Or does it change them into something else, perhaps the boogeymen you've created to soothe your conscience? If there is a distinction for you, then the problem isnt with what your software is used for, but instead the hypocrisy that was coded along into it. If this issue nettles you so deeply now, where were these implications then? Noone had the foresight to see this? Instead of preparing for this eventuality, it was cast aside. Time was wasted, time that could have been spent preparing for this, safeguarding. Shakespeare said " I have wasted time, and now doth time waste me."
  • Why do you want to limit the options of the entire free software community?

    If you don't want YOUR code to be used to kill people, or to count beans, or to molest baby ducks, you're free to write your own license that reads that way. Even if you're writing changes to GPLed code you can modularize your changes and release them under a GPL+your limits.

    What you're talking about is changing the GPL to limit the use of ALL other programmers' GPLed code to conform to your political agenda.

    I thought that was part of what we were fighting.
  • I would have thought that military applications
    were similar to commercial aviation systems, and
    space missions, where fault tolerance techniques like triple modular redundancy, and defensive
    programming are deployed to aid in controlling
    a degraded vehicle or subsystem in the presence
    of faults.
    On the other hand, if you're just gonna get blown
    up anyway, I suppose it doesn't matter what OS
    you run. Or does it?
  • >I'd hate to know that code I submitted (now incorporated into the Linux kernel) was used to kill people.

    How would you feel if you found out that the code that your submitted was used to save people's lives?

    The military does kill people, but it's (usually) to prevent even larger numbers of people from dying if our enemy wins.

    What do you think the Japanese would have done to Asia and the pacific islands if they hadn't been beaten back?

    What do you think woud have happened in Nazi occupied europe if the Allies hadn't beaten them back? Weren't 12 million murders enough for you?

    If some code that you submit improves memory management so that a howitzer can zero in on an enemy tank 0.423758 seconds faster, I'd say that you just did your part in saving lives.

    >I think the GPL should be modified to disallow use of code in weapons.

    Does this mean no GPLed code can be used for the atomic disruptor in Quake XXII?

    >While this won't stop 3rd parties from using GPL code this way, it should head off any major gov't and private sector projects.

    You're mistaken. According to the US Constitution they can take property if just compensation is awarded. Grandted GPL isn't a US only thing, but where does US weapons development occur? In the US! While on American soil the US constitution is supreme.

    It would be legal for them to TAKE GPLed software and pay for it, but since the software in question is free, they amount of compensation necessary would be nill.

    LK
  • Actually, the GPL mixes very well with guns. The rationale for both are the same.

    The idea behind GPL is that software should be free(speech). Copyright law pretty much makes that impossible; if you leave software in the public domain, someone will edit, copyright, and enslave it. You use a copyright on GPL to keep the copyright law at bay.

    It is the same thing with guns. Guns are lethal; then can be used to kill, and are designed to kill.

    So why do we give police officers, sworn to protect our lives, such deadly weapons? Because that is how you counter guns in evil hands.

    Guns in good hands counter guns in evil hands. Copyrights in good hands (copylefts) counter copyrights in evil hands. You twist the tool of evil to keep the evil at bay. It's a dangerous game, but the only alternative is to get trampled by the evildoers.

    So what is the difference?

  • How about used by people who stop killing, for example the military? The military in the past decade has been involved in more peacekeeping missions than conflicts/wars. As far as I know so far from my experience as a communications and information officer at a military installation, linux is not used in any current "weapon" system. Unix, however, is used in command and control computer & information systems, as well as on the SIPRNET.

    I admit that my views are biased because I am part of one of the organizations in question, so take this for what it's worth. However, I don't see how modifying the GPL would hav any significant impact on the current computer operations that the US military (or any other military) takes part in -- because there are other OS's that the military can (and will) use to accomplish the mission.

    Just my 2 cents.
  • Ok Name one major nation that does not have taxes. (Monaco doesn't count). Or for that matter a military. (Costa Rica comes to mind).

  • I'll simplify this for simpler minds: You need to show me one thing from this list:

    Okay, how about almost all of them?

    1) It is OK to make a decision (like what OS you use) not based on ethics. (This is a hard route to take... saying "it is OK" seems to say "it is ethical")

    How about utility? I know there's a long list of things Win32 is still better than Linux for. (New computer users, for example.) I think it's perfectly acceptable to use an operating system that suits your purpose, no matter the vendor or the license. That's part of freedom. Freedom to choose. It would be unethical for you to try and restrict that freedom from others.

    2) Guns do not imply opression. (I cannot understand how this argument would work, but if you can make it, go for it!)

