Slashdot Mirror
USDOI Goes 100% Microsoft
SatanIsHere writes: "A memo (here, here, here, and here) dated September 19th, 2002 from the Department of the Interior's Acting CIO notes the new policy of a "Department-wide standard for computer operating systems (desktop and server)" Of course the good news is that this will herald a new era in government transparancy for the Department of the Interior.
SatanIsHere Continues: "On September 13, 2002, the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget signed the attached Findings and Determination establishing Microsoft Corporation's enterprise desktop and server software as the Department-wide standard for computer operating systems (desktop and server), office automation, and asset management software.... Benefits of establishing this new Department-wide standard include:
- Lower Total Cost of Ownership for the desktop, including lower user training costs.
- Centralized and efficient security policy administration
- Greater flexibility and management functionality from products that offer a broader range of management solutions that integrate with non-Microsoft environments
- Greater productivity and reliability attributed to less downtime.
- Extended support for a large base of software applications.
Business specific application software requirements (such as Sun/Solaris, IBM, AIX, etc.) outside the established Microsoft standard may be addressed through the OCIO waiver process."
This looks to freeze out an entire Federal Department (70,000+ employees) from non-Microsoft solutions, requiring a "waiver" to use anything non-MS. One more step to complete Microsoft World Domination. This is particularly ironic considering the problems DOI has had recently regarding IT security. If this isn't leveraging a desktop monopoly into other areas I don't know what is. :-P"
Now they can blame MS for their abysmal performance!
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
We're sorry, but this page is currently unavailable for viewing.
If this site belongs to you, you owe us big time, one of our rack's just melted from this fatal slashdoting.
Geocities/Yahoo have "Bandwidthquota" that has been used up. That quota is quite strict so its not that unfamiliar.
yush
Software is cheap, a few hundred bucks, much less then paying the employee for a few days.
I use linux at home, but at work I gladly use windows & MS Office, it is the best solution, or at least a decent one for many situations.
Hopefully the waiver process isn't so difficult that people can still select the best tool for the job.
Patriotism is the opium of the masses
> [...]
> Centralized and efficient security policy administration
> [...]
> Greater productivity and reliability attributed to less downtime.
That are the Benefits of using M$? Funny, I never knew that widooze provides these features...
I think the two things that stick out are:
1. This applies not just to desktop but to ALL servers as well. and...
2. In order to use non-MicroSoft stuff, you need a waiver (which, based on the way government works, I'm sure is easy to get.)
Sorry to state the obvious, but this seems rather closed-minded on the DOI's part. Especially when you consider MicroSoft's track record for security.
Did you even read any of the above? Or did you just go into 'Troll' mode?
The opposite of progress is congress
This is more or less exactly the policy implemented in my organisation five or six years ago, justified on TCO grounds. Since then, the TCO for all IT systems has increased by around a factor of ten while the amount of useful IT systems being run has perhaps doubled. Go figure. Perhaps the original TCO arguments were flawed. Smoke, mirrors, and marketing...
Which part of "everybody will use this single piece of proprietary software" allows people to choose a solution which fits their needs?
It's more likely that they are running Linux or some other system and this decision is forcing them to change to something that doesn't suit their requirements.
NB: taking this all with a grain of salt. A geocities page with some "leaked documents" that slashdots within 5 minutes might just be a hoax.
Ok, lets cover them one by one:
* Lower Total Cost of Ownership for the desktop, including lower user training costs.
We've got problems at my work with people thinking that they are fully fledged programmers since they can record two macros and cut'n'paste the results into a super-macro. Of course users need to be educated, otherwise they will not be able to use the applications properly. (One example is people insisting on using spaces when they try to indent text, then go to the IT department and complain about the lines not being properly aligned...)
* Centralized and efficient security policy administration.
Oh, what? Surely one can pull the TP-cable out of *nix boxes too. Even the 'central' one in the basement... Security can not be a reason to use M$ software.
* Greater flexibility and management functionality from products that offer a broader range of management solutions that integrate with non-Microsoft environments.
This is M$ key to new markets. Take a standard, implement it, expand it in your solution in order to make your app 'integrate' with others, but not the other way around. A good application should be able both to import and export data properly. (M$ Word RTFs crash my FrameMaker... portable format - not).
* Greater productivity and reliability attributed to less downtime.
Again, you do not get less downtime by buying an expensive system with big flaws. They probably pay loads of $$$ to get a guaranteed time to support arrives and press the 'reset' button. *nix usually do not fail as ofter as Win*, thus no need to advertise that support will arrive in 2.3ms. The lack of service can be because it is not needed, not because it is an ingnored flaw.
* Extended support for a large base of software applications.
Since most advertised software is commersial, and they probably do not look for software them selves (just ask for it in a formal way and have companies make offers). Just use KDE as the German government intends to do. This does not only give a better quality of the software, but also save loads of license $$$.
But since Bill payed Bush's campain, Bush has to give the money back to Bill. As he doesn't fancy paying up at few $$$, he just takes the $$$ from the tax payers. Bomb the hell out of a few arabs and the software sums looks small in the contents.
Okay, I expect all those people complaining about the "open source must be considered" laws to start complaining about this "nothing but Windows is allowed to be considered" administrative policy.
Troll? Maybe. But I would expect those principled people who go on about the "freedom to innovate" to object to a strict Microsoft-only policy -- simply because they objected to other, less stringent policies, such as the "open source software must be considered" policies. These policies didn't rule out the use of commercial software. This policy rules out the use of anything but Microsoft software. Where's the "freedom to innovate?"
