When the UK’s defense contractor for the Navy decided to standardize on Windows, it “prompted strong internal opposition from some [engineers], who had a sound background in Unix and who had, despite resource starvation and a companywide policy to standardise on Windows, been investigating open source alternatives as a foundation for future combat systems. They lost.“
A ship’s system may be tied to other systems via networks and other means. So you now run the risk of some randy naval officer who spends his days at home with the military laptop hooked up to his DSL line.. or worse cruising the nearest wifi hotspot which may or may not be guarded by a firewall.
A Linux system would typically be immune to a windows machine’s virii and the worst that could happen to the ship is the officer’s laptops all become infected and unfunctional.
Now you run the risk of the entire ship becoming unfunctional.
Also Windows has stability problems after long install periods. It’s not particularly tolerant of power interruptions causing it to crash and reboot.
From a military standpoint Linux or the BSD’s are a better choice. Sure the enemy can have the source but do you not think the bad guys cant get Windows source code if they wanted to?
I am sure MS made nice donations to politicans in the UK.
“prompted strong internal opposition from … engineers”
Body of text actually reads:
“prompted strong internal opposition from **some** of AMS’ engineers, who had a sound background in Unix and who had, despite resource starvation and a companywide policy to standardise on Windows, been investigating open source alternatives as a foundation for future combat systems.”
OSNews, becoming an ever increasing pit of *nix zealots…wants us to believe that ALL of their engineers were opposed.
Tsk, tsk.
/me goes and hides in the bunker…
a government should want something they can work on right down to the kernel atomic level(and then some, if said existed), without having to worry about how it translates into a real world “corperate breach”.
Now we notice a phenonema. Hope you see it too.
Anyone who doesn’t want a warship stop dead in it’s tracks by a virus like the ILOVEU virii would opt to using Linux or Unix. Hell the NSA seems linux is a good choice for it’s own uses.
Didn’t the US Navy try NT a while back on a single ship–and in a few hours it was dead in the water with a crashed computer?
Linux would really be better for this, because it is stable. X isn’t, but Linux is helluva stable. As is *BSD.
For a government agency I would reccomment SELinux from the US government or OpenBSD for it’s built in crypto.
http://www.slothmud.org/~hayward/mic_humor/nt_navy.html
That’s what the article says ! I and it is backed up by someone who worked with and headed the department who ran such systems in the UK Navy. Compared to you I rather take the word of someone who has a clue of whats going on inside the UK Navy over someone anonymous web user.
“Enemy won’t have the source if they went with BSD“…
How is that?
No, the article and headline are not in agreement.
The thread author deliberately left out the ‘some engineers’…hence not ALL engineers were opposed to using Windows, only those that work in *nix, contrary to what the thread author wants us to believe.
Shoddy, shoddy attempt at ‘colouring’ the context of the article.
I dont trust windows to run my home computer which only has music and games under its command. The first day i put xp on my computer i accidentaly typed in a url with one character missing. it was a simple typing error but the web page that i accidentally went to started installing spyware all over the place. I was using ie cause i didnt have firefox installed yet. A simple type and my system had crap all over it. I got it removed easy enough but i wouldnt trust that type of system to control military ships and nuclear weapons. I am not advocating any other particular choice over windows, but the British military must read the same bad news about windows and its security problems that everyone else does, i cant really understand why they would use windows in such a mission (nice military term for you) critical setting
So which can be hacked faster if all are as secured and locked down as you can get it ? Given a canidates SELinux built and tested by the NSA verses Windows XP Pro. Which one would be the first to be hacked ?
BSD license doesn’t require one to release changes to the source code. They could make custom code changes to the kernel without releasing their code.
That’s why Apple used FreeBSD as it’s kernel…if they ever want to do something propritary down the road, very likely being a commercial developer….they won’t have to release it.
With GPL, like Linux, you’re handcuffed…you have to release any changes you make to the public.
A infected laptop interfacing with the ships computer systems could easliy introduce foriegn elements.
Microsoft is a classic example that secuirty through obscurity is not a solution.
I doubt there would be enough changes made to the Navy BSD internal workings to have much effect on anything…
And Apple is using the Mach microkernel with a BSD environment.
The Royal Navy is one big prideful group. Why are they using something traditional or multi-purpose? Why aren’t they designing all their own stuff (or at least making heavy modifications to someone elses)?
Now, where is the Control Alt Delete on the ship? I dont think its going to be one of the red buttons.
Now as for:
“OSNews, becoming an ever increasing pit of *nix zealots…wants us to believe that ALL of their engineers were opposed.
