Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Battles Free Software at Pentagon
Spirit of Ishmael writes "The May 22 Washington Post is running a story under the headline Microsoft Fights Free Software at Pentagon. According to the story: 'Microsoft Corp. is aggressively lobbying the Pentagon to squelch its growing use of freely distributed computer software and switch to proprietary systems such as those sold by the software giant, according to officials familiar with the campaign.'"
Mitre may have a reason they want to encourage Linux in the gov't.
I have been pwned because my
Spokesman Jon Murchinson said Microsoft has been talking about how to allow open-source and proprietary software to coexist. "Our goal is to resolve difficult issues that are driving a wedge between the commercial and free software models," he said.
Jesus!! That's thoughtful of them!-- As a linux enthusiast, I just hope they 'allow' us to continue using free software!
Ansi's and stupid tricks!
Battle at the Pentagon? It is indeed the time the Empire is Striking Back with all its might. The fall of Microsoft does not seem to be so distant any more...
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
Quoth the article:
Jonathan Shapiro, who teaches computer science at Johns Hopkins University, said: "There is data that when the customer can inspect the code the vendor is more responsive. . . . Microsoft is in a very weak position to make this argument. Whose software is the largest, most consistent source of security flaws? It's Microsoft."
As ye sew, so shall ye reap, I guess.
This article was so full of typical Microsoft FUD, but it hit one or two points very clearly:
The Gub'ment is savin' your tax dollers by usin' that open source Linux thingy!
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
End the occupation! Reparations for Israeli war crimes! Peace and a true Palestinian state now!
The bombings won't stop until there is JUSTICE!
Hell will freeze over before they will convince the US to 'ban freely distributed software'.
Sure it sounds scary, but its just ridiculous to imagine - Microsoft isnt the only rich player in this game. And then there's that little amendment you guys have - something about free speech.
I'll think of a funny sig later on
Free software is their competition. Next thing you know people like Alan Cox might speak to them about the benifits of open source. My god, how evil!
Free Mac Mini
The attempt to root out open-source programs will probably be done under the pretense of national security. How unfortunate.
He also said Microsoft did not focus on potential security flaws.
:)
I wonder why?
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
Stenbit said the debate is academic and that what matters is how secure a given piece of software is. To that end, the Defense Department is now prohibited from purchasing any software that has not undergone security testing by the NSA. Stenbit said he is unaware of any open-source software that has been tested.
so they can use it because it wasn't purchased? talk about a loophole!
-pyrrho
Didn't MS just say that thier software was a national security risk? Ah, forget it.
You have this software that you pay nothing for and that thousands of people around the world find bugs in, but you should BUY ours because we obscure our bugs and only we know how this software works...???
I think this falls under the: "I wouldent belive it, if it wasent the Washington Post"
national security at stake. Let's see, between SQL worms, IE patches, and OE viruses, I for one am glad the Pentagon is using more secure software. Maybe this will make MS rethink their position on putting out bad code. Then again....nawww...
Why dosen't the US develop an OS strictly for secure governmental transactions/use? The country definatly has the resources. The outcome would be a system that no one could just "install at home" and discover weaknesses. I'm sure there are downsides (and feel free to let me know)..but in my mind no existing OS (be it free or not) is secure enough for what uncle sam wants to use it for.
Microsoft Corp. is aggressively lobbying the Pentagon to squelch its growing use of freely distributed computer software and switch to proprietary systems such as those sold by the software giant, according to officials familiar with the campaign.
And in other news, Burger King is "aggressively lobbying" me to switch to eating Whoppers instead of Big Macs. What is the story here?
So what, Microsoft shouldn't even be allowed to market its product? It's somehow evil for them to try and make the case for their products being superior?
This article is just idiotic and inflammatory.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Can any lawyers tell us how in the hell this might even be remotely plausible? Is it possible that there might be *anything* to such a claim that using both free and non-free commercial software might violate the IP rights of the commercial vendor? This sounds like good old MS FUD, but usually there is some tiny scrap of reality at the base of their sand castle. I can't believe this might be true, but IANAL.
I think you missed the word Banned.
I am not aware that BK is trying to make your intake of Whoppers conditional of not eating Big Macs anymore.
Help fight continental drift.
The only way I can think of that using Free Software would "violate [Microsoft's] intellectual property rights" would be if their EULA or contract with their customer prohibited it. But that's not even a matter of intellectual property rights[1], that would be contract law (in the case of an actual contract, or if we assume that EULAs are, in fact, legally binding).
Now, I understand why Microsoft is trying to muddy the waters, but why in the world is the DoD playing along?
[1]Remember, the all-encompassing phrase "intellectual property" covers three nebulously-related yet disparate parts of the law: trademarks, copyrights, and patents. It does not refer to contracts, in the common usage of the term.
--
Runnin' around, robbin' banks all whacked on the Scooby Snacks...
See their selinux page.
The antidote for misuse of freedom of speech is more freedom of speech.
-- Molly Ivins
1.) Didn't Microsoft just recently admit to not being able to release its code because it would have major (negative) effects on national security due to a major bug? (Funny how they are aware of this major bug and yet don't propose any solution to fix it -- rather, leave it so that they don't have to release their code). Isn't this admission a suggestion of the unreliability of closed source software _and_ the company which mantains it?
2.) It's unfair that the government is "subsidizing" open source (via the NSA's efforts to make a more secure Linux). But it's fair to just completely ban open source (and hence "subsidize" Microsoft by removing one of its major competitors)!? What kind of logic is that?
Just my two cents...
Han
Only 3 fu**ing days after Allchin's acknowledgment that M$ bloatware has more holes than swiss cheese?!?
I wish you good luck, my American brothers.
Quite frankly I get really angry whenever I go into my County offices (recently for a name change, also for tags, and to pick up my W2s from the ocational County job I do) and see Windows XP running there. I know they are on the new Microsoft license that everyone is bitching about.
I get very grumpy when I see my tax dollars wasted - especially on the local level, because I know of so many things here in my city that money could be going for. Then, to hear it being wasted on the federal level seems even more wasteful because I know its not in the hundred of thousands range but yet in the thousands of millions range.
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
Good grief, was it not less than two days ago that Microsoft claimed they could never release the APIs for Windows out of fear for the damage it would do to National Security? I would like to think that the cryptanalysts at the Dept of Defense would be fully versed in the fallacy of Security through Obscurity, and would make their voices heard.
The company also complained that the Pentagon is funding research on making free software more secure, which in effect subsidizes Microsoft's open-source competitors, Stenbit said.
Did I hear that right? The US government is actually contributing to the open source development? Is this news to anyone else, or am I just the last to know? I find that very exiting if it's true! That means that we will have some sympathetic ears on the inside to fight MSFT FUD. I guess it will just come down to who makes the final decidion. Honestly, how could any military computer security person actually think that using MSFT stuff is benificial to national security? Of course they know better, but unfortunatly, just like in business, it's probably the higher-ups who will make the final decision.
Sigs are out of style, so I'm not going to use one...oh wait..
Spokesman Jon Murchinson said Microsoft has been talking about how to allow open-source and proprietary software to coexist. "Our goal is to resolve difficult issues that are driving a wedge between the commercial and free software models," he said.
...
Microsoft's push is a new front in a long-running company assault on the open-source movement, which company officials have called "a cancer" and un-American. Um... isn't that, like... DIRECT contradiction? Or am I mistaken yet again? Microsoft also said open-source software is inherently less secure because the code is available for the world to examine for flaws, making it possible for hackers or criminals to exploit them. Proprietary software, the company argued, is more secure because of its closed nature.
I know this has been said before, but... isn't being able to freely expose security flaws also the key to fix them?
Danish != nationality
How the hell do these guys make so much money by wasting it like this article states?
My personal experience with the Pentagon, the Hoffman Building (Army Personnel) and National Guard Bureau is: "if MS makes anything remotely like what you need we will buy MS". It amazes me that I have been told that Apache is not acceptable because it is free, so use IIS.
Anyway, you should all think the above statements are increadibly senseless, that just accentuates my old frustration. Bottom line, MS need not waste money on a sales crew for the Pentagon, the people in the building are beating down microsoft.com to purchase IIS and MS SQL crap with their government credit cards.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
"Microsoft's push is a new front in a long-running company assault on the open-source movement, which company officials have called "a cancer" and un-American."
You shouldn't have to do more than read that to understand the ridiculousness of it
...of presenting the real issue: GPL vs. BSD and other licenses that allow proprietary forking. It's the GPL that MSFT really hates. If all I had was the article to go on, I'd get the impression that MSFT hates all free software and we know that isn't true.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
European wowen have smelly pootannies and refuse to shave. European "men" are mostly snooty fagots with bad teeth. Seriosuly, thr EU was the worst idea since the Greeks invented sodomy.
What has me truly amazed is that Microsoft is now fighting against the world. Think about it... most companies battle their competitors. Microsoft has become so big and rich that they no longer have any individual competitors. The "competition" consists of people who do good things, often for free. God forbid the government give money to people who do good things.
And, of course open source is un-American! In the sense that "American" implies elitist, exclusive, arrogant, and imperialistic.
He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send your fingerprints off to Washington."
She NEVER has anything good to say about Open Source or free crypto. She is a lapdog for the government and big corporations.
Just look at her comments on any issue and you will see her to be a clasless shill.
Go with the lowest bidder?
How does M$ expect to beat free?
=================
Unix is very user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are.
(and I am always right) :P
like this quote?
Microsoft also said open-source software is inherently less secure because the code is available for the world to examine for flaws, making it possible for hackers or criminals to exploit them. Proprietary software, the company argued, is more secure because of its closed nature.
"I've never seen a systematic study that showed open source to be more secure," said Dorothy Denning, a professor of computer science at Georgetown University who specializes in information warfare.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
The company also complained that the Pentagon is funding research on making free software more secure, which in effect subsidizes Microsoft's open-source competitors, Stenbit said.
So in other words, according to MSFT, the government should not create its own software and give it away to the public since it would be unfair competition?
