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.'"

Comments

Nothing like drumming up business for yourself

[ObviousGuy]

Mitre may have a reason they want to encourage Linux in the gov't.

Re:Nothing like drumming up business for yourself

[MrResistor]

Mitre has been tight with the government since just about the dawn of time. They were one of the origionators of what became the internet. At this point, I doubt Mitre has much difficulty getting contracts, especially from the DoD, since they have such a long-standing relationship. I think it is significant, however, that Mitre is pushing Linux. That, even more so than IBM's efforts, tells me that Linux has made it to the big time.

Re:Nothing like drumming up business for yourself

[saden1]

I had the pleasure of being taught by a Mitre employee as well as visiting one of their offices. They have a lot of intelligent people over their...I was amazed at how many of they employees had doctoral degree. It was like meet Dr. blah, Dr. yaho, Dr. joe. All day long. I highly doubt they are starving for contracts as they do a lot of work for NASA, Air Force as well as the NAVY.

Re:Nothing like drumming up business for yourself

[Cowculator]

As someone who has worked for MITRE, I know there's a reason that it "has been tight with the government since just about the dawn of time:" That's the company's purpose. It's a private company whose mission is to provide independent contracting for the government, so it has all the benefits of being able to do cool scientific research for DoD, DoE, the military, etc. with all the benefits of not actually being a government agency.

What this means is that a large number of its employees have advanced degrees - especially Ph.Ds - in scientific fields, so they have probably done their share of academic research in various *nices. They're used to it, and it's definitely pervasive throughout the company - plenty of Linux machines as well as Solaris and others - because they know they can use it for research and they don't have to worry about government licensing and other paperwork when buying their own equipment. They're free to push these systems all they want because they know they work and they have plenty of freedoms that a normal government agency might not have.

Re:Nothing like drumming up business for yourself

[pmz]

Mitre also has assisted the Software Engineering Institute in its development of the Capability Maturity Models for software and other systems.

This sets precedent for Mitre's concern about quality, so I'm not suprised if Microsoft isn't #1 on their list. I am curious if anyone at Microsoft has implemented any of the CMMs--or has even heard of them.

Whose software?

[Bonker]

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!

Re:Whose software?

[milo_Gwalthny]

Can you 'prove' security? I thought this was one of those stopping problem things: unprovable.

But, then, I am a little out of date.

Quote...

[Disevidence]

He also said Microsoft did not focus on potential security flaws.

I wonder why? :)

Re:Quote...

[Disevidence]

Or more to the point, working out ways to hide the symptoms of known security flaws.....

Re:Quote...

[Tony-A]

Or more to the point, working out ways to hide the symptoms of known security flaws.....
I seem to recall from somewhere that the biggest risk to security is a false sense of security, thinking you're safe when you are not. When things look safe but are not, people tend to have bad accidents. When things look unsafe but are not quite as bad as they look, people tend to not have accidents.

last paragraph

[pyrrho]

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!

Re:last paragraph

[Disevidence]

No, they can't use it because it wasn't tested. I assume that they have tested some closed-source programs, but haven't tested any open-source due to the FUD flowing through, or they just haven't got around to it.

Re:last paragraph

[RKDavies]

Free Software hasn't been tested by NSA?? Definately news to me!

http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/download2.html

I believe that is a NSA link to a slew of Security Enhancements to Linux, hell even updated as far as 2.4.18

My guess behind the DOD push to rid most Win boxes is the Deceptive Duo giving a poke at the weak administration, servers, and default passwords left all over sensitive servers.

Re:last paragraph

[Disevidence]

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.

From what I understand of the article, they have some open-source software, and its fine on their computers. It hasn't been tested however, so they have to wait until they test it to get any more of it. Thats my take anyway.

I notice that they talked about purchasing software. While you can "purchase" open source, i don't see any real need for the Defense Department to do it.

Either the choice of words is talking about something unsaid, or its a poor choice of words.

Re:last paragraph

[MrResistor]

I think that Stenbit is a moron.

How is the NSA able to release security patches for Linux if they haven't tested it?

Re:last paragraph

[eddy]

"Stenbit" means "small piece of rock" or maybe "pebble" in Swedish.

Isn't dumb as a rock a saying of yours?

Re:last paragraph

[Radical Rad]

Actually that prohibition has been around for a long time. Microsoft got NT 3.51 Service Pack ? tested and certified many years ago so that they could sell to the Defense Dept. in an attempt to displace Unix. And what happened was that when NT 4.0 came out it was not certified yet purchasing managers bought it anyway in a clear violation of the rule.

An OS is only certified for the version and service pack tested. It must be recertified each time the software is updated and it is a very expensive process. Yet the DOD bought uncertified OS's from MS anyway. So basically the rule only applies if your commanding officer doesn't own shares of MSFT. ;-)

The only way they could get NT 3.51 certified, if I remember correctly, was to disable many 'features' and disconnect the computer entirely from any networks. Otherwise it was not secure enough to pass the test.

Re:last paragraph

[MrResistor]

Indeed it is

I'll have to remember that...

Re:last paragraph

[Animats]

That was with the old process, where NSA did their own evaluations. The new evaluation scheme is under the thumb of software vendors, with testing performed by private testing services paid by the software vendor.

Microsoft is trying to get Windows 2000 approved under the new scheme, but hasn't succeeded yet.

Security Risk

[drgnvale]

Didn't MS just say that thier software was a national security risk? Ah, forget it.

Re:Security Risk

[morgajel]

you actually make a good point- I woulnd't be suprised if EVERY branch of every government started looking for an alternative to MS right now.

MS basically told the government "hey, you know that stuff we sold ya? it's CRAP! we pocketed the money! We ripped of you AND your country, and most of the world for that matter! but, we don't want to hurt your feelings, so we're gonna focus on fixing it, 'security is our top priority'....not really, we're just gonna 'start from scratch,' with the same old code and sell it to you for twice the price! muahahaha....wait, where are you going? nonono, open source is bad, remember!? Bad USA!....doh!!"

as my dad is fond of saying, "they just stepped on their own dick."

What are their selling points?

[teslatug]

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...???

Re:What are their selling points?

[RealisticWeb.com]

The selling point they are trying to use is simple American economics. I should say to begin with that I don't agree with MSFT's argument, but I do understand it. They are looking at open source as "free beer" and saying that is against the american way, and undermines the free market economy that we have so carefully built up. This was indicated by the article when they say MSFT is "in a long-running company assault on the open-source movement, which company officials have called "a cancer" and un-American". Of course that is not thier only argument, but in this case it seems to be the only one that actually is strait forward. The rest are the typical FUD, like the statement "some free-licensing regimes are antithetical to the government's stated policy that moneymaking applications should develop from government-funded research". Sure. I can't argue with that, that SOME free-licensing "regimes" are, but so are SOME proprietary software empires. Let's just pray that the people making the final decidions in the DOD are smart enough to listen to MSFT's admition that they are a threat to national security.

Re:What are their selling points?

[wirefarm]

"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

Re:What are their selling points?

[Jeremi]

They are looking at open source as "free beer" and saying that is against the american way, and undermines the free market economy that we have so carefully built up.

I find it hard to believe that corporate welfare is the American way (guess that means I'm not cynical enough yet). I was under the impression that capitalism was the American way, and the primary beneficial effect of capitalism was to deliver the best quality product at the lowest possible price. Given that, it seems to me that a bug-free product, available for free, is a desirable outcome.

Re:What are their selling points?

[DarkZero]

He said that THEY are saying it; it was not his opinion. And in that context, he's right. Microsoft has claimed in the past that open source software is harmful to the economy because it is not paid for.

Re:What are their selling points?

[AnotherBlackHat]

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...

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 .sig.

Re:What are their selling points?

[Bert64]

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.

Re:What are their selling points?

[OrangeTrafficCone]

Here is a battle I fought (and won) in the bowels of the Pentagon, when I was a lowly enlisted man (USAF) in 1994:

Boss: You need to update the documentation for your system [IBM RS/6000 running AIX]; use MSWord.
Me: That format is not standard; we need to use HTML.
Boss: Not standard? Of course it's standard, everyone with Windows has MSWord.
Me: Not everyone is using Windows; most members of our team use XStations.
Boss: Hmm, will I be able to read the documents from here [Windows 3.x]?
Me: Yes, just as I am reading them from here [FreeBSD running on same class of hardware as boss], or from here [XStation connected to internal RS/6000].
Boss: Ok, I suppose you can do that.

Considering the previous format was troff, which only I (in a shop of 6 people) could still read and write, HTML seemed the logical choice.

I shudder to think of how I would have viewed the docs on the XStation on the production floor if we had to use MS products...

Re:What are their selling points?

[BlueWonder]

The selling point they are trying to use is simple American economics. I should say to begin with that I don't agree with MSFT's argument, but I do understand it. They are looking at open source as "free beer" and saying that is against the american way, and undermines the free market economy that we have so carefully built up.

I never understood why free software/open source is purportedly against the American way. Microsoft sells a product at a certain price, and Red Hat sells a different product with similar functionality at a lower price. Isn't this a legitimate way of competition in a free market economy?

I don't see car manufacturers whine about how they cannot sell a car for $1,000,000, because everyone would buy from a different manufacturer. In fact, the economy proposed by Microsoft sounds quite communistic to me.

Re:What are their selling points?

[MarvinMouse]

"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.

Re:What are their selling points?

[Jucius Maximus]

"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."

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.

Re:What are their selling points?

[Chris Burke]

That's a good point. To that end, you can make the argument that hiring support staff in today's troubled job market for IT workers is better than paying a large company that is already doing fine.

Besides, that would give the manager the ability to have both more headcount and more over-buget spending. :)

Re:What are their selling points?

[catfood]

They are looking at open source as "free beer" and saying that is against the american way, and undermines the free market economy that we have so carefully built up.

By that standard, quilting bees and church potlucks are unamerican too.

Re:What are their selling points?

[BreakWindows]

Of course it doesn't help that there is no recognized equivalent to the MCSE program - how do you then justify who you hire?