    Of course they don't. A tyrant can only rule with the consent of the people, no? People are opressed because they choose to do nothing about the opression. You can cite incidents like those that happen in China every so often, but obviously those people aren't willing to die for their causes.

    Further, remember that the American colonies were very opressed just before the revolution. It took guns to get us where we are now, the most powerful nation on the planet.

    3) Linux/GPL does not imply freedom.

    It does. So does the right to bear arms. Freedom to defend yourself. Freedom to practice sport shooting (which is an Olympic event, I might add.)

    4) Every choice one makes is independant from one's other choices. (This seems to be the path you are taking. If you prove this, however, I think you de-centralize life from the individual, which seems to me a bad thing.)

    That is the basis of freedom. You can do what you want, and I can do what I want. Of course, to maintain order, one must submit to the rule of law. You trade freedoms for rule of law. That is the price paid by you to live under the law.

    5) There is no such thing as "ethics."

    If you look at the world around you, it is pretty hard to prove the existence of ethics, isn't it? We have an American President who lies and commits adultery. We have tabloids. We have abortionists, murderers, and whatnot. But we all know that ethics really do exist. But not everyone's ethics are the same. Here's why:

    Ethics and morals are based entirely on perception. Perception of right and wrong. The mice living in my house eating my dry foods think they are right to be doing so... it keeps them alive and gives them a home. I trap the mice to get rid of them. I, too, think I am right to get rid of the mice. My cat thinks they are dinner, and kills the mice... all the while thinking he is right. The guy who sold me the mouse traps thinks it's right to sell the tools to assist me in removing the mouse.

    So, which of us is right? Me, my cat, the guy selling the traps, or the mice? Is it ethical for someone to sell me mouse traps knowing what I will be doing to the mice with them? Is it ethical for my cat to eat mice when I feed him cat food? Is it ethical for me to dispose of the mice? Is it ethical for the mice to eat my food?

    So, an individual cannot hold other people to his/her own ethical standards like you are trying to do. Your perceptions of right and wrong, morality, and ethics are different from everyone else's.

    Just remember, murderers think that they are right. Their perception is very different from yours and mine, but they think they are right.

  • But bullets are so much easier, and the results are so immediately clear...

    As a pinko-commie sympathizing, vegetarian, card-carrying member of the ACLU, I find the GPL fits nicely into my value system, and I find it easy to support.

    As an Army officer and a combat pilot (and Instructor Pilot to other highly trained killing machines), I sometimes find myself answering questions like "what the *&^% are you doing here?" (caveat: I am now in the Individual Ready Reserve, so the question doesn't come up as often as it used to.)

    My answer has always been that I support the purpose of the Army, to protect freedom. The oath I took was to defend the Constitution, which has problems, but has mechanisms for improvement. In reality, defending freedom is only one of the purposes of the Army, the primary purpose is arguably to protect the nation.

    Completely separate from it's purpose, the Army (military) is often used for oppression. But this is not intrinsic to the military, and is opposed from without and within by a substantial population.

    Treating the military with a siege mentality is an ineffective strategy. And that is why I disagree with your statement that I should have severe problems with the Army. I just have severe problems with the way the fascists in Washington use and misuse the Army (military).

    I can't wait to answer questions about this posting during my next security clearance review.

  • From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.ht ml [gnu.org]:

    You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.

    Modifying a GPL'd program and keeping the changes to yourself is thus explicitly included in the spirit of the GPL.


    --
  • I agree.

    Linux and guns don't mix. Any body which has a purpose of opressing another organization should have problems with the GPL. Anyone who agrees with the GPL should have severe problems with the Army.

    Feel free to contradict me, but please do so by using logic rather than flames. Or bullets :)
  • As a member of the military I happen to know that some of the systems that are used on the battlefield (and I mean that literally) run on unix. I think it would be easy for the military to use linux in place of those systems, however as far as what kind of modifications that would take and how the GPL would affect them I wouldn't know. I don't know for sure that the government is restricted by copyrights much less copyleft.

    In response to the conflict of interest post: please do not bring your personal beliefs into a discussion of technology, I would like to debate your points but as this is not a thread about military ethics I won't.

  • and.. (Score:1)

    by peterjm ( 1865 )
    ..they said military inteligence was an oxy-moron. (sp?)
  • OK naive part of me says "Where does the USAF take rights away?" But I do see your argument.