Tsk, tsk. ”
There are other choices, other than windows, that can be used IE: VoxWare, Solaris, Linux and so on. Yes, these systems have a basis in Unix. Unix has over 30 years proven track record for reliability. The mars land rover is using VoxWare, which is based on *BSD (if I am not mistaken).
How is this for an example:
“AMS, who specialise in naval Combat Management Systems, to implementing a Windows 2000-based CMS system for the new Type 45 Destroyer. But this prompted strong internal opposition from some of AMS’ engineers, who had a sound background in Unix and who had, despite resource starvation and a companywide policy to standardise on Windows”
If your background is based in subject matter ‘a’ but someone decides to use subject matter ‘b’, what do you think the end result will be? Go with your strenghts. If your engineers are Unix based then use Unix. If your engineers are Windows based then go Windows. Its that simple, go with your strengths.
As for relibility, I can relate from my work experience. I work in a collocation facility / Data Center. On more that one occasion (daily), I have to physically run to a cage and reboot servers. Would you like to guess, which OS needs to get rebooted more often? If you guessed Windows, your 100% correct. I reboot more w2k, win 2003 servers than Solaris, Linux and *BSD servers. And if your thinking about shooty hardware, guess again. Its not your typical x86 / ide / off the shelf hardware.
NASA uses VoxWare for the Land Rover, that has to say something considering the conditions that the rover has to work in. There is no one to power cycle the rover because the OS decided to pitch a hissy fit.
I have worked on unix servers with uptimes greater that 4 years. Show me uptimes on a Windows server that goes beyond 4 years.
Reilibility,
tsk, tsk
<QUOTE>
The Navy began running shipboard applications under Microsoft Windows NT so that fewer sailors would be needed to control key ship functions.
But the Navy last fall learned a difficult lesson about automation: The very information technology on which the ships depend also makes them vulnerable. The Yorktown last September suffered a systems failure when bad data was fed into its computers during maneuvers off the coast of Cape Charles, Va.
The ship had to be towed into the Naval base at Norfolk, Va…
</QUOTE>
http://www.gcn.com/archives/gcn/1998/july13/cov2.htm
You guys all make it sound like every ship in the UK navy is going to go beserk next time a virus breaks out. Have any of you even thought about what this really amounts to? There are a lot of computers on navy ships that aren’t even network connected. Even the combat systems mentioned in the article aren’t easily accessible via the wide-open public Internet. I can almost guarantee that Internet Explorer vulnerabilities are not a major risk for this system.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a Windows fan by any stretch (typing this from Fedora Core 2) but I hardly think there’s any call for the doom and gloom everybody seems to be spewing as a result of this thread.
Plus, this is an article from the Register…an online tabloid for Microsoft-hating Linux zealots who have nothing better to do than stick pins in their matching Bill Gates and Steve Balmer voodoo dolls. As with every article from them, I’ll take this with a grain of salt.
Don’t forget QNX. I’m not a user myself, but it also has a great reputation for reliability. ‘Used in nuclear power plants, medical devices… where you don’t want Windows.
With GPL, like Linux, you’re handcuffed…you have to release any changes you make to the public.
Rubbish. You only have to give you changes away to people you give the binnary to.
Forgot to mention, within the last year, I have rebooted 1 sun server, no *bsd servers and only a handful linux servers. And if your curious, there is approx 20,000 linux servers, several thousand Sun Box (no x86 solaris) and several thousand windows servers (w2k,2003 and a few NT) in my facility.
“You only have to give you changes away to people you give the binna”
So, I guess if they had gone with Linux…the Royal Navy couldn’t sell any of it’s destroyers if they wanted to keep the source secret?
BSD is the answer…everytime.
I realize that my … engineers use of the ellipses might have misstated the actual uproar, so I added “some”. So there!
“And if your curious, there is approx 20,000 linux servers, several thousand Sun Box (no x86 solaris) and several thousand windows servers (w2k,2003 and a few NT) in my facility.”
Uhhh…. *wets pants* What? Where the hell do you work?!
Sorry, you can’t back peddle now.
You’ve shown your true colours…and your credibility will forever by suspect from here on in.
You ain’t foolin’ anybody.
Thanks de Selby, I totaly forgot QNX. A fantastic RTOS. QNX is used “Used in nuclear power plants, medical devices… where you don’t want Windows”
I do remember reading that QNX is actually used in the lasers which are used for vision correction.
