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.“
1. They’ll get a breach o mil. experts to work on hardening windows, for free.
Agreed, cnet and shite sites like that will have a field day
2. They will get a lot of good PR for having systems running in such a critical setting
hmm, initially…. until it screws up. Then they will get weeks of bad pr that they might not be able to shake off
3. Mil “decidents” (what?) will do everything to cut all informations about windowses failures
Nah, they won’t. Any screw ups will of course be made public. That is our way in the UK
4. They have a chance of riding “mil goes COTS” wave and that means a lot of $$$.
Also initially. Until Windows screws up so much, Microsoft gets inundated with writs
“The Register”. That says it all. I can’t believe how many of you take the register so seriously. I’ve seen many outrageous article on there so now I have the tendency not to look into what they say too much.
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).
Not exactly. You took that quote out of context. It actually said:
implementing a Windows 2000-based CMS system for the new Type 45 Destroyer[/i]
This indicates to me that it was a Combat Management System based around Windows 2000, not that the code was based on Windows 2000. The article also said:
But in July of this year AMS announced, claiming as it did to be ‘encouraging’ open systems development, that Windows 2000 was “the current baseline console” for Type 45 development.
That seems to clearly indicate that they are using Windows 2000.
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).
Not exactly. You took that quote out of context. It actually said:
implementing a Windows 2000-based CMS system for the new Type 45 Destroyer
This indicates to me that it was a Combat Management System based around Windows 2000, not that the code was based on Windows 2000. The article also said:
But in July of this year AMS announced, claiming as it did to be ‘encouraging’ open systems development, that Windows 2000 was “the current baseline console” for Type 45 development.
That seems to clearly indicate that they are using Windows 2000.
“Earlier AMS had announced the deployment of Windows on submarine HMS Torbay, together with plans to retrofit Windows to Vanguard class and other attack submarines.
And in case you’re wondering, the Vanguard class boats carry the UK’s Trident thermo-nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles. So some people think that’s a heap of responsibility for Windows to carry.”
for those **-guess what-citizens with excellent geography knowledge.
That’s pretty funny, and I’m a ** citizen.
navy anon – I’m not trying to bait you, I’d seriously like to hear more about this if you know anything…
http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/08/08/carrier.windows.idg/
(IDG) — The Navy’s next-generation aircraft carrier — the symbol of American military might around the world — will rely on a futuristic version of Microsoft’s Windows operating system and other commercial technologies for command and control.
Officials from Microsoft Federal Systems last week attended an initial design review of the Navy’s future CVN-77 aircraft carrier. The company has been selected to lead information infrastructure development for the ship and to define the overall systems architecture for high- performance information exchange. Lockheed Martin Naval Electronics and Surveillance Systems (NESS) is the lead company, along with Newport News Shipbuilding…
I know I’m late, but I just had to correct this misleading statement from an obvious anti-Linux troll:
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.
The thing is that you’re not required to release changes to the source code with Linux or any GPLed software either. You must only release the source if you redistribute the software. Since I doubt that the Navy would distribute the software used in its warships, the point is moot.
I’m sure somebody else already pointed out the error in luckystrike’s FUD, but just in case no one didn’t…
I’m just curious if the interface is standard windows. Will the Navy do things the ‘windows way’ now ?
Double Click “My Destroyer”, then click “My Missiles”, right click on “SR5 Cruise Missile”, a menu will pop up, click “Send To”….
hahaha
To be honest, from my reading of the relevant section either of us could be correct. I would however doubt that standard Win 2K would be used in a combat management system, especially when comparable systems (such as that used by the US Navy) are known to use Windows Embedded. The phrase “console” doesn’t actually imply anything in this case, after all the phrase “Windows 2000-based console” also applies to the XBox
The only way to correctly interpret that particular phrase would be to know how that company uses the term in design documents etc.
Good grief… It seems that the possibility of the 3rd world war just got a bit closer again.
AFAIK, some years ago somewhere (US navy?) they already had to replace Windows NT and chose some Unix flavor instead in navy ships because Windows NT just prooved to be too unreliable. I wonder if MS Windows has become so much more reliable during the past few years? Hardly it has.
But maybe the UK Navy soldiers just can’t live without their daily dose of 3D gaming & multimedia anymore…? 😉 (actually, I’ve heard that Internet, PC & game addiction has become a problem in some western armies recently…)
Or maybe MS has made a deal with – no, not the UK government, but with Argentina – so that the latter can try to conquer the Falkland Islands from the UK soon again with better success this time…?
