Slashdot Mirror
Software Choice Group Tells DOD Not to Use Open Source
ducomputergeek writes "A group calling themselves the Initiative for Software Choice, backed by Microsoft and others, is recommending that the DOD drop plans for further adoption of Open Source software. This comes after MITRE, a defense contractor, published a report stating that not only does the Department of Defense use opensource, but is recommend on using it more. The article is at News.com and you can read it here."
People have different opinions!
Film at 11.
Because of course, Microsoft is known in technological circles as having a very secure product. After all Windows Xp is the most secure operating system according to Microsoft.
Big Corporations telling their customers to buy their stuff rather than getting it from the competition (free or not)
Seriously, how can a group called "Initiative for Software Choice" that's backed by major players against open source (see Microsoft) be open and objective in this?
My good sig is in the laundry
In other news, Microsoft reports that it has purchased the rights to the next edition of Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. Among the changes expected to appear in this edition, the word "choice" will henceforth be defined as "the act of giving Microsoft more money, esp. against one's better judgment."
Initiative for Software Choice, just make sure you chose between Windows XP,2000 or 98.
big brother says: "minipax no use open-source, double-plus ungood"
why does the porridge bird lay his eggs in the air?
My company does quite a bit of work for the big defense contractors, we're involved in many big programs. These contractors are constantly asking us for Linux based software (SDKs APIs etc.) and especially for their embedded devices. These guys want to stop laying huge license fees to WindRiver for their vxWorks software... and want to spend the $$ elsewhere. Good on them I say. However I will insert the obligatory M$ comment: I'm shocked (not!) that MS would push their own agenda blah blah blah... ;-)
"Content's a bitch."
As long as you choose software from one of our powerful and rich members.
Strange, this is one of the companies behind it, and they do linux...
Mark
This would be the Henry Ford definition of choice then? "You can choose any supplier you like, so long as it's us."
This is my World Wide Web of Whatever
A group backed by corporations with their own interests says their biggest threat is not a good choice.
In other news, a group called "The Darkened Lung Group" (backed by R.J. Reynolds and Phillip Morris) are saying that smoking isn't that bad for you and it's not really addictive.
Sound waves should be free!
Microsoft digs its own grave by getting more and more huffy with its customers. High-def video at 11.
Meanwhile, Linux gets more and more free press.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Improve software choice by limiting the choice of options.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
Here's an article from The Register talking about the same subjecf. News.com will probably get slashdotted now anyways =)
"Not inherently less secure" is a strange way of advocating your position. Double-negatives like this usually betray a defensive mind set. Why didn't they have the conviction to say "we're *more* secure"?
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
the wind will REALLY change when a couple of them will quit using m$ internally for good.
how about submitting DOD bids on paper that says: " this bidding doc was NOT prepared on MSOffice"?
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
FUD: You have to open up all your code if you use GPL code in your software.
Fact: You have to open up all your code if you use GPL code in your software and then distribute it!
I don't think the DoD distributes very much of the software it writes, so why should it care if it uses GPL code? It shouldn't care! But let the FUD fly!
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
I know at least one thing. I feel much better about the "defence" of my own computer from viruses and hackers with a stripped down linux that runs few services. I know exactly what programs/services are running. The stripped kernel code is small enough that I probably could audit it over say a year. The "Defense" Department could certainly allocate some resources to audit a stripped distribution.
Anyways, a funny highlight, one of their members is: "Open Solutions" =)
Companies say that Customers should pay for their products rather than using cheaper or even free alternatives.
In related new DoD announce "War is good".
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Proprietary software companies such as Microsoft have labeled open-source software as a serious threat and have begun to oppose its use by governments. At the same time, however, nations such as France and Germany have begun to encourage open-source software to limit their dependence on proprietary vendors and to stimulate local software development.
As a community of Open Source users, there is often a "ram-it-down-your-throat" style of preaching your brand of OS religion. Sure, a free OS is great, but it's not for everyone. Ultimately, a group of knowledgable professionals within the DoD will make a choice. You can agree or disagree with that choice, but they are entitled to it. Besides, their criteria are different from yours, which are different from France's and Germany's.
Having said that, Microsoft, along with Cisco & Intel, have taken what I feel is the low road. It is one thing to advocate your product, but what they are essentially doing here is mudslinging. While this seems to be a fine tradition in American politics, I'm not sure that it's an ethical business practice, even for Microsoft (OK, I may have said that tongue-in-cheek).
Karma: Basking in the warm afterglow of post-coital whoring.
A group calling themselves the Initiative for Software Choice, backed by Microsoft and others, is recommending that the DOD drop plans for further adoption of Open Source software.
That's kind of a contradiction in terms isn't it? Initiative for Software Choice recommending that we drop open source software.
It's a pitty to see Intel's name as one of the companies opposing OSS. Strangely they reach out at one side and then at the other side they slap you in the face. It is not that Intel should choose sides.
I can understand fully that it is in Intels best interest to have support from both camps but this is really something they should watch out for. It may well be that more OSS developers and users will buy the products of their competitors if these kind of things become normal practice for them.
... And I am grateful for the Microsoft marketdroids, for spewing such ridiculous, transparent FUD.
;)
The more they do this, the more exposure Open Source gains, and the more people are going to stop buying Microsoft products.
Seriously, though, imagine a PHB in those difficult times: you have to do more with less $$$. And right there and then, comes this PR FUD from Microsoft, saying: "Stop using this cheap Open Source! It's BAD for your health and for the environment!!".
