Posted by
Hemos
on from the making-inroads-in-a-giant-market dept.
D3 wrote to us with a story from Federal Computer Weekly that details the plans of GTSI (Government Technology Service Inc.) to team with Red Hat. They plan to team up to offer "enterprise level" for the federal government contracts.
Linux is a solid choice for government users because of its stability, scalability and interoperability with other operating systems.
Yes, indeed - as it is for all users.
Linux already enjoys a robust presence throughout the federal market, despite the common perception that it has yet to penetrate government IT shops.
It is really nice to see that an institution as regulated as government is allowing use of Linux. My company (a large bank) has outlawed its use since it is a "hacker OS." I'm pleasantly surprised to see the government taking an interest.
It is really nice to see that an institution as regulated as government is allowing use of Linux. My company (a large bank) has outlawed its use since it is a "hacker OS." I'm pleasantly surprised to see the government taking an interest.
The government's never put any restrictions on what operating systems we (federal IT folks) can use. There are already Linux installations all over the federal government (I run two of them). I'm sure there are some agencies where they want to exert more centralized control and try to dictate what OS's can be used, but luckily I'm not in one of those. If we need to set something up, and Linux is the easiest/best/fastest/cheapest way to do it, then we use Linux.
The only thing holding us back from using it more than we are is that I'm the only one who knows enough to set things up correctly.
Could that be a company as large as, say, American Express?
When I was there a couple years ago and official e-mail was sent out to put everyone on notice that *any* installation of Windows 98 would result in the immediate and non-negotiable termination of the offender.
Just two months later an IT guy was installing it on everyone's computer because it was the new standard.
I have worked for a government contractor for about a year now, and all I can say is yikes! There are mountains of obscure paperwork and requirements for everything you do. If you thought that the government passed a lot of laws controlling private citizens, you should see the laws it passes about itself!
The most recent move has been toward COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) software. The real question is: is Open Source stuff COTS? The obvious answer is yes, but how do you convince someone who hasn't seen the real world since the 80's of this?
As and example of how wierd things get, someone periodically removes tcsh from our systems believing it to be "shareware" (and therefore not COTS). Since we all have/bin/tcsh in/etc/passwd, nobody can login. Eventually, someone with a backdoor (for just such a purpose) sneaks in and puts tcsh back.
I don't envy anyone trying to introduce anything "new" or "innovative" or even "useful" to the government.
-- Thank you for not thinking.
Re:Government Contracts.
by
RocketJeff
·
· Score: 2
Selling software to the US Govt is a *real* nightmare. The GSA (General Services Administration) puts so many requirements on companies trying to sell directly to the government that it pays to team up with one of the companies founded to do this.
Red Hat will (probably) sell Linux to GTSI which will then turn around and sell it to the government (the same with service contracts, etc). That way Red Hat doesn't have to fill out the 100s of forms that poke into every nook and crany of their company (and GTSI already has them filled out).
At least that's how a software company I used to work for did it.
With all the money they save by using Linux rather than Windows, they can buy even more useless and extravagant stuff at the end of the year in order to keep their existing budget!
(I used to work at a federal agency, yes, they do that. I got a dual pentium II computer out of the deal, well, to use, at least. And that was when the Pentium chips ran over $700 EACH. They bought four of those computers...)
Hehe, it's sad. Bets that not one dollar will actually be saved. Just spent on stuff other than windows. Not like that's a bad thing...
-- For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
of course, this is to keep up with the Chinese...
by
sethg
·
· Score: 2
In the 1970s, Soviet programmers had enough skill with Forth and Lisp to build useful applications on primitive Soviet computers. This productivity threatened to wipe out the American advantage in computer hardware. To solve this "software gap", the Pentagon created the "Ada Project". The secret goal of the project: to lure the Soviet PHPBs (pointy-haired party bosses) into forcing a bloated and inefficient language on their programmers, thus soaking up scarce Soviet computer resources.
So Uncle Sam now getting behind Linux. Do they realize the same trick won't work a second time? Do they underestimate the skill of Chinese programmers? Or... I can't bear to contemplate the third possibility.... -- "But, Mulder, the new millennium doesn't begin until January 2001."
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
Re:Article doesn't say much
by
debrain
·
· Score: 2
Seems like that would be a major selling point, since "that other OS" claims to be certified, when really the ONLY version that was ever certified was NT3.51, which, er, they don't sell or support any more...
That's an interesting point. My personal feeling is that Red Hat might release a certified Linux distribution, at a high expense, with nice technical descriptions of the protocols, the necessities of each security level, and things of such cosmetic nature. Underlying their secure version will be open source Linux. And I can imagine that any actions that move against the particular open-source movement that Red Hat stands for, ie. by close sourcing particular parts of the system, would recieve a backlash of negative publicity.