Leave me out of this. I ain't goin' near that craggy skank.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
I think the best reason to encourage Linux in the gov't is Microsoft's attempt to justify closed-source Yeahhh.. The software is so insecure that the source code must be kept top-secret, but it should absolutely be used in the government. I wonder if everyone in the government has to have a Passport account, too?
And hey--isn't MS currently at court for being over-eager? Going after the gov't after that just seems like a little kid who's just gotten a spanking going right back to the cookie jar.
-Sara
Not too long ago, slashdot posted this article concerning the campaign in Peru to switch the government to free software. It had a point by point by point analysis of Microsofts FUD. I hope that somebody in the US government takes the time to think through the issue, rather then just giving in to corporate pressure. What would be even better would be to see one of our own senators or high appointed officials show that they understand the issue as well as Peruvian Congressman David Villanueva Nuñez. One can hope.
(before somebody else comes out with it)
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
"Under the iron bridge, we fist" - The Smiths, Still Ill
Okay, I haven't seen any such report like Ms. Denning has described either. I also haven't seen any report meeting her criteria saying that Microsoft makes more secure software. Note the clever bit here.
The totally truthful thing to say is that she hadn't read any studies supporting either argument. For all we know, the spin was from the Post (who is definitely NOT above doing so) by only printing a single sentence of a larger idea Ms. Denning was trying to get across.
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
At least with an open source system, they could have patched the code and moved on. But with the closed source Windows NT system, the USS Yorktown had to be towed into harbor and let the boys from Redmond check under the hood.
Thank God it was peacetime..
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If any of you follow the link provided and read the article, you'll find that the DoD is giving MS's advice exactly the (lack of) credence it's due. So before you piss yourself about supposed Bush Administration / MS collusion, just read it.
Huzzah, and thank God the good folks at the DoD are relying on solid data to make good decisions about the software used to protect the nation, and Damn MSFT for looking for growth opportunities in degrading national security by harrying them for needless proprietary expenditures & vague allusions to "legal problems".
Corporate competition is one thing, but I don't think I can say it any simpler than Keep the Fuck off our Gov't with your FUD. When it comes to the DoD, there's more at stake than your option portfolios.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
"a senior Microsoft Corp. executive [who] told a federal court last week that sharing information with competitors could damage national security and even threaten the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan. He later acknowledged that some Microsoft code was so flawed it could not be safely disclosed."
Which would be a national security threat?
And they wonder why the Pentagon is Doubtful?
It certainly doiesn't sound like something worthy of milspec regulations.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
the pentagon can examine open source code itself if it wants to vet the security of open source, bet they can't do that with microsoft code. according to earlier stories, microsoft employs foreign nationals as coders - i wonder what that does for security.
Public domain means that the copyright holders relinquish any claim that they might have.
Public domain is for those who think that the BDS licence is not free enough.
My experience with business is that curses "innovation and change" when one has to hunt back through decades of old records [and their assorted systems.]
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
Really, I would like to know if microsoft really pays the government taxes?
reason being that if they do not how come they are allowed to bid on this sofrware (ie penagon investing in something that america will not get a return on)
You mean, Dorothy "Clipper" Denning?
Spokesman Jon Murchinson said Microsoft has been talking about how to allow open-source and proprietary software to coexist. "Our goal is to resolve difficult issues that are driving a wedge between the commercial and free software models," he said. I dunno how to explain the above... Jedi Mind trick?
People will often 'purchase' free software because they wish to support the work of those who are supporting it, or because they wish to access support or other special packages that the seller makes available with a purchase.
Some companies purchase 'free' software because it makes the accounting department happier.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
What Microsoft says to the pentagon is that their software model is safer than OSS. But to Courts they say that if their code is release to the public that would a catastrophic security risk. Which is it,Safer or a Security risk?
So Microsoft is suggesting that the DOD adopted their software model and trust that no one breaks into M$ and steals their code. Hmm.
Event though the government does not have the best track record with securing their systems, I would still rather the week link be the Government and not Microsoft.
Besides I am not sure what Microsoft is trying to do here, they should know that there Software is not secure enough for certain application (at not least not now, maybe in 10 years). If the government adopted their software and they get hacked, what do you want to bet the government will storm M$ with their techs demanding to look at the source code or worse?
From the article:
Among the most high-profile efforts is research funded by the National Security Agency to develop a more secure version of the open-source Linux operating system, which competes with Microsoft's Windows.
IANAProgrammer, but I think that if the good people working on the kernel would like to contribute in a huge, meaningful way to Linux AND to national security they could put their heads together and bang out an iron-clad version of Linux, contributing to the above project and developing a superior, open-source solution that could achieve three primary goals, all very desireable.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
Write or phone your friendly neighbourhood four star general!!!
This would seem to be a dangerous game for Microsoft to play. They could easily motivate someone at the Pentagon to look closely at the bulk of it's software solutions and come to the realization that they've been paying a too much to commercial software houses.
"Sir, we can afford more HumVees if we dump Windows 2000 and use OpenBSD and Samba."
This, of course, could be dangerous for the military too. If the Pentagon doesn't issue a general order for the use of free software to be banned, I'm sure the next thing we'll read about is the BSA telling all branches of the military to complete a software audit in a very short amount of time.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
gives a whole new meaning to the term "General Protection Fault".
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
From: Mitchell Maltenfort
To: letters@washpost.com
Subject: Relax, Microsoft, NSA has approved Linux!
Jonathon Krim's 5/23 article in the Washington Post, "Open Source Fight
Flares at Pentagon," ends with John Stenbit's murky assessment that the
DoD is presently barred from using any software not approved by the NSA.
The implication of the article is that Microsoft lobbying has contributed
to this position. Well, I would like to point Messrs. Krim, Stenbit and Gates, and anyone
else interested in a secure and reliable operating system, to a useful
URL: http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/. This site is where the NSA provides
Linux, optimized for security issues. If I may quote the web site, "Linux
was chosen...because its growing success and open development environment
provided an opportunity to demonstrate that this functionality can be
successful in a mainstream operating system and, at the same time,
contribute to the security of a widely used system."
So relax, gents. The NSA has approved Linux for your use.
nt
What about the intellectual-property rights of the open source community? Just because something is open-source and non-profit does not mean it's not protectected by intellectual-property rights.
Dorthy Denning is the biggest kisass in academi...
...
"I've never seen a systematic study that showed open source to be more secure," said Dorothy Denning,
After her "trust me, it's secure" quotes supporting Clipper/capstone, I can reach no other conclusion than Dorothy Denning is a political whore.
A dingo ate my sig...
Now Microsoft believes it's important to confirm that assumption and perpetuate the trend.
"We had a lock on the missiles, sir, then the screen turned blue."
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
By Microsoft lobbying hard to keep the department of defense using MS software, from a socio-political point of view? I mean, what better way to lobby congress or the judicial system to protect Microsoft from the law than to ensure Windows is used in critical national security functions? In fact, what better way to control government period than to ensure they use your software for their classified, even critically secret operations?
Go Lakers!
And when they pay for software, the government isn't subsidizing the producer?
The government funded research on security is available to everyone - Microsoft included.
When they fund research on faster planes, only a few companies gain the benefit.
They aren't likely to stop doing either.
-- this is not a
Nothing a user of Microsoft software can do, developer or otherwise, can possibly obligate Microsoft in the slightest. It's impossible. As impossible as trying to come up with a scenario where I somehow create a legal obligation for you based on the posting you just created.
I can make a derivative work with your posting and try to Open Content it, but all the means is that I had no right to Open Content your post in the first place. Nothing I do can aquire those rights by fiat. Nothing I do can obligate you without your consent.
This line from Microsoft angers me, because it goes beyond FUD, beyond number juggling, beyond threats, beyond monopolistic manipulation. It's not FUD, it's another three-letter word you may be familiar with: L I E . It's a flat-out lie. And they know it.
This should go over really well, especially after MS just admitted that their code was "so flawed that it could be a threat to national security".
So the software which is so flawed that it couldn`t possibly be open sourced, because of the huge amount of vulnerabilities which would be immediately found... Is supposed to be more secure than software which is ALREADY opensourced, and yet less vulnerabilities are being found than are being found in the aforementioned closedsource software without having access to the code.
If opensource software is less secure than microsoft`s software, then why arent more holes being found?
Surely if microsoft`s code were more secure, there would be no harm in opening up the source, afterall the potential hackers already have access to the source of supposedly less-secure software and aren`t finding many vulnerabilities. They seem to be contradicting themselves, unfortunately the people buying into this crap only ever see the story which is made for them.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
desperation! What? MS can't sell their crap on merit? MS can't compete with the poor little commie hackers on the basis of quality and cost? MS has to FUD (woo, new verb!) to make the competition look worse in order to look better in comparison?
Yes, the end is in sight, boyos! In five years it won't be "MicroSoft" it'll be "MicroWho?"
WooHoo! Maybe Bill and Steve will be a gratious losers and buy the beer for a world-wide victory party and hand out "Micro Who?" t-shirts.
Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
My question is, under the GPL, will they have to tell us what modifications they made?
From GPL:
What could the NSA do to compel them to show us what modifications they made?
There have been more than one such study published. They usually include bugs reports for all software packages that come on a Linux distributions CD's rather than just the OS, but often separate out Internet Explorer bugs from MS Windows bugs even though the manufacturer claims that it is part of the operating system. To compare apples to apples they would also have to include MS Office bugs in the report as well as IIS, Back Office servers, Indexing service, etc. However I have also read a study from a small consulting firm which seemed to make too rosy of assumptions in favor of Linux.
It really would be nice to see an independent committee write a report comparing only the OS portions. After all if the Army or NSA are going to use Linux for a beowulf supercomputer or echelon analyzer they probably won't be running Gnumeric, Abiword and a thousand other half finished pieces of software on it.
Off course Microsoft is trying to sell their products
4 &m ode=thread&order=0
that is what a comercial company does.
News getting more and more *sucked* here and more
and more about **our* battle with Microsoft.