It doesn't hurt either. The DoD doesn't just grab some MCSE who took a 4 week course, just like they wouldn't touch some RHCE who paid his cash and learned how to do the basics. Linux is UNIX-ish, so they're more likely to find admins with 20 or 30 years experience for it than WIndows (especially since Windows hasn't been on networks that long).

I imagine there is no shortage of competent, experienced admins who are out of work right now, because they don't do Windows. Maybe a bonus of ditching Win for Linux is the talent-hiring...no MCSE's clouding the pool and blocking your view of the potentially good hires. Imagine never having to see buzzwords like "robust" or "streamlined" on a resume again.

Re:What are their selling points?

[the gnat]

I understand MSFT's argument enough to realize that it's total bullshit. There's no reason why open-source is contrary to the principles of a free market economy. It is not a source of income for many of the people writing it, true- but there is nothing about it that prevents any business based around it. It's ridiculous for Microsoft to claim otherwise when massive companies like IBM are adopting Linux- not as an over-the-counter product, but as a basis for more (expensive) new services (and servers) they can market. Microsoft's paranoid attitude towards any disclosure of how its software works looks even dumber when you compare it to Sun, which is not remotely open source but is very liberal about letting people see its code.

What would be somewhat detrimental to a free market would be government subsidy of open source. However, the NSA has every right to experiment, and there's no reason for them to pay millions for a "shared source" license from MSFT when they can get an OS with code for free, and when they won't be able to pass along their changes. As for publicly-funded research, the GPL is probably one of the least restrictive license in use. I have to pay for software the NIH funded all the time- I'd love more GPL'd stuff.

If anyone can come up with a coherent argument against open source from a free-market viewpoint, I'd love to hear it.

Re:What are their selling points?

[glitchvern]

But if this Linux thing is so good, then why is it FREE? Can you answer me that??

Did you see the new IBM commercial? Where there are two managers of a basketball team and all the players are various parts of the infrastructure. One of the managers says to the other, "so how's this new linux guy?"
The other manager says he's great.
The first manager asks how muck he costs.
The other manager tells him he cost peanuts.
The first manager asks why would someone that good play for so little.
The other manager tells him for love of the game!

Great commercial!

Re:What are their selling points?

[(H)elix1]

"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?

The comercial distros for things like HP-UX, the large IBM boxes/mainframes are not free. GPL, perhaps... but not free as in beer.

Re:What are their selling points?

[electroniceric]

some free-licensing regimes are antithetical to the government's stated policy that moneymaking applications should develop from government-funded research

That particular piece of FUD was troubling to me, as it means that Microsoft thinks that the political climate is safe for them to say that publicly funded work should not be released to the public domain, but rather should be used to enrich a particular set of people (i.e., them).

It troubles me that people think they can make that claim in public, because it says to me that people are really buying this crap that in order to provide jobs for the middle class, you've got to mollify every little whim of the captains of industry. I don't think it's wise for government to alienate industry entirely, but it does need to make sure industry knows who's ultimately in charge. Time for some balance.

Re:What are their selling points?

[evilpenguin]

I'll go even further. It is Microsoft's stance that is anti-capitalist. They are screaming for restrictions and policies to prevent the use of Free Software. They want to have intervention and maipulation of the market.

They have used the fact that compilation is tanatmount to encryption to artificially restrict the supply of software, thus inflating its price. They are price fixing monopolists and behaving as a cartel.

Now, if they would simply continue to do business their way and let Free Software continue to do business their way, we would have a free market and a competition. That would be capitalism at work. We have seen this before. When disruptive technologies come along, business that depend on the old way of doing things always struggle in exactly this way.

Re:What are their selling points?

[crucini]

By that standard, quilting bees and church potlucks are unamerican too.

Not to mention the American flag. Shouldn't we be using a flag that's owned by a corporation so each part of the government would have to license it?

I'm wondering...

[WebWiz]

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.

Re:I'm wondering...

[quantaman]

If I understand correctly FreeBSD is widly considered to be by far the most secure system in the world (although I could be confusing is with OpenBSD). Either way I'm sure it's more secure than Linux or Windows and it would be far easier (and cheaper) to rework their own distro to use in house than build their own system.

Re:I'm wondering...

[manual_overide]

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.

Re:I'm wondering...

[Pig Hogger]

If I understand correctly FreeBSD is widly considered to be by far the most secure system in the world

Bullshit! The most secure system in the world is my old Radio-Shanty Color Computer Model 100 on the top shelf in the closet of my computer room that hasn't been powered for some 20 years now.

Re:I'm wondering...

[child_of_mercy]

Microsoft's view seems to be that they pay more taxes than we do so they should have a bigger say in how it's spent.

Although in a way it's almost touching how they never distinguish between what's good for them, and what's good for computer users (ok, so it's a weird and creepy way).

Somewhere in the institutional thinking I think they're actually convinced it's one and the same thing.

So what?

[Reality Master 101]

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.

Re:So what?

[Disevidence]

While Microsoft can lobby all they want, they are -

1. Outright lying
2. Spreading FUD

But whats new?

None of that, the real news is that the government is weighing up the options of open-source and closed source, and its a great time for people to lobby the representatives about this sorta thing.

Besides, i would of though an article about which type of software is running the defense software would be interesting.

Re:So what?

[Frater 219]

And in other news, Burger King is "aggressively lobbying" me to switch to eating Whoppers instead of Big Macs. What is the story here?

Nothing at all, of course! It is perfectly normal and acceptable for companies, especially in a troubled economy, to pare back and focus on their core competencies. The Post article is irresponsibly making a fuss over Microsoft leveraging two of its well-demonstrated core competencies: lying to the government and subverting democracy. These essential skills are central to Microsoft's operation, and it's an abuse of free speech to present them as something dangerous -- worse, it might panic the consumers!

Unquestionably, it is "idiotic and inflammatory", as you point out, for the newspaper of record in our nation's capital to report on these perfectly normal goings-on. The matter of which development efforts are funded by our tax monies has no bearing whatsoever on the public interest. It may be safely left up to our trusted government agencies and their staunch allies in large corporations and special interest groups.

After all, what would we commoners have to tell them? They're the experts, and should be left to run the military and the government without any bother from us civilians. And under our sacred and inviolable system of government, power vests in the State, its Employees, and its Contractors -- not in the unwashed masses. For a so-called "newspaper" to "inform" us about the government's activities is nothing short of treason.

Re:So what?

[Disevidence]

Let me guess: you never talk to people in Marketing, do you?

Marketing? The only people i talk to are the ones that call me a "buisness partner" and provide wonderful "solutions".

Re:So what?

[Mike Schiraldi]

Funny, i missed the ad where Burger King calls the Big Mac an unamerican cancer which puts national security at risk and violates its intellectual property rights.

Re:So what?

[Sj0]

There is a distinct difference between lobbying and advertizing.

Lobbying:"The American people, and Microsoft as a corporate citizen demand we use Microsoft products because it's the best way for America."

Advertizing:"Microsoft as a business wants you to use Microsoft products because we stand to make a bundle. PleasePleasePleasePlease use MS products! Faster and easier and more crash resistant than ever! Now with free sake!"

See?

Re:So what?

[Sj0]

The sad part is that the AC below you thought the message was serious.

I'd say that missing sarcasm *that* blatant is a reason to give up slashdot for a while. :)

any lawyers in the house?

[jnana]

John Stenbit, an assistant secretary of defense and the Defense Department's chief information officer, said Microsoft has said using free software with commercial software might violate the intellectual-property rights of companies such as Microsoft. Stenbit said the issue is legally "murky."

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.

Re:any lawyers in the house?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

What is bad here is that he is an assistant secretary of defense and *THE* CIO for the DoD. He of all people should not be confused on this issue. He of all people, short of the president himself (who had better keep his campaign-donated nose out of this one, thank-you-very-much), has the most power to seriously fuck-up the growth of free software use in the DoD.

This guy is either exceptionally incompetent to have swallowed the MS bullshit hook, line and sinker, or exceptionally corrupt to have decided to throw his weight behind the MS worldview (and too stupid to keep his mouth shut about it when talking to journalists of the newspaper that took down Nixon).

Re:any lawyers in the house?

[khym]

For example, with many of MS's rather bland tools, they include C/C++ headers to access varous API's and whatnot.

Yeah, but if the government developer did that, it would be their problem, and they'd have to remove the dependancy on MS's headers. There's nothing any non-MS developer can do that would force MS to open-source anything.

Of course, you could use a scenario like this to say that trying to figure out if a project based on GPL'd code violates the GPL is too time consuming, so you shouldn't even bother with GPL'd code, but that's different than argument than what MS was presenting.

Re:any lawyers in the house?

[darkonc]

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.

I don't think this is a big issue. All you need is the scripts needed to compile your code down to binaries. If the MS code that compiles itself in is generated automatically by the standard scripts that come with the compiler and that you generated, then there's nothing wrong with deleting the MS code, and letting the compiler scripts regenerate them at the other end.

In that respect, the MS code, wold be something similar to an intermediate piece of object code (it doesn't need to be distributed to allow the re=creation of the object code).

Re:any lawyers in the house?

[Alsee]

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?

No, but that's ok. Lets take Microsoft's word for it anyway. Since the Pentagon has already said they can't or won't give up their open-source software then they will just have to eliminate all use of Microsoft software. And I guess any other proprietary software - but only if the company in question has an objection to mixing with open-source.

-

Re:any lawyers in the house?

[gnovos]

They love to get you thinking about it being invalid: like you develop some GPL software, put it out there, and a competitor takes it, forks, and keeps it closed. The question is what can you sue for? You havent suffered any damages (you were giving it away to start with!), and it is hard to prove anything actually even happened.

Well, that's easy. They broke the contract (the GPL) so you sue them for punitive damages (always have to stick pain and suffering in there) plus all the money that they made by selling your "product" without following the terms in the license. It's the same as if I took my copy of MS Word and started selling burned copies of it to people. I didn't follow thier license just like the guy in your example didn't follow your license. It's the same exact thing.

