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
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.
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
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.
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."
Because I PAY FOR IT I want to know what I purchased for my government. A proprietary system built only for them is not what I want. It may be more secure by being obscure, but how am I assured of that security? I'm not. By using an open system (or at least a commercial product), I know what I purchased, how much i paid for it, what kind of security features it has, and if it is an open system, where bugs in the system may exist.
Basically, with commercial software or open software, I know what they are doing and getting themselves into(to an extent), but with a specialized "govt. use only" system, I don't. Not knowing what my government is doing(again, to a certain extent) frightens me.
If bad puns were like deli meat, this would be the wurst
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!
If Lockheed and Boeing were in the midst of competing for a contract, one would not be suggesting the other be BANNED through legislation. Sure, the competition would be rough. Thing is, they would be competing on the merits of the product they were bidding on.
What is happening here is (to keep the metaphor a rolling) is Boeing is making the claim that Lockheed is making inferior products, and giving all the secrets to unfriendly nations. That to even consider doing business with Lockheed is equivalent to being an unAmerican communist. You're not for communism are you?
Despite what you make think, it is not a usual occurance to have one competitor try to get legislation passed to ban another. You require a special kind of arrogance to go that far.
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
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.
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.
"But if this Linux thing is so good, then why is it FREE? Can you answer me that?? Thought not. Microsoft must be better because it costs more."
Of course I'm being sarcastic, but how far is that from some people's thinking?
Government managers pride themselves on how much they spend and how many people they command, not on how much they save. Keep in mind that they cannot turn a profit or even show a savings - that's suicide - much more so than having your project fail spectacularly.
Bureaucracies often need to be able to quantify their logic (to avoid actual thought?) - so perhaps Linux should just cost more up front? That would make it a lot easier to go over budget later...
Of course it doesn't help that there is no recognized equivalent to the MCSE program - how do you then justify who you hire? Slashdot karma? I know there is the Red Hat program, but does that really carry much weight in government hiring?
Cheers,
Jim in Tokyo
-- My Weblog.
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?
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
Nah - what you need is to sell the idea of a support team being cheaper than the propietary software. That way the empire builder manger types can justify enlarging their kindom of employees, and still claim to be saving money.
"Yes I hired more support staff, but I would have spent even more if I hadn't used Linux..."
-- This is not a
Indeed, software which will run systems which are critical to national security should NOT be trusted to a third party, the government should inspect all the code themselves, if not write it themselves.
The NSA Secure linux distribution seems to be very appropriate.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
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.
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!
Because then you, personally, are not so special? Do we list that under "cost" or "benefit"?
I generally support the use of Linux over Windows myself, so I know there are reasons to do so without bringing your misguided elitism into it.
RHCE is the certification that is "equivalent" to the MCSE program. There are others you might choose to credit, like LPI, but rhce is designed and controlled by the leading Linux distribution.
The test is hard if the failure rate (approx. 50%) is anything to go by.
What makes you think an MCSE should be hired to work on computers instead of made into pet food anyway?
I'd really like to hear your answer. The occurence of non-morons in the MCSE population is , as far as I can tell, purely accidental.
Microsoft is trying to get Windows 2000 approved under the new scheme, but hasn't succeeded yet.
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.
Well, even though your argument has some merit, there is some alarming signs (in MS's point of view) of desktop software migrating to OS based applications, e.g. in some European and Latin-American govermental institutions. I think MS is now trying to kill these tendensies before they grow in to a major threat to their income..
"There is a terrorist behind every bush"
In theory they would be able to patch the code, recompile, etc. In practice the Navy doesn't have all that many ueberhackers in its rangs. It can't afford to put one aboard each ship that leaves port.
Linux user since early January 1992.
What is happening here is (to keep the metaphor a rolling) is Boeing is making the claim that Lockheed is making inferior products, and giving all the secrets to unfriendly nations. That to even consider doing business with Lockheed is equivalent to being an unAmerican communist. You're not for communism are you?
If Lockheed published all the plans to their aircraft, and they were available to unfriendly nations, do you think the American government would purchase said aircraft?
One nil, I think.
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!
free the mallocs!
"But if this Linux thing is so good, then why is it FREE? Can you answer me that?? Thought not. Microsoft must be better because it costs more."
This statement is more true then you would think. Speaking as a former coop employee of the government. I actually have heard this argument on the side of not purchasing Linux for the equipment. When I asked them, why don't we test out Linux on the boxes, they replied, (Not kidding)
"Well, we believe that you get what you pay for here. Since Linux is freeware, and we know how bad those things can be, we don't want to expose ourselves to the risks brought on by it."
After I desperately tried to avoid laughing at and/or killing the person who said this, I brought him aside quietly at the end of the meetings, and quickly pointed out some of the major mistakes in his logic.
1. Linux is _not_ freeware, it is open-source
2. Since Linux is open-source, the public can find and fix the security holes considerably faster then Microsoft would.
As well, I pointed him towards some valuable Linux information sites. Now finally after 5+ years of people not even considering looking at Linux in the department, mainly because of misconceptions of Linux, they are seriously considering it.
So, you can see how it's the fact that it's free, and the aura of "badness" that seems to permeate free things (ie. freeware) that explains most government decisions of this sort.
~ kjrose
Can you 'prove' security? I thought this was one of those stopping problem things: unprovable.
But, then, I am a little out of date.
Milo
It is because Linux is developed under a different development ethic than Windows.
People develop Linux because they want excellence without rules and restrictions. Requiring the software to be Free is part of this ethic. Making software work properly is part of this ethic.
Microsoft, on the other hand, develops software to make money. Whether or not it is useful, works properly, is destructive or insecure is of little importance to them as long as it increases shareholder value.
Who needs the plans when they can get the whole damn plane?
Don't be a dick, this would entirely negate the original point about having the source of linux being a good feature - who needs the source of windows when you have the whole OS?
The comercial distros for things like HP-UX, the large IBM boxes/mainframes are not free. GPL, perhaps... but not free as in beer.
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
Actually the programs are not the important thing, the data generated by them is. Just because a document is written in Abiword, it is not public domain. Neither is any set of calculations done with Octave automatically GPL'd. Most importantly all data stored on a Samba file server is not therefore Public Domain or GPL.
All of these are perfectly good uses for open source. In Addition, these programs (and an underlying Open Source OS) all also provide the benefit of being easily audited for security (and fixed). All upsides here...
A modern jet plan has fewer parts than windows.