PHB brain, of course, only registers the word cheap. He immediately goes to his techies and says: "Linux is cheap!! Start using it NOW to save money!".
*Collective sighs of relief from said techies*
Let us all give thanks for Microsoft Marketing, and for the FUD for which it stands. With upgrade paths and expensive licenses for all.
Amen.
(Yes, I am being sarcastic, people. Go back to your turkeys instead of pointing these flamethrowers at me now...)
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
INTERNET (Nov 28): In a surprise move, the readers of Slashdot got in a tither over the latest lobbying efforts by Microsoft.
"Seriously, how can a group called "Initiative for Software Choice" that's backed by major players against open source (see Microsoft) be open and objective in this?" said Digital Dad.
Throughout the thead dot head used disingenuous remarks to show their anger. "Because of course, Microsoft is known in technological circles as having a very secure product. After all Windows Xp is the most secure operating system according to Microsoft," said avaric3.
Some have predicted that the dot heads will get into a new tither when Microsoft's Office 11 is released. Stay tuned.
Some people have a way with words, others not have way.
the only way they'll be able to get a share is by releasing something Open-Soucre not Shared-Source, and hey everybody would get a piece of the action wouln't they.
Well I'm sure the DoD remember their dead microsoft NT sub. The radar which doesn't work etc. The missing nukes because of SQL server? Microsofts admission and then retraction.. it is all documented out there..
A quick search of slashdot digs up this:
navy unhappy with microsoft
Even the average man in the street thinks of windows as less secure. I can't believe something like this would really fool people...
There was a link in the article to ISC's comments to the DoD. Skimmed through it and found very, very interesting quote:
ISC's main goal is to educate policymakers about the need to remain neutral with respect to government purchase of software.
So regarding to your comment that people have different options, that's what the ISC is arguing for. They don't think it's fair for the government to only consider open source software and ignore software made by, say, Microsoft.
-- Kircle
OSS use miltary to stop Microsoft.
Initiative for software choice, yeah, nice one bill, you can choose any software you like, as long as it's ours.
are they advising that the DOD avoid chunks of Windows based on OSS as well?
Software Freedom Day!.
Iowans for a Better Future, Americans for Progress, and so on and so on . . . political parties have been setting up groups like this for years, to provide a front. Perhaps Microsoft has learned something from its political involvement, that being, of course, that people are more likely to believe things if they hear them from multiple, apparently unbiased sources.
To find out what an organization's motives are, it's best to look at who owns it, runs it, or stands to profit from it.
I certainly hope that the Department of Defense doesn't fall for this, lest a terrorist organization start a group called "National Security Consortium" and start publishing reports. . .
ahurd@iastate.edu
That emphasis is mine. Nothing in the article indicates that Microsoft said their products were better than open source. In this particular case... Microsoft is arguing that their software is as good as open source software.
I think its funny that Microsoft didn't say that their stuff is better. They can only argue that their stuff isn't worse.
Sex - Find It
I think all this fighting on behalf of the oligopoly is the best thing that could ever happen to open source and 'free' software. Its not like OS has the finances to fight a major PR campaign on its own so the more MS and friends fight against it the more PR they give it.
There's no such thing as bad publicity, as they say, and the more the oligopoly bad mouths it the more people who never really thought about open source actually get to hear about it and in the end, no matter how evil Microsoft makes it out to be, people will realise there is an alternative they can at least look at.
Just say no!
A year or so ago we would have been thrilled that the discussion was even happening. There will be debate one way and the other - the more the better.
The point is that the longer and more high profile the debate, the more people become aware of OSS and come to realise that it is not a flash in the pan. ``Gee, they are still talking about Linux, my M$/... salesman told me it would be forgotten by the Autumn. Hmmmm, maybe I ought to find out some more.''
To an extent, any publicity is good publicity.
The closed source vendors have a problem: they either shut up about Linux/OSS and have it gradually move into their territory; or they generate loud FUD and bring it to decision makers' attention.
Things will get really interesting when widespread adoption of OSS grows from operating systems, systems utilities and universal applications to business sector specific applications.
Aside from the semi-interesting doublespeak ("Initiative for Software Choice", while being against open source), we've been working with NSA for quite a while now on the SeLinux Project. One of the big players in the commercial software (I forget the name now) tried to muck up the works by insisting they had some right to a portion of the code, but their complaints have fallen by the wayside.
Of course they're worried. If their corporate customers start saying "Hey, if the DoD is using it, it must be good and secure enough for us too!"
Oh and the GPL doesn't really stop the DoD at all, as you only have to release source code to those you provide with a binary. Unless DoD starts handing out binaries to others, they can keep every change to themselves (but I imagine they'd rather stay with the main branch than running their own solo run, but they are one of the few who could).
OSS is no magic cure against bugs though, and QA is important. In my experience bugs show up faster & get fixed faster in OSS, so in the short run you have more *known* bugs than commercial software, even if there aren't really any more bugs in it. In the long run though, if enough people use it and find bugs, it is more stable and bugfree.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Before you mark me as a troll, here me out.
The "Sincere Choice" group (Bruce Perens et al) are pushing for greater adoption of Open Source. "Software Choice" is (as far as I can tell) pushing for, what appears to be, the best solution for the problem - irrespective of it's licence.
This, to me, seems to be the most sensible thing. You don't go and purchase a TV, Video or DVD system without doing the research and finding out what suits you. You look at the facts, you look at what you want and you pick what is best for the situation.