Re:any lawyers in the house?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

[Linking to mySql headers and MS ADO stuff]

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.

Not at all. the MySql client libs are LGPL, so just using them in no way obligates you to release your source. If you modify those libs, you must release your modifications to those libs

Re:any lawyers in the house?

[BlueWonder]

You develop some GPL software, put it out there, and a competitor takes it, forks, and keeps it closed. The question is what can you sue for? You havent suffered any damages (you were giving it away to start with!), and it is hard to prove anything actually even happened.

I am not a lawyer, and I am not an American, but it seems possible that the copyright owner can claim statutory damages in the case of copyright infringement.

Re:This gives new meaning to "software wars"

[jonnythan]

And with all this opposition, MS is a monopoly?

Jesus Christ.

Missed the word BANNED

[bstadil]

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.

Re:Missed the word BANNED

[bstadil]

And apparently you missed the part where no one claims that Microsoft has been pushing to ban OSS.

From the Article:
"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.
Unquote

Someone must have uttered the word Banned, Why otherwise would the Mitre article comment on it . If not MS then whom? Oracle?

"Murky"?

[Scooby Snacks]

John Stenbit, an assistant secretary of defense and the Defense Department's chief information officer, said Microsoft has said using free software with commercial software might violate the intellectual-property rights of companies such as Microsoft. Stenbit said the issue is legally "murky."

How in blazes is anything "murky"? Is there anything that I, as a third party, can do that would undermine Disney Enterprises, Inc's copyright on one of their movies? Likewise, are their any rights that I can take away from Microsoft Corporation as a user of their software? Someone needs to put down the crackpipe, methinks.

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.

Re:"Murky"?

[Malcontent]

"Now, I understand why Microsoft is trying to muddy the waters, but why in the world is the DoD playing along? "

Spoken like a man who was never in the military. As a veteran let me assure you that the DOD is playing along because they are profoundly stupid people. MS said something and they believed it. They are not used to questioning authority in the first place.

NSA's Security-Enhanced Linux

[Broadcatch]

See their selinux page.

Tax $$

[rosewood]

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.

Re:Tax $$

[scotch]

Have you been in a US post office lately? Last one I went into was plastered with Windows XP posters, and there were even some demo disks at one point.

The fact that MS can lobby the pentagon (the *pentagon* for crissakes) speaks volumes about how much corporations run this country. The pentagon should tell MS to fuck off - if they want to whine about it, they can make an appeal to congress or some such. The military is supposed to be insulated to some extent from this kind of crap.

If I were running the pentagon, I'd kick those slick backstabbers out on their asses -- "we'll call you if we have any questions".

Re:Tax $$

[5KVGhost]

Have you been in a US post office lately? Last one I went into was plastered with Windows XP posters, and there were even some demo disks at one point.

What does that have to do with anything? The US Post Office is financially self-supporting. They make money by entering into marketing deals, and MS is apparently one of the many companies they have deals with. Your tax dollars are not paying for Windows XP posters.

The fact that MS can lobby the pentagon (the *pentagon* for crissakes) speaks volumes about how much corporations run this country.

Nonsense. The Pentagon (and other parts of the military and civillian gov't) does business with thousands of private corporations. The alternative would be for the gov't to duplicate in every way what private industry already does just fine, and that wouldn't make a darn bit of sense, economically or philosophically.

National Insecurity?

[ThesQuid]

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.

Re:National Insecurity?

[Henry V .009]

You make so much sense! The DoD has obviously ditched NSA testing for free beer software. "Security, Shemurity, at least it doesn't cost anything! I'm installing sendmail on the President's laptop."

Re:National Insecurity?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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.

Hello! The NSA has their own freaking linux distribution. I don't think you can get more undergone than that.

Re:National Insecurity?

[darkonc]

what I find more interesting about that paragraph is this:

To that end, the Defense Department is now prohibited from purchasing any software that has not undergone security testing by the NSA.

Note that he said "tested". He did not say 'had passed testing by the NSA'. This means that MS software might be tested by the NSA, found to be a cyber-terrorist's wet dream and because it had miserably failed testing by the NSA would be purchasable by the Pentagon.

(you might consider that absurd until you've seen some of the submissions made to the courts by Microsoft's lawyers)

Re:National Insecurity?

[Pope]

You can install sendmail on SNES?!

Re:National Insecurity?

[gnovos]

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?

One has to wonder how selling the Pentagon software with SEVERE, KNOWN FLAWS that threaten NATIONAL SECURITY is *not* treason... What ecaxtly could a spy sell to the U.S. that is worse than that?

Re:National Insecurity?

[Tony-A]

It really gets to be fun if you have spies doing the BSA audits.

Re:National Insecurity?

[Simon Brooke]

The Department of Defense may be prohibited from '...purchasing any software that has not undergone security testing by the NSA ...', but it is prohibited from using software that has not undergone security testing?

You don't need to purchase open source software.

Re:National Insecurity?

[Tosta Dojen]

U.S. Constitution
Article III - Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Re:National Insecurity?

[Thing 1]

What ecaxtly could a spy sell to the U.S. that is worse than that?

How about a shiny bomb case full of used pinball machine parts ?

Oh, wait, that was Libya.

Re:National Insecurity?

[pbryan]

One has to wonder how selling the Pentagon software with SEVERE, KNOWN FLAWS that threaten NATIONAL SECURITY is *not* treason...

IANAL, but the amateur lawyer in me says:

"Treason requires the requisite intent to undermine the security of your country. Treason cannot be charged due to negligence or greed."

Re:National Insecurity?

[gnovos]

IANAL, but the amateur lawyer in me says:

"Treason requires the requisite intent to undermine the security of your country. Treason cannot be charged due to negligence or greed."

Spy: "No, your honor, I did not sell the plans to the new top secret submarine to undermine the security of the country, I sold it becuase I was greedy and wanted to make a quick buck."

Judge: "Oh, it was only greed? Ok then you, you can go."

Re:National Insecurity?

[gnovos]

knew what he was selling

That's my point exactly... MS *knows* what they are selling, and have admitted that it is a security risk.

Re:National Insecurity?

[pbryan]

That's my point exactly... MS *knows* what they are selling, and have admitted that it is a security risk.

All software has vulnerabilities -- some known, many unknown. Microsoft may have more than others. It would be unreasonable to expect any differently. Calling the sale of software to government treason is unreasonable.

Microsoft isn't selling top secrets to the enemies of the USA. Microsoft is selling an operating system, whose risks are not fully known to anyone, at best. The spy, in your example, was selling secrets, and knew the direct consequences of his actions.

Microsoft is selling software, with "no warranty ... either expressed or implied", with no "fitness for use a particular purpose". Users of this software are free to not accept the agreement, and choose an alternative. Evidently, the government is seeking one in Linux. Good for them.

Re:National Insecurity?

[jcr]

BTW, the reason that's drafted so narrowly is because the crown had a nasty habit of imprisoning or killing people for treason simply for saying things the king didn't like. (IOW, the freedom secured by the first amendment.)

-jcr

Another bad business decision by MS

[GMontag]

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.

Re:Another bad business decision by MS

[GMontag]

"they" being the managers were the ones making the specifications.

I could and did stand up and argue all I wished, but the final decision was theirs.

It is pretty annoying to put up with them, but it is equally annoying listening to the approach you are bringing, if I am reading what you wrote the way you intended it to sound.

Post Article Does A Poor Job...

[istartedi]

...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.

Re:Post Article Does A Poor Job...

[istartedi]

Bzzzt! The GPL does *not* benefit the taxpayers. If GPL software dominates the market, there will be few players in the market. It will have all the characteristics of a monopoly, except there won't be any company to break up. BSD OTOH, allows your so-called "parasites" to step in and compete to remedy such situations.

It would be really ironic if Russia, with its simple flat tax, became more capitalistic than America whose software industry will be effectively socialized if GPL'd software dominates.

what amazes me is...

[happyclam]

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.

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

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.

Re:what amazes me is...

[Pig Hogger]

Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost. --Thomas Jefferson

"La liberté de presse ne s'use que lorsque l'on ne s'en sert pas" - Jacques Maréchal, Le Canard Enchaîné

( "Freedom of press wears off only when you don't use it" - Jacques Maréchal, the founder of "The Chained Canard", a french satirical weekly that has no advertisements; that paper snoops off plenty of scandals).

Re:what amazes me is...

[Pig Hogger]

canard

Pronunciation: (ku-närd'; Fr. ka-nar'), [key]
--n.,
--pl. -nardsPronunciation: (-närdz'; Fr. -nar'). [key]
1. a false or baseless, usually derogatory story, report, or rumor.
2. Cookery.a duck intended or used for food.
3. Aeron.
a. an airplane that has its horizontal stabilizer and elevators located forward of the wing.
b. Also called canard' wing". one of two small lifting wings located in front of the main wings.
c. an early airplane having a pusher engine with the rudder and elevator assembly in front of the wings.

Doesn't the government?

[wbav]

Go with the lowest bidder?

How does M$ expect to beat free?

Re:This gives new meaning to "software wars"

[Alex]

Monopoly is related to market share, nothing else.

Alex

Hey! I think we're all forgetting...

[teamhasnoi]

that sometimes Microsoft is right.

(and I am always right) :P

Re:What do you expect?

[Metrol]

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.

Actually..

[neuroticia]

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

Re:Actually..

[AJWM]

Microsoft's attempt to justify closed-source ... so insecure that [it] must be kept top-secret

Hmm, would that be the same closed source that apparently (although MSFT later denied it) leaked out to some foreign crackers that had infiltrated Microsoft's internal network for a couple of months last year?

Oh, wait, that was before the four weeks of "security related" bug fixing last February. Okay, everything's fine now. Just a small leak, really.

Re:Actually..

[Danse]

Not even the source code. They said that they couldn't reveal certain APIs and protocols even. That's fucking sad.

Re:Actually..

[LittleGuy]

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.

More like the teen who has been grounded raiding the parents' file cabinet to see if they've paid their taxes.

Re:Actually..

