Re: [colorforth] DARPA takes aim at IT sacred cows

[John Drake <jmdrake_98@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- "Kurt B. Kaiser" <kbk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Either this is garbled reportage, or the sources are
> uninformed.

I think the answer to is "look behind door number 3".

> That's because it works.  We tried parallel
> computers a decade ago and
> nobody could figure out how to program them for
> general purpose
> computing.  e.g. Thinking Machines, out of business.

A lot of folks have gone out of business, so that
really doesn't prove anything.  Anyway
there have been many programs written for 
parallel computing.  "Webfarms" are essentially
parallel computing.  And don't forget "Deep Blue".
Also the military is looking deeply into "motes".
These are essentially tiny "Forth like" chips
that multiprocess over a self organized wireless
network.

>  The day will
> come: today's computers are already not strictly von
> Neumann because
> there are multiple execution units "behind the
> curtain" of a Pentium,
> and SMP and distributed computing is common.
> 
> This is of course an issue for Chuck's
> multiprocessors.

Yep.  And that's the point why I posted this here.
DARPA (you know, the guys that helped to fund the
Internet in the first place?) is opening itself up
to NEW THINKING!  That doesn't mean that the 
Internet is going to be immediately scrapped.  It
does mean that there is an OPPORTUNITY to look
at novel solutions to old problems.  When I read
this I immediately thought about Chuck's work.

 
> > One of the limitations inherent in this approach
> is that when an
> >application malfunctions, it can affect other
> programs, Gosh
> >said. Program bugs also are vulnerabilities that
> can be used by
> >adversaries to attack the entire system. What
> military networks need,
> >Gosh said, is a way to isolate software programs at
> the hardware
> >level.
> 
> Heaven's sake, that's what an operating system
> kernel is for.  Too bad
> he's running Windows, like the rest of the Armed
> Forces.  It gives a
> bad impression of how secure a properly audited
> kernel can be.

Linux isn't invurnerable either.  He might be
interested in eros, KeyKOS or any of the other
"capability" system.

See: http://www.eros-os.org/
 
> Either he means have several independent computers
> at the "hardware
> level" which communicate with each other locally
> over authenticated
> links, or he wants to move some more functionality
> from software to
> hardware so that it is tamperproof, or both.

What he wants is a virus proof system.  I want that
too.  Some people have made some headway in this
type of research though it's not currently
"commercially viable".
 
> The opinions which are reported are more applicable
> to a dedicated
> (wireless) military network.  They don't have much
> bearing on the
> internet (hopefully).

I'm not sure why you would add "hopefully" to that
last sentence.  First of all the Internet was
originally designed for military use.  Now they
are rethinking that design.  If this "rethinking"
results in more resilient systems then we'll likely
see the new technology crossing over into the
private sector.  If it doesn't work then we won't.
Either way it's a "win/win" for the Internet, or
precisely for people who use computers to
communicate.
 
> I expect the military to require large numbers of
> small, autonomous
> entities communicating at fairly high BW.  Sounds
> like a job for
> dedicated hardware, i.e. Forth chips.
> 
> -- 
> KBK

Yep.  Plenty of good research opportunities.
There's a lot that can be done in the relm of
self-organizing wireless networks.  For instance
one could build a complete "peer-to-peer" wireless
net that operated in the unregulated "Wifi"
bandwith.  My PDA sends a message to your PDA 
which keeps forwarding it till it gets to the
correct destination.  Just one idea, there are
many.  But don't worry.  The current generation
of the Internet won't disappear just because 
DARPA is thinking.  But the future may be better
than the present because of this.  I recall
some time back threads about "rethinking the
Internet".  Well for whoever's interested, 
here's your chance.

Regards,

John M. Drake

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: colorforth-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: colorforth-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Main web page - http://www.colorforth.com