“I totaly forgot QNX. A fantastic RTOS. QNX is used “Used in nuclear power plants, medical devices… where you don’t want Windows””
Also where you don’t want to use UNIX.
UNIX is not a RTOS.
The Military and Government agencies would have the sense to develope their own highly secure operating systems which they wouldn’t have to even acknowledge existed rather than using any corporate product.
“Enemy won’t have the source if they went with BSD, and very unlikeyl if they go with Windows.
This is where linux, and anything GPL…fails.”
No, GPL is no problem in this case. As long as the navy doesn’t decide to share binaries of their systems outside their organization, according to GPL they doesn’t need to share the source.
“No, GPL is no problem in this case. As long as the navy doesn’t decide to share binaries of their systems outside their organization, according to GPL they doesn’t need to share the source.”
If you sell anything commercially with an altered Linux OS or GPL software inside of it…you have to release the code.
Governments the world over make big bucks selling military equipment…they would HAVE TO release source code changes to GPL software that is part of a commercial sale.
You people amaze me! The GPL isn’t even a factor here simply because they won’t be making any source code modifications. They’re using Windows, and before that they used closed source commercial UNIX. At least I’m assuming they never shelled out the thousands that it costs to license the source code to something like AIX or Solaris.
No big surprise. U.S. Navy standardized all it’s PC’s on Windows a long time ago. A lot of other systems are still *NIX based however, mainly mission critical systems for the propulsion and controls as well as communications and crytologic data. There are enough “engineers” in the U.S. that know better than go with MS for their mission critical stuff. “Open source” is “used” but it’s not necessarily open to the public. The government typically buys the code from the company so it doesn’t lose its software investment if the company goes out of business. It’s not GPL’d, but may fall into the public domain after it’s declassified or retired.
With GPL, like Linux, you’re handcuffed…you have to release any changes you make to the public.
Incorrect. They only have to release their sources if they distribute their modified binaries. Somehow I doubt they’d be doing that.
“Incorrect. They only have to release their sources if they distribute their modified binaries. Somehow I doubt they’d be doing that.”
There seems to be a predominant opinion here that the Royal Navy has never sold a warship or submarine 🙄
First of all I don’t think modifications to the Linux kernel are going to be something that needs to be kept a secret. Besides you cannot modify the Windows kernel anyway so this doesn’t seem like something the Navy needed to do anyway. Maybe the programs that run on it need to be kept secret, but those can all be proprietary if the Navy chooses.
I don’t see the issue with selling ships to other countries either. After all, nothing is stopping the buyers from stripping the whole ship down to see how it works so I cannot see why allowing them to view the source code could be any worse.
Bone-headed decisions such as this are the unintended consequence of the move towards greater use of COTS – Commercial Off-The-Shelf components. It’s been a good move in general, using common items in place of custom, military-only equipment. For every soldier slogging through the mud, there are many more working in ordinary office environments to make sure that he gets food, ammo, and mail from home. There’s no reason that most of a military’s computers couldn’t be Dell desktops running XP. I wouldn’t pick Windows, but I understand the benefit of standardizing.
What doesn’t make sense is extending something that might make sense for office systems into combat systems. It doesn’t matter if Don Rumsfeld runs Windows. It does matter if a cruise missle does. In between the common, ordinary office computers and the specialized embedded systems are a large number of control systems which can use some degree of off-the-shelf hardware and software.
Many of those systems run Solaris. Ordinary Solaris is pretty robust, and there are hardened versions available. It’s probably worth looking at Linux and the BSDs as candidates for those sorts of applications, as well as other commercial Unixes. But Windows just doesn’t belong there. The path that it took from NT3 to XP has added too many architectural compromises where marketing overrode security, stability, and robustness. But the bigger issue is that you can switch easily between Unix systems, but Windows is designed to lock you in.
The guiding principle is that using COTS equipment gives you the benefit of competition. Custom systems cost too much, and leave you hostage to the builders. COTS works when you have Dell competing with HP. Dell might have the lowest bid this year, and HP may win next year. But it doesn’t apply if you standardize on Windows, because there is only one supplier. That satisfies the letter of the law for the Commercial part of COTS, buts misses the intent, which is Competition.
Military organizations would be wise to push for the use of free and open source software, for the same reason as the commercial world is moving in that direction – the elimination of vendor lockin. Without competition, there is no benefit to COTS.
The US Navy stayed with NT for a long time, they upgraded to Win 2000. The Navy does run other systems such as UNIX/Linux
or OpenBSD for it’s built in crypto
A completely braindead statement due to the fact that all of the BSDs, Linux and the Mac OS X releases all have built in crypto.