On the other hand, if Red Hat can spin off security through obscurity, or anything through obscurity, for that matter, they are instantly given a lead over other Linux distributions. If they can release closed source in the name of security, or under the veil of NDA's, or what have you, they are at an advantage over Caldera, SuSE, Corel, et al.
The question is, are the benefits of having closed source to the bottom line sufficient to justify the publicity of it. For Red Hat, the answer must be to the shareholders.
debrain has an interesting idea about the closing-ness of Red Hat -- that they could base a certified distribution on Open Source, with certain key parts closed. That might be a HUGE (underlined, bolded, blinking and colored) success, because being Linux, it could be sold at a much better price than MS operating systems, and at a price that the traditional UNIX vendors wouldn't touch anyhow.
However, in point of fact, Red Hat has been accused-in-advance of being about to make that kind of move several times in the past few years -- even before the IPOgonzosity, people dropped dark hints about the Redmond-in-Waiting that was Red Hat.
Have they? I don't think so. Can anyone name an important contribution of Red Hat that has not been promptly released for the world (and Mandrake in particular) to play with? Instead, they've stuck with the idea that their worth is in a) reputation ["But boss, this isn't some no-name OS here -- this is genuine Red Hat Linux, with a box and everything!"] and b) Service ["And boss, it comes with good support options!"]
Now, things change and I don't have a crystal ball, but why shouldn't Red Hat decide that nothing succeeeds like success and continue their mile-a-second moves to shore themselves up as stalwart GPListas (in good humor, ok?) as well as Überkapitalists who are just tickled pink to sell your company as many copies of Linux, manuals, T-shirts and mousepads as you'd like?
I work For the US Courts and our District has been using Linux for several years now. We have a Squid proxy, two brand new RH boxes running ColdFusion, a samba server, a security monitoring box, all told about 7 machines. We're also getting a new one for Domino. Many of the 92 districts use Linux because it's a stable and inexpensive alternantive to NT. Plus every court has a couple of Solaris boxes so the knowledge base for working with Linux is already there.
Some of the courts are starting to consider Linux for the desktop. Since we use WordPerfect and Netscape it's a perfect solution. I heard rummor that one small court has already moved over.
According to the article, this company will be the first to break into the Linux enterprise market. I fail to see why this is a major breakthrough - anyone can use Linux for their enterprise whenever and however they want. Linux has been used at my company for quite some time now as an database server with every bit of the HR, sales, and product records (regular backups are kept, of course).
Stating that this is a major 'new' market is just bull.
I think it means a new market for Linux companies. Before it was just government employees installing Linux on some boxes. Now it's government agencies buying Linux distros from RedHat complete with docs and support. That's what's new.
-- It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Local government are already using Linux
by
HipNerd
·
· Score: 2
Here's an artcle from Government Technology Magazine about how states and local governments (read cities) are using open-source software like Linux and Apache to run Web severs, file servers, etc.
The article also touches on some of the obstacles government agencies face trying to purchase "free" software. As a bonus, you get a few comments from Slashdot's resident Apache expert Jim Jagielski.
Hipnerd
In the spirit full disclosure, I should probably mention that I wrote the article.
First of all, the certification is given for "platforms." This includes all the hardware and the operating system. NT 3.51 was certified on 3 different platforms. The key thing is that NT was only certified as an isolated machine. It can't even have a modem, let alone a network connection.
Secondly, I think NT 4.0 just got C2 certified, but I'm not sure on what hardware. I don't know if it can have external connections either, but I suspect not.
-- It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
yes but do they really want that
by
josepha48
·
· Score: 2
I am glad to see that Linux is getting into the goverment, but if you only knew how much of a beaurcratic mess the goverment was then you would wonder if this was really a good thing. The goverment has so many regulations on how they do business that it could inevitable leak over into how Redhat functions. I 'd just hate to see a good thing go bad..
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, indeed - as it is for all users.
Linux already enjoys a robust presence throughout the federal market, despite the common perception that it has yet to penetrate government IT shops.
It is really nice to see that an institution as regulated as government is allowing use of Linux. My company (a large bank) has outlawed its use since it is a "hacker OS." I'm pleasantly surprised to see the government taking an interest.
I have worked for a government contractor for about a year now, and all I can say is yikes! There are mountains of obscure paperwork and requirements for everything you do. If you thought that the government passed a lot of laws controlling private citizens, you should see the laws it passes about itself!
/bin/tcsh in /etc/passwd, nobody can login. Eventually, someone with a backdoor (for just such a purpose) sneaks in and puts tcsh back.