Man i really do not care i already knew they where selling software. Instead of bringing us this crap you could have given us:
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=609
Lazzy Slassers
Microsofts going out with a hell of a show but in the end they will be out of business because the truth is out that their software is full of holes and a threat to National Security. Bill Gates is like a snake trying to wiggle out of the coming penaltys to be imposed on the Beast and the Judge in the case is not buying his load of shit. The Government is full of geeks who have been wanting to get rid of that CrashWare of Microsoft for some time. To Bad Bill Gates go on home the DOD has work to do like defending the United States and they do not have time for your horseshit. The Government is finally getting it and in the end their networks will be secure by using Open and Free GNU Linux and they are going to save a lot of $$$. Bill Gates has gone "Mad" what is he thinking going up to the DOD just after Microsoft testified in court that their software is so insecure that it could endanger National Security and trying to push his insecure software on the DOD. Bill did you try to sell them on the Enterprise Extortion Plan did not work for the schools and it is not going to work for the DOD.
Little news tidbits like these ones actually explain why there's been a steady trickle of those bizarre, off the wall, statements and comments, from Ballmer, Gates, and other senior Microsoft officers. You know -- the comments like open source being some demonic spawn of Vladimir Il'ich Lenin; or Richard Stallman invading your corporate vaults and stealing your company secrets, etc... etc... etc...
/. can actually put a monetary amount on how much it actually is, if there's anybody in the world who has a pretty good idea how much revenue Microsoft is losing because of Linux, it must be Gates, Ballmer, and the rest of Microsoft's upper echelon.
I do believe that Open Source software, and Linux specifically, are taking a bigger, and bigger chunk out of Microsoft's revenues. Not much, in fact it's rather piddly; but it's still noticeable. And it's growing. Although few people on
And I think they're getting scared.
That may be a bit self-serving or presumptious, and with 40 billion in the bank they clearly don't have much to worry about. Still, I think they have to have at least a mild case of indigestion.
There's nothing in this story that really should surprise anyway. So the feds, and the spooks, are using Linux, sometimes in a quite visible, and mission-critical way. So? That's nothing earth-shattering. And that's precisely what's giving Ballmer and Co the problem. Linux has traction. Not just the feds. Linux has traction in big corporate America. SIAC - the folks who run the networks for the stock exchanges, have cut over some mission-critical functionality over to Linux. Look at the classifieds ads in New York City, from big financial firms. There's a small trickle of open job reqs for hackers with Linux experience.
Gates, Ballmer, and Co, are seeing this as well as the next guy, and they just don't know what to do about it. That's what's scaring them. It's one thing when you have a well-defined opponent to do battle with. But how do you define the opponent here? Microsoft can't clearly define who their opponent here is. There's no single company to purchase, spread FUD about, or drag into court over some frivolous intellectual issue, in order to bleed them with legal fees.
So, all you can do is to try to FUD your way against Linux in general. But each time you'll try to go with a generic FUD campaign, your arguments can be easily shut down with a single, specific, counterexample of Linux's success in a mission-critical role. There's enough case history out there now to be able to point to, as a counterargument to FUD.
Microsoft is clearly struggling, trying to figure out a focused, targeted, anti-Linux campaign, and failing each time. Notice how they no longer claim that Linux isn't ready for mission-critical roles. That didn't work. Now they're claiming that using Linux puts your intellectual property in jeopardy. That can't last much longer. They still can't come up with a specific example, and only talk about in generalities; furthermore with Sun and HP putting Linux APIs into their respectives *nixes, the notion that Sun and HP have intentionally put their intellectual property in jeopardy is a bit difficult to swallow.
So, I don't think the intellectual property FUD has much more left in it, and it will slowly disappear over time. So, what's the next FUD attack? I don't know. Neither does Ballmer, or Gates. And that's what's scaring them.
Microsoft's push is a new front in a long-running company assault on the open-source movement, which company officials have called "a cancer" and un-American.
That's pretty low, even for Microsoft. Does anyone have a link to where this was said? Seems to be capitalizing on the Sept 11th attacks, even.
Spokesman Jon Murchinson said Microsoft has been talking about how to allow open-source and proprietary software to coexist. "Our goal is to resolve difficult issues that are driving a wedge between the commercial and free software models," he said...
... Microsoft's push is a new front in a long-running company assault on the open-source movement, which company officials have called "a cancer" and un-American.
Gee, I wonder where that wedge could be coming from?
Microsoft or the Government?
In this case, if you believe neither, it translates to, yes Microsoft did lobby the Pentagon to move to wipe out free software, and yes, the DoD did strike a deal with them. Certain agencies and and projects may be granted exemptions, but I think we've just seen a major Microsoft victory.
who days ago TESTIFIED before a FEDERAL JUDGE that their software was so insecure that releasing the source would be a threat to national security.
I swear they get dumber by the day...
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
Promote Linux as the premier OS for security. It's already good - make it damn near perfect.
Linux isn't engineered, developers' scrath their itches, if lots of people care about really high end security, it will get done, otherwise it wont.
Provide our nation's defense infrastructure with an open-source secure OS. The DoD is a BIG customer - keep them happy.
While the more linux users the better, no developers care about specific countries or how big a user might be.
Less importantly, shame the fuck out of MSFT. Prove these dicks wrong while they're still patching IE security holes twice a month.
There have been more events than you can shake a stick at where MS screwed themselves over, Linux just needs to be good in order to make MS look like a fool.
Also I should advise you that 1) the NSA has their own version of linux is has extra security stuff, and two, don't forget about *BSD. OpenBSD hasn't had a remote root exploit in 4 years or something.
Only dead fish swim with the stream...
Good God! These corporations only care about making money!
Please get over yourselves.
Stop eating my hands.
Normally we could allow normal market forces to
wind MS down over the next several years.
However with the Nation under attack we cannot
allow Microsoft sieveware to put America at risk.
For reasons of National Security Microsoft must
be abandoned en masse.
There have been cases before where politics, not best use dictate what software to use. The federal govt. own regs (so I have been told by people who sell into that biz) prohibit the Federal govt. from standardizing on a platform. They must choose the best platform for the job. MS has succesfully used the tactic, they tried to use at the Pentagon, for years on other OS vendors (Apple mainly.)
Linux needs to keep its eye out. Redmond now has the largest lobbying operation in Washington D.C. The current generation of congressman to grow up in the information age, as many of us have.
Now I'm not sure, but it looks to me that both MS and their buddies at the BSA are advertising for us now. They had better freshen up their FUD, cuz it seems to be backfiring.
A steaming cup of soykaf would be real wiz right now.
...after all, if there's one organization that has a reputation for spedning lots of money when it doesn't need to, it's the US government. :)
Interesting. Thank you.
For once I'm rather relieved that Big Brother is watching...and realizing the point, and even helping the cause. Go USA.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
What kind of user do you get out of a Microsoft environment (hint:DUMB) compared to the kind of user you get form a Linux environment (hint:Skilled).
The government should realise that not only they themselves should be using Linux but also their citizens because they will be better skilled as a result.
Microsoft is in decline, their revolution has past. As much as I am an Apple evangelist, I would admit that it was Microsoft that comoditized the GUI interface.
But thats the point : anyone can do it now.
There is a choice : closed expensive box where anything could happen inside OR open software that the government could use with their own ammendments / additions. And save money.
If you look into the issue, the argument MSFT have is with GPL, not open source. The argument is that the government has previously stated that they encourage the commercialisation of public research. If the public research is done under GPL, that makes commercialisation more complex (though not impossible). Which as an argument, while debatable, certainly has its merits.
So, agree or disagree as you will, but make sure you are agreeing or disagreeing with the right thing!
If you listen to MS if I deveop a GPL program on a win platform and give it to you you can demand i give you the win souce code.
I can happily puncture puffery from either side but it gives me the absolute shits when people out and out lie about this stuff.
"A Microsoft Corp. spokesman...also said Microsoft did not focus on potential security flaws."
As if we didn't already know that!
Those who can, do. Those who can't, write technology blogs.
Here's dorthy denning's email address, send her a note
about the FUD she was sending about Opensource security.
snicker.............
denning@georgetown.edu
Stenbit is either very confused or deliberately misleading when he gives the impression that releasing publically funded software for free is analogous to preferring one company over another. Playing favorites with companies is generally not acceptable for the government (even if various administrations like to do it for their buddies in the corporate world).
But open source software is not a commercial "competitor" to Microsoft. If the public pays for the development of software, the public should get it for free. If that nixes one of Microsoft's business models, that's just too bad.
Otherwise, if we follow down that reasoning, what is next? Companies will start complaining that because the government funds police services, it unfairly competes with private security companies? They'll complain that if the government builds roads, it unfairly competes with private roads?
We, the people, get to choose what services we believe should be provided by the government. The private sector is free to pick up the rest.
Sorry, I just realized that this wasn't Stenbit's opinion--he was just relating Microsoft's statements. My apologies. My criticism of the position itself still stands.
As far as I know, GNU ADA is the only full implimentation of the ADA language of which there is no proprietary equivilant. If Microsoft wants to remove the need to use free software, maybe they should consider providing a compettive full implimentation of ADA as part of their developer studio. :)
Microsoft might write into its licenses "you may not run open source software on our platforms". That's Microsoft's choice. Such a provision may or may not hold up in court. They may or may not be able to put such a provision into a Pentagon contract when it comes to contractual negotiations (the Pentagon may simply say "no, thanks").
But I don't see the "murk". Either Microsoft puts such provisions into the contract or not. What other "murky" issues are there supposed to be? And who, other than Microsoft, is to blame for making the issues "murky"?
Always making a big fuss over something so small. You know you should stop surfing in your office and started working for a change...
Maybe this is the time for Sun to have more implications with the Linux Support.
Just one Proposal:
o Make one "Sun Trusted Linux distribution"
-0
bryam
if the good people working on the kernel would like to contribute [...] to national security
Don't forget, many of the kernel hackers you mention are not US citizens. If they contribute to Linux security, they aren't contributing to any one nation's national security, but all takers equally.
