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