The most recent move has been toward COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) software. The real question is: is Open Source stuff COTS? The obvious answer is yes, but how do you convince someone who hasn't seen the real world since the 80's of this?
As and example of how wierd things get, someone periodically removes tcsh from our systems believing it to be "shareware" (and therefore not COTS). Since we all have
I don't envy anyone trying to introduce anything "new" or "innovative" or even "useful" to the government.
Thank you for not thinking.
With all the money they save by using Linux rather than Windows, they can buy even more useless and extravagant stuff at the end of the year in order to keep their existing budget!
(I used to work at a federal agency, yes, they do that. I got a dual pentium II computer out of the deal, well, to use, at least. And that was when the Pentium chips ran over $700 EACH. They bought four of those computers...)
Hehe, it's sad. Bets that not one dollar will actually be saved. Just spent on stuff other than windows. Not like that's a bad thing...
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
Hey, Henry Baker said it, and he's, like, famous, or at least prolific, so he must be right!
So Uncle Sam now getting behind Linux. Do they realize the same trick won't work a second time? Do they underestimate the skill of Chinese programmers? Or ... I can't bear to contemplate the third possibility....
--
"But, Mulder, the new millennium doesn't begin until January 2001."
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
On the other hand, if Red Hat can spin off security through obscurity, or anything through obscurity, for that matter, they are instantly given a lead over other Linux distributions. If they can release closed source in the name of security, or under the veil of NDA's, or what have you, they are at an advantage over Caldera, SuSE, Corel, et al.
The question is, are the benefits of having closed source to the bottom line sufficient to justify the publicity of it. For Red Hat, the answer must be to the shareholders.
debrain has an interesting idea about the closing-ness of Red Hat -- that they could base a certified distribution on Open Source, with certain key parts closed. That might be a HUGE (underlined, bolded, blinking and colored) success, because being Linux, it could be sold at a much better price than MS operating systems, and at a price that the traditional UNIX vendors wouldn't touch anyhow.
However, in point of fact, Red Hat has been accused-in-advance of being about to make that kind of move several times in the past few years -- even before the IPOgonzosity, people dropped dark hints about the Redmond-in-Waiting that was Red Hat.
Have they? I don't think so. Can anyone name an important contribution of Red Hat that has not been promptly released for the world (and Mandrake in particular) to play with? Instead, they've stuck with the idea that their worth is in a) reputation ["But boss, this isn't some no-name OS here -- this is genuine Red Hat Linux, with a box and everything!"] and b) Service ["And boss, it comes with good support options!"]
Now, things change and I don't have a crystal ball, but why shouldn't Red Hat decide that nothing succeeeds like success and continue their mile-a-second moves to shore themselves up as stalwart GPListas (in good humor, ok?) as well as Überkapitalists who are just tickled pink to sell your company as many copies of Linux, manuals, T-shirts and mousepads as you'd like?
Just thoughts,
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
I work For the US Courts and our District has been using Linux for several years now. We have a Squid proxy, two brand new RH boxes running ColdFusion, a samba server, a security monitoring box, all told about 7 machines. We're also getting a new one for Domino. Many of the 92 districts use Linux because it's a stable and inexpensive alternantive to NT. Plus every court has a couple of Solaris boxes so the knowledge base for working with Linux is already there.
Some of the courts are starting to consider Linux for the desktop. Since we use WordPerfect and Netscape it's a perfect solution. I heard rummor that one small court has already moved over.
they could just swipe the stars'n'stripes top-hat that Uncle Sam is usually shown wearing...."Your OS Wants You!"
According to the article, this company will be the first to break into the Linux enterprise market. I fail to see why this is a major breakthrough - anyone can use Linux for their enterprise whenever and however they want. Linux has been used at my company for quite some time now as an database server with every bit of the HR, sales, and product records (regular backups are kept, of course).
Stating that this is a major 'new' market is just bull.
printf("Why have a signature?");
The article also touches on some of the obstacles government agencies face trying to purchase "free" software. As a bonus, you get a few comments from Slashdot's resident Apache expert Jim Jagielski.
Hipnerd
In the spirit full disclosure, I should probably mention that I wrote the article.
Hipnerd
... kills bugs dead.
First of all, the certification is given for "platforms." This includes all the hardware and the operating system. NT 3.51 was certified on 3 different platforms. The key thing is that NT was only certified as an isolated machine. It can't even have a modem, let alone a network connection.
Secondly, I think NT 4.0 just got C2 certified, but I'm not sure on what hardware. I don't know if it can have external connections either, but I suspect not.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
yes I am a pesimist
send flames > /dev/null
Only 'flamers' flame!