Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on September 06, 2004, 10:28:37 am
-
Royal Navy will run on Windows for Warships (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/06/ams_goes_windows_for_warships/)
EDIT: whoops
-
Are you expecting us to read all that?
-
Originally posted by TopAce
Are you expecting us to read all that?
Of course.
-
So british navy start use windows in warship computers well good for them Win 2000 is quite reliable or it could be bad
-
[color=66ff00]I would if I were you. Then I'd write a letter to the MoD and every other person who has power over these money grabbing ****ers.
The only reason for choosing windows is some under the able money passing by M$. They've probably massively cut costs.
That guy was fired for voicing a sane and well researched opinion. You tell me that there's nothing going on there.
[/color]
-
Heh, God save the Queen indeed.. because Windows certainly won't :lol:
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]I would if I were you. Then I'd write a letter to the MoD and every other person who has power over these money grabbing ****ers.
The only reason for choosing windows is some under the able money passing by M$. They've probably massively cut costs.
That guy was fired for voicing a sane and well researched opinion. You tell me that there's nothing going on there.
[/color]
Let's not forget the inherent stupidity of middle and upper management.... thye probably chose Win2k because the secretary they're secretly boffing uses it to write their expense forms.
-
Originally posted by Holy Imperial Gloriano
So british navy start use windows in warship computers well good for them Win 2000 is quite reliable or it could be bad
you never have any real opinions or thoughts of your own, do you?:wtf:
-
Originally posted by Carl
you never have any real opinions or thoughts of your own, do you?:wtf:
That was my opion, anyway it's really suck that they chose M$ windows there is more reliable systems for warships so it's smell that M$ gets something from it or M$ gives something
I really hope they don't get idea putting Win 2000 to Nuclear submarines that would be really bad
and windows overall is security risk one reason is IE there is no way to remove it
-
Bill Gates is trying to TAKE OVER THE WORLD, he puts windows into the submarines and takes them over, holding the world ransom, hee is then dictator of the world and forces us to use windows in everything, fridges that connect to the internet, tvs with windows etc.
-
yeah, $5 on Gates built himself a backdoor into the system... That way, he WILL have his own army..
-
I can see it now... British naval crew playing Call of Duty on duty :lol:
-
If Bill doesn't build a back door, you can garauntee some 16 year ld kid will. The sensible thing is to use a complete non-standard system, since this would reduce external knowledge of the system for security reasons. :rolleyes:
I never thought the BAe would stoop that low to be honest, they used non-standard systems for most of their stuff when I worked for them. It's an invite to catastrophe to use something that has documented security weaknesses :(
-
"Right yeoman, target those incoming bombers, launch SAMs!"
"Aye aye s-wtf?!"
*popup*Discount Viagra!
*popup*Hot Teen Girls!
*popup*Make money FAST!
B-S-O-D
"Captain, this is Engineering, what the hell are you doing up there?! The nuclear engines just shot up by 1000K!"
"Engineering, our C&C systems just suffered a major-what?"
"... I said we're going into meltdown!"
"Aww crap."
*kabooom*
*Above, the bombers fly overhead. The bomb bays are open and inside we can see huge WiFi antennas. There is a CoolWebSearch logo stenciled on the side of them...*
-
It royally (no pun intended) pisses me off that British warships are using M$ software that could probably be surpassed by bespoke software written in the UK.
Imagine it - 20 years from now we're about to go to war with someone like China and the final order for weaons free is given - and NetSky.Z (I'm assuming it'll have reached the end of the alphabet by then) pops up and crashes the network. Oops, we just put the engines into full reverse, sinking our main aircraft carrier and damaging a sub below us.
This country is being run by idiots.
-
Btw, what if, for whatever odd reason, US and British forces came into conflict.
What happens then? Would US forces have back door access to our software? I'd bet yes. Outsourcing is not good tactics :D
-
Anyone else get an eerie sense of foreboding? I'm thinking of the film Wargames right now.
-
This is ****ing bull****.
I ****ing bet you this is part of America's global domination plan.
Using code developed by the most evil corporation - since Sweeny Todd became a registered trader - to control thermonuclear weapons is absolutely ****ing insane.
-
Actually, the military relationship between the UK and the US these days is 'they design it, we get it working properly' ;)
Most of the tracking and targetting software used to be hard machine-coded onto Eproms which gave standard output to visual displays. It wasn't as pretty as some things, but you don't really 32Bit colour depth and 1600 x 1200 resolution for a radar display, as long as the system itself knows exactly where the plane is, a 'dot' is sufficient.