Jonathan Shapiro, developer of Eros is quoted towards the end of the article. I thought that was cool, since I've had my eye on Eros for a long time. I don't know if it will ever go anywhere, but it sure is cool technology.
You had me at "dicks fuck assholes".
This is laughable! The Navy Research Laboratory recruited me because of my expertise in Linux and QT to work on a hush hush program. They needed stable and powerful platform that can handle the job. It took them 3 months but they finally settle on Linux. Why in gods name would they switch to a Microsoft platform now? Microsoft is becoming really desperate...I say to them go fix you highly touted windows 2000 or whatever you want to call it because it too crash, daily I might add. People don't like to see desperation, maybe because desperate people tend to rationalize irrational things, and Microsoft reeks of desperation.
-----
One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
RHCE is one of the better programs out there - LPI, I'm not so familiar with. (But I've heard good things about it.)
What I was saying is that the MCSE program has way better brand recognition than anything Linux has to offer. Everybody's heard of it and frankly, outside of slashdot, it's rarely something to be ridiculed for.
My point was, there's a lot of people out there who are really qualified in Linux who are not certified in any manner. (Are RMS, Linus Torvalds and Alan Cox certified?)
Plus, making MCSEs into dogfood would be cruel. No dog deserves that...
Cheers,
Jim in Tokyo
-- My Weblog.
aren't contributing to any one nation's national security, but all takers equally.
I hear Al-queda is finally fed up with security leaks from their use of Microsoft software and are switching over to 100% open-source.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Your clients must think it's really funny when they realise that sometimes your employees cannot read the MS office mail attachments and that the layout and fonts of the "MS Office compatible" files you send back are totally fucked.
Oh, but I guess you don't allow clients who use Microsoft products either...
Can you please show me something like massive migration of windows shops to Linux? It's UNIX shops that migrate. Scott McNealy should experience "mild case of indigestion", not Ballmer or Gates. More and more people pull the plug on old Sun servers and upgrade to racks of Compaq DL360's with linux on them.
Microsoft's primary cash cows are desktop OS'es, Office and Business apps. Linux is present in NONE of these areas (and don't expect it anytime soon).
So stop dreaming, get your ass to the ground!
Spokesman Jon Murchinson said Microsoft
has been talking about how to allow
open-source and proprietary software to
coexist. "Our goal is to resolve difficult
issues that are driving a wedge between the
commercial and free software models,"
(Fourty-three Microsoft Marketing Managers in the background immediatly jump up and start pointing at themselves, laughing, and calling eachother "difficult issues")
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
This i just a question, in the mury area (maybe it's crystal clean, but i can't see it).
Let's use the same case, where some goodies use a GPL part and a propietary part (closed source, but source still). Can't the just make a patch to the GPL proyect and distribute to whoever they want? So those other guys can patch the GPL version with the file and compile for "private use"?
I mean, is it completely against the law to make a patch for some GPL app, and distribute to whoever i need? It's my file and I am NOT using any GPL code yet. Do i have the freedom to publish such a patch?
Well, as always GPL questions are not popular (and the usual answer is "RTF GPL License") but i am curious. I don't know but then just a patch file that added a sprint("hello"); at line 100 could be a "patch" to a GPLd source.
unfinished: (adj.)
Let's use the same case, where some goodies use a GPL part and a propietary part (closed source, but source still). Can't the just make a patch to the GPL proyect and distribute to whoever they want? So those other guys can patch the GPL version with the file and compile for "private use"?
Yes, they can do that. But the guys who patch the GPL file and compile for private use cannot then distribute that composite work without either honoring the GPL (which gives them the right to distribute the covered work at all), and so passing along all the source code for the composite work, or obtaining some other kind of license (presumably negotiated separately) that would otherwise allow them to distribute the GPL'ed code.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
A couple of things spring to mind. First:
My first reaction to this was "Suuure." But then it occurred to me that the word "systematic" is key. Have there been any systematic studies of security in open- vs. closed-source programs? I mean academic quality research -- with control groups, a clearly defined method for testing the security, with the results published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Emphasis added.
So, the DoD can't purchase any untested software, hey? Well great! They can have all the open source stuff they want, no purchase necessary. Obviously the regulation is in place to keep the government from using untested software, but I'll bet it was written with the assumption that you can't legally use software you haven't paid for. Open source distribution schemes don't require payment, which opens up a loophole. I wonder, could that be why open source systems have come to play a "critical role" at the DoD, as the article mentioned?
get off the Oil.
Do those two things and the World is a safe and
better place.
Actually, Open Source Programs work at a distinct DISADVANTAGE !
You see, anything that's classified, theoretically can be UN-classified by the FOI act.
CLOSED SOURCED programs work the same way as the classified information - whatever the government doesn't want you to know, they will black them out.
But with OPEN SOURCE PROGRAMS, no matter how the large the portion of the source the government has blacken out, we can still find the rest of the source - provided the thing complies with the spirit of GPL - on the Net somewhere.
That of course doesn't count those programs that are copyrighted under BSD or all those non-GPL licenses.
And there's no guarantee that the government will honor the GPL spirit either.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
... with what they said a few days ago?
I seem to remember a prior experience the navy had... I think it involved something like an aircraft carrier or some huge super-battleship or something of the sort -- whatever it was, the ship was big and had a lot of people on it.
I remember the story being something like all the ships computers were running some sort of windows NT, which crashed horribly -- in the middle of the ocean -- and effectively turned the ship off. I can't remember the solution to the problem, but I sure do remember laughing a lot.
Seems like someone at the pentagon should have the balls to turn around to MS and say something along the lines of "Yeah? Well, remember the USS Whatever incident?" the next time they call. That should shut 'em up. (either that or "Yeah, but now it crashes all the vital systems TWICE as fast!")
oh, I just found the link... it's an AEGIS cruiser, back in 1997...
Microsoft's push is a new front in a long-running company assault on the open-source movement, which company officials have called "a cancer" and un-American.
So sharing something of value is un-American? Now I'll have to rethink *everything* my parents and preschool/kindergarten teachers told me. No more coins from me in the Salvation Army pot this Christmas, no more cookies for my kiddo's class on his birthday, and anyone bugging me with questions like "what's a taskbar" will have to pay up! Lordy, I have seen the light!
Do you think Bill Gates can bring peace in the Middle East after the war starts? Can he make a statue talk? Will he defile the Temple on the Mount?
"Our goal is to resolve difficult issues that are driving a wedge between the commercial and free software models,"
Microsoft's push is a new front in a long-running company assault on the open-source movement, which company officials have called "a cancer" and un-American.
Perhaps the Pentagon should hire a certain Peruvian politician to be a flapper and field the FUD...
Chuck Norris: Socialism == a thousand years of darkness.
WHAT A COINCIDENCE!!!1! I read Slashdot and I LIKE STAR WARES 2!! How about that cute princess with the funny lipstick? HUBBA HUBBA!
First, in the scientific and medical communities, ideas and mistakes are reviewed by unbiased peers.
Second, security is a vague term. Every organization has their own levels of security, just as a desktop does not need the security of a website.
We know how secure Linux is because we can look inside it and decide for ourselves. We don't know about the security of Windows and every time an evaluation is made they have totally rewritten the OS. They should allow a government elected unbiased group to review their code. (Certainly not the Gartner group or other consultants in Microsoft's pockets)
Are the extra "bells, whistles, and promises" worth it if you're uncertain if you can steer and brake?
I'm picturing a line of patter something like this- imagine it delivered in a sort of Mafiosi tone:
"There's a problem- you see, we think there's a security hole in the software YOU use. It's very distressing. The trouble is, we just can't CONCENTRATE very well with this open source stuff around- how can we expect to pay people to fix security holes if you're going cut our legs out from under us like that? And gee, maybe we won't be ABLE to fix this suspected security hole unless you manage to reassure us by making a policy against any type of open source software. We're on YOUR side, now how can we work if you're not on ours?"
To what extent is Microsoft threatening the government? Lord knows they've been threatening the judiciary with all sorts of things. How deep does their treachery go? Would they give information about Windows backdoors to foreign intelligence to make good on a veiled threat? It would be really stupid to assume their interests coincide with the United States of America, so the government spooks and military decisionmakers had better do some risk analysis here.
It should be quite obvious that countries like Germany would prefer software that did not have special facilities to improve the "National Security" of some other nation, how ever friendly. And large companies might view the matter in a similar way, considering all the rumours of American government leaking info to American companies...
Is that what those things are for? I thought they were for football and keggers.
What I was saying is that the MCSE program has way better brand recognition than anything Linux has to offer. Everybody's heard of it and frankly, outside of slashdot, it's rarely something to be ridiculed for.
/.
I've been writing software in PHP for an employment agency for the last year. I have had to work closely with our employment consultants to see how they work, what they think is important to know about candidates, vacancies and companies. None of them read
When our IT staff hear about someone with an MCSE their immediate reaction is "Get to the back of the queue with all the others."
MCSE may have incredible brand recognition, but that works against it being useful to employers. Everyone knows about it, it's marketed as the must-have qualification, so a candidate spends the money, spends some time, and as long as they have a certain IQ level, an MCSE comes out of the 'certification' slot on the Microsoft machine. Result - millions of MCSEs.
The first thing employers care about is work experience. They can call your last employer and ask how good you were. In 30 seconds they can make a decision. The second most important facto they consider is your real tertiary qualifications.
Last and least are the one-day courses, the part-time courses, and the MCSEs.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
Find something productive to do with your time, and yes, I do see the irony of this post.
free the mallocs!
Oh YEAH? What about my Sinclair ZX-80 which is hasn't been powered on for TWENTY-FIVE years, and is sitting in a bank vault SURROUNDED BY ARMED GUARDS??? ON THE MOON!!! What about that, smart guy?
HEY! You used the right "its"! Get off Slashdot!
Imagine buying that nice chunk of Hardware for $199 and being able to actually do something useful with it ... and the best part is, that MS is losing money on every sale. And that project is actually underway.
