oh no! windoze for warships?

[Mcollector]

Check out this link(s) and comment. I'm curious as to what you all think.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/06/ams_goes_windows_for_warships/

[DGhost]

not suprised, the US Navy is doing a similar thing not a bad idea, all things considered. the level of support Microsoft is willing to extend to governments is ridiculous.

[Mcollector]

I was hoping to stiumulate more discussion. I had heard the US Navy runs some submarines with NT4.

I agree with the criticism of Windows for Warships in the
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/0...s_for_warships/ article. I think it is a very BAD idea. M$oft does not certify their OSes for mission critical systems where life is at stake (i.e., medical systems). Why would anyone possibly want it as the core of a real time battle management system?

As everyone has seen, Windoze is buggy, VERY insecure and hack attack prone. So what benefit is it for something as serious as a battle management system in real time? I think it is an extremely dangerous, extremely foolish choice. If it must be in the military, confine it to office desktops, but definitely *NOT* a real time battle management system.

The article mentions Windows' intertwined, monolithic nature, which contributes to its poor s/w engineering. I agree.

While I'm a fan of using off the shelf components in aerospace/military where possible to save cost (no reason to reinvent the wheel), I think Windoze is the wrong choice, and will lead to cost overruns, miserable failures, and terrible kludges.

I also don't like Windows' hidden, proprietary nature. M$oft may say they are willing to give great govt. support, but I just don't believe it based on what I've seen.

Windows has also been a poor performer in any kind of embedded real time environment. I'm not just talking about speed, but also about reliablity and maintainability. My worst nightmare would be Windows + Ada.

[The PIT]

As long as the Warship isn't connected to the internet it should be fairly secure.

To be honest the XP machines at home have only failed due to other hardware failures so XP is pretty reliable.

I'm pretty sure that the Navy isn't going to buying cheapo ram or overclcoking etc.

[Mcollector]

But a battle management *IS* likely to be connected to some external network, probably via radio/satellite link, as part of an Air/Land/Sea warfare environment, and probably all the way back to higher higher (HQ). Such a link can be vulnerable.

Windows also hasn't been known to handle heavy loading well. What about tracking hundreds of rapidly changing hostiles and friendlies in real time in a high jamming environment (meaning DSP processing power required to discriminate against the jamming), while communicating with scores if not hundreds of other systems, platforms, and sensor devices? What about partial damage to the internal network/systems? In my experience the Windows TCP/IP implementation (to name one network protocol) is not very robust.

And again, if isolated Windows XP is so robust, why doesn't Micro$oft certify it for mission critical systems in a medical environment where life is at stake?

How many lines of code is WXP? It was my understanding that W9x was about 14,000,000 lines of code. Micro$oft has admitted there isn't anyone who knows the whole Windows system anymore.

No, they won't be buying el cheapo RAM and overclocking. (In fact, I'm sure I'd like to have some of their mil-spec RAM!) But that isn't the whole story for robust operation.

Well, I guess the positive thing is there will be a lot of work for a lot of people, filling out forms, writing specs, testing, digging holes and filling them in again,
retesting, rewriting, reprogramming, ad infinitum.

[schmosef]

Were you really hoping to stimulate more discussion or just to find people who agree with your opinion?

I didn't realise it was piss on Microsoft day. I'll update my calendar.

How much of your opinion is legitimate and how much is just counter culture fed paranoia?

Their TCP/IP implementation is not very robust? Gimme a break. Are you really in a position of knowledge to debate this point? I'm not. But it sounds like a good sound bite for the evening news.

The fact that no one person knows all of Windows anymore is a fact of human limitations. There are lots of areas of science, medicine, and enginering where no one person knows everything. When did that suddenly become a valid objection? It's not, but I'm sure CNN would run with it anyway.

The point about IE's integration into Windows was completely misunderstood.

They intentionally heavily integrated IE into Windows. It wasn't by accident or a lack of solid "Comp Sci" theory. It was a business decision. Microsoft got into the internet game late; Bill Gates was quoted as saying that the World Wide Web was a fad. Now they had this upstart Marc Andreessen who was openly boasting that he was going to single handedly bury Microsoft by making the OS irrelevant.