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
I'd complain just as bitterly if some naive bureaucrat declared "nothing but open source is allowed to be considered". So what's your point?
Sure, Go 100% Microsoft. It'll make the drooling MCSE's on the site titter with glee at the thought of "unifying" everything in the Microsoft way.
But you know what 100% Microsoft translates to? 100% downtime when the next "melissa" or "nimda" hits. I've BEEN there. I've worked at companies like this. Just wait--they'll get tagged by the next Outlook script and the entire site will be down for a day or two while ONE MCSE pokes at the keyboard, surrounded by one or two other MCSEs standing and staring at the guy typing--all the while pulling in huge $$$ in overtime, on top of the huge $$$ they get just for having a 4-letter Microsoft-approved title. Everything is on hold until the next virus update to "fix" the problem, since goodness knows there isn't much in terms if diagnostics and repair you can do in WinNT by itself.
There's a reason why I gave up being a sysadmin--100% Microsoft is mostly why. Can anyone else stuck in 100% Microsoft/MCSE land corrorborate the above story? I'd be surprised if the exact same song-and-dance didn't happen at every Microsoft site.
What the head article fails to mention is that a Federal judge ordered the Department of the Interior to shut down all internet connections last year. With no from-the-outside network attacks, the Microsoft systems might stay up for days, even.
Offtopic example.
Peter: "Why not cross the streams?"
Egon: "It would be bad."
Peter: "Define bad."
Egon: "Imagine all life as you know it stopping instantainiously, and every molocule in your body exploding at the speed of light."
Peter: "Ok that's bad. Important safety tip."
Ontopic example.
Hemos: "Don't post links to That server!"
chrisd: "Why?"
Hemos: "It would be bad."
chrisd: "Define bad."
Hemos: "Imagine all internet traffic as you know it stopping instantainiously, and every packet on the network bombarding the server at the speed of light." chrisd: "Ok, that's bad. Important safety tip."
The problem with a bid process is that, for the government, this means ONLY commerical entities. Getting Open Source into this process would be very difficult.
From my experience with the bidding process there was probably a requirement in the RFP that any software be able to 100% read MS word/excel documents. Again, very difficult to prove.
The Government RFP process makes it very difficult to factor in TCO for a purchase. They generally can only look at the lowest initial cost (that meets the requirements).
They should use *nix because its far more secure than windows (on the servers). If you lock down windows on the desktoip so that all files are stored on a NFS/Samba server than use windows on the desktop..
The crap about a learning curve is just that, crap.
why is it such a terrible thing if a government office standardize on some license requirements (e.g. only buy free software) allowing any vendor to compete, but not a problem when a government office standardize on a single vendor, and accept whatever license that vendor provides?
Somehow the idea of a government office being unwilling to accept any license is soo evil that even some traditional free software advocates are against it, yet standardizing on a single vendor is so commonn that it rarely get mentioned.
That's the kind of sh*t that pisses me off, I don't pay taxes to have the government simply hand that money to a corp. I am morally opposed to. I wouldn't mind if they simply chose the best tool for the job and the tools they needed happened to be MS software, but this just reeks.
There is absolutely NO REASON why a waiver should be needed to use something other than M$ software, that's ludicrous and stinks of corporate pandering.
* i usually stay away from using $'s in M$, but in this case i thought it was appropriate
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
(which, based on the way government works, I'm sure is easy to get.)
Then theres no problem is there.
And this time they didnt boil the frog, the put it in hot water first!
On the other hand, all is there is something by satanishere, geocities is trashed. So no proof. Is this story true? And Mr.Editors you know too well not to post links to geocities.. dont you. Better aproach would have been to download the images and then put them on slashdot.Nobody here knows what that memo contains, what is there in it, so before this post goes to the HALL OF FAME maybe we can see the images please.
Another thing, apparently DOI has 70000 employees, are any of them on slashdot.. I really want to hear what they say about it. Or if none of them are there onMy Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
Much to my surprise, though, all I was able to mirror for you guys is this: http://home.centurytel.net/mraymer/sorry.gif
Never underestimate the power of a Slashdoting, I guess. ;)
"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The biggest joke is perhaps the part about lower costs from more reliable services. Sorry, but I don't know of anyone who has knowledge of Unix and Windows systems than can attest to better MS reliability, ever. It would seem that it would have been just as valid for the report (when naming reasons) to say, "MS has cool commercials" and "The trees around Redmond are really pretty this time of year."
Windows is definitely the solution in the case of desktops, especially with users already used to Windows. However, for backend reliability Windows has proven that it is only reliable in attracting exploiters and malicious code. This is just another example of blind bureacracy in action. The licensing costs alone will put the budget to a point that the equivelent agency that runs Linux backends would be able to buy 100's of more computers. I would like to see some detailed studies by the DOI as to backup their financial claims. However, they do have one point that is valid. If starting from scratch, it is indeed easier and cheaper to train administrators (at least to a partially competent technician level) in Windows than in any *nix. Call everyone monkeys if you wish, but the fact that a well organized GUI can be quickly adapted to by many will produce much more technicians than the unorganized mess (usually the fault of app/package and distro producers admittingly) that is *nix. Too many times, people trying to simply get the damn thing to work will ask, "where do I find out all the details on how to make X happen?" Often the answer is not there, or buried deep within a chaotic cavern of unorganized information and references. When asked about the silly redundancy (good example is Apache, where in writting to the httpd.conf you must often put certain definitions and features in multiple places) I can't answer except say, "Well I think someone just wanted it that way." (don't get me wrong, I love Apache... but that is an oft repeated question by many)
Department Of Injustice
Well, that's 'cause Salon has a little credibility, being an actual news site with actual authors who have to actually defend their journalism.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
Not the real thing, and of course, the easiest solution to any computing problem is "Buy what Msft has" - and if they don't use any Win9X/ME it'll be good enough. But they're sure to run into 'issues and limitations' that'll require regular payments to Msft in the future, but by then the ACTING CIO will likely be outta there. Remember that when you go to your favorite national park and have to pay $22 to get in, a fraction of that is guarenteed Msft income, and they own the digital rights to the sunset too.