A ship’s system may be tied to other systems via networks and other means. So you now run the risk of some randy naval officer who spends his days at home with the military laptop hooked up to his DSL line.. or worse cruising the nearest wifi hotspot which may or may not be guarded by a firewall.
Somehow, I doubt:
1. It’s going to be the same version of Windows 2000 you install off the retail CD.
2. It won’t be reconfigured and locked down.
3. The network traffic between machines like “officer’s PCs” and the ship’s systems will be uncontrollet or unmonitored.
Also Windows has stability problems after long install periods. It’s not particularly tolerant of power interruptions causing it to crash and reboot.
I’ve never had a corrupted NTFS partition from a power loss, but I’ve had quite a few corrupted ext2, ext3 and reiser partitions. Not to mention I’m pretty sure the Navy will be able to afford UPSes.
“First of all I don’t think modifications to the Linux kernel are going to be something that needs to be kept a secret.”
No, maybe not now. But one day it may be a big deal. Failing to understand this is why you’re not the British Foreign Secretary.
“After all, nothing is stopping the buyers from stripping the whole ship down to see how it works so I cannot see why allowing them to view the source code could be any worse.”
Because those source code changes could be shared with other systems that are NOT FOR SALE.
Again, BSD is the better way to go.
Didn’t the US Navy try NT a while back on a single ship–and in a few hours it was dead in the water with a crashed computer?
Yes. No fault of NT, though, their software just sucked.
The Royal Navy is one big prideful group. Why are they using something traditional or multi-purpose? Why aren’t they designing all their own stuff (or at least making heavy modifications to someone elses)?
1. It’s cheaper.
2. They probably _are_ making “heavy modifications”.
You people amaze me! The GPL isn’t even a factor here simply because they won’t be making any source code modifications. They’re using Windows, and before that they used closed source commercial UNIX. At least I’m assuming they never shelled out the thousands that it costs to license the source code to something like AIX or Solaris.
That’s hardly a reasonable assumption to make in this context. The “thousands” a source license would cost buried in the expenses of designing, building and manning a warship wouldn’t even qualify as a rounding error.
Also where you don’t want to use UNIX. UNIX is not a RTOS.
UNIX is an OS family, not an individual OS. Many members of that family are real-time OSs.
I was hoping to hear someone mention the Navy using OpenVMS, I seem to recall hearing the military was one of the larger users of OpenVMS. I get tired of hearing about Linux & Windows all the time. =)
Money wouldn’t seem to me to be such a deciding factor for the royal navy. You’re talking about software that controls xx billion dollars in steel and guns.
“No fault of NT, though, their software just sucked.”
Is it OK for a single divide by zero to take down an OS?
Is it OK for a single divide by zero to take down an OS?
Of course not, but that’s not what happened.
What if the UK goes to war against the US. I wonder how Windows would work in that situation? I bet BSODs would suddenly start occuring.
An open source option or internally developed software would be the more Nationaly secure option for the UK since they would be not held by any outside interest.
blue screen of death for real!
What they should be using is a closed-source homegrown system. Linux is just as untrustworthy as windows for mission-critical systems.
In the world of cryptography an “algo” is judged as being strong if its source is leaked and yet attackers can still not break its cryptographic secrets. This holds true for open source aswell. A program is truely strong even if it is leaked or publically available to one’s perspective enemies.
“What they should be using is a closed-source homegrown system. Linux is just as untrustworthy as windows for mission-critical systems.”
Agree 100%. No way in Hell would I ever bet my life on Linux or BSD for medical/military/avionics control systems. The OSes that should be in discussion here are things like VMS, QNX, VxWorks and Solaris to build something like this on.
“NASA uses VoxWare for the Land Rover, that has to say something considering the conditions that the rover has to work in. There is no one to power cycle the rover because the OS decided to pitch a hissy fit.”
Don’t be too proud there friend…I remember reading news reports that that rover got stuck at least once or twice due to some OS/software problems and had to be debugged and rebooted remotely. Look it up if you don’t believe me.
Who? The Navy?
It won’t be long before we see some nuclear warheaded SL-ICBMs getting mislaunched because of another winblows buffer overflow.
I’m a software developer/engineer for MS Windows using .NET, eventhough I do experiment and test Linux. Though when I read this article I was shocked!!! Without being technical about it:
1) Windows is a commercial product! Does this mean countries will go shopping at the local software shop to get a operating system for their new defence untility?
2) Have the world not learnt through the past the security disaster/risks that Windows empose?