[neuroticia]

But the teen deserved to be grounded, you see--after checking to see if the parents' taxes were paid, he dragged the filing cabinet out into Times Square, put one of those little 10-year-old-girl's diary-locks on it, and a flashing neon sign that says "HERE IS THE KEY" on the side with the key gift-wrapped....

I think that's a more appropriate analogy. At least when Microsoft and "security" are mentioned in the same sentence. =]

-Sara

Re:Actually..

[Chris Burke]

That might be what they said, but surely you realize that when you read their statements you must substitute "[inter]national security" with "Microsoft profits".

There are some days I'd be willing to think they don't distinguish between the two.

Sometimes the scariest thought is that people you assume are being duplicitous are actually sincere.

Will the US follow Peru's lead?

[Nate Enderle]

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.

Re:Will the US follow Peru's lead?

[doorbot.com]

Not too long ago, slashdot posted this [slashdot.org] 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.

Wow, I think I just got trolled. Good thing I've decided to "opt out" of moderating (shouldn't that really be opt in?).

Anyways, thanks for the repost of an old story, which was of course, a repost of a slightly older story. I would have hoped, though, that you could have at least added one of your own ideas into the post. Then it wouldn't feel so much like trolling for karma.

Re:Will the US follow Peru's lead?

[Genady]

I nominate Steven Northcutt. He's no longer with the Navy, but did create Shadow and has done a lot for the Security community, and I'd assume the open source community as well.

Re:This gives new meaning to "software wars"

[Gorobei]

Yes, opposition doesn't prevent a firm from being a monopoly. Consider the railroads in the 1800s: they were opposed by many (mostly those that needed to ship goods,) but they were still monopolistic because users didn't have a real choice of transportation vendors. The railroads used similar tactics to those of Microsoft today (incompatible hardware/protocols, discriminatory pricing, and exclusive partnership agreements.) In addition to strong-arming their customer base, the railroads also hired private "security firms" to hassle their competitors and detractors, spent large sums of money to lobby congress.

A vigorous opposition doesn't mean you are not a monopoly, but it does mean that your days may be numbered.

How to spot bias

[Metrol]

This is like Disinformation 101 here. How to out and out lie, without saying anything untrue. Especially handy to be able to spot fun things like this when reading politically involved stories.

"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.

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.

Re:How to spot bias

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Denning was one of the main professors pushing Clipper.

Re:How to spot bias

[Metrol]

Oh boy, many apologies are owed to the Post from me here. Wow, I had no idea what a wacko this lady is.

On April 16, the President announced a new initiative that will bring together the Federal Government and industry in a voluntary program to provide secure communications while meeting the legitimate needs of law enforcement. At the heart of the plan is a new tamper-proof encryption chip called the "Clipper Chip" together with a split-key approach to escrowing keys. Two escrow agencies are used, and the key parts from both are needed to reconstruct a key.
-- Dorothy Danning

Wow. Calling the clipper chip voluntary. Either a total idiot, or truly evil at her core. Microsoft needs more folks like her speaking up on their behalf :)

Re:How to spot bias

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Uh, clipper was voluntary.

The goal was to require all corporate communications with the US government to be communicated with clipper-secured channels but not to put any requirements on the general populace. They hoped that instead of producing two product lines - one for government communications and one for everything else, that the industry would settle on just one line of products - the clippered version in an attempt to save money through standardization. Thus, the clippered version of the comm devices would filter out into the general market and eventually there would be enough of a pre-installed base that you could count on most, if not all, communications going through clipper insecured channels.

Fortunately, it didn't work out quite that way, no thanks to Ms Denning.

Re:How to spot bias

[jeffy124]

poster:

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.

from the article:

... A May 10 report prepared for the Defense Department concluded that open source often results in more secure, less expensive applications and that, if anything, its use should be expanded.

Maybe Denning hasnt heard of that report? I tried looking through Mitre's website, no luck in finding it. Anyone have a link to that?

Re:How to spot bias

[ansible]

Denning has also made statements to the effect that allowing the general population access to strong crypto would undermine national security.

She seems to be a believer that Big Brother should be allowed to watch over us all, and that he will take care of us because we can't/shouldn't.

I haven't liked her for a loooong time.

The Navy Loves Windows NT!

[toupsie]

The US Navy "Smart Ship" Yorktown was outfitted completely with Windows NT to run the ship's systems. Because of a Divide By Zero bug, the Aegis missile cruiser became dead in the water in 1997 and had to be towed back to dock. Windows NT had frozen the propulsion systems.

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..

Re:The Navy Loves Windows NT!

[VirexEye]

Why couldn't they just reboot?

Re:The Navy Loves Windows NT!

[mce]

I'm all in favour of Linux, but...

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.

Re:The Navy Loves Windows NT!

[Schwarzchild]

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.

Yeah that would be funny, every naval warship getting a Linux uberhacker to fix any problems on the fly!

Re:The Navy Loves Windows NT!

[new_breed]

Parent is troll..same story was posted before in other Microsoft related news. Replies on that post proved that the NT software was not at fault, but the third party written programs that were running on it.

Re:The Navy Loves Windows NT!

[Rogerborg]

• The Yorktown lost control of its propulsion system because its computers were unable to divide by the number zero

"Unable to"? God damn it, Congress should pass a law to enable it. This is the USA! While they're at it, they could round off PI to 3.

Re:The Navy Loves Windows NT!

[Software]

It can't afford to put one aboard each ship that leaves port.

No, and the Navy wouldn't have to. They have these newfangled devices called radios that can transmit data over long distances. They fix the code on land (the Navy could afford a few uberhackers, couldn't they?) and radio them in. Of course, they'd have to have data-capable radios on hand, and the ability to stick in a floppy or something to upload the patches. I don't remember the specifics of the Yorktown's situation, but I imagine their radios weren't dead.

Re:The Navy Loves Windows NT!

[T.E.D.]

I know a little about that, since I used to work for the competitor to the contractor that developed that software.

The fact of the matter is that the Navy, like any other large beuracracy, has all sorts of mutually-antagonistic factions that love or hate various systems more for internal political reasons than for their inherent value.

My old group (the Marine Systems division of Lockheed Martin - great bunch of guys and gals...) developed and maintained the engine control systems for all of the Navy's guided-missile destroyers. This class of ship has been around for a while, so it was originally developed using technologies that are incredibly outdated by today's standards. The sensible thing to do with such a system is to slowily modernize things, with an eye towards longevity and maintainability.

You first have to realise that Naval systems have to be way more reliable than your average PC. The open ocean is not kind to electronics, and warfare certainly isn't. The shock and vibration requirements are unreal (like 100G's). The sailors might all die, but the engines would be just fine. I guess the ship would be puttering around in a big circle in the open ocean. :-)

Also, you must realise that it is considered a disgrace for a captain to have his ship towed back to port. Thus naval engine control systems have to be very reliable, or captains are very unhappy with you. It was not unheard of for our engineers to get woken up in the middle of the night and flown to a diabled destroyer via heliocopter to fix a bug, rather than have it towed in. So a "tow-in" bug is even worse than it sounds to an uniformed civilian. Nasty things happen that a peon like me doesn't really want to think about. :-(

For that reason, the natural and sensible route is to update these systems using Naval-standard COTS hardware (HP/UX based), and to develop all new software in Ada (the only language designed for use in "life-critical" applications), using accepted (and time-consuming) software development processes.

However, there was an R&D branch of the Navy that was investigating use of all sorts of new unproven technologies. In this case, they were using C++, expert systems, common 'PC's, and lassise-faire development processes. Experimenting is what R&D folks should be doing, so that's all good. But these technologies are notoriously bug-ridden, compared to what we were using in the actual fleet. We didn't bid on the R&D stuff, (I'm not sure why), so it went to a competitor of ours who I won't name. (But who's initials are CAE :-) ).

Now of course the commander who has the R&D folks under his command wants to see his stuff used, as that will validate his R&D group, and of course give him a good reason for an increase in funding. So he fights hard to get us thrown off of all future contracts, and our competitors on. But the other Naval oganizations have a lot invested in our stuff, and the captains are understandably leery of massive changes. It probably didn't hurt us any that our competitor was a Canadian company too. So its a big hard political battle, with us mostly winning. I'd like to think this was a victory of reliability and proven techniques over fashion and flash, but I'm not that naieve.

However, apparently they did manage to get the R&D system put on one ship as a test case. Probably it had something to do with CAE having a better position in Crusiers than us. Imagine the captain's displeasure, and our secret delight, when that system failed in the middle of the ocean and the ship had to be towed back. :-)

The moral of the story is that you can probably get something thrown together with whatever's considered "cool" today and that might make it an easier sell, but if you *need* reliablity, you use Unix and Ada, and good software development processes.

(disclaimer: I currently work for a competitor to CAE in a different market.)

Re:The Navy Loves Windows NT!

[T.E.D.]

Why in the fuck was the navy using Windows NT, when they could have been using Solaris or Linux or even fucking HP-UX?

See my reply to the parent of this post for the answer to this question. The exectutive summary is that it was a political, not technical decision. If it was technical, they would have been following their own policies, which would mean it would have been migrated (rather than developed from scratch) to HP/UX boxes using Ada (HP/UX was their standard OS at the time, and Ada their standard language), which together would have provided orders of magnitude more reliability.

Re:The Navy Loves Windows NT!

[warpSpeed]

L1nux d00d, R3por7ing for Duty, 2ir!

Re:The Navy Loves Windows NT!

[Rupert]

Name me another OS that freezes when an application attempts a divide by zero. Then tell me how many warships have that OS controlling their propulsion.

Re:The Navy Loves Windows NT!

[ninewands]

The third-party application was a divide-by-zero error in an Access application running in standalone mode (back in the Access 1.1/NT4 SP3 days ... and yes, I agree, it SHOULDN'T have even been put into field testing without an error-handler for divide-by-zero, but it was).

The bug that actually disabled the ship was in vredir.dll (part of NT). Upon the occurrence of an untrapped divide-by-zero in Access, vredir caused NT to take the entire LAN down. I remember the details because I was adminning a small NT-based LAN at the time and had to install the patch for this because my employer was Access-dependent.

