Talk:SMCS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article needs more context around or a better explanation of technical details to make it more accessible to general readers and technical readers outside the specialty, without removing technical details. See below for more information.


I have problems with the Channel 4 article. While it is suitable to back up the claim of "some controversy", that's about all it's good for.

  • It claims British Aerospace was an active company in 2004. BAe became BAE Systems in November 1999.
  • It's out of date - AMS is referred to a lot and no longer exists.
  • It suggests that the Windows based SMCS will effectively be the same as that running on any commercial desktop and will encounter the same problems - that is rediculous.
  • I have operated Win 95, Win 2000 and Win XP and have had very little problems. Errors are mostly caused by the user in my experience, either doing things they shouldn't be doing or failing to maintain virus protection etc. And SMCS is operated by Royal Navy personnel. I would like to highlight that the British military is not manned by conscripts but by highly trained professionals. Mark83 17:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Inevitably, some of the references in an earlier news report will have been superseded. However, the C4 news report still poses the (as yet) unanswered question: how do you prevent surplus Windows code from executing inadvertently in a military system, and why is it less risk to use Windows than (say) a cut-down version of BSD in which surplus code can't execute because it just isn't there?

BTW I too have used Win 95, Win 2k, Win XP. Also RSX-11, VMS, MacOS, Mac OS X, FreeBSD, Solaris, OpenBSD, Win 3.11, RedHat, SuSE, MS-DOS, OS-360, and numerous specialised real-time kernels. This is why I can tell the difference between software which is bullet-proof and software which is made by Microsoft. Shlgww 20:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely they will be using a cut down version of Windows, just as they would have used a cut-down version of BSD? I can't argue with your experience of Windows and other operating systems, just as you can't argue with mine. It just depends what you need and expect of it surely? Personally I think a lot of the "controversy" is sensationalism. A lot of the hype suggests that BAE nipped down to PC World, bought a Windows disc and shoved it into the Royal Navy's subs! Do you really believe BAE, the MOD, the Royal Navy, even Microsoft (if they've any input at all) are really incapable of tailoring an OS to their needs? I don't. A lot of the article seems to anti-BAE. I am a layman as far as this article goes, however I would suggest BAE are as qualified as anybody to undertake this work. Through the British Aerospace history they have the BAeSema experience etc. and through the GEC-Marconi/MES history they have the Ferranti Naval Systems and Plessey Naval Systems experience. Not to mention the fact that GEC not only built the subs themselves but also a lot of the consoles that operate SMCS.
As far as the article being superceded. Sure, I can't argue with the AMS element. However the article was written in 2004 I think, so my point about BAe/BAE stands. That tells me the journalist made a very obvious and lazy mistake, what else has he/she got wrong? Mark83 21:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the sworn testimony of Bill Gates, given under oath to the US Courts in April 2002, in his capacity as Microsoft's Chief Software Architect, a cut-down version of Windows isn't possible. So if BAE have indeed built a cut-down version of Windows for this purpose, Gates was either incompetent or lying on oath. Neither of these possibilities would build trust in Microsoft. According to the limited information vouchsafed by the MoD to parliament, SMCS-NG (and its related products) are kept under control by a layer of middleware which limits what applications can do. That's fine for applications. Middleware (since it sits above the OS) can not dictate to the OS, its kernel, and its scheduler what the OS itself is going to do, and when its various parts will run. According to all the presented evidence, SMCS-NG runs on Windows-2000. The live system contains vast tracts of Windows code, under Windows' control, which are not needed for the purposes of the SMCS functions. Nobody will say how this surplus code is prevented from inadvertent execution in a live SMCS-NG system. For a system in command of a nuclear weapons platform, this is an unprecedented state of affairs. Shlgww 08:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This is all an hypothesis. You seem to have a very firm grasp of technical issues. However can you say definitively that BAE are incapable of making the software do what it wants and preventing it doing anything it shouldn't? There seems to be a conspiracy theory going on, as if BAE has picked the least suitable, lease stable platform for their SMCS. There must be a reason. What commercial or selfish interest has BAE for picking Windows? What interest has BAE or Microsoft in producing an unstable control system for the UK's nuclear deterrent fleet? Mark83 10:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/m/c/Talk%7ESMCS_2ff5.html"