Linux in the US Federal Government?

Grech asks: "I work for a US federal agency that replaces its workstations and attendant software every 3-5 years. At the moment, the environment for most workers consists of an OS, an office suite, a UTS60 emulator, and an X Server. Logic seems to say that when all this gets ripped out and replaced in a year or so, it could be done cheaper with Linux, but a case will have to be made, and a strong one. I've got the arguments, but I need the numbers and the anecdotes to back up such a huge project."

Comments

Hmm..

[danielrose]

Please phrase your question in the form of a question!

Nice idea...

[dimator]

But being realistic, the cost of such a switch is not just the hardware/software involved. Do you really think switching EVERYTHING, down to the office suite, would fly with the users of these systems? Don't you think the training costs, and the costs involved with the reduced workflow (due to more time being spent re-learning how to save documents, print, etc.) are worth the reduced software costs?

If I was in charge, I'd start small. A few alternative office suites at a time, slowly bringing people up to speed, etc.

aaaaghh, noo!!!

[augros]

if the IRS ever goes linux, my lord, they'll be tax-collecting nightmares!!!

DoD and the NMCI

[superid]

EDS was awarded a contract to replace roughly 360,000 desktops running $whatever with Windows 2000. No one will have admin rights, no one will be able to install software, etc. Read about it at EDS.com

I believe its a $6B contract, and its in progress right now. I'm not sure if the consensus is that they're being successful or not, but its the biggest single example of a "managed solution" that I've ever seen.

SuperID

Figuring the costs

[fm6]

. Do you really think switching EVERYTHING.. would fly with the users of these systems? Don't you think the training costs, and the costs involved with the reduced workflow ... are worth the reduced software costs?

You're probably right. But we need more information before we know for sure. The office suite is the central issue, because word processors, presentation programs, and spreadsheets (especially spreadsheets) are the apps that are most user-customized. So do your users just write the occasional letter, or do they have a lot of customized Word templates? Do they use Excel for casual budget planning, or are there huge apps built with VBA?

The retraining issue is significant, but not as big as you might think -- the low-level details of NT are pretty hard to deal with anyway.

And when you measure the costs and advantages of Linux, avoiding license fees is only part of the picture. There's lower admin costs, less down time, better security....

It's also relevent to ask why civil servants face this mandatory upgrade cycle. If it's because their software keeps outgrowing their hardware, that's another reason to consider switching to Linux. Even out of the box, Linux has lower hardware requirements than NT. And they can go lower still if you're selective about the features you use -- something that NT just doesn't let you do.

Re:Figuring the costs

[gmhowell]

According to my father in law (large case auditor, I think) they use a fair amount of macros, but they are centrally stored/managed. He claims that doing something as trivial as changing the wallpaper on a take home laptop is a no-no.

Of course, he might not be able to use the computer;) I've thought about playing with the machine when he's not around, but I'm much more worried about pissing off the IRS than the DOD.

Re:Figuring the costs

[Grech]

The primary impetus for this coming round of upgrades is a new application, the one which requires the X Server to run. The idea behind it is to add a layer of abstraction between the users, and the legacy app from hell, the one which requires a UTS60 emulator, with an eye toward banishing the foul thing. Of course, Exceed is a real pig, as always. Everybody has the office suite, but most only use it to read .ppts and .docs on the Intranet. The rest use it to POST .ppts and .docs to the Intranet.

Re:Figuring the costs

[BenEnglishAtHome]

... they use a fair amount of macros, but they are centrally stored/managed.

That's basically correct.

He claims that doing something as trivial as changing the wallpaper on a take home laptop is a no-no.

Correct, also, though the users scream about it. Given the problems we've had in this regard, I doubt the situation will change much. Getting sued for sexual harrassment/creating a hostile work environment because a user installed a "Babe of the Day" type screensaver that offended another employee is not fun. It's easier, cheaper, and less hassle to take away the temptation.

I've thought about playing with the machine when he's not around,

Please don't. It's a felony and we don't take it lightly at all. *Especially* if your father-in-law is a large case agent. If he is, he has some *very* sensitive stuff on his machine.

but I'm much more worried about pissing off the IRS than the DOD.

I imagine that a visit from a team of Special Agents from either the Office of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (if you screw around with the IRS) or the Defense Investigative Service (if you screw around with the DOD) would be a pretty harrowing experience.

Re:Figuring the costs

[ScumBiker]

I've successfully implemented VNC as an alternative to an X server on a Winblows box for an enterprise application. It allows the feild biologists to enter data into a Tru64 app. Works great, even over a dialup connection. On the other hand, it really does make more sense to just run Linux on the desktop. Good luck. All I can say is, do your best to develop a sound business reason to migrate. Once you get past the pain of translating Excel macros to Star office or whatever, it's all smooth sailing from there.

Re:Figuring the costs

[fm6]

Fascist IS people. They can be a pain, even though they have a legitimate agenda.

And if your agenda is going over to Linux, these are people you need to convince. And that might be doable. They want total control over system configuration, so they can minimize security concerns and user-generated glitches. But they're so overwealmed by the sheer complexity of NT that they can't even turn off the screen preferences applet.

On Linux, it's a lot easier to create a standard configuration and lock it in. Everything the user environment does, it does in the open, not hidden behind some we-know-what-you-really-want GUI. There's your case for abandoning NT right there.

A big standard collection of Excel macros is a problem. No way they're going to abandon them, and porting them to another spreadsheet is just not doable. Best solution I can suggest is running Excel under WINE.

Re:Figuring the costs

[fm6]

Hmm, your boxes must be pretty old if they can't handle an X server. Then again, they probably could if they ran Linux...