My favorite stand in govt official is "Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary" - that actually exists!
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
As a taxpayer, I don't like the idea of my tax dollars being used to get locked into some monopoly; and I'm not talking about MS' business monopoly here. For example: all the documents created in Office2K or whatever will not readable (faithfully) by any other software, including OpenOffice.
If USDOI wants to go with MS exclusively, then they should have a plan in place to be able to use replacement software in an emergency situation. In other words, make MS release the specs for the documents created using MSOffice before finalising this deal.
I urge all the readers to contact your local congressperson and state Senator about this. Here's a list of the senators in the Interior subcommittee (the department comes under Appropriations):
Senators Byrd, Leahy, Hollings, Reid, Dorgan, Feinstein, Murray, Inouye, Burns, Stevens, Cochran, Domenici, Bennett, Gregg, Campbell.
Of these, Sen Feinstein may be the one who can be most influenced by the geeks here.
If possible, write (deadtree letter) or FAX them; an email just doesn't cut it.
Since Linux and open source in general is a grounds up movement its hard to fight for Microsoft. They target the big players instead. When the snowball starts and some big agency adopts linux and it falls out well there will be no way in h'll to stop it. Microsoft needs to fight general adoption of linux. The day linux get widespread is the day when all the other players curently developing for windows only will throw an eye onto linux too.
One thing i have hard to understand is how they can prise interoperability on one hand and not demand open standards at the same time.
HTTP/1.1 400
Did they go through the appropriate bidding process that is needed whenever a substantial government contract is offered?
If you used all Sun, Linux, or Apple software/hardware, you'd have the same compatibility bonuses as you do with Microsoft. Compatibility is not unique, or even native, to Microsoft. Hell, they removed from Office XP the ability to open other office suites' documents with the default install; isn't that a step BACKWARDS for compatibility?
$8.95/mo web hosting
This means a Linux box will be allowed in the DOI if it's really necessary. All this really does is prevent the l337 h4x0r downstairs from running a Linux box he doesn't understand and can't make secure.
The "100% Open Source" policies would not allow anything Microsoft, even if it is the best tool (gasp!), based purely on ideological (read: impractical) reasoning.
I personally beleive the Federal Government should be banned for ten years from buying any NEW products or services from any company which has been found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, when there are alternatives available from other companies.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
I mean, think about it, we have a president, who doesn't give a rats ass about anything except corporations and the military. Look at the economy, it has to be every one else's fault but the administration's. Yell at Congress to lower spending, so we can raise military spending, and then keep pointing to Iraq as doing what they do, drawing attention away from the economy and from Isreal basically doing what Bush moans that Iraq might do in the future. What utter nonsense!
But we knew this would happen. With a pro-corp prez in place, MS would get off, and now it is being espoused by the government. Nice going, morons. We don't want to punish MS for being a monopoly, no, we want to have them continue to publish wonderless software, and we'll even use them!
If I could convince my gf and my ex (for the kids), I'd move to Canada already, or even Europe. Sure, freedoms and technology are not the same, but so what. These areas of the world are getting it (except Blair, what's he gonna get for his support?). Some Superpower....what's that saying? Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Thanks Bushki!
They stuck me in an institution, said it was the only solution, to...protect me from the enemy, myself
All specialized applications are UNIX, and will be waived.
The major problem is with administrators. There arent enough qualified people here to run a multimode environment. They cant pay enough to get qualified Americans to work for them, and they cant contract out to H1Bs.
in short, I dont think this will have much of an effect.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
I contracted for the Texas Dept of Human Services, they, like most government shops, had a policy standardizing on MS products. What the higher ups quietly ignore is their critical WAN infrastructure is mostly linux. A small insular group of network guys set it up (the DNS server had a 9 month uptime and was still running a 2.0 kernel). Most of them were not experts, just guys who had setup Linux early and then kicked back and relaxed (not an ideal system from a security standpoint).
Email went down for three days while they blamed the Exchange box, I had explain MX records to them and prove that it was disk overload on their primary MX (sendmail +Redhat 5.2). They couldn't even remember who had the root password.
What I discovered was that government is still the last big company around. The place where no one ever gets fired, or laid off. Where the new technology approval board is run entirely by people whose only IT training is in Cobol and Unisys 2200. The few really smart people are full of great ideas, but they are rendered inert by the great mass of "lifers".
In Texas, most of the real IT work gets done by big name consulting firms, at extraordinary costs and questionable quality.
I'm a sys-admin for a small school, and I'm familiar with the restrictions of a bidding process. Most likely the DOI will go through the appropriate bidding process by producing an RFP specifying a Microsoft solution, and then various vendors will bid on a systems solution centered on a Microsoft product.