...
That only leaves to figure out what to use it for. The thing has an ethernet port, the gameports can probably be used as USB-ports given the right adapters, and there's Video/Audio out
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
I love it when 10 year olds figure out how to use a compuer. They always say such fascinating things.
You assume that all engineers are familiar with the workings of Apache and Linux. There's always a "learning curve" associated with going to work on something new. I'm sure the best people to do the work are actually the Apache and Linux developers, but who says they're available to go and work for your company? I'm not dissing Linux, Free and Open Source Software, just pointing out a flaw in your argument.
I'm out of my tree just now but please feel free to leave a banana.
They'd be aiming it at the guy down the road!
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
"Banning open source would have immediate, broad, and strongly negative impacts on the ability of many sensitive and security-focused DOD groups to protect themselves against cyberattacks," said the report, by Mitre Corp.
I was going to suggest that Mitre was soon going to become a 'research' dept of Msft, but can't find their public stock listing. Uh oh, can't buy them out - that only leaves bribes and threats.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
From Scientific American:
In the UK, if you mix some clasical music more than 50 years old, you hold the copyright on the mix of the music, but the original is in the public domain.
By that logic, version 0.0.1 -> version 0.2.4 might be public domain but
version 0.2.5 -> version 1.0.0 might not be.
If you can identify code snipits in 1.0.0 that come straight from version 0.0.1 -> version 0.2.4 they are also public domain.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
(I will answer my self so those who accused me of elitism all see the answer together)
If you want to use Windoze for games : go ahead, but do you want the government workers doing this too ?
Isn't the whole topic here about MS lobbying the Government to say that their own expensive and closed software is beter ?
WHAT IF some government has someone working at Microsoft putting little back doors in the software for them ??
If you can't see the source you don't know whats in it.
If you look at my comment, it does not say which OS is best. It does in fact say that there is a choice and that one of them is cheaper than the other and that as a result of using (say) Linux, you will have a better understanding of how things work.
I have Win XP at home, SuSE Linux, YellowDog Linux and (my favourite) Mac OS X.
XP is for office admin,
Linux for learning (Java, C etc)
and Mac OS X for creativity. Now that Photoshops and GoLive are both native : I am back to being productive.
The fuzz paper Barton Miller was one of the first papers to show the quality of GNU tools compared to their commerical counterparts.
Papers at:
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~bart/fuzz/fuzz.html
Unload your stocks! Man the lifeboats!
"I've never seen a systematic study that showed open source to be more secure," said Dorothy Denning, a professor of computer science at Georgetown University who specializes in information warfare."
So has Prof. Denning ever seen any systematic study that showed the opposite ? Or any systematic study at all ? This sounds like a careful lie by omission.
"Stenbit said that the debate is academic and that what matters is how secure a given piece of software is. To that end, the Defense Department is now prohibited from purchasing any software that has not undergone security testing by the NSA. Stenbit said he is unaware of any open-source software that has been tested."
Snag is, much open source software doesn't need to be 'purchased'. So is this a very meaningful restriction ?
Cut the power cord.
This is the part of equation most companies don't seem to understand. It is inspiring to think that, just maybe, someone in the US govement 'gets' it.
Microsoft just claimed it was - and got away with it. :-(
:-(
The key person who did the tests was Ed Curry, and only NT 3.5, service pack 3 got the certification. 3.51 could have gotten it easily in Ed's opinion, but it was never tested. 4.0 failed, badly. (It eventually managed to get a British rating that Microsoft claimed was equivalent - after 6 service packs.)
But Microsoft advertising said that 4.0 had passed, government people called it, and Microsoft methodically destroyed Ed's life until he died of a heart attack.
the MS security month???
Was it a worthless MS effort or was it just a hoax?
To get an A level, you neede a proovably correct os or something. My understanding is that Harris made some sort of a switch that got this rating.
This was years ago.
-- ac at home
Yeah, that GPL just rips the crotch right out of Microsoft's knickers, doesn't it?
Promote Linux as the premier OS for security. It's already good - make it damn near perfect.
BSD is good. Redhat gets rooted in 6 hours. That's not good.
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
...businesses are now making pitches to their potential clients, and are trying to discourage them from using their competitors' products.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Comment removed based on user account deletion
OK..Let me get this straight. M$ is trying to
get the pentagon to switch from it's current
systems to a closed proprietary system from a company who isn't known for it's great security.
during a time in which we are on high alert
and facing terrorist threats.
I cant even begin to comprehend how M$ would
be able pull this off.
If the government is not allow to buy software unless the NSA tests it. Then they can use free open-source. They haven't bought anything. I smell a loop hole.
:o)
Anonymous Coward.
The company also complained that the Pentagon is funding research on making free software more secure, which in effect subsidizes Microsoft's open-source competitors, Stenbit said.
In related news, the Salvation Army is suing the US Government over it's Welfare program.
"How are we supposed to keep America out of poverty when we have all this free competition? It it really fair to put us up against the money of the american people?"
...point to their software's excellent track record with the DoD.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
This is Microsoft's Annual Report (publicly available) as of Sept 18, 2001.
_ ma in.asp?dcn=0001032210-01-501099
http://www.edgar-online.com/bin/edgardoc/finSys
According to it, they paid this:
$ 4,106 in 1999
$ 4,854 in 2000
$ 3,804 in 2001
These numbers are in MILLIONS of dollars, so read it 4.1 billion, 4.8 billion and 3.8 billion.
"I've never seen a systematic study that showed open source to be more secure," said Dorothy Denning, a professor of computer science at Georgetown University who specializes in information warfare.
Anyone? Anyone?
"I've never seen a systematic study that showed open source to be more secure," said Dorothy Denning, a professor of computer science at Georgetown University who specializes in information warfare."
Dorothy, please report to the chancellor's office to sign your resignation papers.
PegQuin--I've got a sneakin' suspicion
Microsoft might write into its licenses "you may not run open source software on our platforms".
By all means pile on restrictions as to how people are allowed to use your products. Its yet another argument in favor classifing Microsoft products as "legacy". Since they've maxed out the desktop market we can expect to see Microsoft act more and more like the Scientologists.
The smart thing for them to do is to diversify in such a way that they are not abusing their desktop monopoly. If they play their cards right, they could get out of trouble with the government....permanently.....Shrub won't be around to shield them forever. And they could still continue to grow their revenues albeit at a less incredible rate. I don't expect them to be smart. I expect them to do things like bully school districts and like the Scientologists again fire howitzers at their feet.
Their ankle deep in the water now. If they start drowning, let's throw 'em an anvil. Nasty political campaign style ads with them admitting their software is unsafe at any speed to get out of antitrust charges would be a good start.
Yes, the NSA Linux security patches are visible right on the front page of the NSA site. That does not mean it has been tested nor audited (not that auditing without source code is a useful exercise).
1: given that the NSA is working with the Linux community then we might conclude that they have been checking it out.
2: if you can download it for free you haven't purchased it.
3: given the number of security flaws in Microsoft products, either the NSA is wholly incompetent or they haven't checked out the Microsoft products. And the government shouldn't be buying it.
In this case the key is what is meant by "distribution". I can take GPL code, mix it up with some evil evil Nazi proprietary code, and run it with ZERO legal liability on my own machine. If I run my own network, I can probably use this solely on my own network. If I have company I can /probably/ still do this. If I have satellite offices I need to distribute it to, /maybe/ I can do this. If I am an international organization that I want to spread this code to...
At some point a line is drawn and what is happening is officially called "distribution". This is the fuzzy part, and probably will be left up to somebody filing a suit (like was recently done against some company that included GPLed code in a proprietary product - sorry I don't recall the company/product) and up to the courts to decide whether the defendent was actually "distributing".
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Does Microsoft really need more money??
I sure as hell don't want my tax dollars going to those fuckers in Redmond. That about says it all.
In the article it states, "Stenbit said he is unaware of any open-source software that has been tested." by the NSA. My question is this, how could the NSA start a project to create a more secure version of Linux if it had not tested the system thoroughly? Open source systems are really be the only systems that can be thoroughly tested as it is the only one that can be examined given that the alternatives will not allow examination of the source code. The argument of microsoft is merely a reiteration of that fact. If a craker can examine source code for flaws to exploit then a hacker can examine the same code to make it more secure. If no one is able to examine the source code then no one will know of the flaws until it is too late.
If The Powers That Be at the Pentagon had a sense of humour...
~~swirly effect~~
MSFT Rep: Open source software isn't safe to use, threatens the concept of intellectual property, is antithetical to the government's stated policy that moneymaking applications should develop from government-funded research, and possibly violates our EULA. We demand that the Pentagon only use proprietary software.
John Stenbit: Sure. We'll change everything to Solaris and Oracle. Happy?
MSFT Rep: (sob)
/*drunk.. fix later*/
> This line from Microsoft angers me, because ...
This isn't "from Microsoft"... at least it's not attributed to them. It's from the "CIO" of the DOD!! Wonder how much MSFT stock he owns?
Now, I'm Canadian, and the Canadian government hasn't shown a lot of real interest in Linux (although I do know a lot of departments are using it and don't know it) but I'm glad to see the Pentagon is expanding it's use (and hopefully will continue to).
If you've ever written some open source software, take the time to be thankful that your good idea is finally scaring the crap out of the folks in Redmond. That GIF of the Penguin squashing the MS compound is becoming more and more a reality. ;)
"It's here, but no one wants it." - The Sugar Speaker
...is a long time officer of the Navy and works closely with the rather large IT staff at his base. In our discussions over the past year he has been telling me how more and more of their systems have been migrated to Linux, and that the entirety of the IT staff has been recieving Redhat training. He also reports that the Navy has plucked quite a few crackers out of federal prison to assist them in securing these new systems. The same reports (concerning Linux migration) echo from my friend in the Army.
This development is nothing new to the rest of the government. I can only hope that those in charge of the migration decisions have read congressman Nueva's brilliant peice of literature on the topic.