So, if a closed source solution is the best one, then hell why can't they go for it? I don't know many people who deliberately pick an inferior product unless they have very strong moral or cash-flow problems.
Sure, people will point out that people should be using open file formats, the ability to look at the code and the freedom (as in speech) of it all.
They are right. But even when you apply the ideals of Software Choice to Open Source - it should (unless it's really really appallingly bad) still come out smelling sweeter BECAUSE OF THESE VERY FREEDOMS THAT IT GIVES.
I was always told, use the best tool for the job. If OSS advocates are getting worried about a group of companies advocating picking the best tool for the job, then I would like to know what they're worried about. OSS stuff should be able to stand up to this sort of criteria.
If a product still looks crap (even after all the benefits that come with OSS licencing) against something closed and propriatory, then maybe it's time to realise that it quite well could be crap?
(if of course, Software Choice have changed their tack - then feel free to mod me into oblivion)
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
I was at a talk once where a guy from Lockheed was saying how they were using more and more commercial off-the-shelf systems to reduce costs. They were moving away from specialized systems custom developed for each plane, to a more general system that didn't need as much work.
He started out with an animation of someone punching bill gates, so that eased my fears. But he said that even though Linux would be great, they could not have a foreign national have control over their system. Sure, they could see exactly what they have, but any changes to the kernel would have to be checked out completely (expensive), so they would be right back at having a specialized system. Politics maybe, but they ended up with a proprietary OS.
I gotta say though, the redundancy systems they have on those things, amazing.
boldly going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse
Just a side note on this story; Mitre Corp is not, strictly speaking, a corporation. It's a front for the CIA. I delivered a paper once a Mitre Corp meeting, and it was the oddest experience of my life. No business cards, no last names, and locks on every trash can. Wasn't until a week later (after some digging) that I discovered that their "campus" in Virginia was part of Langley. Really weird outift.
They do less linux than MS does inhouse.
The lead-in is misleading.
They do not recommend that "the DOD drop plans for further adoption of Open Source software". They are saying that all software, regardless of the developement model, should have equal consideration if it meets the criteria for a specific purpose.
"Public entities should procure the software that best meets their needs and should avoid any categorical preferences for open source software, commercial software, free software, or other software development models."
The article itself is also misleading.
"Proprietary software companies such as Microsoft have labeled open-source software as a serious threat and have begun to oppose its use by governments."
Whilst we know this to be true re: Microsoft, the Initiative for Software Choice (whom the article discusses) expresses no such opposition.
I work for the DoD, in a branch that plans technology policy for various projects. Over the last 5-10 years, the push for "Open Standards Architecture" (OSA) has been at the forefront. It's the stated policy of the DoD, which comes from the mouth of a former Secretary of Defense, to push for open standards, open interfaces, and in general to be as far from proprietary as possible. Proprietary software means more expense for the government due to non-competition, and it also puts the government in the hands of a private corporation.
Open Source, while not specifically targeted by the DoD, is the next logical step. Although the previous generation of nuclear submarines ran HP-UX, the next generation (due to be delivered starting 2006) will run about half Solaris, half Linux. So yes, open source is on the way in in the government. Slightly off-topic, but if you want a good example of why proprietary software is no good for mission-critical work, look up on Google the problems the USS Yorktown had with Windows NT about 5 years ago...
"If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards."
A group promoting choice which would rather there wasn't any choice but Intel and Microsoft. May as well have called themselves Initiative for Lack of Software Choice. What next? The Initiative for National Security that donates money to Al-qaeda?
the heavy metal rock band Metallica recently realized that their battle against MP3's wasn't over and that Microsoft's attempt to squash MP3 with the changes in the Windows Media Player, proved that they were a good ally. The two groups have joined forces and will now fight against free music and free software. To seal the alliance, the next version of Windows, codenamed Longhorn, will be renamed to 'Sandman' and the familiar Start button will be replaced with an 'Enter' button. When asked to comment on this recent alliance, drummer James Hetfield had this to say. "Linux bad! Windows good!"
.sig: It's what's for dinner.
My employer just bought a $50K software package from a vendor that's turning out from the onset of the project to be an adversarial relationship with that vendor, but the contract is already signed and we're stuck with them for 5 years. The vendor has distributed to us a cdrom with their label on it, that contains some third-party commercial software that I betcha they don't have the rights to re-distribute in such a manner. The third party product has a couple of GNU binaries included in it. I opened them with "strings" and a hex editor and sure enuff, they're the real thing, complete with GNU copyright notice, etc. There are absolutely zero copies of the GPL text on the disk, or provided on hardcopy, and there is no mention whatsoever that GPL code is used as a component in the product(s) and I'd betcha if you asked, the vendor(s) will deny that they've used any. There is also no sourcecode whatsoever for *any* binaries on the disk, nor is there any available for download anywhere.
I want to blow the whistle on these people really badly, just for matter of principle, and also because of a bit of revenge towards an arrogant vendor who doesn't understand the "customer is always right" principle and who has lied to us on numerous occasions and repeatedly refuses to follow our instructions and many of the terms of the contract. I think I'm going to wait until the project is complete and the system is in full production use before suddenly discovering this GPL license breach and blowing the whistle to the FSF. I think it will hurt the evil vendor the most then. Anyone have any further comments or advice here?
Strange,
;-)
I thought the warez group Drink Or Die already used Open Source software to distribute their stuff...
This really sounds like FUD!