Microsoft decided to integrate the internet into the OS as a counter move.

In the mid 90s I attended an IBM sponsored seminar on Java when I was in Comp Sci at U of T and I remember that one of the demo apps was a basic web browser. The code for it was very simple because Java had a built-in HTML renderer. I don't recall anyone complaining about Java's monolithic architecture because you can't replace the HTML parser module! I wonder why that is?

I could say more but I'm not trying to start a flame war. I'm just suggesting that you re-think the fundamental source of your anti-Microsoft stance.

Are they perfect? No. There are a lot of legitimate concerns but MS is willing to stick it's neck out. That says something.

Is any OS/Software platform perfect? Not by a long shot.

Has Microsoft consitently demonstrated a willingness and ability to rise to the challenge? Yes.

Has Netscape? No. Has Sun/Java? No. Has IBM/OS2? No. Has Linux? No (not yet).

Period.

...

There is a bright side to all of this. If Windows does get implemented by the American and British Naval fleets and it does prove to be a disaster, Bill Gates could get hung for treason. I'm sure that would make a lot of lamers happy.

[dZeus]

If I want to read baseless MS bashing I might as well read slashdot for that. It gets boring when they spread all over the net like a disease...

[DGhost]

You would be suprised the things you can do to Windows NT/2000/XP to make them secure and relaible. It is far easier and cheaper to do it with the documentation that Microsoft provides and the level of support they offer than it would be to try to develop a custom linux based machines. Trust me when I say that Microsoft has on hand piles upon piles of documentation on Windows and all its subsystems. And also trust me when I say that when they need it the people who wrote the code will hear about questions/bugs and be given the opportunity to reply directly to issues.

I mean shit, are you seriously trying to say that a Linux system could do better? It's not like Linux has been certified for Mission Critical applications either. The only way to get a Linux system to do better for the type of needs that they want would involve pretty much writing everything from scratch and even then there are a lot of things that they would never be able to do.

[Marshmallowman]

A Secure system with no, source code auditing and no back up suppliers, yeah sure thats a great idea

[schmosef]

Yeah well, you know, Microsoft is on pretty shaky financial ground these days and Bill Gates has been known to give up whenever faced with the slightest obstacle. They might not be around in a couple of years.

DGhost make a valid point. Even if they "based" their platform on Linux, they'd have to re-write tons of it for their specific application and it's not like their going to make their "battle management system" open source!

[DGhost]

I could also point out that any sort of network activity it produces is going to be over a secure DoD network. it's not like any l33t h4x0r with 802.11 could tap into it.

[schmosef]

I thought that went without saying. It's not like they're going to run an actual war on the same network that I play C&C Generals!

[Marshmallowman]

Yeah well, you know, Microsoft is on pretty shaky financial ground these days and Bill Gates has been known to give up whenever faced with the slightest obstacle. They might not be around in a couple of years.

You do know the purpose alternative suppliers is to keep costs and functionality competative amongst other things.

So how is the bidding process going to go for upgrades, new modules and connectivity.

What were the engineering staff recomending?, who made the decision?

[schmosef]

We're talking about military systems here. You know, the kind with lots of secrets? It's not like they can just up and switch suppliers without doing extensive due diligence. Microsoft isn't likely going to be the one developing the sofware anyway. And for that, they can have some wiggle room.

What the engineering staff were recommending, as I recall from the article, was a more thorough review of the options.

The decision was made by the higher ups. Why? I'm not sure. The article didn't even begin to demonstrate balance.

Maybe the engineers, with heavy backgrounds in unix, were scared of being declared obsolete? Maybe there were other reasons behind the decision? But we'll never know from that article.

You of all people should know that the media isn't generally fair or thorough when reporting on big businees. The least you can do is agree that we don't know the whole story.

I took exception to how the story was used as a basis for M$ bashing. There's lots of valid points to make against Microsoft. People who want to hate them should stick to substantive issues instead of making stuff up.

[schmosef]

Hey for a second I confused you with a different M-Man! Sorry about that.

The "You of all people" remark was for the other M-Man's Wal-Mart background.

So you may not know that the media isn't fair or thorough when reporting on big business. But now you know my opinion!