    At the same time though -
    Any country can use Linux.
    Any company can use Linux.
    Any person can use Linux.
    While you can say that linux is to forward the rights of users, how can you deny that right too anyone? This is comprable to denying Free Speech to a group like the KKK, or Nazis, or Communists, or Religious Right, or any group you don't agree with.
    So you want only good people to use the Linux?
    Define good.
    -cpd
  • Ben Smith writes:

    Does anyone else get the sense of conflicting ideologies between the open-source/free software community and what the military is here for?

    No. Should we ?? Last time I checked, at least in the Western Nations, the military was there to protect us from people who decide that they have a better right to our land, property, and people than the citizens of those nations do.

    Militaries protect national interests. Free software has no concern for national interests, it's international, it's about the freedom of mankind, not the slaughter of innocents.

    Friend, Free software has NO interests whatsoever. It's about good, solid code, that can be modified easily, and is freely available. Anything more than that is spin. Linux, despite its' merits, will not bring world peace, end hunger and disease, or even cut back waxy yellow buildup. And if the taxpayers get better value for their hard-earned tax dollar by any part of the Government using Linux, that's great, and in fact adds even more evidence that Linux and Open Source is not a fad, but a solid way of assuring reliable systems.

    I may be sounding like a pinko here, and yes, more linux boxes out there == good thing, but, something doesn't feel right about the technology we've created to help further the rights of men might be used to take those rights away.

    Methinks you've got some issues here that have little, if anything, to do with Linux, and more to do with your politics and/or ideology. Code is a tool, which is by itself, neutral. Only people can put a tool to good use or to evil use. . .

  • I'm a programmer in the US Air Force, and am a Linux hacker. There are a few Linux boxes in use on base, including the one sitting right behind me, (my baby). Unfortunately, _they_ are trying to push NT down our throats. If you call up the sysadmins on base and ask them to reboot a *NIX server, the answer you'll hear is "I thought that box wasn't an running NT". The techie people who know what works and what doesn't unfortunately aren't the same people that make the decisions. In my neck of the woods, Commercial Off the Shelf software is being used more and more than stuff we develop.

    In order to get the Linux box in my cubicle, I had to whine and whine for a month and write up all sorts of crap before it was approved. Since then, I've been coming up with all sorts of excuses to use it. They use Red Hat on a few servers, like the profiling box and others, but for some strange reason, they put NT on the proxy, which explains why the web is down half the time....

    The funny thing is though, the military is supposed to buy from the lowest bidder and spend as little money as possible, and here we have a free OS that could be used and they go NT (WTF?!). Oh, they tend to think maintenence costs are higher for *NIX systems too (another WTF?!).

    Oh yeah, and the opinions I've stated here aren't necessarily the views of the USAF (but they should be).
  • Any tool can be used as a weapon.

    Linux is just a tool, yes it COULD be used to support armed forces taking over the world and removing all your rights.

    Or they could take hammers and instead of building houses, beat us over the head, and take away all our rights.

    I am not gonna take their OS or thier hammers away

  • Ethics and Technology are intertwined issues. Think of encryption and privacy, think of nuclear weapons, think of biological weapons.

    If you think that ethics and technology shoulden't be discussed, you're wrong. If we ignore ethical and moral issues in our pursuit of the betterment of technology, we will destroy ourselves.

    Oppenheimer knew this...
  • National interests can easily cross national borders. The US, as a *major* member of NATO, has a serious interest in not seeing a relatively minor nation make a mockery out of the alliance that countered the now-defunct Warsaw Pact... the act of NATO's throwing down the gauntlet by focusing on alleged Serb violations of the rights of Kosovar civillians in their counter-insurgency, much of the rest of the script followed thereafter. Pride, credibility, ideals...

    The US also has a bit of a responsibility in upholding the ideals of the UN. We could withdraw, I suppose, from the international community, but that's most likely not in our interests, either.
  • Attitudes shape people. They shape people's responses, they shape people's reactions.

    You give people Windows NT or 98, and yes, you will probably get a pretty rough, tough, mindless military force.

    Why?

    Other than it being crud, because it encourages people not to think, not to cooperate and not to see others as people. And when you stop thinking, stop cooperating and stop thinking of other people as people, what is to stop you from harming them?

    Now, what happens if the military starts adopting Linux, with a multinational, cooperative, supportive attitude? Some of that attitude may rub off, for a start. A military comprised of people who think is a military where people will question orders they believe are wrong. A military that believes in cooperation, especially multinationally, is one where there is less incentive to label foreigners as sub-human. A military that sees other people as people will be less inclined to use lethal force, where at all possible.

    I'm not saying the military would become pacifists by adopting the penguin, but rather their attitude would necessarily shift, albeit only very very slightly, away from needless destruction of life, and towards alternative ways to achieve their goals. However slight that shift, that has to be a good thing.