You say this isn't a problem in NT? I say that an OS that takes down a network over an application crash is nowhere NEAR robust enough for a mission-critical application! You say that it's ancient history? I say that later events definitively prove that MS hasn't learned ANYTHING from all the problems NT has had over the years. If they had, Code Red/Nimda would have never occurred and Allchin would not have testified, under oath, that releasing Windows source and middleware APIs could be a threat to national security.

Re:The Navy Loves Windows NT!

[mpe]

No, and the Navy wouldn't have to. They have these newfangled devices called radios that can transmit data over long distances.

Just hope it dosn't happen in the middle of a war. Any enemy who has anti-ship weapons also probably has radio jammers. A radio transmitter makes a nice target for a missile...

Re:The Navy Loves Windows NT!

[mpe]

I also know about 1) how navies work (everything has to be mil spec, so they generally do not have the latest and greatest;

Having something which works is generally of far more importance. An older system will have tended to have more bugs shaken out.

bandwidth limitations apply to ship-to-shore traffic (especially while at sea), etc.);

It's also a good idea to avoid "using the radio made us miss that missile being locked onto is" type senario. Which isn't a hypothetical issue.

Re:The Navy Loves Windows NT!

[T.E.D.]

Do you have any evidence that Ada increases software reliability? I've used Ada for about 5 years and I haven't seen any significant difference in reliability between Ada applications and those written in other languages such as C++.

Actually Rational (the compiler and process folks) did an exhaustive study on this. Their findings were that they had about 2x the productivity in Ada than they did in C, and 1/4th the bugs. You can read the findings yourself
(Note: before you post replies with possible reasons why their results were wrong, read the study. Just about every flaw imagineable was looked into.)

Its very tough to do such studies, so there isn't a lot of other studies around for comparison. I'm aware of a couple of other informal ones with CS students, (which were interesting, but I wouldn't bet my project on) and that's about it. Rational just happened to have the data available and the expertise to study it. But even the infomal studies I've seen give Ada the nod for reliability. The only thing that seems to come close is Java.

This makes sense when you consider that Ada is the only language that was designed from the start for use in "life-critical" applications.

Most of the Ada vendors have gone out of business so I guess Ada would be a great open source project. You aren't going to get any technical support for the compiler so you might as well have the source.

Most compiler vendors in general have gone out of business, so that really doesn't mean much. What is significant is that there are 4 (perhaps more I don't know about) Ada compiler vendors currently supporting Windows, which is more than can be said for C++ and Java.

As for Ada being a great OpenSource project you are right, but not for the reason you think. I guess you didn't realise that the Gnu Ada compiler not only exists, but is now in the official gcc baseline.

However, I've always had great support from my proprietary compiler vendors too. I'd love to see someone try to get the level of vendor support I recieve from GreenHills and Aonix from Microsoft for VC++.

ACT is actually one of the very few Free Software commercial success stories, so you are quite likely to hear about them if you ever attend an RMS talk. I've seen no less than 3 transcripts where he mentioned them or their Gnu Ada compiler in reference to a question about commercial Free Software.

Re:The Navy Loves Windows NT!

[sheldon]

That sounds great except there is no VREDIR.DLL on Windows NT. That's a Windows 95 thing, or even Windows for Workgroups... VREDIR.VXD, VREDIR.386 respectively.

The redirector in Windows NT is RDR.SYS.

Access 1.1 also was a Win16 application, which makes your explanation seem even more interesting and I'm wondering if you aren't confusing Windows for Workgroups with NT.

BTW, both CodeRed and Nimda had had patches available for them from Microsoft for months prior to their exploits. Also in both cases if you had followed Microsoft's instructions for locking down IIS neither worm would have impacted you.

I hate to be critical but I don't think people who obviously know nothing about NT are really in a position to be critical of the OS.

Re:The Navy Loves Windows NT!

[T.E.D.]

I just reread your post and noticed your comment on Aonix. While it might be true that they give good support for their newer products, they don't give any support for the Ada83 compiler they bought from Thompson (who bought it from Alsys). Their solution to any of our problems was to suggest we buy their Ada95 compiler.

That compiler is more than 7 years old! What, precisely, do you think Microsoft's response would be if you called up and asked for support on a pre-3.0 version of Visual C++?

Actually, that's one of the better illustrations of why the only true vendor security is to use a compiler to which you have the source code. :-)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Howitzering themselves in the foot...

[gdyas]

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.

MS vs National Security

[Alien54]

Wasn't there an article the other day citing

"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.

An error in the article

[fava]

A Quote.

The theory is that by putting source code in the public domain, programmers worldwide can improve software by sharing one another's work.

One thing that the GPL is NOT is public domain.

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.

Re:An error in the article

[guttentag]

Write to The Post, explain the inaccuracy and they'll print a correction. With the massive volume of information that goes into each paper, it's sure to happen every day, but they own up to it when they screw up (and hopefully the reporter/copy editor will get it right next time).

Email: letters@washpost.com
Snail:
Jonathan Krim
C/O The Washington Post
1150 15th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20071

The ultimate irony is

[os2fan]

The ultimate irony is that the US DoD defined the internet standards in the first place ..... :)

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.]

DO THEY PAY TAXES?

[rveno1]

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)

Free as in speech -- not beer

[darkonc]

It's quite possible to purchase 'free' software. The difference between free software and proprietary software (like MS Windows) is that having 'purchased' the software, you are free to modify and redistribute (even resell) it, yourself.

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.

Can you say Double Speak

[weepingwillow]

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?

Extremely Secure Linux? A Great Software Project.

[gdyas]

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.

• Promote Linux as the premier OS for security. It's already good - make it damn near perfect.
  
• Provide our nation's defense infrastructure with an open-source secure OS. The DoD is a BIG customer - keep them happy.
  
• Less importantly, shame the fuck out of MSFT. Prove these dicks wrong while they're still patching IE security holes twice a month.
  

Quick!

[Pig Hogger]

Write or phone your friendly neighbourhood four star general!!!

Re:This gives new meaning to "software wars"

[AJWM]

Your railroad analogy is interesting. Just the other day I was remarking that, although a lot of reflexive anti-government libertarians are down on the whole Microsoft anti-trust trial, Bill Gates is more like a Cornelius ('Commodore') Vanderbilt than a Hank Rearden.

Re:What do you expect?

[Da Schmiz]

The Powers that Be(TM) at the Pentagon need to read Dr. Villanueva's letter.

No NSA Secure Open Source?

[sconeu]

From the article:

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.

What about SE Linux from the NSA?

Driving military systems with Windows...

[gdyas]

gives a whole new meaning to the term "General Protection Fault".

Re:Dorthy Denning is the biggest kisass in academi

[glitch!]

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.

Am I the only one just a wee bit unnerved...

[JeremyYoung]

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?

Re:Am I the only one just a wee bit unnerved...

[peddrenth]

Or the soundbytes:

"Microsoft, a convicted monopolist, today asked the government to ban purchases of rival software"

"Microsoft, producer of the world's buggiest and most insecure software, today criticized the NSA for developing a secure operating system which the NSA gave away free for others to improve upon"

"Microsoft, having recently declared that publishing its source code would bring to light serious and fundamental security flaws that are a threat to national security, today criticized software vendors who discover and fix security holes by publishing their source code."

"Microsoft, having recently declared that its code is a threat to national security, asked the government to use even more insecure software for their critical infrastructure"

Government funds competition - MS objects.

[AnotherBlackHat]

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.

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 .sig

Re:Government funds competition - MS objects.

[Genady]

The government funded research on security is available to everyone...

Oh come now. You seriously think that? Some of the government funded research into security software is released. The stuf that runs the bowels of the NSA will never see the light of day.

No, no, and again, no

[Jerf]

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.

Re:No, no, and again, no

[jonabbey]

Absolutely. There are difficulties in making use of GPL'ed software having to do with the potentially poor quality of the copyright documentation on a project worked on by hundreds of coders from around the world, but there is ZERO issue with GPL contamination of Microsoft intellectual property unless someone folds GPL'ed code that Microsoft does not have copyright to into a piece of Microsoft distributed code.

In the event that such does ever happen, the only legal obligation that Microsoft would have would be to cease distribution of the infringed GPL'ed code. There would be no issue of Microsoft's own intellectual property being contaminated, just an issue that they had not been granted a license to distribute the GPL'ed code in the fashion that they had chosen to do.

What Microsoft is really trying to do when they talk about 'threatening to intellectual property' is to insinuate that by GPL'ing something you write, you are forever giving up any profit potential for it, or that free software might maybe possibly be infringing on someone's software patents, or perhaps simply that competing with free software is hard, and reduces the economic value of their own software.

Little of which should be a concern for the Pentagon when it comes to throwing up web servers, etc.

Re:No, no, and again, no

[Jerf]

They have repeatedly claimed, with varying levels of directness, that the reason they must ban people from using Open Source and the reason that Open Source is evil is that the use their customers make of Open Source (GPL'ed) software is that it will obligate Microsoft to do something. Yes, the claim has been made, with varying levels of directness.

Slashdot covered this, but unfortunately, I can't find the reference; one side effect of letting people comment on articles is that nearly every article matches a given search term. In particular there was one article about some SDK (for embedded devices, I think) that contained in the licensing agreement the provision that no software which might obligate Microsoft to release their code could be compiled with the SDK.

The point is, the claim that such software exists, clearly directed at the GPL, and clearly successful to some extent in that I've had to deal with people who believe this 'contamination' happens, is false. No such software exists. You'll never hear them point to a piece of software and finger it as a problem; they can't claim this totally directly. But it's perfectly clear cut what they are trying to imply, because they are getting as close as they possibly can to claiming this. (And again... it's working on some people; they are convincing people that using GPL software will infect their own IP. You can be quite sure that's not an accident.)

Under GPL NSA must release source code?

[scubacuda]

According to 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.

My question is, under the GPL, will they have to tell us what modifications they made?

From GPL:

The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the users, under the GPL.

Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.

What could the NSA do to compel them to show us what modifications they made?

Re:Under GPL NSA must release source code?

[ProfMoriarty]

What could the NSA do to compel them to show us what modifications they made?

Uhmmm ... you already answered your own question ... partially.

You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them.

and ...

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the users, under the GPL.

So ... no release to the public, no need to mention what was secured.

Re:Under GPL NSA must release source code?

[Animats]

NSA does release the source code for Security-Enhanced Linux. Click on the above link for the project page and download.

SELinux is not well understood. NSA has built a version of Linux with a mandatory security module. The idea is to allow people to experiment with a system that enforces mandatory security (which can be tough to live with) and to develop apps that can work within that model.

If you want to move things along, download SELinux and make some application work within a mandatory security model.

Re:Under GPL NSA must release source code?

[Alsee]

What could the NSA do to compel them to show us what modifications they made?

Nothing.
As a government agency routinely invloved in national security they get exemptions from all kinds of stuff.

GPL is a copyright licence. Copyright is only enforced by whatever goverment you are covered by. GPL is meaningless in say Ziare (just a guess. Ziare is pretty much in anarchy, right?). If a government chooses not to enforce GPL, well, that's that. Foreign government agencies could make changes and not release them as well.

-

Re:Under GPL NSA must release source code?

[gsfprez]

i work in "interesting" places in the government.

and you'll probably not believe this, but even though I guarantee you that never shall a Microsoft person ever make it into my office.. our security team is not only interested with computer security, but also with software licensing. its almost on the same plane.

So, while we may be exempt from many things.. believe it or not, we're really under the gun not to fsck this up.. they watch every keystroke and every mouse movement... "illegal" software ("by opening this" license agreements aren't legally binding, i don't think, but IANAL) is not toleratred...

it would almost be easier to pirate MS software in the unclass world of the DoD.

Re:Under GPL NSA must release source code?

[ninewands]

Actually, they (the NSA) HAVE released the source code for their kernel modifications.

Security Studies

[Radical Rad]

"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.

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.

Re:open source at the pentagon

[Tazzy531]

The Pentagon and any other government agencies can in fact view the source codes anytime they want through the MS Shared Source program. In fact, ANYBODY [that has the money to] can access the source code to Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows .NET Server

Steve Ballmer, unplugged.

[mrsam]

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...

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 /. 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.

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.

Re:Steve Ballmer, unplugged.

[Alsee]

While reading your post, something just clicked...

Microsoft has moved into the console market. Well, I think Linux should do the same. Start stealing away Microsofts marketshare with an opensource gaming console - the LBox.

It would be a huge hit. Buy an LBox, download the games for free! :)

-

Re:Steve Ballmer, unplugged.

[kinkie]

It has been tried, didn't work (*cough* Indrema *ahem*).
The economics are not there yet, and it's possible that they'll never be.
Remember that in the end what really drives a console is its hardware, and the OS is probably just a boot loader. There's no need for device drivers, all consoles are the same. Memory management is probably [1] handled by the games themselves, nor there is any use for multitasking (maybe cooperative multithreading in the game engine themselves).
To sum it up, there is no need for OS-like functionalities in a console. Maybe some BIOS-like functions for DRM and similar, and a boot loader.

[1] I am no console developer, it just seems logical.

Re:Steve Ballmer, unplugged.

[Permission Denied]

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.

And I think they're getting scared.

Microsoft is scared. But they're not scared that they're losing money to Linux.

In the section where I work, it's become common practice not to buy any software that does come with source. That includes database apps written specifically for what we do and marketted to a small niche, utility programs and development tools. The software doesn't have to be "Free" or Open Source - it can come with an NDA, but it must come with source code. Why, you ask? My management now understands the power of having source code. If there's a bug, we fix it. If we need a feature, we add it. We're less dependent on third parties to complete our jobs.

NB the ridicule against MS when they claimed that keeping their source code secret was a matter of security. The mainstream press (and perhaps mainstream America) is starting to understand what we techies mean by "security through obscurity." A few years ago, MS could get away with a move like this and most people wouldn't have given it much notice.

Look at the moves toward open standards, which MS is grudgingly accepting. Things like XML, documented networking protocols, standardized programming languages. People have always demanded interoperability, but they now understand that interoperability comes through open standards.

MS has $40 in the bank, and yet they're still making dumb moves against Linux - moves like that "national security" announcement a few days ago. These moves show that they're scared - they're making dumb moves which may hurt their image and their bottom line in the end, and in the business world, those dumb moves which hurt your bottom line are the dumbest dumb moves. But what are they scared of? Are they afraid that $40 billion will become $39 billion? Would you risk attacking Linux/Free software/Open Source so vehemently at the threat of losing one fortieth of your company's stockpile?

Microsoft is not afraid of losing money to Linux. They're afraid of an idea. When people demand source code in order to reduce vendor lock-in, fix bugs and add features, when the public recognizes the crap which MS is claiming as security, when business starts demanding open standards - when these things happen, that's a problem for MS. The MS executives are not foolish - they realize a few hundred million dollars is not such a huge problem for them at the moment. However, what could be a huge problem for them is the death of their business model. That's what they're afraid of.

Re:Steve Ballmer, unplugged.

[Dwonis]

Don't call it "DRM", call it "copy prevention" or "access restriction", depending on which is more accurate. DRM is the Direct Rendering Module for DRI.

Re:Steve Ballmer, unplugged.

[JordanH]

• In the section where I work, it's become common practice not to buy any software that does come with source. That includes database apps written specifically for what we do and marketted to a small niche, utility programs and development tools. The software doesn't have to be "Free" or Open Source - it can come with an NDA, but it must come with source code. Why, you ask? My management now understands the power of having source code. If there's a bug, we fix it. If we need a feature, we add it. We're less dependent on third parties to complete our jobs.

When I worked in SCADA (Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition) a few years back, it was more typical than not to get source to the system. Many contracts required it.

Why? Because these systems were specified and expected to serve for 20 or more years. Without source, you can't expect it to be supported that long.

Also, the customers really liked the flexibility to hire just anybody to fix problems.

SAP provides source (is it just ABAP code or do customers typically get all the source to SAP when they buy it?) for the same kinds of reasons, I believe.

I have no experience in this area, but Mainframe customers often get complete OS source too, I believe. I've known several OpenVMS customers who had source licenses, also.

Not many Windows customers get source, from what I've heard. I think that source distribution was far more common 20 years ago and it's only been in the era of shrinkwrap software that it's diminished. Maybe it's a good idea whose time has returned!

Re:Steve Ballmer, unplugged.

[regen]

SIAC - the folks who run the networks for the stock exchanges, have cut over some mission-critical functionality over to Linux.

As one of the people who developed the ARTmail network at SIAC (The application running on linux), I can tell you that it is not mission critical.

The mission critical application run on MVS, Solaris, HP/UX, Tru64, and a few other obscure comerical unices but not Linux. Most of the mission critical apps actually run on MVS.

Re:Steve Ballmer, unplugged.

[Rogerborg]

• interoperability comes through open standards

Well, specifically it comes from complying with open standards. The HTML standard, for example, is perfectly open, Microsoft just doesn't comply with it, because there's no other kid in the schoolyard big enough to make it comply.

Other than that, a truly insightful post.

Re:Steve Ballmer, unplugged.

[jonathanjo]

Microsoft has moved into the console market. Well, I think Linux should do the same. Start stealing away Microsofts marketshare with an opensource gaming console - the LBox.

Hey, buddy, that's the G/Box to you!

Re:Steve Ballmer, unplugged.

[Tony-A]

In the section where I work, it's become common practice not to buy any software that does come with source. ... If there's a bug, we fix it. If we need a feature, we add it. We're less dependent on third parties to complete our jobs.

Let me take a guess at the results. You are buying 3-nines software from the vendor. You are effectively using 4-nines or 5-nines software. Having the source should give you about 1 or 2 nines more reliability at a pretty cheap cost.

Re:Steve Ballmer, unplugged.

[Fastball]

...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.

And I think they're getting scared.

Bear in mind the jokers in Redmond had a decade plus of unchecked expansion by plagurizing other people's ideas. Witness their latest copy & paste, .NET, a reimplementation of Sun's Java VM. There's also the XBox, Yet Another Gaming Console.

It's funny that Gates and his sycophants scream bloody murder over intellectual property when their entire business model is founded on the plagurizing and buyouts of already existing concepts.

Companies are looking for ways to save money and still improve their businesses, and this is a Good Thing (tm). Linux is an obvious fit, but more than that, managers are realizing the benefits of open source, standards, etc. When there was limitless $ in companies' coffers, Microsoft's excesses fit. Not any more.

IMHO, they're scared because there's nothing new and sexy out there for them to pilfer. No killer apps. No companies with exponential growth turning niches into industries.

Microsoft will fail where other folks fail to conjure new and exciting computing concepts. Amazing since they've got tens of billions of $ to seed R&D.

Re:Steve Ballmer, unplugged.

[Wraithlyn]

First, they ignore you.
Then, they laugh at you.
Then, they fight you.
Then, you win.
-Gandhi

Re:Steve Ballmer, unplugged.

[ninewands]

I have no experience in this area, but Mainframe customers often get complete OS source too, I believe. I've known several OpenVMS customers who had source licenses, also.

Back in the ancient days of IBM PC 1 motherboards (RAM expandable to 64K on the mobo), every PC came with a maroon 3-ring binder manual (just like the big iron) that included the Assembler source to the ROM-BIOS.

You got a similar green manual for PC-DOS 1.1 and a Programmer's Reference Manual for BASICA (IBM PC-DOS Advanced Basic, as opposed to ROM BASIC) if you bought a PC with one or more floppies installed. IIRC the Programmer's Refence Manual was also maroon.

Re:Steve Ballmer, unplugged.

[mpe]

When I worked in SCADA (Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition) a few years back, it was more typical than not to get source to the system. Many contracts required it.
Why? Because these systems were specified and expected to serve for 20 or more years. Without source, you can't expect it to be supported that long.

