big tech controvesy brewin'
- Started
- Last post
- 13 Responses
- unknown
this is a developing big time tech controversy, and a university of penn prof is right in the middle.
jonathan smith (former prof of mine) http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~jms/ multimillion dollar grant for defense research applications of an open source operating system (not linux, but a variant called BSD (Berkeley system distribution))
this thing is basically one of the most stable, strong operating systems you can get. its free and open source (anyone can look at or modify the source code)
so DARPA (http://www.darpa.mil/) ((d)efense (a)dvance (r)esearch (p)rojects (A)gency - the people who brought you the internet as a nuclear contingency communications network in the 70's) gave Dr. Smith millions of $$ and made him the head of tweaking the BSD operating system for defense applications (hes a smart motherfucker - bell labs, encryption specialist...operating system genius...)
now the defense department is faced with an interesting problem - for once in its long history, one of the most important components of its tech lineup (the operating system to run all its servers, communications, missile guidance systems and who knows what else) was NOT developed in Fort Meade (http://www.ftmeade.army.mil/), the base of NSA and quite possibly (although not publicly revealed to be) the birthplace of public key encryption and other powerful defense technology. Yes, the product which is undeniably the BEST, safest, strongest OS on the planet earth was developed not by billions of dollars of secret research, but by three decades of graduate students banging away at it at one of the best computer science universities around.
this os is bulletproof - run correctly you cannot hack it, you cannot attack it, you cannot stop it. Its also freely available on the internet (www.bsd.org). All its delicates are hanging out to dry, in plain view, to anyone who wants to looks at them. The problem? "Terrorists" can use get a DSL and download all the source of the system just as easily as you, me or Dr. Smith. The security of the system lies in mathematical assurance, not secrecy. There is no way to 'guess' your way in or do a brute force attack...only password access gets you in (and the gov is good at password hiding by now).
So the big sticking point - a prominent affiliated researcher based in Canada makes some anti-war statements in a newspaper:
''I try to convince myself that our grant means a half of a cruise missile doesn't get built,'' de Raadt told
the newspaper.He is promptly informed by Smith, acting as team lead on behalf of DARPA, that his comments were discomforting. deRaadt was fired from the project.
The controversy is multifold. One, is the defense department appropriating academic research and muscling around professors who would invoke free speech rights over their concern of the applications of the work they are participating in? Two, is Jonathan Smith going to be vilified as a pawn of DARPA and the government who would squash any political dissent on the project rather than seek the best research and results? Three (and this is the big one for techs) is open source software going be used for military applications, essentially stolen away from the academics who put decades into their development (for free no less!).
This software, like all open source software, is distributed under the GPL ((g)nu (p)ublic (l)icense)
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.…. Basically, in the vein of free information and academic freedom, this license (unlike a standard Microsoft or other tech company license, those things you click though without examining when you install software) says that all software must be distributed for free (minus cost of distribution) and must have the source code accompanying it. Clearly this is a mucky agreement for the defense department to agree to, their number one aim is protection of technology. However, they have realized that they have to figure out some way to work within these bounds at the risk of using inferior operating system technology...It all signals a MAJOR change in the way software is developed, tested, extended and deployed as well as the role of academics in open source research. It will be very interesting to see what Smith says (he hasnt responded yet) and what DARPA's further actions will be.Article on the subject [repost from slashdot]
http://www.infoworld.com/article…
- DonnieTV0
heard it
- unknown0
yeah its 4 days old but i havent seen anything on it here...lookin for the NT consensus
- Bio0
funked up.
very interesting.
will read more.
- k0na_an0k0
dude.... cliff notes!
- unknown0
matt notes
- mitsu0
post-it™ notes?
- k0na_an0k0
matt notes = long
cliff notes = shortshort notes + reading + (my eyes X my time) = happyness
- k0na_an0k0
continued...
12 pack bud X 4 hot chicks + cliff notes = more happyness
- unknown0
i see
matt needs to edit himself better
- unknown0
Goverment + Open Source + Big Money != academic freeedom && Protected free speech
- IRNlun60
great. another operating system.
I really hope they come out with an entirely new brower too.
oh well. more homework.
- unknown0
well most people dont use BSD or linux, so I wouldnt worry about web clients using it not being able to load a site you make -- but the BSD core engine is what powers Mac OS X! Apple took all the good stuff from it and put an 'apple' face on the GUI.
So, by the time a user loads a site you make, even with BSD running the show, apple has made sure that average users can still load stuff designers make by making software that runs on TOP of bsd.
- unknown0
...and so, if you think things like open source and BSD politics dont affect users like us, well, apple would disagree with you.