TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
"Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Alan and Carmel Brain <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 9 Sep 2004 13:37:46 -0400
Bob Spooner <[log in to unmask]>
Bob Spooner <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
text/plain (66 lines)
Wait until none of the combat systems work anymore after a required upgrade
to fix a security problem. :( We're having that sort of problem with medical
devices in this country.


                            Robert L. Spooner
                     Registered Professional Engineer
                       Associate Research Engineer
                  Intelligent Control Systems Department

         Applied Research Laboratory        Phone: (814) 863-4120
         The Pennsylvania State University  FAX:   (814) 863-7841
         P. O. Box 30
         State College, PA 16804-0030       [log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy (83 & 95)
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alan and Carmel Brain
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 11:36 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Tell me it ain't so, Joe

Two Quotes:

"In a purely theoretical world, one could imagine developing modest software
programs in such a way that any module could be swapped out in favor of a
similar module developed by a third party. The replacement module would need
to conform identically to the interfaces expected by all of the modules with
which it interacts. In the commercial world, it is hard to see what value
such replace-ability would provide even if it could be achieved." - Bill
Gates, under oath in April 2002

"Almost three years ago the naval systems arm of major UK defence contractor
BAE Systems took the decision to standardise future development on Microsoft
Windows. an immediate effect was to commit BAE's joint venture CMS
subsidiary, 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, been investigating open
source alternatives as a foundation for future combat systems.

They lost. Acting as spokesman for the concerned engineers Gerald Wilson
compiled a 50 page dossier detailing the unsuitability of Windows as a
foundation for a naval command system, and arguing that BAE's Unix history
and expertise made open source UN*X a logical and viable way forward. The
company then made him redundant."

Now the Windows NT API is quite a reasonable basis for many reliable

But the article implies that what's being forced on the engineers at BAe is
a bit more than that, it's Win2k in its entirety.

But maybe I'm being a dinosaur here, I don't see any reason why there should
be any form of OS larger than a POSIX kernel in a Naval Combat System...

I do question when this trend will end though. Visual Basic the language of
the future?