Probably considerably longer. Remember that the USAF recently dropped huge quantities of high explosive on Afganistan using a bomber designed in the 1940's. As well as the B52 there is also the KC135, airlines stopped flying 707s years ago.

Not many Windows customers get source, from what I've heard. I think that source distribution was far more common 20 years ago and it's only been in the era of shrinkwrap software that it's diminished. Maybe it's a good idea whose time has returned!

IIRC Bill Gates originally came up with the shrinkwrap software idea in the 1970's.

Who are you going to believe

[ahde]

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.

This from the company

[Tokerat]

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...

Re:Extremely Secure Linux? A Great Software Projec

[Gaccm]

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.

Thank you

[scubacuda]

Interesting. Thank you.

God bless the NSA

[Tokerat]

There are many posts here about the NSA and testing software for security, and a few arguments about their Security-Enhanced Linux project. From the NSA's Security-Enhanced Linux FAQ:

Why was Linux chosen as the base platform?

Linux was chosen as the platform for the work because of its growing success and open development environment. Linux provides an excellent 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. A Linux platform also offers an excellent opportunity for this work to receive the widest possible review and perhaps provide the foundation for additional security research by others.

For once I'm rather relieved that Big Brother is watching...and realizing the point, and even helping the cause. Go USA.

flawed analogy

[g4dget]

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.

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.

Oops

[g4dget]

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.

Re:Dumb Windows v. Intelligent Linux Users

[dangermouse]

Tell me again why it's bad for "anyone" to be able to use a computer?

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.

Where's the "murk"?

[g4dget]

Microsoft has said using free software with commercial software might violate the intellectual-property rights of companies such as Microsoft. Stenbit said the issue is legally "murky.

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"?

Re:National Security

[ahfoo]

Or. . .
The enormous advantages of socialist reform will be forced upon the government by the military. How historically appropriate.
Ever watch Battleship Potempkin? How come you can't get that on Kazaa?
America has always been a country with strong socialist tendencies. And the US military itself has some shockingly socialist tendencies. Have you ever seen military housing? It's some of the only housing I've seen in the States where they don't fence the yards. That's a bit creepy for me, but I was struck by how much it reminded me of the suggestions of various utopian socialist writers.
One could argue that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are socialist documents that Marx wouldn't have had too many problems with except for the appalling lack of a right to food and shelter. You have a right to a gun and a lawyer but not a home and food? Seems like a work in progress to me.
You say you want a revolution --hey, don't worry the military specializes in revolutions.

Eros

[Z4rd0Z]

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.

Thanks to Linux i got a Job working for the Navy

[saden1]

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.

Re:This gives new meaning to "software wars"

[ImaLamer]

What is funny I'm watching the last 2 minutes of the "Empire Strikes Back" as of this moment.

Oh, there is the theme... it's over.

Anyways. Does anyone else see Linus and Cox as Luke and his sis (sorry Alan) fighting Bill (The Emp) and Paul (Vader)?

Seriously... it became very clear hearing Lando talking about how they are too small of an operation to show up on the Empire's radar. Too bad linux is on the MS radar.

Well, I guess you could further it... Xerox as the Jedi Counsel and Jobs as Obi-wan. Gates turns to the Dark Side....

Feel free to further the story and point out more.

AC's don't bother replying...

Whoa - no offense!

[wirefarm]

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

Re:Whoa - no offense!

[kinkie]

I am a RHCE. And I assure that it is giving me quite some good points whenever I talk to somebody.
Reason (IMO): the "Red Hat" brand is starting to get known even among non-techies, and there's not many of us (RHCE, I mean). Thus marketoids and recruiters go to the "it must be good" routine. Which it is, but that's beside the point.
MSCE is being ridiculed by just about anybody in mid-to-big size business. It only has place in the market for small-time computer support people. Not that it's a small market, it's just THE market for MCSE people: storm in, reboot and if it fails reinstall the computer.

Re:Whoa - no offense!

[moogla]

Your IT dept. isn't outsourced, is it. When we leave stuff like that up to them, they tend to just reimage the box, thereby destroying all your documents without even checking first.

You can imagine that none of my Windows boxen are under "maintenance". Brutes.

It's also amusing to call the networking group and when they start asking questions like "which OS?", I say "linux", and you can immediately see the sweat on their forehead through the phone.

Re:Extremely Secure Linux? A Great Software Projec

[Alsee]

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.

-

I can just imagine how that comment was made.

[Romancer]

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")

Re:question

[fferreres]

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.

Re:Pure Bull Shit

[joonasl]

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..

Re:question

[jonabbey]

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.

Studies and loopholes

[Selanit]

A couple of things spring to mind. First:

"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.

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.

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.

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?

Re:Studies and loopholes

[Dragoness Eclectic]

As some one who has worked in both Civil Service and in the private sector, I can tell you: Hell, yes!

Free/OSS software doesn't take a chunk out of the budget and it doesn't have to go through the paperwork-heavy, time-consuming justification/requistion/procurement/etc. Cutting out the procurement/requisition cycle means that you might actually get the software before it becomes obsolete and put it to use while you still need it. $0 cost and no license hassles means less paperwork, and there's nothing a government employee wants to do less than paperwork. (Making other people do paperwork is a whole different story...)

(For the same reason the civil service likes to hire part-time workers--they don't have to budget-justify part-timers and issue an formal "position open" notice, they can just hire the person on the spot. Okay, they can't work "full-time", but they can work up to 39 hours a week for 20 working days a month--and they don't get full-timer benefits, so it's cheaper in the departmental budget).

Freedom Of Information Act

[Taco Cowboy]

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.

Re:Freedom Of Information Act

[moogla]

Using an open source application in a Classified project does not make the program Classified. It makes the "method of usage" Classified. Or, if the participants in that project decided to modify the source for use in a Classified application, they would not be bound to release these changes unless the Open Source Application was under the GPL or a similar license. Or they could just not tell anyone and no one would know anyway, with the changes being released at a later date when the material becomes declassified.

Re:Freedom Of Information Act

[HunterWare]

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...

Re:Freedom Of Information Act

[Tony-A]

Or, if the participants in that project decided to modify the source for use in a Classified application,
1) They will be extremely choosy about who gets the binaries.
2) If GPL'd the only requirement is that those who get the binaries can get the sources.
3) If they don't tell anyone (except those directly affected) they're quite legal. They are under no obligation to release source to anyone that does not get the modified binaries.
4) I would assume that the binary and source would both be classified.

Re:What do you expect?

[yatest5]

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.

Re:National Security

[Kanon]

"Ever watch Battleship Potempkin? How come you can't get that on Kazaa?"

Because it doesn't have Kirsten Dunst's nipples showing through a wet shirt silly.

Re:Dumb Windows v. Intelligent Linux Users

[chazzf]

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).

That's exactly the kind of crap that will keep Linux from achieving widespread popularity. Too many *nix people assume that anyone who uses MS (or learned on it) is some clueless troll.

I run Windows 98 SE as my primary operating system. Why? Because I play a lot of games, including a lot of wonderful old DOS games that can barely be made to run on a Windows box, let alone *nix. I use MS Word, IMHO a very good word processing program. Outlook has been burned off my machine, and I have email on a friend's Linux box. I have an old 486 with Linux on it serving as a router/firewall.

I can hear it now: why don't you have a Linux partition with Open Office? I used to. But really, consider the absurdity of it. Why would I run two different operating systems when one, and one alone, meets all my needs? What possible justification, other than Microsoft is evil, is there?

Disclaimer: I am a fan of Open Source/Free Software/Linux/GNU/et al. I admire everything they stand for. I admire their technical superiority to MS. However, they do not meet my needs. Nor do they meet the needs of John Q. Public. Until that time, this sort of thing should be expected. And countered.

Ugh, end rant.

~Chazzf

Hmmmmmm

[Chris Johnson]

What I can't help but wonder is: to what extent are Microsoft prepared to play hardball with the US Government?

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.

Real people ridicule MCSEs

[Anarchofascist]

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.

Re:Real people ridicule MCSEs

[bryan1945]

I concur- I work in one of the big 6 consulting firms, and HR often comes to our team (networking, telecomm) to help interview potential hires. You wouldn't believe the attitudes of the people that come in and say "I have an MCSE!" and just glow about it. Of course, nearly zip in real experience. (Best story: older guy comes in to one of our job fairs, just got his MCSE but no experience in computers ever, and when I told him that he didn't fit any of our openings, he asked if we needed a janitor! I really felt bad for that guy, though) Now, people who come in and detail their experience and maybe throw in the MCSE at the end, they are the people that you want.

Re:Real people ridicule MCSEs

[hubie]

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.

Actually, a prospective employer can only call your references to ask how good you were at your job. Your employer is barred from just about any kind of comment about you except to verify that you work(ed) there, the dates of your employment, and maybe your salary. This is also the reason that if you list any of your current coworkers or supervisors as references, it puts them in a tight spot and they feel reluctant to talk much about you (good or bad) if contacted.

Re:Real people ridicule MCSEs

[dbirchall]

The Achilles heel of the entire MCSE (and to some degree MC*anything* system) is, IMNSHO, the fact that you can have N+1 freshly-minted MCSEs lying around with *no* skills in common except running the OS and basic networking.

Take a look at Microsoft's own MCSE info if you doubt this. The four required core courses cover Win2K Pro, Win2K server, networking, and directories. Then there are four design courses (network design, directory service design, security design, web solution design)... of which you have to take ONE.

If that isn't silly enough, you get to pick TWO elective courses to take... out of 25! So if your MCSE knows how to set up Exchange and design a messaging infrastructure, they probably *don't* know Jack about how to set up a webserver, a proxy, a database server, or anything else. If they know databases, they probably have no clue about mail. And so on.

In the UNIX world, we too have special titles for sysadmins who only know one small slice of the job... but they're unsuitable for repeating in mixed company.

-Dan

Programming vs. Cooking

[juliao]

From the article:

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.