By narrowing the systems specifications right down to the software vendor, a CIO can pretty much get what he/she wants. Sure, there are lots of MCSE's selling MS solutions, but if the RFP specifically requests a Microsoft product, that effectively excludes all other systems vendors.
-ted
But if they did it that way, Mac would be on the approved list of vendors (as you can get MS Office for the platform). Xserves, with their unlimited license capabilities, generally blow Windows solutions out of the water for file and print (which is a large proportion of what a govt. server does). Since it can fairly easily integrate into an Active Directory infrastructure there's no reason not to include them.
I find it amazing that a government department should have an official policy of only purchasing from one particular vendor. I would have thought a fundamental factor in defining a purchasing policy in any large organisation would be making sure that there is competition amongst your suppliers. It's basic business sense, isn't it?
That's true if the machines aren't connected to the Internet, and if they're not heavily utilized workstations, etc.
In practice, a connected server needs to be rebooted more often than that, if only to apply the latest security patches.
Heavily utilized WinNT/2K/XP workstations need to be rebooted regularly to overcome kernel memory leaks and the like.
If you'd like to see this for yourself, try this test: load enough copies of IE that you run out of kernel memory or other resources. You'll know you've reached that point because it will silently refuse to open another window. Now close all the windows you've just opened. Carry on using the machine and see how long it is before you find that new applications can't be run, that menus don't drop down, etc. To get some sense of what's happening, monitor the numbers on the performance tab of the task manager while you're doing all this, particularly kernel memory - it goes up, but mostly doesn't come down. That might be fine if it was reusing the allocated memory, except that it doesn't - it ultimately cripples the machine.
The bottom line is that Win2K/XP is fine for light-duty use and applications not connected to the Internet. For serious computing, though, you need a real operating system.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
(which, based on the way government works, I'm sure is easy to get.)
Then theres no problem is there.
Then why make the policy at all ?
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
1) Microsoft does really really bad things.
2) Microsoft gets called to task for doing really really bad things by the United States Government.
3) Microsoft is told sternly to stop being such a big meanie, given an affectionate pat on it's cute lil corporate head, and sent to think about how really really bad it had been. Monopolies will be monopolies, after all.
4) Microsoft promises it isn't really really bad anymore, Scout's Honor.
5) Significant portion of United States Government mandantes the use of Microsoft Software.
Does this mean I can go down to the local bar, beat the crap out of the proprietor, steal everything he owns, drive him out of business, and take over the place? Then when I get caught, I'll promise to be a good boy from now on, keep all my ill-gotten gains, and turn the place into a cop bar. Then I'll have enough money to hire some muscle and really move up in the world.
In all seriousness, however, Microsoft has made sincere strides toward policing its own actions (someone has to, right?). For example, from a recent press release:
"SEATTLE -- Microsoft Corporation is pleased to unveil, over the coming weeks, a series of strategic alliances designed to further the goals of our Trusted Computing Initiative.
Beginning next month, to ease customer transition to and acceptance of Licensing 6.0, all Microsoft End User License Agreements will be accompanied by a single-use packet of high-quality non-pretroleum-based personal lubricant. In line with our Software Choice Program, we have partnered with both AstroGlide and Wet* to provide this service to our Valued Customers.
In response to continuing customer concerns regarding the clarity of our various End User License Agreements, we have elected to move to a Unified EULA structure (patent pending) that we feel will more clearly outline the agreements attached to our Software Products. Beginning November 1, 2002, the following EULA will apply to all newly licensed Microsoft Products. Please note that present Microsoft Customers will still be able to benefit from the new EULA scheme, as we will be attaching it to all vital Software Security Updates and Hotfixes for previous Microsoft Products.
'[Product Name]
END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
IMPORTANT-READ CAREFULLY: This End-User
License Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or a single entity) and Microsoft Corporation for the Microsoft software product identified above,
which includes computer software and may include associated media, printed materials, "online" or electronic documentation, and Internet-based services ("Product"). An amendment or addendum to this EULA may accompany the Product.
YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE PRODUCT (THIS INCLUDES THE ACT OF PLACING THE PRODUCT MEDIA INTO YOUR CD/DVD-ROM DRIVE).
1) ALL YOUR COMPUTER ARE BELONG TO US!'
We hope that the new Unified Eula (patent pending) system will clear up any lingering customer concerns regarding our Product Licensing.
*This promotion applies to Wet Light only. Wet Platinum is currently unavailable. Offer good in the United States and Canada only, subject to availability."
Actually, the announcement is probably going to be blatantly ignored by all the DOI Bureaus/Empires. They are all their own little fiefdoms. I retired from the DOI Office of the Secretary IT network/web team team about 3 years ago. At that time, the DOI "Webmaster" did not know HTML, much less CGI or anything else; he used Front Page to build a little office home-page. It had animation bouncy things on it. He had no *nix nor any web experience of any kind when he was hired. ?? The Office of the Secretary Webmaster (my boss) needed to spend most of his day developing and maintaining a COBOL-based personnel administration application. He did not know any *nix nor did he care to learn it. (To be fair, he didn't have the time.) Each of the Bureaus headquartered in the DOI Headquarters building in DC had (has?) a seperate LAN/WAN system and seperate Internet access points. The DOI web site was funded by the Public Affairs office, which was/is not really sure what to do with the web. After working at GSA and FEMA, two orgs. with outstanding IT teams, the DOI lack of interest in IT, lack of qualified IT leadership, and the resulting mediocrity was very disappointing. However, the idea to "invest" in M$ is not very surprising. They had already begun to move that way, years ago. It's what the contractors use. It's what the contractors told them to use. Their lack of IT expertise means they must trust the contractors to provide their IT leadersthip. Apparently, they picked the wrong contractors and are just getting ate up. I could go on and on (and probably already have). Don't place too much emphasis on this "announcement". The Bureaus won't. It's just a way for that office to get its name in lights for a little while. Sad, but true.
pfS.
