FINAL PROPULSION OPEN SOURCE ENGINE VARIANT FOR THE F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
TO ALL, I AM HAPPY TO SAY THAT I AM NOW IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A WEBSITE FOR THE STATED PURPOSE OF COMBINING SOME OF THE BEST MINDS IN THE WORLD. THIS PROJECT WILL BE A MEANS TO DEVELOP THE FIRST AND ONLY COMPLETELY OPEN SOURCE VARIANT OF THE PROPULSION ENGINE FOR THE F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER. WHICH MEANS THAT EVERYTHING ABOUT THE DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT, AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE ENGINE WILL BE COMPLETELY AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AND TO ANY ENGINE MANUFACTURE FREE OF ANY REQUIREMENTS. THIS ENGINE WILL BE CALLED THE PHOENIX NexT F-200 ENGINE. THIS ENGINE WILL ALSO BE A POTENTIAL THIRD AND FINAL ALTERNATIVE ENGINE FOR THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER. THIS ENGINE WILL BE STATED AS BEING A COMPETITOR WITH BOTH THE F-135 AND THE F-136 ENGINE, WHICH ARE PROVIDED BY BOTH PRATT-WHITNEY AND GENERAL ELECTRIC/ ROLLS ROYCE. THIS ENGINE WILL UTILIZE PYTHON FOR THE MAJOR PORTION OF THE SIMULATION, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT STAGES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ENGINE. THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MATHEMATICAL PROCESSING OF THE REQUIRED NONLINEAR CONTROLS WILL BE BASED ON A SPECIALIZED VERSION OF GROUP THEORY FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE NONLINEAR CONTROL SYSTEMS. THE PURPOSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ENGINE WILL BE TO CONSTRUCT AN ENGINE FOR THE F-35 THAT WILL BE AS RELIABLE AND CAPABLE AS THE F-135 AND THE F-136. HOWEVER, THE PHOENIX NexT ENGINE WILL ALSO BE STATED AS BEING ONLY AROUND $20,000 TO $110,000 DOLLARS TO BEING PURCHASED BY AN OPERATOR OF THE F-35, WHICH WILL BE AN INSIGNIFICANT COST COMPARED TO THE COST OF BOTH THE F-135 AND THE F-136 ENGINE (10 MILLION DOLLARS PER UNIT). HOW MANY OUT THERE WANT TO HELP IN THIS ENDEAVOR ? I BELIEVE THAT WE ALL CAN SUCCEED WHERE BOTH PRATT-WHITNEY AND GE/ROLLS ROYCE HAVE FAILED TO DEVELOP AN INEXPENSIVE AND RELIABLE ENGINE FOR THE F-35. THANKS, W108DAB
On 13 Jun 2009, at 00:01, OMEGA RED wrote:
DEVELOP THE FIRST AND ONLY COMPLETELY OPEN SOURCE VARIANT OF THE PROPULSION ENGINE FOR THE F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
You're unlikely to find many people who want to help use open-source to facilitate murder.
HOW MANY OUT THERE WANT TO HELP IN THIS ENDEAVOR ?
Nobody here. You're off topic, this list is for development of Python, not pet projects. Matt
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Matthew Wilkes<matthew@matthewwilkes.co.uk> wrote:
On 13 Jun 2009, at 00:01, OMEGA RED wrote:
DEVELOP THE FIRST AND ONLY COMPLETELY OPEN SOURCE VARIANT OF THE PROPULSION ENGINE FOR THE F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
You're unlikely to find many people who want to help use open-source to facilitate murder.
That's a rather presumptuous statement. Despite the poster's use of SHOUTING I don't see a reason to tell them they should use proprietary software just because you disagree with their politics. (Hey, I disagree with Eric Raymond's *and* Richard Stallman's politics. :-)
HOW MANY OUT THERE WANT TO HELP IN THIS ENDEAVOR ?
Nobody here. You're off topic, this list is for development of Python, not pet projects.
True. Comp.lang.python might be a better place. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
2009/6/12 Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org>:
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Matthew Wilkes<matthew@matthewwilkes.co.uk> wrote:
On 13 Jun 2009, at 00:01, OMEGA RED wrote:
HOW MANY OUT THERE WANT TO HELP IN THIS ENDEAVOR ?
Nobody here. You're off topic, this list is for development of Python, not pet projects.
True. Comp.lang.python might be a better place.