  • someone watches too much tv. ^^
  • Again, I only ask that you think about what I said.

    I am stating that my ethics lead me to choose the GPL. The same set of my ethics opposes the ownership and/or use of firearms.

    I believe that all decisions in life should be based on a set of ethics; if you disagree with me here, I think we have a fundamental breach. To me, guns and opression go hand-in-hand. Linux is the farthest thing from opression.

    I am not stating that gun owners who use Linux are unethical. I am (and have been, if you care to read what I've said) asking how they can go hand in hand under the same set of ethics.

    I'll simplify this for simpler minds: You need to show me one thing from this list:

    1) It is OK to make a decision (like what OS you use) not based on ethics. (This is a hard route to take... saying "it is OK" seems to say "it is ethical")
    2) Guns do not imply opression. (I cannot understand how this argument would work, but if you can make it, go for it!)
    3) Linux/GPL does not imply freedom.
    4) Every choice one makes is independant from one's other choices. (This seems to be the path you are taking. If you prove this, however, I think you de-centralize life from the individual, which seems to me a bad thing.)
    5) There is no such thing as "ethics."

    There might be other options. In fact, I will probably get belligerant replys to this stating "You forgot to say 6) ESR likes guns," or "6) The Gnu should be hunted to extinction."

    Again, I think this debate has gotten too off-topic and too extensive for the realm of /. I would love to continue it via e-mail [mailto].

  • a few military domains/other government domains have visited my site repeatedly including air force and nasa.

    guess they really are learning about this crazy scary thing they call linux :).


    Sensei
  • Avionics are a quite a ways off from what Linux or any other desktop OS can provide because they are so specialized. I'm sure most military systems have multiple redundancy flight systems.

    Where Linux or any other OS comes into play is battle planning/communication where the multiple talents of a desktop system can be utilized. In that case the ultimate redundancy is the humans operating the system. They check the data which is in turn handed up to the commanding officer to check. If there is ever any discrepancies they are found and corrected.

    Ultimately, on more advanced weapon systems a computer is responsible for guidance. The guidance systems are also highly specialized and would not use a desktop OS either.
  • You sound like some rich kiddie student with no real life experience who listens to left wing college professors in between poetry writing sessions. If it wasn't for the US Mil, sweet cheeks, you'd be speaking Chinese, if not Russian, German, or Japanese. Get a life or go live in Beijing. I hear they're lookin for a few good little Reds.

    ==============================
    Windows NT has crashed,
    I am the Blue Screen of Death,
  • Sorry. Poor logic on your part. I suggest picking up "Introduction to Logic" by Irving M. Copi (you can probably find in on Amazon).
  • In particular, reliable military hardware forming a credible threat saves lives. If, say, increasingly digital-aged materiel frequently "crashed" due to software problems -- perhaps due to lack of vendor support, or untested configurations, or whatever -- and there is no way to fix this, then the threat is significantly less credible. This increases the likelihood for combat by encouraging any potential opposition.

    As a trivial, silly example, consider two hermits living out a deadly enmity on two islands. Each has a tactical nuclear warhead loaded onto a missile; their distances and ranges are such that either could fire at the other, without directly affecting himself. However, each is fully aware that a launch will be immediately detected by the other, and thus you have mutually assured destruction. If neither wishes to die, than neither will.

    Now, make the missiles reliable, say, 50% of the time -- plus or minus some random, unknown factor. If one tunes his missile software a tad, he may feel that he could launch and quite possibly be victorious (namely, obliterate his opponent and live). This increases the risk that one or both will die.

    It's simplified, but ya get the point -- sometimes, improving weapons systems reduces the chance that they'll ever need to be used.
  • Operating systems can be interesting things to rewrite. But let's look at the OS utilities and packages.

    Like I asked, how many PPP managers does the world really need? It's almost gotten to the point of being like Kama Sutra position number 468, which was 467 with left pinky extended. :-)


    -scooter
  • I see, somehow I got the idea that unix was
    part of the so called weapons system device
    software or so (I haven't the military
    terminology :) rather than part of the human
    interface, or as you describe it above.
  • I don't think the GPL licensing would have much impact in this case. IF the military were to "adopt" Linux I can see it being done in a very specific manner:

    1) Pick a distro and version number. That's it . Period. No other versions allowed. (i.e. must be consistant)

    2) Look over the source code for the sections/tools the military wants. Thow out everything else. (i.e. make sure there are no back doors / trojan horses / whatever)

    3) Make a new "distro" that is military only - with the unwanted stuff removed. Now they own this distro and don't change it except under extreme scrutiny - see 2) above. (i.e. Make sure no one can sneak in a back door / Trojan horse)

    4) Fix bugs on a case by case basis, as needed.