Besides I don't care what their arguments are, it is TAXPAYERS' $$$$$$$$'s. If there is viable FREE software, I as a TAXPAYER, I believe that Government agencies have a responsibility to STRONGLY consider the GPL license, if it is appropriate to do so.
There is NO excuse not to.
The first thing it told me was, "You can introduce hostile code into your network by opening an E-Mail" and therefore intructs you not to open E-Mail from anyone you don't know. They go on to say that you can also compromise the company's security by reading your Yahoo or Hotmail mail at work. Later in the course it instructs you to keep your system up to date by installing the latest Microsoft security patches, which is ironic because a co-worker just trashed his system by installing a Microsoft security patch and is looking at 3 days downtime while the technicians reinstall the OS (Technicians have an 8 hour response time and due to the holiday they were pretty close to that time. They took his computer away but they won't be able to deliver it on Friday because no one's going to be there.)
Great. So we know we have a problem but instead of taking steps to solve the underlying problem, we're just going to tell everyone in the company to modify their behavior because if they don't, the company's network and billions of dollars of assets will be compromised. Does anyone else see a problem with this?
Frankly, with the company's assets at stake, it would be a damn good idea to roll your own client code just so you can audit the source code. I did some auditing with Data General for a while and they had it right. Every auditing test was extremely well documented and available on the network, along with the automated code generated to test each function (In the C Library in this case.) But if rolling your own clients makes sense, you could save yourself a lot of time and money by grabbing open source projects for the applicaitons you need and feeding those to your audit and programming teams. You save some money and the open source community gets free high quality auditing of their source code and any additional features you decide to add to it. Everyone wins.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
A group comprised completely of proprietary software vendors is recommending the use of proprietary software.
In the end, it is up to those who want their government to "choose" other software to let their voices be heard. This will work as long as politicians listen to the populace they supposedly represent, instead of listening with their wallets to companies from other states.
Of course, it may be that both the People and the "Software Choice" group of mega-corps both favor the use of proprietary software in government. My vote happens to be that our tax money which buys the software that runs our infrastructure should not be used to place our infrastructure under the control of a proprietary software vendor.
MORTAR COMBAT!
From the site:
Lately, concerns have emerged that policy makers, through government procurement policies, research funding or standards policies, may seek to favor one software development model over another.
So they don't want gov'ts to favour any type of software model over another. And seeing as how there have been several announcements about gov't offices deciding to use exclusively open source software, they may campaign against the idea.
This isn't necessarily bad. If they advocate using 'the best solution' rather than 'the cheapest' or 'the most open', this could be credible. However, that's assuming the MS isn't overpowering all the other members and driving the decision making. That's a fairly big if...
This is left as an exercise for the reader.
I on the other hand recommended that they do use open source software.
I stole this Sig
This is the ISC member list.
Did you notice the high percentage of Arab members?
No wonder this group recommends the DOD to use closed source software.
Fine, closed systems... Then just switch to using MacOS... Think of how bitchin' and intimidating our tanks, subs and planes would be in indiglo, lime green or dalmation...
Even if the government only considered open source software, that does not exclude Microsoft from participation. Microsoft would be free to produce software which meets the requirements set, basically set there to ensure that software running our vital infrastructure, paid for by our taxes, does not place our government at the behest and mercy of a software company.
One way to ensure that safety is through the use of open source software. There are undoubtedly other ways, such as Microsoft could provide source licenses only to the government for software the government buys, etc.
However one of the main factors into considering open source software is the rising cost of software licenses. Since our tax money is used to buy this software, I for one would prefer we don't have to pay year after year for what amounts to yearly abandonware.
MORTAR COMBAT!
American Security and Justice Departments are world wide know for their secret investigations among themselves.
Of course that keeping computers not as secure as they could get is very interesting if you want information "secure" enough to avoid a regular hacker to access it, but to enable a power hacker to access with the correct tools obtained with privileged information.
Don't worry about this, you can keep using your free software and keep you own privacy. Unfortunately we can't say the same about your information stored at DoD. :oP
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
"Not inherently less secure" is a strange way of advocating your position. Double-negatives like this usually betray a defensive mind set. Why didn't they have the conviction to say "we're *more* secure"?
My guess would be that he wasn't saying they were more secure, just that they weren't necessarily less secure. The second later argument is true though misleading. Closed source can be at least as secure as open source even though it tends not to be in practice. Claiming that closed source in general is more secure however would be a very easy argument to shoot down because the results rather strongly show the opposite.
Anyway I don't read this as a double negative, just a very carefully chosen argument. I do think you are right though in that it probably reflects a defensive mindset.
>I think its funny that Microsoft didn't say that
:>
>their stuff is better. They can only argue that
>their stuff isn't worse.
for now
Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
--note: I have zero way to tell and zero insider knowledge of what intel might or might not do.
,please, think of the childrenz" or some such new law probably coming to a nation near you soon.
With that said, I would bet that if push came to shove, intel would fall on the side of millions of cpu chips to desktops (trusted and see-cure microsoft yada yada) instead of thousands to servers (terrible open source linux that any al queda teenager can hack open in 2 minutes yada yada). Public perception and marketing and outright lying and word twisting and propogandaizing will prevail in the short term. Not long term but the short term. The pushing and shoving being mandated "by law" with snoopervision hard coded into the chip itself, probably to "fight software and music and movie piracy and to help stop terrorism and them e-vile hackerz
Really, just guessing though. Microsoft's alleged "punishment" was too wussy, I am guessing there's a sub tosa deal in place now between the government and microsoft, there will be a slew of trojans hidden in their software and only a matter of time before they are inside the chips. The government has stated quite clearly that their goal is TOTAL surveillance, I mean, how many more clues are needed now? Intel will play ball with this if they are forced to choose. So will AMD probably as well, and it never has to be made public, at least past the plausable deniability level.
