asymetric warfare

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:01:52 -0000, Keith Willshaw wrote:

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news
ess (phil hunt) wrote:



:Usingn the right
rogramming tools is important, for example the right lasnguasge or
more likely) set of languages. On which lanugages to use, Paul
:Graham's essays on language design, and the way Lisp makes it easy
:for you to in effect write your own specialised language for the job
:in hand, are apposite.

Again, this is wonderful until someone has to enhance or maintain the
result. EVERY effort written in a 'one-off' special purpose language?
Ugh!

He wants to use lisp for real time software !

No, he merely thinks Lisp's macro system has advantages, when trying
to solve hard problems.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:01:52 -0000, Keith Willshaw
wrote:

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news
ess (phil hunt) wrote:



:Usingn the right
rogramming tools is important, for example the right lasnguasge or
more likely) set of languages. On which lanugages to use, Paul
:Graham's essays on language design, and the way Lisp makes it easy
:for you to in effect write your own specialised language for the job
:in hand, are apposite.

Again, this is wonderful until someone has to enhance or maintain the
result. EVERY effort written in a 'one-off' special purpose language?
Ugh!

He wants to use lisp for real time software !

No, he merely thinks Lisp's macro system has advantages, when trying
to solve hard problems.


And some nasty disadvantages which is why it has somewhat
fallen out of favour.

Keith

In article ,
phil hunt wrote:
On 19 Dec 2003 15:38:09 GMT, Bertil Jonell wrote:
In article ,
phil hunt wrote:
I've worked as a programmer for
defense contractors (and for other large organisations), and believe
me, there is a *lot* of waste and inefficiency. If the software was
written right, it could probably be done with several orders of
magnitude more efficiency.

What competing method is there except for Open Source?

Open source -- or rather, using some of the ideas from how OSS
projects are btypically run -- is certainly useful.

The reason for my question is that I don't think Open Source is
very applicable the type of 'sharp edge' military systems you are
talking about here.
It is very applicable to making programs that help you make sure
that every regiment gets the correct number of socks and ammo, but not to
making program that handles guidance and target discrimination routines.
Especially not if you expect your capabilities to remain anything
like secret.

(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse

-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
exercise for your kill-file."

On 22 Dec 2003 17:41:26 GMT, Bertil Jonell wrote:
In article ,
phil hunt wrote:
On 19 Dec 2003 15:38:09 GMT, Bertil Jonell wrote:
In article ,
phil hunt wrote:
I've worked as a programmer for
defense contractors (and for other large organisations), and believe
me, there is a *lot* of waste and inefficiency. If the software was
written right, it could probably be done with several orders of
magnitude more efficiency.

What competing method is there except for Open Source?

Open source -- or rather, using some of the ideas from how OSS
projects are btypically run -- is certainly useful.

The reason for my question is that I don't think Open Source is
very applicable the type of 'sharp edge' military systems you are
talking about here.
It is very applicable to making programs that help you make sure
that every regiment gets the correct number of socks and ammo, but not to
making program that handles guidance and target discrimination routines.
Especially not if you expect your capabilities to remain anything
like secret.

Certainly.

Using open source software such as operating systems, IP stacks,
image processing libraries, encryption libraries and the like would
probably be appropriate, and contributing any changes back to those
codebases might well be a good idea. The really secret stuff is much
less likely to be made available.

I also had in mind OSS *techniques*, that is using some of the
procedures in infrastructure that OSS projects often used, to do
closed-source development. Things like Sourceforge, mailing lists,
CVS, packaging as tarballs, etc.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

ess (phil hunt) wrote:

:I also had in mind OSS *techniques*, that is using some of the
rocedures in infrastructure that OSS projects often used, to do
:closed-source development. Things like Sourceforge, mailing lists,
:CVS, packaging as tarballs, etc.

What do you think the rest of us are doing? Chipping the stuff out on
stone tablets?

Fred J. McCall wrote:

(phil hunt) wrote:

:I also had in mind OSS *techniques*, that is using some of the
rocedures in infrastructure that OSS projects often used, to do
:closed-source development. Things like Sourceforge, mailing lists,
:CVS, packaging as tarballs, etc.

What do you think the rest of us are doing? Chipping the stuff out on
stone tablets?


No, embroidering on the ties you are forced to wear.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On 22 Dec 2003 17:41:26 GMT, Bertil Jonell
wrote:
In article ,
phil hunt wrote:
On 19 Dec 2003 15:38:09 GMT, Bertil Jonell
wrote:
In article ,
phil hunt wrote:
I've worked as a programmer for
defense contractors (and for other large organisations), and believe
me, there is a *lot* of waste and inefficiency. If the software was
written right, it could probably be done with several orders of
magnitude more efficiency.

What competing method is there except for Open Source?

Open source -- or rather, using some of the ideas from how OSS
projects are btypically run -- is certainly useful.

The reason for my question is that I don't think Open Source is
very applicable the type of 'sharp edge' military systems you are
talking about here.
It is very applicable to making programs that help you make sure
that every regiment gets the correct number of socks and ammo, but not to
making program that handles guidance and target discrimination routines.
Especially not if you expect your capabilities to remain anything
like secret.

Certainly.

Using open source software such as operating systems, IP stacks,
image processing libraries, encryption libraries and the like would
probably be appropriate, and contributing any changes back to those
codebases might well be a good idea. The really secret stuff is much
less likely to be made available.

I also had in mind OSS *techniques*, that is using some of the
procedures in infrastructure that OSS projects often used, to do
closed-source development. Things like Sourceforge, mailing lists,
CVS, packaging as tarballs, etc.

Those are mere techniques to facilitate the actual work. And have little to
do with actually designing a viable weapons system.

The type of paper upon which you compose your missile design has nothing to
do with building a missile.

And a lot of those OSS techniques are not conducive to weapons design.
Folding your mods back into an OSS image processing library, for instance,
is not too wise when you are trying to develop a system in secret. Unless of
course you want your potential targets to know exactly what your system is
looking for (and thereby how to defeat it).

Pete