Where does the logic for the abstraction layer go? If it's on a server, then it doesn't affect the Linux-versus-NT issue. But if they're planning to script the X-Terminal server, it's a big reason to go to Linux. Scripting on NT is weird, difficult, and unpredictable. Scripting on Unix-like systems is basic -- the whole system is built around the concept.

Re:Figuring the costs

[gmhowell]

He actually mentioned the sexual harassment issue when talking about locked down screensavers/wallpapers. And yes, he complained quite a bit.

lindows.com

[davidu]

This is probably exactly the kind of market Lindows.com is going after.

We talk about them a lot and ask: "Who would use their system?" but it seems to me that this is the perfect application.

It would provide Microsoft Office, X-windows, all kinds of terminal emulation, as well as stability, network management, security and most importantly, it would be COST EFFECTIVE.

Just my $0.02,
davidu

I work for the same federal agency

[BenEnglishAtHome]

and, as much as I'm with you on this one, I don't think you have a prayer.

AFAIK, the only important use of Linux in the IRS is our border routers, admined out of the Indy office. They run RedHat. Get on our intranet and check out the common operating environment specs and list of baseline software. That will tell you what distributions are allowed and will give you a good hint as to where they are being used. Of course, there are lots of Unix servers (two big banks of them within 50 feet of where I sit as I'm writing this), but you asked about the desktop.

There are essentially no Linux desktops in the Service. The Unix desktops in the IRS are rare. Revenue Officers who have not recently had their equipment replaced use a pure SCO OSR 5.0.4 environment, complete with WordPerfect for Unix 5.1 and Lotus for Unix 3 point something. That would be about 5000 users at this point. However, those users are migrating to Windows and there was no budget to rewrite the pile of custom apps they use. Result? Just like the call sites where desktop Unix used to hold sway, these users are going to a Windows-centric desktop with a full copy of Interix for their Unix. In case you didn't know, Interix is the Unix owned by Microsoft. Yes, we buy one of our Unix variants from Microsoft. And, yes, it works about as well as you might expect a Unix to work when it's owned and supported by Microsoft. (Ask me sometime about the Oakland ICPnt/Interix rollout. The persistent connections to the DNS caused by an Interix flaw resulted in the most idiotic work-around I've ever seen: the DNS server for the entire area got a script installed to reboot it hourly. That was the only way to keep it running and they had to do it for days till Microsoft could come up with a re-write.)

Lessee - That means that we're going to have many thousands of users using apps written under SCO and intimately tied to WP5.1 who will be running those apps on Interix which is running on top of WindowsNT 4.01. How does that work? Not very well, I'm afraid.

Roughly the same thing is happening with all the call site and service center employees who formerly had Unix desktops, although the situation in those places isn't as bad as it is out in the field.

Where does that leave us? Where does that leave the prospects for Linux in our organization? The failure of ICSnt and ICPnt (the two main projects involving migrating Unix users to Windows while retaining their old Unix apps) to smoothly migrate users to the brave new all-Microsoft world that our executives want has simply convinced those executives that they were right all along. IOW, they hated Unix on the desktop before, they are having problems running Unix apps on NT now (duh), and thus they conclude that this Unix thing or anything even remotely Unix-y on the desktop is clearly crap. They want it gone. They don't want anything to interfere with their thrice daily ritual of facing Redmond, kneeling, and symbolically kissing Bill Gates butt in prayer to the great god Microsoft.

I can give you just one ray of hope. If Microsoft pushes their licensing schemes forward, we're in about the worst position I can imagine. The money that will have to be thrown away on licenses is *huge*. That kind of budget-buster is the only thing I can think of that would cause the Booze/Allen/Hamilton-Microsoft-worshipping execs at the top of this organization to even look at Linux on the desktop. If you happened to be in the right place at the right time with a demo system ready to go, you might be able to effect the thinking of a critical analyst who might push for a study or two that might result in a pilot project in 3 or 5 years.

Seems like a long shot to me.

ps - If you want more and probably better informed opinions, post this to the Kibbles & Bytes mailing list or drop an email to Scott in Austin. (A note to observers: If you're in IT in the IRS, you probably subscribe to the named list and you almost certainly know or know of Scott. Sorry about the insider references in a post that will be read by a much larger audience.)

Ironic, isn't it?

[weave]

Isn't it ironic that the federal government sues Microsoft for abusing monopoly powers, but then turns around and buys their software?

Do you realize how much buying power the federal government has? The solution is in their own hands. Refuse to do business with Microsoft until they satisfy the feds that they are no longer abusing their monopoly, and they will cease to be a monopoly. Refuse to do business with people that do business with .doc files and push for docs in html or xml format.

Maybe you can use that as partial justification...

Fraud, Waste, Abuse

[ONOIML8]

The first thing you really need to research is why these systems are being replaced.

If the equipment is still functional and it is being replaced, you might have a valid FWA claim.

Solid state electronic equipment should last far longer than 3 to 5 years. Replacement parts should easily be available.

I know that there is a strong urge to update hardware to run the latest software. But when you look at the tasks performed by most of these office machines, you will find that they are used for basic office functions.

This means that the features provided by newer software largely go unused. As a result the purchase of the latest software was a waste. It then follows that the hardware required to run that software was not required.

Consider also that the new software/hardware often requires (re)training of the operators. Those costs are often wasted as well if the operator has no need for the new features of the new software.

So rather than looking at Linux, GNU, Open Source, or whatever to save you money, look instead at justification for making any change at all. If a change of software/hardware is required, find out why. The requirements for the change will dictate what new hardware/software needs to be obtained. If Linux meets those needs then it can be considered.

I really haven't seen anything new in hardware or software in the last 5 years that would require replacement of an office machine that was in working order. Perhaps some upgrade in local or network storage if that is in short supply.

Otherwise, if you really are interested in saving tax dollars, look into justification and perhaps persue a fraud, waste, abuse investigation.