Actually, I think the Python community might be better off if he went to comp.lang.perl. -- Regards, Benjamin
On 13 Jun 2009, at 01:00, Guido van Rossum wrote:
That's a rather presumptuous statement. Despite the poster's use of SHOUTING I don't see a reason to tell them they should use proprietary software just because you disagree with their politics
Oh, I didn't mean they should use proprietary software, just that in my experience the kind of people who are active in open source are quite anti-war, green, etc. There are notable exceptions, but I know people who worry that their work will have military applications, and who turn down projects because of it. You're more likely to get people who are interested in aviation with some programming background (universities do teach coding to engineers, afterall), than the other way around. Matt
[Matthew Wilkes]
Oh, I didn't mean they should use proprietary software, just that in my experience the kind of people who are active in open source are quite anti-war, green, etc. There are notable exceptions, but I know people who worry that their work will have military applications, and who turn down projects because of it.
I question the whole notion of using open source in military weapons. It seems like a rather basic violation of operational security. Perhaps your enemies will exploit your bugs instead of nicely reporting them and submitting patches on SourceForge ;-) Raymond
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Raymond Hettinger<python@rcn.com> wrote:
[Matthew Wilkes]
Oh, I didn't mean they should use proprietary software, just that in my experience the kind of people who are active in open source are quite anti-war, green, etc. There are notable exceptions, but I know people who worry that their work will have military applications, and who turn down projects because of it.
I question the whole notion of using open source in military weapons. It seems like a rather basic violation of operational security. Perhaps your enemies will exploit your bugs instead of nicely reporting them and submitting patches on SourceForge ;-)
Eric Raymond would argue that it's probably the other way around -- proprietary software doesn't have enough eyeballs to make it safe. :-) -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
I question the whole notion of using open source in military weapons. It seems like a rather basic violation of operational security. Perhaps your enemies will exploit your bugs instead of nicely reporting them and submitting patches on SourceForge ;-)
Eric Raymond would argue that it's probably the other way around -- proprietary software doesn't have enough eyeballs to make it safe. :-)
I guess in some cases it wouldn't matter if it were open source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124027491029837401.html I'm not sure of the seriousness (or mental stability) of Mr. "OMEGA RED", but I definitely got a chuckle from this :) - Phillip
On Jun 12, 2009, at 5:17 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
[Matthew Wilkes]
Oh, I didn't mean they should use proprietary software, just that in my experience the kind of people who are active in open source are quite anti-war, green, etc. There are notable exceptions, but I know people who worry that their work will have military applications, and who turn down projects because of it.
I question the whole notion of using open source in military weapons. It seems like a rather basic violation of operational security. Perhaps your enemies will exploit your bugs instead of nicely reporting them and submitting patches on SourceForge ;-)
FYI Python (Jython) is already used in production of the F-35. There was a talk @ PyCon '08 about it: http://us.pycon.org/2008/conference/schedule/event/27/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgE55z_RNgQ -- Philip Jenvey
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
[Matthew Wilkes]
Oh, I didn't mean they should use proprietary software, just that in my experience the kind of people who are active in open source are quite anti-war, green, etc. There are notable exceptions, but I know people who worry that their work will have military applications, and who turn down projects because of it.
I question the whole notion of using open source in military weapons. It seems like a rather basic violation of operational security. Perhaps your enemies will exploit your bugs instead of nicely reporting them and submitting patches on SourceForge ;-)
As Guido said, even the military are aware that there are major problems with the idea of security through obscurity. Plus most defence forces around the world are just as interested in saving a few bucks on software costs as any other organisation, particularly if they can reduce their reliance on a foreign software vendor in the process. As to the existence of open source developers that are willing to work with the military... as Matthew said, while they may not be particularly common, I can definitely say that they're around ;) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ---------------------------------------------------------------
The other benefit of the military using open source software is that is can save the taxpayers money over the short and long term. For some projects it is a small percentage of the total cost. However, for others it can be significant portion of the cost, so don't discount its use or its benefit. Saving time and money is a good thing. Cheers, Paul On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Nick Coghlan<ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
[Matthew Wilkes]
Oh, I didn't mean they should use proprietary software, just that in my experience the kind of people who are active in open source are quite anti-war, green, etc. There are notable exceptions, but I know people who worry that their work will have military applications, and who turn down projects because of it.
I question the whole notion of using open source in military weapons. It seems like a rather basic violation of operational security. Perhaps your enemies will exploit your bugs instead of nicely reporting them and submitting patches on SourceForge ;-)
As Guido said, even the military are aware that there are major problems with the idea of security through obscurity. Plus most defence forces around the world are just as interested in saving a few bucks on software costs as any other organisation, particularly if they can reduce their reliance on a foreign software vendor in the process.
As to the existence of open source developers that are willing to work with the military... as Matthew said, while they may not be particularly common, I can definitely say that they're around ;)
Cheers, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/pebarrett%40gmail.com
participants (9)
-
Benjamin Peterson -
Guido van Rossum -
Matthew Wilkes -
Nick Coghlan -
OMEGA RED -
Paul Barrett -
Philip Jenvey -
Phillip Sitbon -
Raymond Hettinger