Open source software, the way it is marketed is perfect for DoD work simply because the software itself is tweakable. The IT people in govement departmenrs have a large degree of control over how software is used should they choose open source; they are not as reliant on MS's vision of how their software is used, nor should they be.
Should open source be required? I used to say yes, but then I realize, that is not choice. So of course no, but then neither should closed source be. It all comes down to what it will do for you. On one hand you get a product that MS does not warrent for any particular purpose, nor allow themselves to be held liable for any such use, versus a software product that does the same thing but at least allows the purchaser to to alter the code to suit their own preference, but retaining the decision as to whether to distribute it, under some liberal conditions.
Dawn of the Dead
I had no idea Cisco had such a strong stance against Open Source. I guess all the Linux router projects out there are cutting into their market share.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
Shouldn't they be telling the DOD why their software is better?
Oh, wait... strike that...
qz
Where is the link to the article?
"Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes." --Henry David Thoreau
> I think its funny that Microsoft didn't say that their stuff is better. They can only argue that their stuff isn't worse.
Yes, it is amusing to reflect on how far that goalpost has moved in the past five years.
On c.o.l.a. I've also seen "Linux is too hard to install" shift to "Windows is just as easy to install as Linux is".
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Perhaps you sincerely believe what you said; but it is trolling nonetheless. As the AC who snipped from the sincere choice site has already pointed out, you have it backwards. Sincere Choice does promote open protocols and file formats, and makes it very clear that proprietary solutions can happily commingle with Free solutions. Software Choice backs only the proprietary software that its members own (of course all other proprietary software reap the PR benefits Software Choice spews).
put the what in the where?
Agree totally. Interestingly you do not really need to win any battles, only make sure you will be around for the next skirmish.
MS lost every battle aganist DOJ but still won the war, the Vietcong hardly fought any battles let alone won one.
OpenSource will not go away, it can't as long as individual programmers are "scratching itches".
Help fight continental drift.
of irony?
I mean, a group called software choice telling the goblement (.gov) what software they should choose. Please destroy this government Mr. Terrorist.
Besides 1): what foreign national is doing nasty stuff with the kernel, Linus?
Besides 2): uhm, any idea how many foreigners are working in American software sweatshop nowadays?
Besides 3): What the fcsking hell is wrong with using older kernels if you got a problem with new ones?
Looks to me like an very clueless guy from Lockheed or a inaccurate listener.
Now the cheapest bidders can be even cheaper, by not having to include liscensing fees in it's quotation.
Of course MS will freak out. This is going directly for their main artery. If I was in business, I'd try to fight it. It might not be "socially" correct, but it makes good business sense to try and counter the competition.
Now, let's just hope that the DoD will not fold to commercial power.Marriage is considered capital punishment for the theft of a goat in some third world countries...
but is recommend on using it more.
Oh, they is, is they? That are very interest.
The general manager of the division of the company that I work for used to work at Mitre. He has multiple masters degrees, and a doctorate. Not only that, he's a pretty cool guy. I'm sure this is OT, but I just wanted to give you some background on Mitre.
I am *so* sick of Microsoft thinking they are the only people capable of innovation. Every time I see FUD I see this word - does Microsoft have a copyright on this word ? How dare they attempt to synonymise this word with themselves after they steal everyone elses ideas. "Embrace and extend" is not innovation, it's modified theft. No wonder they hate the GPL so much. Why am I ranting ? I see too much use of the word "innovation" on the softwarechoice website. How the fsck are they a .org anyway if they're rimming Microsoft ?
What does it matter if a microsoft group says the DOD shouldn't use open source software. The DOD will continue to use whatever gets the job done. They are capable enough to make their own decisions, and I'm sure they can see the motive behind a microsoft backed group pushing against open source. So, this is really a non-issue.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
They could tell these folks, "Hmm I think you may be right about closed source software" and then order a bunch of servers from Sun running Trusted Solaris ;)
Soon as I saw the story on the front page I knew what awaited inside. Hundreds of posts from zitty geeks trying to be punker-than-thou by coming up with ever-more-obscure namedropping to make up for their lack of real style (or to pretend that they are actually old enough to have been involved). Drop the pretension kiddos. We all know that your Blink 182 CD is older than your copy of Bollocks.
I love how a whole new level of conformity has been created by the average bozo's efforts at individuality. It might almost work if your personal definition of individuality didn't depend so heavily on how you present yourself to others. I mean, what's the sense of being into bullshit like [insert pseudo-non-mainstream hobby here] if you can't talk about it to make yourself superior to your peers?
Kinda sounds like the Linux crowd, huh? "I'm so ALTERNATIVE by patching my kernel every day while you brainwashed Windows sheep meander in unenlightened tedium." Funny to think that if you had back all the time you spent tweaking and patching (for no good reason other than to say you have the latest version), you wouldn't know what to do with the workstation on your desk.
*sigh*
excuse the rant. caffiene has yet to be digested.
Happy Thanksgiving!
I just wanted to give all th open source developers who worked on the listed programs in the report a well-deserved pat on the back for apparently creating mil-spec software!