3) Will you feel safe having the monopoly software company Microsoft, create your OS? Just the sound of that make my hair stand! The reason is that it is used by so many! Surely to make a Warship secure one needs to use something that is proprietary.
Well, there are many other reason to think of that are not Technical.
Clearly I think it is crazy! I honestly hope that the people creating/installing the OS, will not be hit and run programmers/engineers.
Also I hope that the captian remembers to activate the Windows Update util, so that it can get the latest paches every hour 🙂 Maybe he needs to reboot……. I can see the following …. Hail the enemy… we need to reboot first!
I hope they feel safe………….
It doesn’t matter what this this article states the UK navy is atleast a decade behind the US in technology. And to add a simple fact to most uninformed readers. The current US navy undersea task force is based on technology that is aproxamtely 75% Linux based systems. From Sonar to Combat Control and Decision, navigation, and image processing. About 75% of the systems in navy subs are dual processor xeon boxes that run a modified version of linux. The surface fleet is preparing the leap as well. Thats called low cost COTS. Some systems such as training do use windows since it is a little easier and cost less from a developer perspective. Windows cannot and I repeat cannot handle critical realtime data analysis in the microsecond arena. I don’t care what machine you monitor it with. I have used the realtime extensions to windows and the best they ever got was within 10% of a non relatime linux scheduler. Solaris is also a capable OS but lacks several of the key refinements that linux and bsd has. BSD and Solaris both lack drivers. SCO is too damn slow and crashes under heavy IO loads.
Don’t the US Navy use Yellow Dog Linux and Apple Xserves on their submarines?
Si senior ! I forgot about those. They are used for the most demanding processing. But still 65% of the systems are xeon based systems. The modified G5 servers make up about 10%.
Homegrown solutions tend to be a bitch to maintain, and are nearly universally so tied to a particular configuration/role, that they are hard to modify to new platforms/uses. There is a reason why there is such a big push within the DOD to use COTS stuff whenever possible.
“The current US navy undersea task force is based on technology that is aproxamtely 75% Linux based systems. From Sonar to Combat Control and Decision, navigation, and image processing. About 75% of the systems in navy subs are dual processor xeon boxes that run a modified version of linux.”
Very, very, very hard to believe you – Linux has only been a viable OS for any kind of serious milspec work and certification for less than 6 years and this is not nearly enough time for it to now be deployed on 75% of USN fleet systems, like you say, especially with well-heeled commercial vendors fighting open source tooth-and-nail for all government contracts like they do (and they are known to win way more often than they lose to open source).
A statement saying that the USN runs almost entirely on Linux needs some substantial proof to be taken seriously.
…in fact, if there is any truth at all in what you are saying about Linux in the USN, that scares the hell out of me just as much as hearing about Windows for the Royal Navy. Just a thought…
Ther’re better embedded alternatives such as BLUECAT.
What’s the next step? Guided missiles on embedded XP?
I’m sure they did their homework based on that it suggests what many have always believed “Linux is just as easy to hack if the motivation is there”.
Of course the other side of the coin is they may simply be using windows in low security non mission critical dept’s & this whole thing is more propaganda. Hmm wonder if Tony Blair reads OS News?
ARCI Acoustical Rapid COTS Insertion! And I recall specifically mentioning that 75% of all systems that are computer COTS on US SSN. That is Naval Sub Surface I did not refer to all USN systems. USN Subsurface. The contracts that comerical vendors tend to get are for DOD systems that are not realtime and mission critical. Most comerical vendors just cannot jump in and sell their OS. The OS decisions are made by engineers that have 25+ years experience along with younger engineers that can help steer in new technologies. Plus the linux OS systems are hardened by OS programmers by exhaustive testing procedures. There a few instantances were I have seen OS failures. Most are with the application software that was developed. In general the systems are more robust and configurable than windows and can run on a wide variety of hardware.
http://www.insanely-great.com/news.php?id=2419
What kind of trust level assurance, for which functions under which circonstance provides an OS?
US Navy is going for Trusted Solaris on Thin Client.
From http://www.embeddedstar.com/press/content/2004/2/embedded12844.html
“The solution is based on the stateless, ultra-thin client Sun Ray(tm) architecture and government-certified Trusted Solaris(tm) Operating System. Developed in conjunction with the U.S. Navy…”
Look at http://www.commoncriteriaportal.org/ for other OSes certified at label security LSPP
Good enough for posers, what else can I say
Well, maybe: MS has access to military hardware now
)
Bit of topic:What do they use in Irak and Afghanistan?