    5) Publish this as the official USA Linux.

    No GPL conflicts there. When they add features or applications there is no preasure to openly publish or sell them. The GPL makes allowances for "in house only" modifications. They do not have to be made available in source code.

  • Linux advocates recruited by army. (Score:4)

    by Shoeboy ( 16224 ) on Wednesday August 04, 1999 @09:19AM (#1766191) Homepage
    US military to deploy linux enthusiasts against hostile powers
    WASHINGTON D.C. In a landmark victory for the renegade OS, the United States Army has changed its recruitment and training procedures in order to make military service more attractive to Linux Users.
    "We're going all out to get as many of these penguin people into the ranks as we possibly can." Stated General Jack Ripper "These geeks truly are americas finest."
    The military became interested in geek warriors after observing multiple flame wars on the popular web site slashdot.org. "We used to think that the Army Rangers were the meanest mothers on earth, then we watched KDE and Gnome users face off." Explained Gen. Ripper. "We then had an elite team of rangers engage in the discussion. When I saw those hardened troops break down in tears from the geek onslaught, I knew we had found the perfect source of violent maladjusted zealots."
    Assimilating the new geek recruits required something of a change in the standard training regimen. Instead of boot camp, recruits are now put through reboot camp where they are forced to support mission critical applications on Windows98. This teaches them to hate. Recruits are then put through what is known as the 'burma road' drill - where they attempt to stay abreast of the most recent 2.3.x kernel using a 486sx/25 for compiles and a 1200 baud modem for downloads. After a few short weeks, the perfect killing machine is created. Geek troops are capable of untold attrocities in combat, including roasting prisoners over an overclocked celeron, installing MS Bob on enemy hardware and moderating down 'first posts.'
    "Some governments have complained that these troops don't abide by the geneva convention." Admitted Gen. Ripper "But I say that the geneva convention is a closed, proprietary protocol funded by Microsoft - screw em."
    --Shoeboy
  • One thing to remember is that the military did a lot of soul-searching after the Vietnam War. Not only did the draftee army perform poorly (it's estimated that less than 1/4th of the U.S. soldiers in any given firefight even fired their weapons!), but the reports of rampant drug use, atrocities such as at My Lai, and rampant fragging of officers who tried to rein in their troops shocked both civilians and those in the chain of command.

    Today's military personnel are no angels by any means. The bureaucracy is still stifling, the officers are still stiff-necked and often more concerned about what high-paying consulting jobs they can land after retirement than about what they're supposed to be doing today, and the Marines are still jar-heads, no matter how much better shape the Corps is in today (grin). But I repeat that it's not the military that rattles sabres. Whenever we go on one of these foreign adventures, the Chiefs consistently tell the President that we shouldn't. About the only thing the military CAN be accused of is repeatedly saying that if we're going to go into a fight, then do it, don't just play at it with all of this "gradual escalation" BS. I.e., go in with overwhelming force, kick rear, and get it over with, don't drag things out because that'll just mean more people killed.

    -E
  • Anything to do with the military will raise ethical questions related to technology and humanity. I won't debate this issue except to point out the response of Oppenheimer when asked about the atomic bomb. I can't find the exact quote so I'm have to paraphrase it. I hope I don't butcher it too much.

    Q: Isn't it a tragedy of science for your invention to be used for destruction.

    A: No, it is not a tragedy of science. It is a tragedy of humanity.

    This "quote" was taken from Jacob Bronowski's excellent PBS series called "The Accent of Man." Many of you have not seen this as it appear many years ago. The book is still available (AFAIK); read the chapter about the quest for absolute knowledge.
  • What if that truck convoy is carying nuclear weapons into your backyard? What would you rather?
    NT running the code that guides a missle at the truck to defend your house
    Or Linux aiming the missle.
    Yes people will die. You or them.
    Yes I know the military does not always act in what some people think is a good way. But every military action will be frowned upon by somebody. But it is true (or seems to have been proven repeatedly) that sometimes military force is nessecary.
    On a side note who ever said they were gonna use Linux to kill people? I'd think they would still use it for the main uses you use it for. Most of the targeting systems were extremely customized code that is part of the hardware.
    If you have a problem with Linux being used as a file server for the AirForce, that's really a stretch.
    -cpd

Slashdot Top Deals

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Close