Also, hard-coded systems are a damn sight faster than going through some kind of 'portway' like W2K, with less chance of corruption. When a command has to pass through a load of non-user 'verifiers' it runs this risk of failure or misinterpretation, both of which could be disastrous :( I'm sure people remember the 'feet and metres' incident during WW2 where troops got shelled because they gave range in Metres, being European, but the British artillery assumed they meant feet, imagine that on a Nuclear scale ;)
-
I'm thinking about BattleStar Galactica (the Cylons) :nervous:
-
Originally posted by an0n
This is ****ing bull****.
I ****ing bet you this is part of America's global domination plan.
Using code developed by the most evil corporation - since Sweeny Todd became a registered trader - to control thermonuclear weapons is absolutely ****ing insane.
[color=66ff00]Too true.
Linux is open source, free to use and edit and both flexible and scalable but the writers claim it's probably not suitable for such critical applications.
Windows? Are they out of their minds?
[/color]
-
Something like this, you need to be able to either build or rebuild parts of it from scratch... Windows, you'd have to rebuild the whole thing from scratch (as the guy in the article pointed out).
Plus the obvious question as to why in the hell we're buying software that could control a thermonuclear weapon from a foreign power? Even if there isn;t a war, what's to stop the merkins saying 'let us build an early warning radar station in Grenwich or we'll turn of the HMS nameherepleases' early warning systems"?
-
Do you honestly think that ANY sort of military outifit, wether it be United States or English or Whatever country of your choice, that the military would use the SAME boxed version of Windows as we end users use? I highly doubt it I bet there's a codebase that is completely different than the 2000/03 codebase. Hence, all the vulnerabilities wouldnt exist. I severely doubt ANY government would put an operating system with this many security holes on something as important as an aircraft carrier, or some other type of naval warship.
I'd bet that they use windows Source Code, through some sort of agreement between the govt and M$ to develop thier own "windows" operating system, and just say it's "Windows". It's way hard for me to believe they'd stick Windows 2000 SP3 in a cruiser and pray for the best.
-
Originally posted by Nix
Do you honestly think that ANY sort of military outifit, wether it be United States or English or Whatever country of your choice, that the military would use the SAME boxed version of Windows as we end users use? I highly doubt it I bet there's a codebase that is completely different than the 2000/03 codebase. Hence, all the vulnerabilities wouldnt exist. I severely doubt ANY government would put an operating system with this many security holes on something as important as an aircraft carrier, or some other type of naval warship.
I'd bet that they use windows Source Code, through some sort of agreement between the govt and M$ to develop thier own "windows" operating system, and just say it's "Windows". It's way hard for me to believe they'd stick Windows 2000 SP3 in a cruiser and pray for the best.
The monolithic W2k architecture makes it inherently difficult to correct and modify. (and even to detect & trace security holes)
That's the key point the SE (sacked) made - Unix can be modified in a sensible, modular fashion to replace & repair key parts. Windows can't.
"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. Paragraphs 207 to 223 are particularly revealing about Microsoft’s chosen approach (paragraph 216 is difficult to believe!). Anyone with elementary knowledge of computer science can see that Microsoft Windows, as described here by Gates, is inherently insecure by design"
"espite BAE’s wishful thinking, this issue will not go away. In the two years since I compiled the dossier, numerous security problems have been discovered in Microsoft Windows and its ancillary programs. Many of these have arisen precisely because of its non-modular structure, and in particular because of the complex entanglement between Internet Explorer and the rest of Windows. These continual problems demonstrate how, in practice, Windows proves inherently insecure by design."
"CERT limits its advice to that of avoiding use of Internet Explorer, rather than avoiding Windows as a whole. However: CERT confirms that, as others have already found, IE cannot be removed from Windows, and its presence can still leave vulnerabilities in the system even if IE is never used as an application –showing again how Windows remains inherently insecure by design. In an operating system, the combination of closed source and entangled structure makes for a deadly cocktail. I"
-
[color=66ff00]Windows is not and never was a 'hardened' OS, it's design is monolithic and thus new features instead of replacing old ones (the modular approach) are written on top of old ones. Also M$ does not sell 'code' they sell an OS (which is most likely intentionally flawed to increase service lifetime and push people to buy newer versions).
The engineer that works for the company in question tried to point out this problem and was quickly fired. This suggests that there was more thought of money than safety or workability.
Heheh Aldo beat me to it. :)
[/color]
-
My problem is that it's actually not all that hard to believe if enough money is put in the right hands.
Even if they use the heart of Windows 2000, they are still using an application that is designed to do a different job. When we burned stuff on Proms, when you needed to upgrade, you just altered the Rom core file, reburnt it and mounted it where the old Prom was. Because packets were identified by their destination, and saturation sent to the system, even if the hard-connection to the launcher was damaged, as long as something shared a link between the two systems they could share data. The system was more-or-less unaffectable externally and was easy to fix, even in combat situation.