Quote:
——————————–
The OS decisions are made by engineers that have 25+ years experience along with younger engineers that can help steer in new technologies.
——————————–
So one could trust on their expertise , and might assume
they would separate the Mission Critical processes from evrything that can connect inside/outside other than what it
is designed for, eg: Missile Guidance System.My old scientific cal(cu)(later)would never be infected by a virus, because it has no means of connecting to “The Outside” or accepting anything from it.I only wish they had better programmed the machines instructions.Every assembly programmer can modify W2k’s kernel, it’s a “helluva” job but
feasable and bucksucking.Why not implementing the rtos’s that have earned their salt, i bet there’re are very robust
rto’s allready running somewhere in whatever mission critical.This way it all depends on the developers and not
on the decisions of some billionair monopolist.
..already use Windows NT in their back office apps. Some of which are written in Delphi..
What they should be using is a closed-source homegrown system. Linux is just as untrustworthy as windows for mission-critical systems.
Personally, I think they should just use OpenVMS. It has proven to be the worlds most secure and reliable OS, with some systems running constantly for over 15 years.
I really can’t believe they are using Windows 2000. Even heavily modified and with close control over connections going into it, the system is still more vunerable than VMS or QNX. Even using BeOS would be a safer choice!
Becomes a whole new meaning. I wonder if the next severe nuclear desaster is caused by shoddy Microsoft software?
I wonder why they did not use QNX and other commercial operating systems, which are even certified and widely deployed for such tasks.
Software issues and reboots… The land rover needs stability and *nix based OS have a longer history of stability than Microsoft based products.
Please feel free to show availability and uptimes for windows machines vs (*nix, vms, qnx boxen). There are VMS clusters out there that havent had a single reboot in 7 to 10 years. Other platforms have greater stability than MS based products. Why would a government agency choose the most reliable (or more reliable) system, baring egregious costs.
Does it mean that all their computers will run windows from now on, or does it mean that their desktops will? There is a huge difference.
With GPL, like Linux, you’re handcuffed…you have to release any changes you make to the public.
—-
wrong. read the license and gpl faq. you dont have to distribute the source code even if its gpl’ed.
Choosing Windows for a Warship is ignoring responsibility.
Some people in here mentioned that one (probably the only) advantage of Windows is that “enemies won’t have the source”.
1.) It doesn’t matter whether someone has the source of your OS if it is secure. *NIX is incredibly secure when it is correctly configured. The source can be used to find security holes, so if the the UK navy or its contractors would do that beforehand, the ships were enterely bullet-proof, at least computer-wise. With Windows, you couldn’t do that, you’d have to rely on Microsoft do deliver secure software, which is retarded.
2.) Apart from that they wouldn’t have to release the source of an open source OS either. As it was already mentioned, with *BSD you modify it without releasing the source. This is also valid with GNU/Linux, because if you hve actually READ an understood the GPL, you know that you only have to give the source to the person or organization you SELL or give the software to, but not to the general public.
I’m off to build my atomic bunker, although i currently live in Austria (which isn’t accessible from the sea, for those **-guess what-citizens with excellent geography knowledge.
Are they going to use WfW (Windows for Warships)? It is already quite outdated.
win2k was probably the most stable os microsoft produced, but, I lost count of the times I went to withdraw cash from an ATM and Windows 2k had crashed.
Either the ATM was blue screened or it was stuck in a boot-loop.
OS/2 used to run on almost all ATM machines and the downtime was minimal compared to nowadays.
If Windows cannot run ATMs properly, what chance have the navy got with their warship ????
Oh, and another thing, Microsoft themselves do NOT recommend running Windows on any mission critical systems. I do not own a warship, but I am pretty sure that if the ships systems are being controlled by Windows, and it screws up, then the navy will have no comeback form Microsoft
There are VMS clusters out there that havent had a single reboot in 7 to 10 years.
Note that this doesn’t mean individual *machines* in that cluster haven’t been rebooted.
It doesn’t matter whether someone has the source of your OS if it is secure. *NIX is incredibly secure when it is correctly configured.
In The Grand Scheme Of Things, *nix is one of the most exploited OSes available with one of the weakest security paradigms.
Windows (in stock form, at least) is hardly suited to running such mission-critical systems – but neither is *nix.
“With GPL, like Linux, you’re handcuffed…you have to release any changes you make to the public.”
this is SO bullshit. stop spreading false information if you dont know what you are talking about.
GPL requires you to release sources only to the person/company that receives BINARY version of software. NOT TO THE PUBLIC ! ! ! ! is it THAT hard to understand?