--
"Windows - The Pinto of the 21st century"
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
The DoD gets all sorts of technologies and equipment from their private sector contractors, from planes and tanks to software and shoes ... some works, some doesn't. MS is no different here than any other contractor who's product is pretty much so-so on quality....OK for day-to-day applications, but not good enough to trust anybody's life to. Along comes a better, cheaper product from someone else, and they start whining and bitching and fighting to keep the contract. They can't say how much better their product is because if it were actually better, the DoD wouldn't be considering a switch in the first place. So, bad-mouth the competition, hope they buy it and hope you keep the contract.
The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
Actually, not included in that figure are stock options and other accounting oddities. I wish I had the cites, but a semi-recent study put Microsofts true taxes paid at around the zero to a few million mark.
Also, the Patriot act retroactively (15 years worth) opened up a slew of previously closed tax loopholes. So now Microsoft can refile for massive REFUNDS. Do a quick google search on 'patriot act' and 'AMT' for in depth reading.
Spokesman Jon Murchinson said Microsoft has been talking about how to allow open-source and proprietary software to coexist. "Our goal is to resolve difficult issues that are driving a wedge between the commercial and free software models," he said.
Sure they are. That's why they created that garbage about the "IP crippling" license with the latest CIFS specs.
Never underestimate the power of an out-of-context quotation.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Pity poor M$'s dilemna. If they sit back and do nothing, that will appear as tacit approval. Any arguments have to be FUD, which raises eyebrows, and may even work for a while, but when the truth is shown to be otherwise, their credibility drops. Either way, they lose. Sort of like a dam: do nothing, and the water comes down the river. Dam it, and you stop it for a while, but eventually the water comes down anyway, just faster. The water always comes down the river one way or the other.
Infuriate left and right
It's really funny that Microsoft keeps calling open source software a virus. Have they looked at themself?
Microsoft software is everywhere. But once it's in your company, the evil empire can:
- force you to pay maintenance fees or pay much higher costs
- change their EULA
- provide buggy patches
- leave open security holes
- dictate what they think is important for everyone
- lie to you
- pressure you away from exploring other alternatives
- tell you what you should be thinking (open source sucks, etc.. etc.. while if that were so true it would be obvious)
- jack the price of their office suite which everyone depends on
- make your new computer feel like 2 year old hardware
- make you pay a tax most places you buy a new computer
They are in a whining phase right now. More than ever! I'm picturing the walls of their empire developing cracks. Five years ago I never would have thought it would happen, but.. they're going down.
Ok, if there haven't been any good (valid, reliable) studies done on the relative security and merits of Open Source software, perhaps Denning, the alleged security specialist since whenever, should do one. She's got the credentials, and more than likely the knowhow. People would listen if she spoke on the subject (perhaps a bad thing). But probably she's just not interested...
...in which case, she should keep her mouth shut. Ad Verecundiam fallacy, anyone?
Interrobang, wishing I had the wherewithal to do it myself -- any takers?
I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.
A friend of mine has worked in HR for several years. She tells me there is a magic question that a former employer can truthfully answer without fear of legal repercussions, and it will tell a prospective employer all they need to know:
"Is this person eligible for re-hire?"
It may be due to my foreign origin, but could somebody explain me why the Pentagon listens to Microsoft when they criticize a competitor?
How could they trust any word of Microsoft?
How could they publicly accept to hear only one side of the story without at least pretending to be fair and schedule an appointment with pro Open-Source/Free-Software parties?
The fight is unfair and everybody seems to accept it.
I wish there were an OS/FS fund for advertising; I would love to see a full page anti-Microsoft advertising in all the major newspapers, just to show Microsoft that OS/FS can fight on the same grounds and harm them with facts.
But OS/FS are not meant to raise money, just for trying to do as good software as possible or as many free software as possible.
Could that - with the enthusiasts of OS/FS - be enough to convince government agencies and private companies and counter Microsoft propaganda?
It doesn't have to be a massive shift from using MS
to using open source. Death by a million little holes
will do very nicely.
Just today I read where IBM has a new contract with
Sherwin-Williams on linux.
Yes Sun is nervous.
Microsoft is also getting nervous.
Microsoft has to grow or it will die. Like a ponzi
scheme, this house of cards will soon fall.
When I read about stories like this the impression I get is that Microsoft is desperate and is fighting a war they cannot win.
The best way to respond to Microsoft when they are in this position is to ignore them. By that I mean don't communicate with them. Refuse to take their phone calls, ignore email messages, throw faxes into the circular file, assuming of course that you have the power and authority to do so. This will have the effect of demoralizing the Microsoft employees tasked with preventing you from using non-MS products. This in turn will inhibit their ability to do this to others as well. At the end of the day anything that causes a Microsoftie to do a bad job is a good thing.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Article says:
The company also complained that the Pentagon is funding research on making free software more secure, which in effect subsidizes Microsoft's open-source competitors, Stenbit said.
I am a free software developer, so is the governament subsidizing me?
And I thought public services like school and health care were exactly this! They provide me with something in exchange of my taxes.
But get this, by using free software, they don't have to pay anything to provide me with services! I am free (as in beer) for them.
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
"To that end, the Defense Department is now prohibited from purchasing any software that has not undergone security testing by the NSA. Stenbit said he is unaware of any open-source software that has been tested." By taking this literally, this would mean that they cannot purchase M$ software until it is tested, but would they not have to purchase it so they can test it? On the other hand, they can obtain the open source alternative for free, so it raises the question, according to the quote, does it have to be tested, and is that why it has not been tested. Sorry, had to say it. I know I am referring to the actual words, rather than the meaning behind the words.
If it won't boot, Fsck it!
What the hell are they thinking??
Proteus' Child
Doko ni datte; hito wa, tsunagette iru.
Didn't they just get through saying that there software had major security holes?
A copy of the report seems like one of those things that's Good To Have (). What is the URL or Title+Author+Report No.? I've looked at the Mitre site a bit, searched it, the press releases, but not turned up anything.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
What you want is already being done. It's called OpenBSD.
My wife (also in HR) says that their policy is not to answer that one, though they've been asked. She said the company lawyers indicate that it opens them up to just as much liability as commenting on work performance.
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
The Washington Post article says that M$ is calling open source unamerican.
When did they employ the remains of Joe McCarthy for its marketing department?
This sig no verb.
I left the military a year ago, and I was always a big proponent of free software, particulary Linux and free clones of mathematical software (e.g. R, SciLab, etc...). Using free software for stand alone "research" purposes was never a big deal, but once you hooked that computer up to a network, it was like you had committed high treason. The biggest hurdle to overcome in the DoD is getting an established base of network administrators who are WILLING to invest the TIME and EFFORT into following the DoD procedures for ensuring software functionality and security. Like most IT shops, DoD IT is underfunded and overtasked, and can barely keep up with the minimum requirments they have. What will probably shift the balance in the future is when someone who used Linux in graduate school (most military officers DO go to graduate school at some point in their career) gets promoted to high enough position and says, "Do it!"
"Public domain is for those who think that the BDS licence is not free enough."
Back in the '80's he was part of the free OS movement at Berkley. I think he did a little too much BDS...
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
Lets throw Mr Gates into solitary confinement for oh ... 10 years ... then give him a Microsoft product from that time. Let him use/hack it for 3 months, and then lets hear what he has to say!
I remember the Usenet waaaaay back in the late 1980's. Most everyone was a .edu, .mil or a .gov. One day I saw this funny address that ended in .com. It was a post from a Mitre employee.
Mitre is not stupid, and they've been around the block plenty of times. It's not surprising that they would prepare a report that contradicted Microsoft.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
5) The BSA Shows up, evil geeks-turned-corporate-lackeys and all, and attempts to enter a secured government building, waving a search warrant issued by some mis-informed lower-level superior court Judge. BSA peope are ordered to stop, they attempt to wave their document in someone's face, and suddenly a platoon appears, a'la Matrix, but instead of techno-leets kicking ass, they get blown away. Suddenly, there is now precedent to shoot any BSA official on site...
Oh, wait... sorry, I guess I got a little carried away there... *smiles at the thought*
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
It is a federally funded research company that is not-for-profit. It mission is to inform the
federal government on developments in technology.
I does not sell software, it is a think tank to tell
the government the best solutions.
I think he's Finnish.
OK, wasn't Microsoft found to be a monopoly? yes
;)
OK, is the US system based on capatilism and commerce? YES
Does a monopoly stifle the system which America was built on? YES!!!
Wouldn't that imply that MS is itself UN-AMERICAN?
so, does this now mean we can haul Bill Gates's ass into court and prosecute him under the new You have no more freedoms, we're here to protect you Laws? and have him shot by a military firing squad????
A guy can dream can't he?
--homiefro
But now the falling building will be the ones designed by Pentagon using M$.
Or maybe their server, leaving them completely out of business (do they care about this?).
All I know is that Mr. Laden now have a easy target.
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
Generally this is true, and usually for normal manufactured products that meet the requirements of the spec, BUT there is a specific exemption in Gov't purchasing for software, and thank God for it. Because of numerous factors (usability, compatability with existing stuff, ease of integration) the lowest-cost software solution that meets the specs may completely screw up a workplace, so purchasers are given the authority to make a decision based on their own department or office, as appropriate. Some things are standardized (like MS Office), but many others are bought as needed.
I'm sure we can all imagine a workplace filled with the lowest-cost software, purchased over the past 5 years, all incompatible with one another because what they had in-hand couldn't be taken into consideration. A nightmare. It's the gov't realizing that software isn't like hammers.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
How does your wife decline to answer the question? Does she simply say that their policy is to not answer that question, or does she deflect the question by saying that she doesn't have that information or that the decision is made by someone else?
Stalin would be proud. "Lie, lie again, keep lying and eventually the public will believe it."
I used to write software for the DoD and I found that the primary reason to use open source software is that I didn't have to go through the tortuous procurement processes to get it. They talk about the necessary approval processes, but in fact most of the time nobody cares as long as you get your work done.