[Ironically, when the DOI web site was heavily attacked by the Chinese after we accidentally blew up their embassy in Bosnia, our Unix-based Apache web site, a left-over from a previous webmaster (bless his unix-loving butt), administered by a new-to-unix admin.(me), faired pretty well while the Park Service's M$ IIS4-based web site was hammered through an anonymous ftp account and was down for weeks. (Everything was secure but the gifs. I thought I had everything buttoned up, but for some reason, when I uploaded files to the server via Hummingbird, the gifs (& only the gifs) permissions were set to 'w' for everyone. So we had little Chinese flags all over DOI Home page for about 12 hours. Coulda been worse. Oddly, the Chinese sent tons of XXX-rated mail to the webmaster email address. Ow, ow. ]
The rumor is that this was actually caused by someone blaming lack of standard email servers (Lotus Domino and Groupwise) for screwing up a email greeting/distribution from the Secretary. This problem was probably actually caused by network connectivity problems, rather than standardization issues. I got it fine from my Groupwise POP server.
Thus this unfunded mandate to move to some standard platform.
Given that there is no money behind it, and we're talking 40+ mill in LICENCES ALONE!!!
I don't see this happening anytime soon.
On the other hand, it is almost easier for Linux to interoperate with MS stuff than Novell, except Exchange/Outlook, which does have a non-free solution (Evolution).
Further, we have several pieces of Unix only software, and I don't see those being ported soon.
------ Nope, Not me, you can't prove I said that!
I'm sure Hollings will be really receptive to my concerns about locking in the DOI to Microsoft-only systems. Not.
But, as you pointed out, my interest does run deeper than making "snide remarks." I am a taxpayer. I live in Raleigh, N.C. I plan to call Senator Jesse Helms' office and ask him to review the DOI's decision to lock out non-Microsoft products in favor of those made by Microsoft -- a monopoly currently being prosecuted by the federal government. I'll point out that there are other U.S. software companies that make fine products, and it's in the government's interest to avoid single sources for their systems. I'll mention RedHat -- based in Raleigh, just like Senator Helms. I'll mention Sun and Apple. I'll mention IBM and Oracle.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
"Centralized security control"? Sure, Microsoft can do that. Until one of your domain servers gets 0wned.
Frankly, this doesn't come as a shock. Government agencies like the USDOI have always been of the attitude that if they pay more, and do less, it's better in the long run. But if they plan on running their entire networks on Microsoft servers, I plan on watching the news for hack reports.
The DOI is he same agency that was forced off the web by a court ruling in 2001 because it was easy to hack Indian royalty accounts. This turned off National Park Web site, earthquake data sites, etc. also in the DOI. What a mess at the time.
We don't need the Freedom of Information Act anymore... and I was worrying about our rights being taken away
What happens when a government organizaton decides to use Microsoft products and has to shut down all operations for N days because:
a) The authentication server at MS crashes or screws up so all the Windows XP desktops can't phone home to get Bill's permission to run?
b) One of those lovely IIS virii starts sending sensitive documents out to every pr0n vendor in anyone's mail spool?
c) The DRM system determines that a critical bit of multimedia presentation, which might decide the creation of a policy, can't be shown since it hasn't been authorized and therefore MIGHT be a violation of someone's copyright?
If you thought your Government was lazy before... man!
An AC wrote:
.Net. A good article on
.Net, a similar waste would have occurred.
> The real story is about how government agencies
> are shooting themselves in the foot by NOT going
> with Microsoft, especially
> this can be found at AngryCoder [angrycoder.com].
Read the link you posted. The waste of millions was because they changed platforms half way through the development effort. If they had started in Java and then moved to
The waste would not have occurred if they decided at the *start* of the project that vendor lock in was an issue and had gone with Java.
Loathe as I am to recommend Microsoft, yes, it is better to make decisions at the start of projects, on what is best for that project and stick to your decision. Arbitrary department and company wide decisions to go with one vendor and chuck out all the existing work is a massive waste of time and money that no good manager should allow.
That being said, Microsoft's various problems with security and reliablity should put it on the bottom of the list of consideration. Their ambitions and repeated breaking of anti-trust laws should give any government agency serious concerns about doing business with them.
BTW, does anyone know if Microsoft has had the cheek to try to audit a federal government agency? I know they have gone after city governments and poor schools...
"At this moment, it has control of systems all over the world.
And...we can't do a damn thing to stop it."
Miyasaka, "Godzilla 2000 Millennium" (Japanese version)
Don't worry, Godzilla is coming to stomp it!
Interesting, so you're saying that MS systems connected to the internet CAN'T stay up for days?
In the interests of transparency and to prove you are not just another MS Astroturfer perhaps you could prove this rather than just claiming it by supplying a Netcraft link.
When I was a young SW Engineer working on military systems, I frequently had "great" ideas involving hardware "shot-down" (pun intended) because the system requirements from the gvt. demanded components that had a "second source." This prevented the system from being dependent upon a sole provider of a component. So even if more technically advanced hardware was available, that did not matter because a single supplier placed the whole system at risk... the risk that we may not be able to replace that component in the future - rendering the whole system useless based upon the unavailability of one component.