For example if military would like to do their own private version of Linux for their own use, and decide to use it INTERNALLY only without redistributing it, they dont either need to give source out.
so lets repeat this once again: YOU DONT NEED TO GIVE SOURCE TO THE PUBLIC. ONLY TO THOSE WHO RECEIVE BINARY VERSION OF SOFTWARE TOO!
puuh, fcking zealots.
And I thought it was “Windows for Workgroups” all this time.
– Knut –
I think a lot of people are getting confused about the whole issue of the British Navy or UK Government Agency choosing MS Windows.
BAE Systems is simply a defence contractor like Boeing or Lockheed Martin (I don’t know the US shipping equivalent). They are a general defence contractor who develop a lot of systems (including parts of the US Joint Strike Fighter). They simply won the contract to build the Type 45 Frigate from the British Navy, the Navy did not choose windows (that decision was made *after* the contract was awarded).
So, as I said, the British Navy or any department of the British Government has *not* made a decision to standardise on windows – only one defence contractor (who happens to be building a part of the Fleet)
As for BAE Systems decision itself – I totally disagree with them, and I think that this is a decision of such magnitude that the Minister of Defence should step in and look into the consequences properly. The 50-page document should *not* be an internal BAE document, but should be put before the Government Defence Select Committee.
And before anyone criticises me on my spelling skills, I’m using British-English (which technically should be called English-English) :-p
No, maybe not now. But one day it may be a big deal. Failing to understand this is why you’re not the British Foreign Secretary.
Oh really? Tell me how it will be a big deal. The only thing they may need to change in the kernel is drivers. How is that a big deal? They can even make proprietary drivers if they wish as long as they make them loadable modules. It’s obvious that they don’t need to do anything else with the kernel because THEY ARE USING WINDOWS. YOU CANNOT MODIFY THE WINDOWS KERNEL. You totally avoided that when replying to me. Hmm. I wonder why?
Because those source code changes could be shared with other systems that are NOT FOR SALE.
Yet another ignorant statement. First of all, the internal workings of a ship could also be shared with a system that is not for sale. It’s really no different than having open source code, it’s there for all to see. Second, THEY DON’T HAVE TO SHARE THE SOURCE CODE. Third, why would the UK be selling ships to non-allies anyway?
The Royal Navy is likely to want to keep this system running for a very long time, which brings problems since Microsfot will not want to support it for anything like as long, and while they can get the source from Microsoft if they really need to under Microsofts Government Security Program. I am not sure if this lets them patch the source, or if it is like the look but don’t touch Shared Source.
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-980666.html?tag=nl
As some people commented about the availability of open source UN*X source code adversly affecting security should realise this is not only the British govenment but all of our potential adversaries. Not only govermental adveraries but also anyone with an internet connection. If you want the source code you will be able to get it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3491887.stm
Security through obscurity is not a good idea, and has been known not to be a good idea for more than a century. With sufficent motivation anyone will be able to get the source.
The Type 45 Destroyers that this is for are coming into service rather close to the end of life times for Windows 2000, so this is going to be a problem. Especially as they are likely to last for decades. During all of whcich time they are going to have to pay for support at more than market rate as the opertating system is no longer supported by Microsoft.
The first is due to enter service in 2007 and will be named HMS Daring, the second and third are to be HMS Dauntless and Diamond respectively and these should be in service by 2009
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/1973.html
End of life dates
Date of General Availability
March 31, 2000
Direct OEM and Retail License Availability (end date)
March 31, 2004
System Builder License Availability (end date)
March 31, 2005
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default.mspx
Mainstream support for most versions of Windows 2000 expires at the end of 2005, and Extended support was to expire at the end of 2007. (Dates for Windows 2000 Datacenter Edition trail the dates of other versions by three months.) Under the new guidelines, Extended support has been moved out to 2010.
http://www.directionsonmicrosoft.com/sample/DOMIS/update/2004/07jul…
This is not a situation where computer instability is acceptable. The United states navy tried using Windows before and had to have the ship towed back into harbour.
http://www.gcn.com/archives/gcn/1998/july13/cov2.htm
They have experience with UNIX, their system works on UNIX. They can use the same cheaper parts (not cheap parts, as they can’t risk suffering instability via bad hardware) with UNIX as with Windows. This is not a back office system. This system is the combat control system, not a few laptops for the Jacks to play with. If it goes down in combat people will die. The time required to restart their missile control computer was one of the reasons that HMS Sheffield ended up manoavouring into a position that got them sunk in the Falklands War.
