Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Battles Free Software at Pentagon
Spirit of Ishmael writes "The May 22 Washington Post is running a story under the headline Microsoft Fights Free Software at Pentagon. According to the story: 'Microsoft Corp. is aggressively lobbying the Pentagon to squelch its growing use of freely distributed computer software and switch to proprietary systems such as those sold by the software giant, according to officials familiar with the campaign.'"
Mitre may have a reason they want to encourage Linux in the gov't.
I have been pwned because my
Quoth the article:
Jonathan Shapiro, who teaches computer science at Johns Hopkins University, said: "There is data that when the customer can inspect the code the vendor is more responsive. . . . Microsoft is in a very weak position to make this argument. Whose software is the largest, most consistent source of security flaws? It's Microsoft."
As ye sew, so shall ye reap, I guess.
This article was so full of typical Microsoft FUD, but it hit one or two points very clearly:
The Gub'ment is savin' your tax dollers by usin' that open source Linux thingy!
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
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...???
Can any lawyers tell us how in the hell this might even be remotely plausible? Is it possible that there might be *anything* to such a claim that using both free and non-free commercial software might violate the IP rights of the commercial vendor? This sounds like good old MS FUD, but usually there is some tiny scrap of reality at the base of their sand castle. I can't believe this might be true, but IANAL.
I think you missed the word Banned.
I am not aware that BK is trying to make your intake of Whoppers conditional of not eating Big Macs anymore.
Help fight continental drift.
The only way I can think of that using Free Software would "violate [Microsoft's] intellectual property rights" would be if their EULA or contract with their customer prohibited it. But that's not even a matter of intellectual property rights[1], that would be contract law (in the case of an actual contract, or if we assume that EULAs are, in fact, legally binding).
Now, I understand why Microsoft is trying to muddy the waters, but why in the world is the DoD playing along?
[1]Remember, the all-encompassing phrase "intellectual property" covers three nebulously-related yet disparate parts of the law: trademarks, copyrights, and patents. It does not refer to contracts, in the common usage of the term.
--
Runnin' around, robbin' banks all whacked on the Scooby Snacks...
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.
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.
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
What has me truly amazed is that Microsoft is now fighting against the world. Think about it... most companies battle their competitors. Microsoft has become so big and rich that they no longer have any individual competitors. The "competition" consists of people who do good things, often for free. God forbid the government give money to people who do good things.
And, of course open source is un-American! In the sense that "American" implies elitist, exclusive, arrogant, and imperialistic.
He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send your fingerprints off to Washington."
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.
Go with the lowest bidder?
How does M$ expect to beat free?
=================
Unix is very user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are.
Free software is their competition. Next thing you know people like Alan Cox might speak to them about the benifits of open source. My god, how evil!
If Lockheed and Boeing were in the midst of competing for a contract, one would not be suggesting the other be BANNED through legislation. Sure, the competition would be rough. Thing is, they would be competing on the merits of the product they were bidding on.
What is happening here is (to keep the metaphor a rolling) is Boeing is making the claim that Lockheed is making inferior products, and giving all the secrets to unfriendly nations. That to even consider doing business with Lockheed is equivalent to being an unAmerican communist. You're not for communism are you?
Despite what you make think, it is not a usual occurance to have one competitor try to get legislation passed to ban another. You require a special kind of arrogance to go that far.
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
I think the best reason to encourage Linux in the gov't is Microsoft's attempt to justify closed-source Yeahhh.. The software is so insecure that the source code must be kept top-secret, but it should absolutely be used in the government. I wonder if everyone in the government has to have a Passport account, too?
And hey--isn't MS currently at court for being over-eager? Going after the gov't after that just seems like a little kid who's just gotten a spanking going right back to the cookie jar.
-Sara
Not too long ago, slashdot posted this article concerning the campaign in Peru to switch the government to free software. It had a point by point by point analysis of Microsofts FUD. I hope that somebody in the US government takes the time to think through the issue, rather then just giving in to corporate pressure. What would be even better would be to see one of our own senators or high appointed officials show that they understand the issue as well as Peruvian Congressman David Villanueva Nuñez. One can hope.
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.
At least with an open source system, they could have patched the code and moved on. But with the closed source Windows NT system, the USS Yorktown had to be towed into harbor and let the boys from Redmond check under the hood.
Thank God it was peacetime..