This is wrong and ridiculous. Take a real world comparison:

Publishing cooking books and sharing cooking tips effectively enables people to cook their own meals and enjoy meals cooked by friends, undermining the Commercial Restaurant Industry and subsidizing the Restaurant industry's competitors.

Should the cooking book editors pay money to restaurants, for "damages"? Great idea, no?

Re:Programming vs. Cooking

[Peyna]

The great thing about source code is that compiling is hella lot easier than mixing ingredients and baking/frying/whatever. Sometimes you can even get pre-compiled binaries. Let me see a cookbook do that =]

More specifically Linux should move into the Xbox

[gotan]

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 ...

New Msft division

[ch-chuck]

"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.

Re:This gives new meaning to "software wars"

[netsharc]

Who's Jar Jar Binks in this parallel? Oh right, uncoordinated movement and incomprehensible speech, he's Steve Ballmer!

How to make Windows really secure

[markmoss]

Cut the power cord.

Promote Linux as the premier OS for security.

[shren]

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.

And in other news...

[goldspider]

...businesses are now making pitches to their potential clients, and are trying to discourage them from using their competitors' products.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

In related news...

[neo]

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?"

Microsoft should just...

[flacco]

...point to their software's excellent track record with the DoD.

Re:TAXES? -- YES THEY DO....

[RobertAG]

This is Microsoft's Annual Report (publicly available) as of Sept 18, 2001.

http://www.edgar-online.com/bin/edgardoc/finSys_ ma in.asp?dcn=0001032210-01-501099

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.

Excellent

[dmaxwell]

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.

Re:question

[Hard_Code]

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".

You get what you ask for.

[Darth RadaR]

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)

My friend's sister's husband.....

[hire_me]

...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.

The article gets GPL vs. "open source" backwards

[alispguru]

... and it's wonderful (for Microsoft, that is). Microsoft's line has always been "GPL bad and communistic, open-source (that we can steal from) OK." The article has Microsoft saying "open-source bad", period:

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.

Never underestimate the power of an out-of-context quotation.

Rock and the hard place

[A nonymous Coward]

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.

Losing battle....desperation

[leereyno]

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

Re:What do you expect?

[yatest5]

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?

Where is the Mitre report the Wash. Post cites?

[SgtChaireBourne]

Ok. The Washington Post says, "May 10 report [by Mitre Corp.] prepared for the Defense Department concluded that open source often results in more secure, less expensive applications and that, if anything, its use should be expanded."

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.

Re:Where is the Mitre report the Wash. Post cites?

[MrResistor]

I agree, it would be nice to get ahold of that report. I have never visited Mitre's site, I only know of them by reputation. I expect, though, that anyone who has heard of Mitre would find a pro-Linux (or anything else, for that matter) report from them convincing. That report would be a real boon to anyone trying to sell Linux in the enterprise.

Re:Where is the Mitre report the Wash. Post cites?

[place4linux]

I believe this is the report they're talking about...

http://www.mitre.org/pubs/edge_perspectives/marc h_ 01/index.htm

Unamerican?

[dacarr]

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?

Re:What do you expect?

[dbrutus]

Actually, the Pentagon needs to talk to the NSA.
--start quote--
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.
--end quote--

Apparently, the pentagon spokesman has never heard that the NSA actually puts out its own Linux variant. I doubt that this would have a problem passing NSA security testing...

Nice to see more advocates of free software at DoD

[stress4dad]

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!"

Just like Kirk!

[TWX_the_Linux_Zealot]

"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...

Report prepared by Mitre Corp.

[PD]

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.

Or more fun yet...

[TWX_the_Linux_Zealot]

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*

Re:Most secure computer in the world

[ghostlibrary]

That? I rooted it 5 years ago. You should check on it sometime :)

9/11 again.

[famazza]

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.

Lowest Bidder Exemption for Software

[gdyas]

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.

Free software is easy to get

[jfengel]

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.

You're right - mostly

[DG]

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

Re:You're right - mostly

[JordanH]

• I have to admit that it's nice to watch all the panic.

They do seem to overreact to every threat. Like Netscape, for example. They spent more developing IE 4, IIRC, than they did on Windows 95. And, Windows 95 was their biggest development project up to that point.

And it was way overkill. IE didn't have to be way better to Navigator, which it was, it just had to be good enough and free, which is what really killed Netscape. Netscape couldn't compete with free.

I don't happen to believe that the proprietary business model will disappear or that Microsoft will be bankrupt in the foreseeable future. There is still a lot of resistance to OSS solutions among those who would rather buy their software from a single identifiable entity that builds it and stands behind it. Well, at least they say they stand behind it.

I think the competition from Linux and BSD has sharpened their focus on stability. W2K and XP are huge improvements in stability over earlier offerings.

It could certainly impact their growth and the future is uncertain.

Unfortunately, I don't think OSS advocates can afford to get complacent about the inevitability of it all. If MS survives their anti-trust problems, they will be able to focus their huge war chest ($40Billion) on outcompeting OSS.

It will be interesting, and the consumer will win. Linux will continue to improve and MS might field some startling good things in response.

I'm with the people who say that the OSS community should stop defining itself in terms of competition to MS. Stop trying to react and just keep on making software that fits their own needs. If it wins against MS, great, but the real goal is making software that works.

By defining Linux as a competitor, targets are setup for MS Marketing to try and shoot at. By being a large and amorphous community that makes good software, well, they have a harder time of marketing against "freedom".

It's kind of Taoist. You can't fight against someone who refuses to join the fight.

Why MS started their 'open initiative'

[geekoid]

"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."

Re:What do you expect?

[eam]

A modern jet plan has fewer parts than windows.

"un-American"

[macdaddy]

Excuse me, but when has it ever been "un-American" to make some bigger, better, faster, and cheaper?

My responses to some points

[kindbud]

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!!!!

Subsidies

[Dastardly]

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

Re:Extremely Secure Linux? A Great Software Projec

[ninewands]

... 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 ...

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.

Re:What do you expect?

[cloudmaster]

I'll bet that I can dissasemble an airplane using nothing but my leatherman, and figure out how everything works. I'll bet that I'll have that done before you get anywhere trying to dissasemble Windows XP/2000/9x/Office. :)

Having the plane's different from having the object code.

The real battle...

[freeBill]

...is over the GPL.

"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."

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.

Free vrs Paid

[markwusinich]

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

Re:Out of curiousity...

[Tony-A]

No, it's more like one bad modem breaks the Internet.
Fortunately, most of the Internet does not run on Microsoft Windows.

Use the GPL text, Luke.

[Royster]

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.

Mitre: Assuring the Safety and Security of COTS So

[SgtChaireBourne]

That looks like it. The section Assuring the Safety and Security of COTS Software Products sums it up in the points quoted below. 2, 4, and 5 ping most closed source solutions and especially, given their business practices, Microsoft. Points 3, 5, and 6 imply Open Source / Free software based on practices. The last point names it explicitly.

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.

Assuring the safety and security of COTS products is difficult because:

• The rush to market means end users become testers.
• COTS products have an unknown pedigree (who developed it, what process was used).
• The absence of source code precludes some analyses to certify the code, and it may be illegal to do reverse engineering of commercial products to deduce the code.
• Systems may not use all the features of COTS software but the unused features may have an undesirable effect on the behavior and resource consumption of the product.

Suggestions for managing these risks include:

• Determine if the vendor publishes all errors reported by users.
• Tap into user communities that do disseminate information on errors, problems, and solutions.
• Design the system to be defensive about COTS products performing critical functions by creating checks and bounds on the damage they can do if they perform incorrectly.
• Use open source products in order to be able to obtain and analyze the source code.

Re:Extremely Secure Linux? A Great Software Projec

[T.E.D.]

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.

I hear FBI is on their way over to interrogate you about your Al-queda contacts. :-)

Re:SOLIDARITY WITH THE PALESTINIANS!

[ryanwright]

What the?? Will somebody with mod points mod this down? How the hell did this get marked 'interesting' in a story about Microsoft?

MS source not closed to Military, or univ research

[AHumbleOpinion]

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.

Re:Out of curiousity...

[cje]

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.

Irrelevant, unless you're claiming that it's perfectly fine and dandy to allow an application divide-by-zero error take down the entire operating system. Windows has matured a lot since then, but let's not pretend that it wasn't at fault in that situation.

Re:A couple of passages...

[symbolic]

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.

Try again.

[jcr]

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

Re:Try again.

[sheldon]

Ahh, but the machine never crashed... only the database application.

You are claiming the Internet is broken because your modem stopped working.

Re:Try AGAIN.

[sheldon]

Because when the app started up it began to try to process the bad data again... That was explained in one of the articles.

Sorry, you did not, and still do not know jack shit. End of story.

I vote no!

[3seas]

I do not want my tax dollar being paid to a court found criminal.

Can it get any simpler than that?

Re:Double edged sword.

[mpe]

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.

To which the BSA will be told "national security, go away"... Dosn't the US militry have soveriegn immunity anyway?

Re:You need to broaden your horizons, Sheldon.

[sheldon]

It's no myth that NT's unreliability was a critical factor in that ship becoming disabled.

Actually it is...

http://www.sciam.com/1998/1198issue/1198techbus2 .h tml

By the way, you attempts at ad hominem arguments only further my point, sad to say.

Re:Out of curiousity...

[sheldon]

Go read the original article again. There was never any mention of the problem taking the NT OS down. That's the myth which was inserted by Linux kiddies.

Windows has matured a lot since then, but let's not pretend that it wasn't at fault in that situation.

Better yet, let's not pretend it was at fault in that situation.

http://www.sciam.com/1998/1198issue/1198techbus2 .h tml

Just ask the chief engineer on board the ship about what happened.

What I find interesting is that...

[CAIMLAS]

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.

Re:Extremely Secure Linux? A Great Software Projec

[Alsee]

I hear FBI is on their way over to interrogate you about your Al-queda contacts. :-)

Better than a BSA interrogation :D

-

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:More specifically Linux should move into the Xb

[foniksonik]

Use it as an mp3 jutebox!!! W/ visualizer... It's the only way to use the Box. Microsoft, "now supporting intellectual property infringement".