Windows is not designed to handle that kind of thing, obviously things have updated since we used to program in Z80 onto Programmable Roms, but the theory remains the same, if an error occurs with someone elses program, and we tweak something and it doesn't happen again, it doesn't always mean it's fixed permanently, we've all encountered the problem of 'pointless error', where the computer crashes because 'it feels like it'. The more complex and indirect the code base is, the more chance there is for that error. Whereas hard-coding tends to either work or not work.
-
I wonder if they'll still need the occassional Service Pack now and then. :D
-
hehehehe
New Device Drivers available for Download :-
Wardows has detected new drivers for.
Sea Wasp_Ship2SurfaceMiss.1.00.3.4
-
Ooooooohhhh, and that opens up the possibilities of out-of-date drivers. Spooky. :nervous:
-
the weapon you were trying to launch has commited an illigal opperation and will be shut down, if the problem persists please contact the munitions vendor
warning: your nuclear warhead drivers are out of date!
-
I should point out that classically Unix has been monolithic and Linux continues to be monolithic. Microkernel OSes aren't really in use. In fact, the original design of the NT kernel was as a microkernel. I assume that nowadays there's so much junk grafted on it can't be called a microkernel though.
I'm puzzled at the decision for Windows, what use is a multi-tasking, general purpose OS for a warship? As if you need complex schedulers in a warship's weaponry management. I wonder if this was some sort of "cost cutting" plan, it seems to me Windows would cost a ridiculous amount in maintenance.
-
[color=66ff00]Windows has performed an illegal operation... In Cuba.
Now dumping all warheads.
[/color]
-
Drive N: is running low on resources, would you like to defragment or continue your battle?
;)
-
Well it'll put a whole new meaning to the term Blue Screen Of Death. ;)
-
All missile defense systems have performed an illegal operation and must close. Any work you did not save will be lost.
Would you like to send an Error Report?
-
Just for the hell of it, I'de like to see a battle between a Windows equipped fleet and a Linux equipped fleet. You could even throw in Macs into the fray, though no doubt the ships would cost three times as much, look very pretty and be staffed only by hip people.
There are legions of fanboys out there that would pay to see this kind of thing.
-
that would own.
-
Windows ME would just about be a target drone then?
Just thinking, can you imagine the Readme.txt on missile drivers?
1: Does not stop tracking each missile as the next one is launched.
2: Infa-Red vision now working.
3: Stopped occasional error which would cause the warhead to detonate during the launching sequence. Make sure you have flashed your missiles with the latest Bios.
4: Height adjustment system now modified to correspond to landscape.
5: 'Whoops! That's a friendly!' bug fixed.
6: With minor adjustments to the missile itself, this should stop TV-Guide mode picking up the Disney channel. For more info, see your user manual or do a Google search on 'Exocet' and 'Disney'
-
Windows Millitary Edition...
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Royal Navy will run on Windows for Warships (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/06/ams_goes_windows_for_warships/)
EDIT: whoops
Is this a joke? If it's not than these people are freaking crazy. All it would take is 1 computer virus to cripple your fleet. And it's not like there are not plenty of security hole to exploit.
-
I didn't read the whole thread/article but this was discussed in news a year or so back... Its nothing new.
-
Really? This is the first I've heard of it. I can just imagine the scenario:
Commander: All batteries, open fire!
Weapon guy: Uh sir, we can't do that....
Commander: Why not?
Weapon guy: Windows just crashed.
Just for the hell of it, I'de like to see a battle between a Windows equipped fleet and a Linux equipped fleet
Linux would win. All they need to do is send a bunch of viruses to the Windows fleet and then blast away.
-
"This nuclear weapon is not certified by Microsoft. Would you like to send it to Bill Gates for personal inspection?"
-
What you fail to see is the master plan. The UK plan to nuke somewhere and then blame it on Windows. Lets face it this is the ultimate example of plauable deniability. Who wouldn't believe that windows was hacked or simply crashed?
The only question is what is the MOD planning to nuke?
-
Originally posted by karajorma
What you fail to see is the master plan. The UK plan to nuke somewhere and then blame it on Windows. Lets face it this is the ultimate example of plauable deniability. Who wouldn't believe that windows was hacked or simply crashed?
The only question is what is the MOD planning to nuke?
Milton Keynes.
-
MOD?
-
Usually the term used for modifications to a game. Could be anything, like new textures, sounds, code, etc.
Or Minister of Defense.
-
Ministry Of Defense
-
Damn, I was so close this time.
-
Heheh....Microsoft Windows Fire Control Edition. I'd take it :)