This actually doesn't much affect the sorts of software Microsoft is pushing, since the OS and office apps tend to come pre-loaded on the systems as they're given to us. But in general when it came down to a choice of open-source vs. commercial software, the project would usually be completed with the open-source stuff before we could even lay our hands on the commercial stuff.
Assuming Microsoft has added backdoors or special features or say limited access to crypto API's, etc... They have a very easy story to tell the Government and the Defense Dept.
"Look you guys asked to do these things with our code and we did them. So you know we can very well open up our source, so you can't have it both ways. If you want Microsoft's continued cooperation, don't go trashing us and pushing open source."
You get the idea... parts of the government most likely have as much to lose as MS does with wide spread adoption of open source OS/systems and Apps ESP on the desktop level.
http://www.hawknest.com/
According to Allchin (under oath) the GPL is one reason that Microsoft does not ship a SUN JVM.
Go figure.
I guess if you are going to lie to the judge, it might as well be an obvious one.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
Is it your intent to prove how little you know about computer systems to bring up that myth about NT crippling a Navy ship?
Just curious because when that article originally surfaced in '97 it was quite apparent from the problem description to anybody knowledgeable that the problem was caused by the third party software running on top of the OS, and not the OS itself.
This is sort of like the morons who have a bad modem claiming the Internet is broken.
surprise!
It continues to astonish me how insane M@cros#fts behavior is. Between their attacks on open source use, and their aggressive harassment of schools, it seems as if they are trying to force as many organizations as possible to use Linux. I think that it is not an exaggeration to say that they are the biggest evangelist for Linux today. I don't blame any company for wanting to sell their software, but their tactics are so over the top that it appears that they want the outcome of people switching to open source because they can't stand the abuse. If /. readers had predicted behavior like this two years ago, people would just have laughed at them. Between highlighting the security problems in their software by starting the debate on relative quality and security, and imposing audits on numerous school districts throughout the country, it is difficult to see how they could possibly think that this behavior is going to help them.
...mentioning "National Security" as a reason for NOT releasing the sourcecode also saying the reason for that was because their code is crappy?
If there ever is a eConflict on the internet between USA and some other country; all i can say is "Pushover"!
This is interesting, because I was just watching a show on the CIA last night. In it, the CIA said that the cost of maintaining proprietary stuff was unjustified, and that open and readily available commercial items were able to satisfy what they wanted. I doubt that the CIA and the Pentagon would be all that different in this regard. Government users of high end equipment realize that the expense of propietary systems (be it home grown or MS) is not worth it. They can get open source software, modify it to their needs, and not worry about. I'm sure MS would be a little more open with its code to someone like this, but what I think is the biggest threat by using MS is the same to the American consumer. MS puts out a buggy, hole ridden product, and keeps increasing the price as we become more dependant. Do you want MS having a choke hold on the military?
A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
The terrorists are on their way!
I don't think Microsoft is losing much actual money to Linux and Open Source just yet - but they can see the writing on the wall.
I was at the very first Perl conference a few years ago, when ESR presented CatB for the first (?) time. At that point, I wasn't really into the whole Free Software/Open Source thing; I just really liked Perl and was there to learn more about it.
Sitting there, listening to ESR, it hit me like a bolt of lightning; one of those ultra-rare flashes of "Eureka!" Commercial software, as embodied by Microsoft, was dead in the water. Open Source and the Internet had created - actually, had *evolved* - a new design method that would eventually supplant all commercial software development with mathematical certainty.
It's like when you're playing solitaire, and you get to the point in the game where you've won, and all the other moves are just the playing out of the algorithm.
Mind you, the time involved with the "playing out of the algorithm" as far as software development is concerned will still take years, but unless there is a dramatic change in the conditions under which software is developed and distributed, the Open Source/Free Software juggernaut is mathematically unstoppable.
Microsoft is the woolly mammoth eying the ice sheet creeping steadily southwards.
The people who run Microsoft, while they may be supremely arrogant, are not stupid. It may have taken them a little while to actually _believe_ that they were vulerable, but they seem to understand it now, and they have gotten religion in a big way.
They understand that they cannot possibly compete with Open Source on the merits - they lose on price (free vs $$) they lose on quality (given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow) and increasingly, they lose on response time as well (not even Microsoft can hope to employ as many developers as work on Open Source projects)
They can't even fall on the old Microsoft technique of last resort - buy the competitor's company - because Open Source is by definition decentralized. It cannot be killed, it can only be outcompeted.
(That's not to say Open Source as it exists today is perfect - it most definately has flaws. But as the ice sheet grinds southwards, these flaws tend to be (slowly) rectified. The number of niches where Microsoft can "beat" Open Source grows smaller every day.)
They only have themselves to blame for this. Microsoft has been the ultimate predator, culling the herd of lesser methods and companies, and in doing so, has forced the evolution of an even tougher force than itself.
What we're seeing now is a desparate attempt by Microsoft to try and change the conditions that allow the Open Source development method to work so well, because that it their only chance at mounting anything like a successful defence. Too bad that they made so many enemies on the way to the top; they are finding few allies.
I have to admit that it's nice to watch all the panic. Turnabout IS fair play.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
3. Open Source allows DOD to have absolute control over its systems. 2. Won't have to worry about M$ "Easter Eggs" in the way of back door access to DOD systems. (e.g. intended security flaws, not to be confused with the scores of unintened security flaws.) 1. If Redmond WA ever gets nuked, DOD won't have to worry about where its next upgrades are coming from.
"The company also complained that the Pentagon is funding research on making free software more secure, which in effect subsidizes Microsoft's open-source competitors, Stenbit said."
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Excuse me, but when has it ever been "un-American" to make some bigger, better, faster, and cheaper?
I can't believe Microsoft can badmouth open source after the USS Yorktown, which had to be towed back to port after the Windows-NT operating system locked up, disabling the cruiser's propulsion system. Using sloppy unreliable MS SW in defense would be a disaster!
You are wrong in all three accounts, I'm sorry.
First: The person who linked the GPL'd code [XX] with MS's libs/using MS's headers is, if distributing, and when distributing the result, in violation of the GPL, losing, in the case, the right granted by the GPL of redistributing [XX].
Second: GPL is not untested. Ask Mr. Eben Moglen. Don't take my word for it. This is just FUD and lies. GPL is, in fact, one of the Cleanest (TM) software licenses, legally speaking.
Third: There are issues about just any software license all the time, the Lindows GPL violation was cleared (Lindows gave away the source of their modified GPL'd software, with some restrictions, but...), and, besides that, yes, it is 100% crystal clear.You have the right to disagree, you have the right to be wrong!
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Boy, this article is a gold mine of damning quotes.
Spokesman Jon Murchinson said Microsoft has been talking about how to allow open-source and proprietary software to coexist. "Our goal is to resolve difficult issues that are driving a wedge between the commercial and free software models," he said.
Those issues are all of Microsoft's making!
The company also complained that the Pentagon is funding research on making free software more secure, which in effect subsidizes Microsoft's open-source competitors, Stenbit said.
So open your source code, and we'll research and improve Microsoft's code too! Simple!
[Defense Department's chief information officer] Stenbit said that the debate is academic and that what matters is how secure a given piece of software is.
Oh well if it's all academic, I guess we can ignore what you're saying, since it has no practical value.
To that end, the Defense Department is now prohibited from purchasing any software that has not undergone security testing by the NSA. Stenbit said he is unaware of any open-source software that has been tested.
Then it's a good thing you don't have to purchase it! Bwahahahah!!!!
Edith Keeler Must Die
See how everyone, even on /. is buying into Microsoft's FUD? Everyone's worring about special cases with the GPL when the real issues are about licensing in general.
Let's say you do combine GPL code with propriatary binary-only code somehow. Can you distribute it? No. Because the GPL is an intellectual property destroyer? No.
You cannot distribute it because doing so would violate not just the GPL but the closed-source license as well.
In fact, your legal liability is much greater from the closed-source license, because now Microsoft can come in and sue you for millions of dollars whereas the FSF can ony ask you to open up all the source, but if you don't have it, or any legal claim to it....
But you could easily get around this by just distributing the source that you modified. "Here's a fork of OpenProgram that makes use of ClosedBinaries. You need to get your own copy of ClosedBinaries and compile."
But the moral of the story, boys and girls, is that if something is a violation of the GPL, you can bet your ass that it's a violation of Microsoft's EULA.
As a taxpayer, I think that instead of spending millions of dollars to purchase proprietary systems, the government (gubment) should be mandated to look first to free software if the project goals can be realized with it.
A move to proprietary software should only be permitted if demonstrable proof exists that a free / open source solution absolutely cannot do the job.
- Freddy
The company also complained that the Pentagon is funding research on making free software more secure, which in effect subsidizes Microsoft's open-source competitors, Stenbit said.
Is it just me or is this quote complete and total crap. They could just as easily have said.
The open source community complained that the Pentagon is paying Microsoft for their software, which in effect subsidizes open-source's proprietary competitors, Stenbit said.
I hope that the Pentagon can see through how self serving and hypocritical that complaint is.
Dastardly
Actually, it works the other way 'round. The SELinux team attended the planning conference for the 2.5 kernel project and made quite an extensive presentation on their elimination of a "root" user, implementation of mandatory access controls and role-based permissions.
If I recall the articles I read on the presentation, it was quite well received. 'Twould seem the NSA is contributing to the kernel rather than the kernel team contributing to SELinux.
utter rubbish
The article concludes with the statement that the "Defense Department is now prohibited from purchasing any software that has not undergone security testing by the NSA. Stenbit said he is unaware of any open-source software that has been tested."
Translation: DoD is currently prohibited from purchasing open-source software. Looks like MS won at least a delaying action.
to err is human, to forgive is divine, to forget is... umm...
Of course Microsoft is "aggressively lobbying" against open source software at the Pentagon.
There is this kind of competition between all government contractors who supply the DoD: tanks, planes, subs, uniforms, toilet seats, etc...