I believe open source needs to be looked at the same way...and, in fact, many gvt's around the world are doing just that.
Stop saying that requiring open source EXCLUDES MS. It does NOT. The problem is that MS does not have any products which meet the customer's system requirement for multiple sources for system components.
MS (the company) is not excluded, their closed-source products are. If they wish to compete for systems that require multiply-sourced components,they should make products for that market.
I want to be alone with the sandwich
There is a strong case to be made for conformance of systems.
.NET Server 2003 comes out then. What do you do? You either have to upgrade all of your servers (and probably patch your desktops) or stay with a now old server OS.
One problem, conformance of systems usually means that you have to use older systems to ensure conformance. To get conformance right now you'd have to throw out most of your current PC's and buy/upgrade all of the desktops to the latest version of Windows XP. Additionally, you'd have to migrate all of your servers to Windows 2000. With that accomplished you would now have a conformant layout.
Then, you'd have to avoid making any upgrades to the systems. All you could do is patch and make sure every box had all the patches. Sounds great. So, this whole process gets completed somewhere around Q3 2003 (being generous time-wise).
Windows
BTW, this part hasn't even started to go into the actual applications being run on the desktops and servers let alone the hardware being used by them.
Basically, "conformance" is impossible. Hardware changes too quickly. Software changes too quickly. You'll either need to freeze everyone in time or just deal with the fact that everyone will be running different OS's.
Finally, considering the DoI's current track record with security (couldn't even put the Indian records into a DB) I find it very hard to believe they would be able to stay up with the patch-wave that is MS.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
A policy like this is PREVENTING them to running a solution that fits their needs best. If you think that "run whatever Microsoft gives us" is running the best solution, you are either pretty gullible or have Microsoft-stock (or both as being gullible is a prerequesite for having Microsoft-stock, just look at their P/E)
It also illustrates the incredible Microsoft double-standard. A Microsoft-only policy is great, but an open-source-only policy (which is much less restricting because it is multi-vendor) is evil, evil, evil.
I personally don't like either policy, BTW.
Beside the fact that the employees probably had almost nothing to do with the decision, it is objectively bad for the government to lock up our information in a propriatary format.
The real tragedy of this will come down the road, when not even current MS crap (if they survive) will be able to read the obsolete Word2002 formats stored in the archive. Even today, I expect that you would have some problems reading at least some old windows document formats in the most current editions.
MS development processes are so ad-hoc and market driven that they cannot even keep track of all the external representation formats that they have created. They just don't get it. The reason that experienced and skilled software architects and designers insist on supporting mature standards is because otherwise it turns into an unmanagable mess. Stability is way more important than wiz bang features. Note that this is also the source of many of their security problems, at least the ones that aren't due to allowing program fragments to run from untrusted sources, but I digress.
This is also why the Linux platform is so much better. Even though it is not yet at a maturity and stability level that satisfies us, it is still completely usable because it doesn't just abandon standards in an attempt to gain market dominance. Once a standard is established and has become stable, you can be certain that it will be widely adopted. In this environment, any number of projects can implement that standard, and users have a choice to stay with the old reliable tool, or upgrade to get more features and functionality. Or even use both situationally.
Go to Windows Update for a freshly installed Win2k box... How many of those updates say, "This update must be installed seperately from all others"? At least 3-4, even after installing SP3.
How many of those aforementioned updates require a reboot?
All of em'.
When a *web browser* patch requires a reboot, there is something fundamentally WRONG WITH THE SYSTEM.
At worst case under Linux, a web browser patch to Tux will require unloading and reloading a kernal modules. If you're using any other web server, you can do an upgrade, and restart the webserver. Total downtime? Restarting Apache takes a fraction of a second.
This is the difference between Unix and Windows - Unix requires a reboot only for the most major upgrade of all, the kernel. Anything else doesn't require a reboot. Windows, on the other hand, needs an update for damn near any system update you'd like to make, and a significant number of system changes require an update too. You need to reboot to change *font scaling* for chrissakes. (Let's not get into the fact that there is no need whatsoever for any server machine to be running a GUI at all times because it's an unnecessary waste of resources - A true server should be 100% administratable without even a video card and just a serial console for worst-case scenarios when the network goes wonky.)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
So MS equips The Department of InFeriors with its Software? ...
Good match if you ask me.
Oh well, couldn't resist
Contrast that with the high availability for non-experimental products like Netware for file sharing or Exim,Postifix, or Sendmail for mail.
Sounds like the government's Fraud, Waste, and Abuse hotline, 1 (800) 647-8733 is going to be ringing off the hook.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
.. and this whole thing is basically nonsense. As briancnorton said in his post, expect waivers to fly like snowflakes in a blizzard (if they even bother to try to enforce this at all.)
At the installation where I work, we've got dozens of legacy systems running on UNIX boxes as far as the eye can see. Some of these are processor-hungry image processing applications that run on high-end boxes from SGI and Sun. These systems are not going away anytime soon, regardless of what some tech-clueless bureaucrat at the top of the chain would like to think.
I'm posting this from an SGI O2, sitting on my desk next to a PC that dual boots Win2K and Linux. All of the developers in the cube farm outside my office door are doing UNIX development on Linux PCs. In the past couple of years, we have started to shun more expensive solutions in favor of software like Apache, PHP, PostgreSQL/MySQL. There are currently several efforts underway to port existing systems from proprietary UNIX (i.e., IRIX or Solaris) to Linux so that we can leverage inexpensive, commodity hardware platforms and get away from paying exorbitant maintenance fees.