And in other news (stealing still another idea from another business - The Microsoft Way!) Microsoft Corp. today announces Microsoft Windows Classic, a more secure OS. Features include Windows 3.0, DOS 5.0 and DOSShell. With no browser or networking support, and with Windows Solitaire removed, you can rest assured that your droids^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hemployees devote more time to WORK!. Micro$oft Cla$$ic! The choice of a nuked generation!
Just a little Thanksgiving tidbit for you all.
I come to my Parents' for the Thanksgiving Holiday. Sometime last night I use their PC to check my email.
I notice an advertisement sent to them via Windows Messenger. I ask my mom how long she's been getting these, and she replies that she has for a few weeks repeatedly.
I disable Windows Messenger and told her that what I did should have fixed the problem.
However, my parents know very little about computers. They had no clue how all these ads for pr0n were coming in to them. They don't read up on this type of stuff, nor would they like to have to.
Microsoft brands their OS as being user friendly and secure, yet they don't even set the default configurations on their own OS to respect the privacy of their customers.
I'm not about to suggest Linux to them. I use Linux and Windows XP, but I also have the knowhow to configure them at least decently. I suggested that my parents ditch their PC and get a Mac.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
> This comes after MITRE, a defense contractor,
> published a report stating that not only does the
> Department of Defense use opensource, but is
> recommend on using it more.
MITRE is one hell of a lot more than just another defense contractor. Look into it's history and you'll see that DoD will value its opinion far above that of some Microsoft lobbiest.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I think its funny that Microsoft didn't say that their stuff is better. They can only argue that their stuff isn't worse.
Actually, they aren't even saying that!
They are saying that their stuff isn't necessarily worse just because it's their stuff. It still could be worse.
Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
Why that was the last time an Intel CPU ever got into any of my servers, workstations or anything else. One would think that intel would want to get rid of master Microsoft and be able to build their own software again. Right now they are not able to because of their tight lockin to MS. If linux succed at a greater scale it could very well be the start of a move away from that hideous platform of x86 and possibly leave Intel behind. Linux is pretty easy to port compared to Windows.
HTTP/1.1 400
"Thus, because of the GPL's "transitive user rights," at least half of the DoD's OSS efforts, were they to be more widely disseminated, would largely foreclose proprietary and/or hybrid companies from further developing the
software and commercializing the results. The same is true for any outside R&D funded
by the DoD - if it is GPL-based, proprietary companies cannot directly benefit from it."
Oh no! If the DoD develops it's own GPL'd software, we (MS, Cisco, Intel, et al) can't sell it as our own for ridiculous prices!
Stop the commies at the DoD!
I know of one lab which is planning to move to linux systems + get a linux cluster....and only use MS when reports need to go out to people who only use MS...for what we do, Windows can't handle it...
Is it just me, or do the ever increasing numbers of Industry pressure groups seem to all be formed by the same small group of companies? :) ) into believing that industry has mobilised itself against OSS.
This is a measure designed to 'gull' the general public (Im tempted to add the word license there, don't know why
When in fact only Microsoft its distribution partners, and occasionaly Adobe has taken issue with it.
Economic Left/Right: -0.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
And in other news Microsoft competes for business.
Claims that the GPL will affect government usage of software have zero basis in reality.
1) If the Government wants to modify GPL software for internal usage they are free to do so. As long as they do not distribute outside of the government they are clearly within the GPL.
2) The Government is GPL proof. If the Government wants to declare that they are void from the provisions of the GPL they have any number of options for avoiding the provisions.
a) claim national security
b) claim national provenince and take ownership
c) change copyright law
The real claims of the movement are that it will cut into proprietary software houses right to earn a buck. This are also useless claims based on continued extortion of government dollars. These companies wish to continue taking excessive amounts of money from the government.
The government should own the software it uses. Would you be happy if all the tanks owned by the government were actually owned by Laidlaw and were supplied to the government on contract? A contract that could be cancelled at any time. That software controlling the battleship-sub-airplane-tank is owned by Microsoft. Microsoft reserves the right to disable it at any time should the government not keep it happy. (See why other governments are moving away from Microsoft)
Also if the government has the code all contractors are on an equal starting point. This presents the most competition into the contracting and supply route and will get the government the best price.
The only way to do this is to make it that the government will have the rights to the source code for all software used in any government project. The GPL achieves this. All contracts the govenment puts out for supply and services of computing contracts should require that the source code be supplied with all rights to modify to the government.
Saying that the Pentagon should not "openly promote the use of" OSS is not the same as telling the Pentagon not to use OSS>
I strongly recommend they don't use computers at all.
Also make love not war !!!
Rocket Scientists today comtemplated the theory
that Microsoft software could be "open sourced".
This of course violates all known laws of particle physics.
Day of Defeat source code has already been released and the mod community is feverishly whipping out a Power Rangers mod which will soon be the 'killer app' for the Quake 3 engine akin to what Counterstrike did for Halflife.
I can't blow the whistle just yet. The project's completion is under a tight deadline and I will jeapordize my job if the system isn't operational on the go-live date. This scene is also like when cops are about to bust a drug dealer, they want the evidence to be there so the villain gets busted red-handed. And after the system has been deployed, the villain^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hvendor will be more red-handed than ever.
The part that I wonder about is "other software products with limited or no warranty, such as those commonly known as freeware or shareware". I wonder if this was meant to indicate Open Source Software? IANAL, but I've never seen a EULA for software that didn't indicate a limited warranty. In fact, from my layman's point of view, all the standard EULAs seem to indicate that the software has no warranty, since they seem to claim that the software doesn't have to do anything at all...