Seriosly, GUI usability for non-experienced PC users is still better in Windows and MacOS X than in Unix/Linux/BSD. And, maybe there are some useful Windows applications that don’t have good enough a *nix alternative yet? Even soldiers might need office, business etc. software. But how serious such problems really might be in this choice, I don’t know?
As to reliability and security Unix, BSD & Linux, properly maintained just are much more secure than any MS Windows. It is just plain and clear. QNX, OpenBSD, SELinux, Solaris, Debian,… That’s where you find OS reliability and security, not in MS Windows.
Or could it be that in the conservative UK some politicians and military leaders are just too biased to see the benefits of FOSS (or proprietary Unix)? Is some old redneck military leader somewhere who knows nothing about IT thinking and saying: “No, we don’t need no hippie free software here, good old Windows it must be”…
Good navies deserve a stable OS
Good navies deserve a stable OS
Strange that you would say such a thing when you obviously have never used Windows 2000!
Fa la!
PS: In all seriousness; Windows 2K doesn’t even begin to approach stability. The only good thing to say about it is that it isn’t Windows ME.
“ Even the combat systems mentioned in the article aren’t easily accessible via the wide-open public Internet”
I’d hope they weren’t accessible at all by the internet.
I don’t understand why they haven’t made their own proprietary OS. Before people scream about how massive the systems are on submarines etc, they weren’t always. The systems now have built up over years, so why from day one they didn’t build their OS upwards is a mystery to me.
Without wanting to sound harsh, I hope something does go wrong during deployment or training so it’s withdrawn before anything “real” happens.
Matt
I know that if there’s one OS company in the world that has enough resources to develop a good customized and embedded, or what ever, military OS it could very well be the biggest one of them all, MS. And of course MS is willing to do what ever it needs to improve the reputation of Windows in security and reliability too.
Maybe the UK army will indeed get a good OS for their purposes build by MS, I don’t know? It is possible…
However, if Microsoft is really so good at developing secure Windows operating systems even suitable to high end military use, why does especially the security of their normal Windows operating systems always seem to suck so very much? Always. That is a good and relevant question that needs to be asked here too. There hasn’t been any light to be seen at the end of the tunnel in that respect as far as I know.
the “enemy” must be rubbingits hands… and not just for the technical downgrading of capability … but also that MS can bribe its way into these things. or that the literati at whitehall haven’t a technical or security clue.
keep in mond the following 2 things:
1. during the balkan conflicts, US ships were severely affected by windows viruses. this is a fact.
2. the uk governemt blindly spent millions on an e-governemt Gateway. for it only to work with windows pc. guess who implemented it? MS.
as i said.. the “enemy” has already prved itself to be adept at technology .. using cryptography and steganography and anonimity systems…
That’s pretty funny, and I’m a ** citizen.
WOW and now they even understand sarcasm… i’m getting scared.
Strikes me. Government should prefer to not depend on the commercial success or failure of a company. Especially not a convicted one.
Instead, they should be autonomous. Open source is one way to achieve more autonomy. An in-house development or agreement with a less-criminal company whereas the quality of the software has proven stability is also an option. Especially if you may do an in-house audit, or review the source.
This means e.g. QNX, VMS or Solaris. Why chose for an OS which hasn’t proven its stability? From a convicted corporation? Where’s the logic? I don’t get it.
Apparently this is supposed to be logic
However, BAE had undergone several structural changes. One consequence was that computer resources were owned and controlled by BAE’s outsourcing partner (Computer Sciences Corporation). CSC’s published policy was to standardise BAE’s computers to use only Microsoft’s proprietary software.
Anyway, quite funny that after all these Linux success stories, MS is publishing theirs right now. In all fairness, i do think Windows 2000 / NT 5.0 is one of the most stable Windows versions.
It is interesting to debate about what the seemingly close connection and mutual trust between the US/UK governments and Microsoft is really all about?
What do the governments really get from MS – except maybe some rather nice deals for some software. Quite probably that software could be get from elsewhere too, and maybe even better products for cheaper price. (FOSS anyone?)
Let’s speculate: If MS gives certain government and military agencies, say, hmm… access to some secret open backdoors to Windows operating systems, sure MS then has to get something in exchange too: like big government and military deals… Just pure speculation, of course…
Remember, for example, the NSA key rumours some time ago? Sure MS denied everything, but privacy experts remained sceptical: http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19990906S0003
Using BeOS for such a purpose? ABSOLUTELY NUTS!
I love BeOS, and I’m developing an IDE for it, but I’m not blind to the problems of the OS. Other than the fact that it has a very open security model (similar to that of Windows 98 for multi-user “security”) there are flaws in the system above and beyond the security model that would make it completely unsuitable for such an environment, even with rock solid drivers.