I love it (read hate it) when Micro$oft uses the argument that closed source is more secure than open. It's just not true. What is going to find more vunerabilities; a team of testing engineers or a whole world of programmers and attackers? The latter of course. This is the point Micro$oft makes, but they don't take it any further. The list of known vulnerabilities may be greater for open source software. But just because a vulnerability is not known doesn't mean it doen't exist! Basically, you get much better QA with everyone able to look at the code than with only M$'s people looking at it.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
the pentagon is switching over to freebsd, openbsd, and mac os X
...is over the GPL.
In other words, "Don't use any of those licenses which prohibit us from stealing open-source code." You know, because they drive a wedge between the commercial and free software models.
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
I believe the Free vrs Paid analogy could be served by comparing software (especially operating systems) to highways.
Are you getting a better service because you pay for the Turnpike? Or are the Freeways just as good?
Fact is you have to evaluate each on its own. There is a cost in time and money for using the Fee Based Highway (Time at toll boths and the money spent), but you genereally get there quicker. But not always.
Mark
For example, with many of MS's rather bland tools, they include C/C++ headers to access varous API's and whatnot. If you wanted to give an application a direct connection into say, MySQL or other database, you might take MySQL and compile it with various ADO (MS proprietary database access layer) headers, make a few modifications, and produce a binary. Then you produce an ADO provider for the modified version of MySQL, and that in turns get linked dynamically at runtime with some general data drive app. Sound okay so far? Lets say you did that all and you are programmer for the NSA or FBI or something, right? Let's say you want to give a copy of that app to some other government agency, say the CIA or DOD or someone like that. Does that count as distribution? If so, you have to release the source for the modifications. However, you dont have all the source, since the ADO headers from MS link to compiled binary code. Now you have a bit of a jam, as I see it.
But the term "source" is defined in the GPL. It is the preferred form for making changes to your program. You don't need to distribute the source to any standard libraries that you link to becuase you don't use those sources when making modifications to your program.
Source also includes any files you many need to control the build process, such as makefiles.
So, there is nothing in the GPL preventing you from writing a program which depends upon a propriatary compiler or library. And there is certainly nothing which requires you to deliver the source code for that compiler or library.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
> Spokesman Jon Murchinson said Microsoft has been talking about how to allow open-source and proprietary software to coexist. "Our goal is to resolve difficult issues that are driving a wedge between the commercial and free software models," he said.
Ummm... How about a native Linux port of MS Office?
Lets see. The owner of the Monopoly desktop OS and Monopoly desktop office suite (which requires the Monopoly desktop OS, which contains components that prefer to work with that owner's not-quite-monopoly server systems) wants to talk about coexisting with free software.
Just what role do they plan to 'let' free software play?
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Spokesman Jon Murchinson said Microsoft has been talking about how to allow open-source and proprietary software to coexist.
When did the DOD cede authority to M$ on what software is "allowed?" Pretty poor choice of terminology from a marketing standpoint.
www.dedserius.com
VB != VisualBasic
It's mostly common sense, but common sense is forgotten too often. Since that which goes without saying often goes unsaid, it's useful to see these published. That Mitre has published is extra useful because of their reputation and weight.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
I'm sure the DOD know which platforms they find easier to break into, maybe this is informing their choice for their own systems...
I hear FBI is on their way over to interrogate you about your Al-queda contacts.
MS source code is not "closed" to the military, or even university researchers. I am not familiar with the former but I had a friend do PhD research related to distributed computing and his projects was granted access to Windows NT source code after signing an NDA. He was free to publish his research, the license/NDA was transferable if he moved to another university, and Microsoft had the right to incorporate anything the project came up with.
Microsoft Marketing: "You need to get rid of all your open source software and replace it with our, it's much more secure!"
Sounds like somebody is having problems keeping their story straight!
You see as long as no-one is looking at their code or trying to understand their APIs it is perfectly secure.
Just like my freinds house with its security shutters is pefectly secure assuming no-one looks under the flowerpot next to the front door.
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
Show how screwed things really are. To wit:
The company also complained that the Pentagon is funding research on making free software more secure, which in effect subsidizes Microsoft's open-source competitors, Stenbit said.
Coming from one of the wealthiest companies in existence, and one that recently, has paid little or no real taxes
Microsoft has argued that some free-licensing regimes are antithetical to the government's stated policy that moneymaking applications should develop from government-funded research and that intellectual property should be protected.
This has ALWAYS sucked, and always will. Why should taxpayer money fund research that will be owned by and controlled by a private company, that will then be the sole beneficiary of this research? This concept is as screwed up as the USPTO is right now.
Funny thing is, that even if there were a licensing fee to use open-source software, it would still come out ahead of the game, since it's open source. M$ software is a murky, closed, environment with ever-increasing tight-fisted oversight by the company that produces it. In essence, M$$$ is going to have to make some significant changes in order to stay competitive over the long haul. Maybe this is where M$$'s hubris finally gives way to a sense of humility.
Sorry, but when a third-party app divides by zero on an UNIX I ever used, it might segfault and stop, but it won't bring down the machine.
Your excuse is rejected.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I do not want my tax dollar being paid to a court found criminal.
Can it get any simpler than that?
It's no myth that NT's unreliability was a critical factor in that ship becoming disabled.
/. about how little they allegedly know about computer systems. If you're wasting your spiffy intel hardware on a brain-dead turd like NT (or, for that matter, ANYTHING microsoft has ever sold), then you're in no position at all to even pretend to be an expert.
I took a look at your web page, and I see that you make a habit of wasting your time on tripe like a "Windoze 2000 reliability study", and you actually have a link for a "Microsoft secure IIS checklist."
From this, I surmise that you're a typical MSCE-type luser who has never even seen a secure system in his life, and thinks that NT is acceptable just because it's slightly less fragile than MS's earlier crap.
So don't try to lecture anyone on
Frankly, as a US taxpayer, it makes me sick that even a dime of my money has ever been spent on MS's products.
is it me, or was it just a few days ago that there was a slashdot article where Microsoft employees openly admitted to how DANGEROUS all the flaws in their software really are (and to release the source code would be a national security risk).
"Yes... lets give this flawed software to the pentagon. NOw they wont release our source code for sure!!!"
He He He!!
Cool!
I will smile when some discordinated missile blows over some stupid political that aproval this...
Do like here in Brasi, where the all political stuff was "solded" to Microsoft, including taxes control, education and the departmente that take care of pirate software (ABES), obvios supported by MS.
And the Microsoft Brasil is beating biger particulary in the south (read RS), because there are the home of Conectiva, a brasilian portuguese and spanish distributuion of Linux.
... which has not been tested by the NAS?
So what? You don't PURCHASE Linux if you just download and use it.
It's a loop-hole alright, but no worse or better than the fact that the tested software isn't required to have "passed" any test to any particular degree.
"Well Admiral Bob, I didn't purchase a dman thing. I just downloaded and installed it..." 8-)
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Everyone already knows where Microsoft stands on open source, so screaming "unfair" just makes them look desparate and gives open source a leg up.
If such a thing were to ever run itself into existence, it would turn MS into a "Defense Contractor". What I find even more interesting is the contrast between MS and other defense contractors. While the current stock of old school defense contractors essentially work together, MS won't work with anyone - they're like the bully on the playground, squashing any competition that comes their way. MS is so big they don't -have- to work with anyone.
Another interesting thing: the defense industry intentionally keeps prices high, because none of them are really big enough to provided for the demands of the gov't of themselves, and thus they work together. MS doesn't have to.
Granted, this isn't a prefect comparission, but it I believe it helps put things in perspective over MS's monopoly - like anyone doubts it's a monopoly and needs reassurance anyway.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Just thought that I might remind everyone of a very important fact: In the wee days of what we now know as the internet, it was known as ARPANET and was funded by none other than the DoD. At that time, there was no such thing as Windows, or DOS for that matter...Unix had barely even begun for that matter. Just a reminder.
Just my $0.02.
I hear FBI is on their way over to interrogate you about your Al-queda contacts. :-)
:D
Better than a BSA interrogation
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Because Microsoft is under pressure to release their source code, Im guessing theyre looking for a way to backup their "cannot release because it's a security threat" excuse. What better way than to convince the Pentagon to go Microsoft, then tell the courts "We cannot release the source because it is confidential now that we have the pentagon under contract"
Though 3.51 would have passed if they had tested it.
And the "not on the network" stuff wasn't as ridiculous as it sounds. The certification that they were aiming for (aka "red book") was for a non-networked configuration, but was no walk in the park.
Use it as an mp3 jutebox!!! W/ visualizer... It's the only way to use the Box. Microsoft, "now supporting intellectual property infringement".
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
"Microsoft Battles Free Software at Pentagon : Attack of the Lobbyists"
Is this the sequel to the much-lauded "IBM PC Compatibles : Attack of the Clones"?
...they'll move to get rid of all Microsoft products. With open source they can analyze the code and determine security vulnerabilities. As we see in the news all the time, they'll need to wait a long time for Microsoft to fix security patches.
"Politicians always tell the truth, when they're calling each other liars."
DoD software requirements have traditionally been built upon a different software model than is used by most Microsoft customers.
The expectation for DoD software is that it will have a minimum lifetime of 30 years. This makes the use of closed source software impossible in many cases. I know of no closed source software vendor who is willing to maintain its products for 30 years.
The result is that the DoD must own rights to the source(s) so that it can issue maintenance contracts to the lowest bidder. Closed source software simply prevents the DoD from doing its job.
The app crashed with a div/0 error. Tell us all why it wasn't possible to restart it?
Sorry, NT was, and still is crap. End of story.
Check out the EROS website. Their security model was proved correct, but the implementation has yet to be proved to correspond to their design. This is perhaps due to the unfortunate decision to use C++ as opposed to more proof-amenible languages. Incidentally, neither the halting problem nor incompleteness have anything to do with the provability of security.
I think that all MSFT is scared of is the fact that they can't write code and that if ever one compares Linux and Windows sources we might find some shoddy development practices.
Security through obscurity is nonsense, by the way...Linux is more secure through the support of freelancers than Windows can ever be.