Elegance is for tailors. -A. Einstein
Bookmarking this handy page to keep track of how well OSS is doing! Naughty software procurement policies.
Incidentally, don't use put a single quote in the zipcode field on their registration form...
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
Would you expect the DOD to use a plane that it does not know the internal workings of or use some weapon it doesn't have the blue prints for? Is something that is secure only because of the fact that nobody knows how it was built, really secure for long? Engineering principles used to make most technologies are reversible. Get enough good reverse engineers on the task and they can make up the blue-print from the product and there goes your security.
Look, there are more bug and security reports in the secretive closed source proprietary systems like HP-UX 10.20 or MS Windows then there are in the flamboyantly open OpenBSD (it's in the name).
I think that leaving people ignorant has failed long enough, let's give education a chance.
If you read the actual article recommendation the /. summary is simply incorrect. The recommendation was:
a) The choice of open source vs. closed source be made on a project by project basis and not be a matter of policy. In particular the DoD should not adobt a preferential policy favoring open source over closed source when possible,
b) While BSD licenses are OK using GPL licenses violate congressional norms (in particular they make commercial software impossible)
In addition things not mentioned in the summary
a) DoD is far and away the largest user of open source in the government
b) Security issues are ambigious with regard open source vs. closed source
c) A great deal of open source software violates all sorts of other government regulations and the government would end up having to bring these systems into compliance.
Yes the comments were hostile to open source particularly GPL they certainly where nowhere near the summary though.
I agree. WindRiver's VxWorks is a true example of some software not carrying the price of its true value, but the value that customers are prepared to pay for it (ie. tens or hundreds of thousands of US$).
.. well if you know you know what I mean :-)
The only thing VxWorks has of technical value (IMHO) is its pretty slick development environment, but not the actual OS.
For the OS I'd prefer to use eCos instead of VxWorks, but for larger systems, eg. devices that'l carry more CPU+RAM power than a vacuum cleaner, I'd myself choose Linux anytime. Especially since the Linux 2.5 kernel series, which is much better suited for embedded devices than previous Linux kernels, even though even earlier ones weren't non-usable, however
One last comment: In embedded devices Motorola HW Rulez, only displaying a fans disposition and not one of an employee's, which I am not.
If you feel like getting rid,
of Open Source Solutions,
I second that emotion....
As we have seen with Microsoft's efforts to complicate other formats, the best way of wnsuring this is to demand source code. If Microsoft doesn't like it, well there is always OSS.
See my journal, I write things there
Much to my dismay, the US Army is moving to a mandatory "smart card" system for computer access. I read the operational requirements document, and it lists Windows as a requirement, and Unix as "nice, but optional". So for all practical purposes we're tied to Windows as an OS, and Outlook as an email client (our servers will reject email not signed with a key from our smart card, and of course they're only integrating the smart card with Outlook). Oh, and the requirements document DOES call for "open standards", but that didn't seem to matter. (google for "set-d ord")
What they say is that closed source is not inherently less secure than open source. They are kind of arguing that its a tie. In reality this undersells the commercial world.
For example every security class A operating system for example is commercial (and presumably closed source). No open source has even gone for a high security certification though the NSA was going to build a high security version of Linux before they got stopped (nowhere near class A though). The issue though is that while there are excellent closed source secure systems Microsoft doesn't make any of them; vendors like IBM (with Z-OS) do.
However Palladium will move MSFT towards a capability system and these are substantially more secure (in practice) than systems based on file permissions (like Unixes). I wouldn't be so sure this is a permanent win for Linux rather than a short term victory based on:
a) Microsoft's poor execution on security
b) Services running with excessively high permissions
c) Security not being a focus of the company until recently.
How ironic that Cisco relies on OpenBSD, an open source operating system, as the embedded os in their routers. Might as well let the cat out of the bag, the greedy scum who pretend to run that company have no problem grabbing up open sourcecode for their own benefit, but don't want anyone else to be able to do so. Competition you know. To the management of Cisco, you liars can shove it.
Duh!!!
If you read the preamble on their home page it says.
- Procure software on its merits, not through categorical preferences
- Promote broad availability of government funded research
- Promote interoperability through platform-neutral standards
- Maintain a choice of strong intellectual property protections
Look at list items 1 and 4. Do they not counterdict eachother? From the way sentence 4 is worded someone may preclude that the inteded meaning is that "one should choose software with strong intellectual property protections."However, if click on the link and read further the wording is less procise and ambiguous. The point is presented as if to say that software shouldn't be choosen based on licensing. The underlying tone of it is that intellectual property is more important to protect and poor licensing is OK.
My point in all of this is that this organization is nothing more then a front for these compnaies to justify their licensing terms.They are doing this by saying it shouldn't matter how we protect our IP and software decisions shouldn't be based on licensing anyways. WRONG!
>arguing that proprietary products are not inherently less secure
"not inherently less" - looks like Microsoft is trying to prove that it's products are "not worse" that open source ones. One would imagine that they would want to show how their software is "inherently" more. Just goes to show that they are (or at least feel that they are) lagging behind.
No other big names
Yeah but as the Register said it's a pretty odd selection of companies from a pretty odd selection of countries.
In fact if you take away companies from the USA then it seems to leave lot's of companies from Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Odd, all these countries have very strong ties with the CIA, oil and defence industries and all have either (effectively) dictatorships or incredibly bad human rights records.