We're moving pretty aggressively towards open standards and free software, and I would guess that this memo will have exactly zilch effect on that.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
It has now been up for 4 and a half months and the last reboot was to install SP2.
Contrast that with the most recently rebooted Linux server I deal with - 300 days uptime, rebooted because of a power failure due to storms, which outlasted backup power.
You say you installed SP2 - what about the post-SP2 hotfixes, or SP3? The countdown to your next reboot has begun... Luckily, you may not have to worry about those as much in your case, because some of the security problems affect IIS, and you're running Apache. So yes, by staying away from Microsoft server products, you do achieve greater uptimes, which is my whole point.
Your 410,000 hits a month is very low traffic. Some of the servers I work with routinely serve that much in a day, and they're not the busiest by any means. But ability to handle load is not really the issue at this point - since about Win2K, Windows has done much better at this (NT4/IIS4 was pretty pathetic at that, also due to memory leaks).
I'm not saying longer uptimes can't possibly be done, but compared to real operating systems, Windows requires more reboots in practice, because of the number of mainly Internet-related security problems it's had over the past few years.
I work with both Windows and Unix machines doing software development and consulting on administration issues, so I have plenty of direct experience with administering Windows boxes. I've worked with WindowsNT/2K/XP since the betas of NT 3.1 in around '91. In my experience, there's just no comparison between the two in terms of security, stability, and ability to run for truly long periods without reboots. If you think otherwise, my guess is it's just because you haven't had much experience with Unix.
If the gov't had created a policy requiring the department to settle on the most widely used and standardized systems available, that would have acheived the desired end.
As I understand this policy (and I really don't, because all of the links are dead), I'm required to purchase a Microsoft product even if it a) doesn't integrate well with other Microsoft products, b) is completely non-standard, and c) is not the package generally used for that purpose.
One policy is at least vaguely justifiable. The one they've chosen is just a blank check to Microsoft.
Well, good! Now perhaps some altruistic hackers
can take a peek inside and find the $40 Billion of
Indian land trust money this department has lost.
Well, apparently, you only have to fool the majority of people for a little while.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
A good sysadmin, who is familiar with the OS being run, using proper security procedures, and working in a reasonable corporate environment, can keep a system stable and working properly for reasonable periods of time.
A bad sysadmin, who is not familiar with the OS being run, and does not follow proper security procedures, will not have a stable secure system, regardless of the system being run.
This is much more an issue of having good people following proper guidelines. I might accept that some OSes require fewer patches than others. Maybe.
But most of this "my system is better than yours" is coming from people who know one OS and not the other. This is not informed comparisons. This is trying to validate your personal choice by saying any other choice is stupid.
Doesn't matter if you are a Windows admin trying out Linux, or a Linux admin trying out Windows. How much time did you invest in the OS you know now? Spend that long working on the competition, and then you can make an informed comparison.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That is uninformed bullcrap. NT has ACLs. Unix doesn't (by default, and in most installations). Any OS is as secure as you make it. In fact, I'd bet a double-latte from Starbucks that I could set up an NT box that was more secure than a unix box you could setup any day. Want to take me up on the offer?
Of course you work for the DOI so you know what's best for them...
Ok, I'm going to ignore the justifications given (as I'm sure everyone here knows they are false.)
Am I the only one here that sees this, especially given microsoft's current licensing practices, as a huge waste of money?
And whose money is being wasted? Taxpayers. If our government is flippantly blowing out cash in even the department of the interior then clearly they are getting too much money. Its time to cut taxes and stop letting the leeches live high on the hog.
MS Windows? Office? My god. What obscene spending!
We must cut taxes until our money is spent responsibly.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
> They spent MILLIONS replacing 3000 mail servers with 32 Domino servers
Seems to me their biggest problem isn't switching to 100% Windows, it's running Domino as their mail server (for all your database needs! w00t!). Whoever thought of that brilliant idea should be shot. Then again, IBM seems to have some good salesmen and women. GOD HOW I MISS NOTES' INTUITIVE USER-FREIDNLY INTERFACE.
-- ex-Lotus Admin and Flamebait since 1978
The meaning of 'transparancy' is completely opaque to me. Your 'parants' should be ashamed.
Apparently Gale Norton decided she'd better spend all the money the DoI has kept from Native American tribes. Ah, free software: damned if you're free, damned if you're not....
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
Seriously, what's up with people who are amazed at uptimes over a month? I've only seen the Windows side of things do that, as my Linux box has been up for over six months. I've seen boxes up for as much as a year, and it was only down to upgrade the kernel.
Zodiac Survey
It's about competent administration.
Your story is yet another of the scores of examples which contradict the long-touted "feature" of (NT|2k|XP) that it is "easy to administer." If it was truly easy to administer, then the administration would not need to be done by competent administration; i.e., anyone should be able to do it.
I maintain that (NT|2k|XP) is equally difficult to administer as *nix and has always been. One may be better than the other for certain tasks, but effective administration for both has been and still is difficult and requires highly skilled professionals to do it right.
I think that my biggest problems with NT systems was the outright deceit which pervaded the marketing surrounding said systems. (See also: "NT Workstation and NT Server are completely different operating systems. Really. I mean it. Pay no attention to the identical kernels.")