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If any of you follow the link provided and read the article, you'll find that the DoD is giving MS's advice exactly the (lack of) credence it's due. So before you piss yourself about supposed Bush Administration / MS collusion, just read it.
Huzzah, and thank God the good folks at the DoD are relying on solid data to make good decisions about the software used to protect the nation, and Damn MSFT for looking for growth opportunities in degrading national security by harrying them for needless proprietary expenditures & vague allusions to "legal problems".
Corporate competition is one thing, but I don't think I can say it any simpler than Keep the Fuck off our Gov't with your FUD. When it comes to the DoD, there's more at stake than your option portfolios.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
"a senior Microsoft Corp. executive [who] told a federal court last week that sharing information with competitors could damage national security and even threaten the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan. He later acknowledged that some Microsoft code was so flawed it could not be safely disclosed."
Which would be a national security threat?
And they wonder why the Pentagon is Doubtful?
It certainly doiesn't sound like something worthy of milspec regulations.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
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.
People will often 'purchase' free software because they wish to support the work of those who are supporting it, or because they wish to access support or other special packages that the seller makes available with a purchase.
Some companies purchase 'free' software because it makes the accounting department happier.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
From the article:
Among the most high-profile efforts is research funded by the National Security Agency to develop a more secure version of the open-source Linux operating system, which competes with Microsoft's Windows.
IANAProgrammer, but I think that if the good people working on the kernel would like to contribute in a huge, meaningful way to Linux AND to national security they could put their heads together and bang out an iron-clad version of Linux, contributing to the above project and developing a superior, open-source solution that could achieve three primary goals, all very desireable.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
Denning was one of the main professors pushing Clipper.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
By Microsoft lobbying hard to keep the department of defense using MS software, from a socio-political point of view? I mean, what better way to lobby congress or the judicial system to protect Microsoft from the law than to ensure Windows is used in critical national security functions? In fact, what better way to control government period than to ensure they use your software for their classified, even critically secret operations?
Go Lakers!
And when they pay for software, the government isn't subsidizing the producer?
The government funded research on security is available to everyone - Microsoft included.
When they fund research on faster planes, only a few companies gain the benefit.
They aren't likely to stop doing either.
-- this is not a
Nothing a user of Microsoft software can do, developer or otherwise, can possibly obligate Microsoft in the slightest. It's impossible. As impossible as trying to come up with a scenario where I somehow create a legal obligation for you based on the posting you just created.
I can make a derivative work with your posting and try to Open Content it, but all the means is that I had no right to Open Content your post in the first place. Nothing I do can aquire those rights by fiat. Nothing I do can obligate you without your consent.
This line from Microsoft angers me, because it goes beyond FUD, beyond number juggling, beyond threats, beyond monopolistic manipulation. It's not FUD, it's another three-letter word you may be familiar with: L I E . It's a flat-out lie. And they know it.
My question is, under the GPL, will they have to tell us what modifications they made?
From GPL:
What could the NSA do to compel them to show us what modifications they made?
Little news tidbits like these ones actually explain why there's been a steady trickle of those bizarre, off the wall, statements and comments, from Ballmer, Gates, and other senior Microsoft officers. You know -- the comments like open source being some demonic spawn of Vladimir Il'ich Lenin; or Richard Stallman invading your corporate vaults and stealing your company secrets, etc... etc... etc...
/. can actually put a monetary amount on how much it actually is, if there's anybody in the world who has a pretty good idea how much revenue Microsoft is losing because of Linux, it must be Gates, Ballmer, and the rest of Microsoft's upper echelon.
I do believe that Open Source software, and Linux specifically, are taking a bigger, and bigger chunk out of Microsoft's revenues. Not much, in fact it's rather piddly; but it's still noticeable. And it's growing. Although few people on
And I think they're getting scared.
That may be a bit self-serving or presumptious, and with 40 billion in the bank they clearly don't have much to worry about. Still, I think they have to have at least a mild case of indigestion.
There's nothing in this story that really should surprise anyway. So the feds, and the spooks, are using Linux, sometimes in a quite visible, and mission-critical way. So? That's nothing earth-shattering. And that's precisely what's giving Ballmer and Co the problem. Linux has traction. Not just the feds. Linux has traction in big corporate America. SIAC - the folks who run the networks for the stock exchanges, have cut over some mission-critical functionality over to Linux. Look at the classifieds ads in New York City, from big financial firms. There's a small trickle of open job reqs for hackers with Linux experience.