Microsoft themselves don’t recomend Windows for this kind of situation. Surely if they are going to change operating systems using a real RTOS (such as QNX) would be a better choice. Something make me think this is going to be another IT fiasco.
In The Grand Scheme Of Things, *nix is one of the most exploited OSes available with one of the weakest security paradigms.
That may be true but it’s hard to tell with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Even so, you cannot tell me or anyone that it is less secure than Windows. You cannot convince me that there isn’t a flavor of *nix (such as Trusted Solaris) that isn’t extremely secure. So what was your point again?
“Snubbing fifty years of progress in computer science, the current structure of Windows abandoned the accepted principles of modular design and reverted instead to the, much deprecated, entangled monolithic approach.”
Erm … that would be like Linux then? I seem to remember that Linus Torvalds had a rather long usenet discussion on the benefits/disadvantage of monolithic kernels (hint: he basically thought that although micro-kernels, like XP, were closer to the ideal, in the real world monolithic didn’t actually make too much difference and actually made some jobs more efficient/easier).
Take a look at the conversation at http://people.fluidsignal.com/~luferbu/misc/Linus_vs_Tanenbaum.html
He is not talking of monolithic kernels, but monolithic systems. Linux is by definition very, very modular.
Don’t use terms which you clearly do not understand.
Really, you mean I can’t get Windows without a graphics system, IE, sound etc? Because I assure you I can, it is called XP Embedded and the one thing it isn’t is monolithic, people licensing the system are allowed to pick and mix exactly which bits of the total system they want to implement in their system. Try taking a look at a LOT of medical hardware that is running on Windows Embedded, no UI, no Sound (apart from a beep) and definitely no IE.
I suggest that before you state that people don’t understand terms, you should do your own basic research first.
Those statistics show nothing. They use an average of many systems and do not tell you how long any particular system has been up. For all you or I know they could be incorporating a thousand servers in a one week time period into their survey.
Really, you mean I can’t get Windows without a graphics system, IE, sound etc? Because I assure you I can, it is called XP Embedded and the one thing it isn’t is monolithic, people licensing the system are allowed to pick and mix exactly which bits of the total system they want to implement in their system. Try taking a look at a LOT of medical hardware that is running on Windows Embedded, no UI, no Sound (apart from a beep) and definitely no IE.
I suggest that before you state that people don’t understand terms, you should do your own basic research first.
They are using Windows 2000 not Windows Embedded. That is what the discussion is about.
Actually the article says “Windows 2000-based”, it could just as easily be Windows 2000 Embedded. There have been versions of Windows Embedded based on NT, 2000 and XP (also CE is classed as a version, but obviously not from the same code base).
If they ARE using 2000 embedded they would have the choice of exactly what compnents to install and which to re-write to meet their particular needs, upto and including a standard Windows 2000 desktop etc.
> Windows (in stock form, at least) is hardly suited to running such mission-critical systems – but neither is *nix.
Unix is very well adopted to be run in mission critical environments. Trusted Solaris for one is a very widely used option in military applications — extremely stable OS with extremely solid security. Trusted Solaris is a way to go. Windows on the other hand is just laughable for use in military environments, Windows still very much belongs on the desktop at best. Using words “Windows” and “server” in the same sentence still makes a pretty good joke.
Wow that’s a huge mistake. A hierarchical system like the Navy going for a non-hierarchical OS like Windows (speaking in terms of the lack of process hierarchy, the prevailing reason why Windows has problems), and for their “battleship” no less. I’ve always spent the highest level of security-sense when it came to protecting my battleship.
I heard a similar argument to yours only it was about the use of embedded windows they were talking about cash machines (maybe the banks just didnt have the money to “lock it down”? ..
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994425
RPC DCOM anyone ?
or how about a nuclear power plant, they would be pretty secure, I’m sure there’s no cross-over on their networks…
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/6767
1. They’ll get a breach o mil. experts to work on hardening windows, for free.
2. They will get a lot of good PR for having systems running in such a critical setting
3. Mil decidents will do everything to cut all informations about windowses failures
4. They have a chance of riding “mil goes COTS” wave and that means a lot of $$$.
yes, that link you posted about the cash machines, is what I was talking about earlier. almost.
I noticed that they were all win2k machines, but whatever, they were pretty screwed up… and made me go without lunch… and not just once
people should wise up and reformat even computer/system/device that has windows install, and put on something that will WORK !
They must be using the term “engineers” very loosly. I never knew that there was a such thing as an engineer that used a closed platform.