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
'Nuff said.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What the KB doesn't say is that you can trigger this out-of-resources situation in a long-running session, just by running and exiting many applications over time, with IE being particularly guilty. Once you hit the limit, even quitting everything and yes, killing the desktop-controlling Windows Explorer process doesn't completely resolve the problem - it returns much quicker, once a few applications have been loaded. Because of this, there's a limit to how long a Win2K workstation can remain running before needing a reboot.
Since many people turn their machines off daily, it isn't a problem for them in practice. Others have experienced this without knowing the cause - since it usually silently prevents new applications from being loaded, or may prevent e.g. menus from being selected or dropped down, people simply shrug and reboot.
The KB claims that this essentially arises as a consequence of 32-bit addressing, but you can run the same test side by side on a 32-bit Linux box without a problem.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Not even defacto. Things might be reasonable when it comes to SQL server, but have you ever tried supporting version 5-6 of IE or versions 97/2000/XP of office all for one website or set of documents? The hot fixes and bug patches alone can throw everything you've got into chaos, even when everyone's on the same revision!
Give me a break. You go count the number of "root" exploits in Apache, then you go count the number of exploits in IIS that allow "arbitrary code execution". (Especially the number of days versions with such exploits remained current after disclosure)
When you're done come back and try to say that again with a strait face!
Not putting Apache on an LDAP server is simply a good practice that is easy and "default" so it's generally done that way. IIS on the other hand comes default installed and fully exploitable on MS server OS. Why should I have to be un-installing/disabling ISS on every new server install (or sometimes system update)??!!
That is the scandal, the sole source requirement. There's only one company that makes M$ OS, and it's proven inferior. So, my government is spending my money to purchase inferior software without bids. There are many providers of free software and the lowest bidder mandate that government is supposed to live by would always pick one of them.
Single vendor bids ordinarilly are seen as a sign of fraud. Here, it looks like incompetence.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
post facto scriptum ?
i like it
The Indian Trust fiasco dates back to the turn of the century but the recent court action those quotes came from was from a lawsuit against the previous Interior Department run by Clinton. Please get your facts straight...
My post intened to give a quick general idea of the situation. I didn't think an 18 page post running back to 1887 was appropriate.
Most of thoses quotes WERE from stories about the lawsuit against the current Interior Department under Bush. Many of my snippets happened to come from parts where they discussed the relevant recent history demonstrating it as big, on-going problem. My appologies if too many of my quotes refferenced the Clinton era. Perhaps these quotes will help, all restricted to the Interior Department run by Bush:
"After seven months of deliberations, a federal judge this week finally delivered his decision on the Bush administration's trust fund contempt trial.
It was a big one.
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth held Secretary of Interior Gale Norton and Indian affairs aide Neal McCaleb in civil contempt for providing misleading information about efforts to fix the broken Indian trust. A 267-page ruling blasted the pair for committing a fraud on the court for actions that occurred under their watch and that of their predecessors. The decision found misconduct on behalf of attorneys handling the case too."
Bush officials made "fraudulent" claims of progress, the ruling noted
In a scathing decision largely directed at the controversial Bush appointee, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth recited a laundry list of behaviors that bordered on misconduct. Griles omitted key facts, stretched the truth and violated legal ethics principles by going public with the Bush administration's disdain for court oversight, the 18-page ruling stated.
there's no indication that the Bush administration is backing down. "The government is going to fight this no matter what, even if it's morally, legally or ethically in the wrong,"
Better?
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
The problems with DOI were ongoing.
Yes, ongoing for around 115 years, but the topic was the current situation.
Norton was lambasted by a frustrated ass of a judge
Calling the judge a "frustrated ass" without any statements to support it is not +1 informative, +1 insightful, or +1 interesting. It is -1 flamebait or -1 troll, though if you're lucky a 12 year old moderator might give you +1 funny.
The judge's ruling clearly places Norton's and the other official's current behavior in the wrong, and every story I've come across has apparently agreed with the judge. Inheriting a bad situation does not excuse current misconduct.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
The issue isn't whether maintaining a nice homogenous system is easier. Of course it is.
The issue is that you can never get to that homogenous system. Tell me how long you think it would take to upgrade 50,000 machines so that they're all running 2K or XP? Additionally, you have to upgrade all of the servers as well.
Throw in migrating the domain and user structure (if you have that) to Active Directory. Also, any applications currently running on non-MS platforms that won't get a waiver...
If you're starting from square one then standardizing on one OS might be useful. As for a retrofit of a country-wide organization? It'll never happen.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Here's some information from the DoI site concerning physical resources/inventory: http://www.doiu.nbc.gov/orientation/physical.cfm
Give that a good read over. Then tell me how you would go about creating a "conformance system" for a group that widely varied.
Interesting points to know:
1) The DoI includes the US Geological Survey. They'll be a fun group to migrate. (The U.S. Geological Survey rents 4.4 million square feet of space in about 220 GSA buildings nationwide; owns 35 installations with Power plant in Big Thompson Canyon, part of the Colorado Big Thompson Project.1.2 million square feet of space in 287 buildings. In addition, the USGS maintains and operates an earthquake monitoring network comprising a global seismographic network of 120 stations located worldwide and national and regional networks located throughout states and territories, 14 geomagnetic observatories, one landslide network, one volcano hazards network to monitor 44 U.S. volcanoes, 17 science centers and associated field stations, a center for biological informatics, and 7,000 streamgauges.)
2) The Bureau of Reclamation administers or operates 348 reservoirs, 58 hydroelectric power plants, and more than 308 recreation sites. Don't forget all those control and monitoring systems at the reservoirs.
So, where's the cost savings in this project?
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.