Gates, Ballmer, and Co, are seeing this as well as the next guy, and they just don't know what to do about it. That's what's scaring them. It's one thing when you have a well-defined opponent to do battle with. But how do you define the opponent here? Microsoft can't clearly define who their opponent here is. There's no single company to purchase, spread FUD about, or drag into court over some frivolous intellectual issue, in order to bleed them with legal fees.
So, all you can do is to try to FUD your way against Linux in general. But each time you'll try to go with a generic FUD campaign, your arguments can be easily shut down with a single, specific, counterexample of Linux's success in a mission-critical role. There's enough case history out there now to be able to point to, as a counterargument to FUD.
Microsoft is clearly struggling, trying to figure out a focused, targeted, anti-Linux campaign, and failing each time. Notice how they no longer claim that Linux isn't ready for mission-critical roles. That didn't work. Now they're claiming that using Linux puts your intellectual property in jeopardy. That can't last much longer. They still can't come up with a specific example, and only talk about in generalities; furthermore with Sun and HP putting Linux APIs into their respectives *nixes, the notion that Sun and HP have intentionally put their intellectual property in jeopardy is a bit difficult to swallow.
So, I don't think the intellectual property FUD has much more left in it, and it will slowly disappear over time. So, what's the next FUD attack? I don't know. Neither does Ballmer, or Gates. And that's what's scaring them.
Promote Linux as the premier OS for security. It's already good - make it damn near perfect.
Linux isn't engineered, developers' scrath their itches, if lots of people care about really high end security, it will get done, otherwise it wont.
Provide our nation's defense infrastructure with an open-source secure OS. The DoD is a BIG customer - keep them happy.
While the more linux users the better, no developers care about specific countries or how big a user might be.
Less importantly, shame the fuck out of MSFT. Prove these dicks wrong while they're still patching IE security holes twice a month.
There have been more events than you can shake a stick at where MS screwed themselves over, Linux just needs to be good in order to make MS look like a fool.
Also I should advise you that 1) the NSA has their own version of linux is has extra security stuff, and two, don't forget about *BSD. OpenBSD hasn't had a remote root exploit in 4 years or something.
Only dead fish swim with the stream...
For once I'm rather relieved that Big Brother is watching...and realizing the point, and even helping the cause. Go USA.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
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".
XML causes global warming.
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.
Microsoft is trying to get Windows 2000 approved under the new scheme, but hasn't succeeded yet.
RHCE is one of the better programs out there - LPI, I'm not so familiar with. (But I've heard good things about it.)
What I was saying is that the MCSE program has way better brand recognition than anything Linux has to offer. Everybody's heard of it and frankly, outside of slashdot, it's rarely something to be ridiculed for.
My point was, there's a lot of people out there who are really qualified in Linux who are not certified in any manner. (Are RMS, Linus Torvalds and Alan Cox certified?)
Plus, making MCSEs into dogfood would be cruel. No dog deserves that...
Cheers,
Jim in Tokyo
-- My Weblog.
aren't contributing to any one nation's national security, but all takers equally.
I hear Al-queda is finally fed up with security leaks from their use of Microsoft software and are switching over to 100% open-source.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
A couple of things spring to mind. First:
My first reaction to this was "Suuure." But then it occurred to me that the word "systematic" is key. Have there been any systematic studies of security in open- vs. closed-source programs? I mean academic quality research -- with control groups, a clearly defined method for testing the security, with the results published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Emphasis added.
So, the DoD can't purchase any untested software, hey? Well great! They can have all the open source stuff they want, no purchase necessary. Obviously the regulation is in place to keep the government from using untested software, but I'll bet it was written with the assumption that you can't legally use software you haven't paid for. Open source distribution schemes don't require payment, which opens up a loophole. I wonder, could that be why open source systems have come to play a "critical role" at the DoD, as the article mentioned?
"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.
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
No statement is true, not even this one.
What I was saying is that the MCSE program has way better brand recognition than anything Linux has to offer. Everybody's heard of it and frankly, outside of slashdot, it's rarely something to be ridiculed for.
/.
I've been writing software in PHP for an employment agency for the last year. I have had to work closely with our employment consultants to see how they work, what they think is important to know about candidates, vacancies and companies. None of them read
When our IT staff hear about someone with an MCSE their immediate reaction is "Get to the back of the queue with all the others."
