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
Patriotism is the opium of the masses
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...
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."
> Centralized and efficient security policy administration
> [...]
> Greater productivity and reliability attributed to less downtime.
That are the Benefits of using M$? Funny, I never knew that widooze provides these features...
You've got to pay attention.
Centralized and efficient security policy administration
This says nothing about security; just a security policy (apply patches and hope for the best)
Greater productivity and reliability attributed to less downtime
'greater productivity' means that Spider Solitaire isn't as easy as freecell, so users will give up in disgust and do some work.
'reliability' is a truncation in the memo of "re: liability"
'less downtime' refers to the microsoft helpdesk
That's the kind of sh*t that pisses me off, I don't pay taxes to have the government simply hand that money to a corp. I am morally opposed to. I wouldn't mind if they simply chose the best tool for the job and the tools they needed happened to be MS software, but this just reeks.
There is absolutely NO REASON why a waiver should be needed to use something other than M$ 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
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
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
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.
I don't know about what others think, but the fact that they are standardizing on the single most expensive solution bothers me. I am also bothered by the fact that they have either subscribed to microsoft FUD or just don't care. The vast majority of those 70,000 need word processing, web browsing, and email for which MS is a stupidly expensive solution. I would rather see them all using 5 year old hardware running a stripped down, custom Linux distro with Mozilla and an office suite.
The effective of a MS solution is not justified by its cost period - and as a taxpayer, I say its a problem.
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
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
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
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.
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!
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.
.. 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
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.
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.