While some applaud the elegant API of BeOS, if you are one with embedded software experience in small spaces, close inspection and testing reveals that BeOS can fail in ways that are completely unrecoverable and cannot even be detected/prevented (short of a very controlled single application running on it with no other process in use) that causes the system to go belly up. If you use it for the GUI, it is entirely possible to create enough views to cause the AppServer to die with a debugger message “The token space is used up. I will crash now!” (or something to that effect: the result is the same) and there is absolutely no manner in which to detect that this is about to happen or is happening from within the same application. As soon as the AppServer does that, all apps with a GUI are almost certain to be hosed.
But wait, there’s other ways of failure with the AppServer! If you run into the upper thread limit of a process within the AppServer (easier than you might expect, since BBitmaps can also have their own AppServer thread) and try to display a menu, that app will deadlock with the problem of not being able to deploy a new menu, which requires a BWindow that has its own thread in both the AppServer as well as the application it belongs to. Once this limit has been reached, the application window with the menu that hasn’t deployed correctly will be deadlocked waiting for the GUI. There is no programmatic way to detect this error condition from within the thread, as there’s no error reporting at all, and no way to prevent it, other than to not allow new windows to be created. If you then try to deploy a menu on another window/application without having first closed some windows, that application will also be hung.
Then there’s the problems related to a foolish reliance on ports and messages passed around that don’t have all their error conditions accounted for, which uses a system-wide memory pool for every process to share. This is not only a problem in the AppServer (too many GUI-related messages can cause the app to lose its proper state with the outside world) but also port messages are used to some extent within the kernel. What happens when this gets out of hand? Very ugly: on my systems, I’ve seen it reboot without mention that it ran into a problem.
And then there’s the issue of some strange VM bugs, and the issue with using over a certain amount of RAM and filesystem buffering (BeOS as we know and love doesn’t have a unified VM/filesystem cache) which can cause it to also die horribly in heavy loads.
What a mission critical environment needs is a stable system that has appropriate failure modes, and BeOS doesn’t have it, I’m sorry to say, based on the API and the fact that there’s no guarantee that something will happen as expected. Windows tends to be better in terms of reporting errors, and a properly configured system where no outside software is allowed can actually be very stable, with the correct hardware and drivers to run it on. However, I STILL wouldn’t want to use it on something as critical as combat systems. For the same reason, I’m not convinced I’d want to use Linux, either. Something that doesn’t have 100% tested code coverage doesn’t belong in such an environment. I believe QNX would be one of the few available OSes that would qualify for that. Another option (which I’ve written CNC machine software for) is VRTX, another real-time OS certified for such uses. It isn’t pretty, but it is darn reliable. You can have pretty or reliable, but getting both is very difficult. I’d settle for reliable any time in such a situation
defense and sensitive areas (such as certain energy sectors) have not in the past used consumer OSes or hardware. this trend is worrying.
having worked in one of these fields, i know and trust the systems they use… very robust hardware with failover, redundancy, hot-swappable CPUs.. and very very tough coding practises… extrememly defensive programming (*)… using non populist languages and provable systems where possible.
(*) consider the firmware of an embedded system with many jump points… and plenty of the RAM filled with jumps to safe code… so in the events of a breakdown, code bug, static electricity, corrosion, the code path jumps to a safe “tarpit” … and does not cause the CPU to carry out any unsafe tasks. thats the level we’re playin at.
consumer OSes don’t do this.
– hello, is this Microsoft? I have some problems with my u-boat, missiles won’t go..
– ok sir, now, get to My Computer -> Properties and turn on remote assistance…
Windoze will be a thorn in your side…
If this is your defence system why would you even let anyone know what you are using for what. That alone would help security without doing anything on the systems side.
You sunk my battleship!
Would you like to lanch the torpedo? Are you sure?
Do you obsolutely know what you are doing? Cancel?
Are you shure you want to defragment 2,058,786,512 kb Hard Drive?
Press OK to continue
| OK | | Cancel |
______________________________________________________________________ ______
Defragmenting … 35,3 years left
What happens when you launch a missile?
Missile returns for your confirmation.
________________________
Sorry for my bad english
The new anti m$ hummor page located @ http://www.osnews.com -> UK Navy to use Windows for Warships -> Comments -> View moderated down comments.
_______________________________
Mod this down please
A fatal exception 0E has occured at 0020:C000F860 in VXD VNTFS(01)+ 0000B897 all missiles will be fired towards Cuba, if not specified otherwise.
* Press any key to release the missile lock.
* Press CTRL+ALT+DEL to relaunch the atomic bomb. All crises in areas your navy is currently operating in will be lost.