MCSE may have incredible brand recognition, but that works against it being useful to employers. Everyone knows about it, it's marketed as the must-have qualification, so a candidate spends the money, spends some time, and as long as they have a certain IQ level, an MCSE comes out of the 'certification' slot on the Microsoft machine. Result - millions of MCSEs.
The first thing employers care about is work experience. They can call your last employer and ask how good you were. In 30 seconds they can make a decision. The second most important facto they consider is your real tertiary qualifications.
Last and least are the one-day courses, the part-time courses, and the MCSEs.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
free the mallocs!
Imagine buying that nice chunk of Hardware for $199 and being able to actually do something useful with it ... and the best part is, that MS is losing money on every sale. And that project is actually underway.
...
That only leaves to figure out what to use it for. The thing has an ethernet port, the gameports can probably be used as USB-ports given the right adapters, and there's Video/Audio out
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
Who's Jar Jar Binks in this parallel? Oh right, uncoordinated movement and incomprehensible speech, he's Steve Ballmer!
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
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."
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
When I read about stories like this the impression I get is that Microsoft is desperate and is fighting a war they cannot win.
The best way to respond to Microsoft when they are in this position is to ignore them. By that I mean don't communicate with them. Refuse to take their phone calls, ignore email messages, throw faxes into the circular file, assuming of course that you have the power and authority to do so. This will have the effect of demoralizing the Microsoft employees tasked with preventing you from using non-MS products. This in turn will inhibit their ability to do this to others as well. At the end of the day anything that causes a Microsoftie to do a bad job is a good thing.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
The Washington Post article says that M$ is calling open source unamerican.
When did they employ the remains of Joe McCarthy for its marketing department?
This sig no verb.
I don't think Microsoft is losing much actual money to Linux and Open Source just yet - but they can see the writing on the wall.
I was at the very first Perl conference a few years ago, when ESR presented CatB for the first (?) time. At that point, I wasn't really into the whole Free Software/Open Source thing; I just really liked Perl and was there to learn more about it.
Sitting there, listening to ESR, it hit me like a bolt of lightning; one of those ultra-rare flashes of "Eureka!" Commercial software, as embodied by Microsoft, was dead in the water. Open Source and the Internet had created - actually, had *evolved* - a new design method that would eventually supplant all commercial software development with mathematical certainty.
It's like when you're playing solitaire, and you get to the point in the game where you've won, and all the other moves are just the playing out of the algorithm.
Mind you, the time involved with the "playing out of the algorithm" as far as software development is concerned will still take years, but unless there is a dramatic change in the conditions under which software is developed and distributed, the Open Source/Free Software juggernaut is mathematically unstoppable.
Microsoft is the woolly mammoth eying the ice sheet creeping steadily southwards.
The people who run Microsoft, while they may be supremely arrogant, are not stupid. It may have taken them a little while to actually _believe_ that they were vulerable, but they seem to understand it now, and they have gotten religion in a big way.
They understand that they cannot possibly compete with Open Source on the merits - they lose on price (free vs $$) they lose on quality (given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow) and increasingly, they lose on response time as well (not even Microsoft can hope to employ as many developers as work on Open Source projects)
They can't even fall on the old Microsoft technique of last resort - buy the competitor's company - because Open Source is by definition decentralized. It cannot be killed, it can only be outcompeted.
(That's not to say Open Source as it exists today is perfect - it most definately has flaws. But as the ice sheet grinds southwards, these flaws tend to be (slowly) rectified. The number of niches where Microsoft can "beat" Open Source grows smaller every day.)
They only have themselves to blame for this. Microsoft has been the ultimate predator, culling the herd of lesser methods and companies, and in doing so, has forced the evolution of an even tougher force than itself.
What we're seeing now is a desparate attempt by Microsoft to try and change the conditions that allow the Open Source development method to work so well, because that it their only chance at mounting anything like a successful defence. Too bad that they made so many enemies on the way to the top; they are finding few allies.
I have to admit that it's nice to watch all the panic. Turnabout IS fair play.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Actually the programs are not the important thing, the data generated by them is. Just because a document is written in Abiword, it is not public domain. Neither is any set of calculations done with Octave automatically GPL'd. Most importantly all data stored on a Samba file server is not therefore Public Domain or GPL.
All of these are perfectly good uses for open source. In Addition, these programs (and an underlying Open Source OS) all also provide the benefit of being easily audited for security (and fixed). All upsides here...
A modern jet plan has fewer parts than windows.
Excuse me, but when has it ever been "un-American" to make some bigger, better, faster, and cheaper?