* Press ESC to continue acquiring target The White House.
Press any key to continue_
UK is slave of USA. Tony Blair is a slave of Bush and, of course, UK navy is slave from M$.
And, remember, Titanic was a britanic ship…
Will this mean that XP SP3 will completely bring the Navy to a grinding halt?
power to the people.. sooner or later I wil have my own battleship…
¿someone want to play?
mmh.. maybe its time to learn how to be a hacker…
I see the ads “kid hacker blast “Hex”-agon, he buys platinum missile on net and use it.. blah blah”. LOL, scary but lol.
sing… “In the navy …”
Now mariners can play sea-batle game using M$ Direct X and cheap nvidia video adapters…
Why not play this
http://www.xs4all.nl/~barend/
using a linux box ?
Koriel wrote:
> Try taking a look at a LOT of medical hardware that is running on Windows Embedded, [ … ]
Interesting.
Forgive my ignorance, but what kind of devices would that be?
IMO it’s bad enough some medical equipment is even _interfacing_ with MS-Windows – for data-storage/backup and HIS functionality. But those machines aren’t realy “critical” (although some docter might like to *always* have instant access to medical records (and/or monitoring data) of a patient in IR or ICU …)
http://linuxmednews.com/linuxmednews/1092098617/index_html
Now i think you mean some monitoring devices here, not connected to any network? Which i have been fortunate enough to not have been responsible for (or even seen, or heard of, running MS-Windows (or GNU/Linux for that matter)).
If you can provide some URL(s) though i’d appreciate it. TIA
Poor sailors …. We must feel sorry for them.
Abraxas: 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?
I’m not sure about the terms of their agreement, but one thing about “closed source companies” is that often times all things are negotiable. Meaning… If you really want/need the source to a “kernel” (or whatever) you can get it, if you “push the right buttons” with the company.
And I think that the Royal Navy has enough power to be able to negotiate with MS to get the source code if they really want it.
As a result, it is <U>NOT</U> a given that they will not have the source code.
Also… Even if they decided to not negotiate for the source code, (or they decided that what MS wanted in exchange wasn’t worth it) they could still get MS to make this copy of Windows different from others.
… us all!
… and the Queen.
Well one of the best things in Linux, is the long periods with no craches!!! Windows crachs all the times that is a fact, specialy with old machines, in Linux you only need a i386
If they sell a Destoryer then should be smart enough to wipe all the computers on that ship and let the buyer select their own OS of choice. Why would you want to give another nation access to systems you are using be it closed or open source.
Having access to source code but not being allowed to use it for development does mean that’s a better choice than chosing for a stable, robust system which has proven its stability (e.g. Solaris, OpenVMS, QNX, TRON). it just makes the actual problem less bad by drawing attention away from the actual problem.
In order for Windows to be used in a situation like this, it needs far more polishing, source review _before_ it is developed for mission-critical services. Until it hasn’t proven that on non-mission-critical services it is unwise to develop it for mission-critical services hence you use those products which have proven its stability (and note i’m not saying Linux has).
Talk about a bunch of stupid goobers. Who in their right mind would
trust windows to run a warship.
It’s just a novel way to implement defence cuts by the back door.
cpu cycles were lost when the control module went into a:
proc_You_Have_Unused_Icons_On_Your_Desktop(
“Would you like to clean them up?”);
cayusing jitter in the otherwise realtime Navis navigation feedback system.
AMS announced, claiming as it did to be ‘encouraging’ open systems development, that Windows 2000 was “the current baseline console” for Type 45 development.
– perhaps rationally this means that windows client operating systems are being considered at the ‘baseline’ at this point to implement the administrative consoles used to control systems manfactured by different contractors running no doubt all kinds of different operating systems and applications.
Although the UK sucks at engineering these days, were not that totally incompetent.
Worry about the protocols, electronic components, mechanical components etc.
Webservices in combat anyone :p
Windows media player is not too bad…
Lets put the buggiest, holliest, most unsecure OS on a bunch of WARSHIPS.
As far as I know, a lot of power plant gas turbine control system are built on WINNT. I have finished a project recently, the power plant have four gas turbine generators controled by Markv system, which were provided by GE Company. The Mark V system uses IDOS as OS, and GE use WINNT for the platform of MARK VI.
For my project, I use Mandrake 9.2 and Moxa card to acquire data from 4 Mark V. You can find the info and screenshots at
http://www.leiosoft.com/productscn.htm
Yeah. Wait until they have to reboot their ship everytime they load a new shell into the cannon. Maybe Linux would be a better alternative to protecting their country. Personally, I wouldn’t want to reboot during a war.