If someone had a couple of months to investigate this they could probably come up with a pretty good conspiracy theory.
"Free software as in beer, copy protection as in racket" - Telsa Gwynne
I have no idea, but I'd imagine it is quite easy to get your hands on the original source code of any Microsoft product, or that of any other company. Maybe it's already floating around Kazaa. If not, how hard would it be to offer a MS employee who has access to the code, say, $500k to give up the code?
If what I said is indeed true, I see no reason to take whether or not the software is open source into consideration, rather, the much higher skilled and larger community who immediately discovers bugs and repairs (automatically with some distros) holes. *NIX folks are certainly better at this. Am I right? Maybe I'm not..
Of course they'll fight it. They want the benjamins from the DoD coffers!
:P
I don't expect them to fight this battle as hard as others though. Why? Open source would be fine with them - if it was required to adhere to the BSD-style of open source.
Frankly, I'm in the middleground. I'll fight to the bitter end to prevent the GPL from breaching the government in most cases. Why? The GPL does not stand for freedom.
I am a taxpayer. Most programmers are. So are corporations. In the case of specially-developed software paid for with my tax money, I expect the license to be a BSD variant. I want free and unlimited use. No restrictions, other than proper credit, which is arguably an ethically right thing to do.
I wouldn't care if Microsoft or Sun or Apple could then take that code and use it for profit - I'd be able to, too. I'm a tax payer, so are they. Anyone who pays taxes should have unlimited use of the code.
And, for the love of Bob, I'd pray that if the DoD considers any sort of open source licensing, they have legal attack dogs go over the license with ten fine toothed combs. The last thing we need is some jackass managing to snag targetting programs for ICBM's.
So, "The Initiative for Software Choice" basically says you should stick to MS products..
In other news, The Ministry of Plenty anounces that the chocolate rations has risen from 30 to 20 grammes....
For a simple analogy, ask yourself: all things being equal, who do you trust more: the used car salesman making a pitch (Microsoft) or the common views of a dozen of his ex-customers (other open source users)?
Also, this isn't like the Coke-vs.-Pepsi debate--two more-or-less equivalent products, where one can debate endlessly which one is better. Open source and closed source software are profoundly different development models. I think open source really is better for most users, in a clearcut economic sense. I have concluded that, in contrast to many economic arguments for open source, Microsoft's arguments are mostly logically and economically unsound. You may reach different conclusions, but the point is that this is something one can think about and determine the truth of logically. Therefore, it is not a question of advocacy and bias but putting forward logical arguments and empirical proof.
MITRE is a not-for-profit national resource that provides systems engineering, research and development, and information technology support to the government. It operates federally funded research and development centers for the DOD, the FAA, and the IRS, with principal locations in Bedford, Massachusetts, and Northern Virginia
Check the site out. Interesting tech publications.
The word "Institute" implies that it's a brain trust of qualified academic researchers, which is bullshit. As far as they've bothered to reveal to the rest of us, The Institute for Software Choice is simply a PR front group. They are in no position to speak authoritatively on any technical issue whatsoever. Their sole purpose for existence is to crank out press releases and hold press conferences if they can find any journalists inexperienced enough to show up. Declan should know better than to print their press releases as news.
The "Institute" would be called The Klingon Alliance or the Ku Klux Klan if MS thought it would help.
Tech Public Policy stuff
They have a very interesting membership list
Looks like a lot of super high-powered cyber cafes and basement-office "WE FIX YOU COMPUTER CHEAP OK!" consultants if you ask me.
Perhaps we should all apply for membership in this prestigious group.
You can find the original MITRE 2002 report here.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
For Microsoft to try and claim that they're as secure as open source so soon after the 'format your hard drive' bug created such a big fluff is likely to backfire on them. I think that they're shotgunning flies here, and more likely than not to hit their foot. They're actuzlly making it clear that they really do consider the security issue to be a real problem with their software. If these people start to look at the security differences between MS and OS.MIL usage of MS may just drop precipitiously.
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
Apache, Velocity, Turbine, Axis, Perl, Poi, Ant, Junit... They are moving away from propriatory closed source portal software in favor of jetspeed...
So this advice must really be based on their opinion about the quality of open source software, not about money...
Naw, R J Reynolds and Phillip Morris promote open sores.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Might not be less secure but I think the difference is how opensource projects respond to and handle security issues compared to some proprietary software companies. The latter have to consider reactions from shareholders, etc when informing users of vulnerabilities in their products, they have the choice to stay quiet more often since the source isn't open. That isn't the case with opensource projects, the source is right there for everyone to poke and prod at.
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/02/09/0 5/020905hnmssecure.xml
"I'm not proud," Valentine said, as he spoke to a crowd of developers here at the company's Windows .Net Server developer conference. "We really haven't done everything we could to protect our customers ... Our products just aren't engineered for security."
Can you imagine how many things you can achieve just by silently forgeting an hidden buffer overflow inside a Microsoft server application and later exploit it to access information in the DoD computers ?
Sure, we already did the same thing to Iraq during the Golf war, but I'm sure this ideia did't escape unforgotton to any foreign secret agency: Maybe the Chineese....
Interesting to hear about the takeup of linux in DOD embedded, as it is creeping into the rest of the embedded space too. Same reason: Vxworks costs too much, they dont give you the source, annual update fees are silly, etc.
Whereas linux/freebsd not only have lower NRE and distribution costs, you can get much of your code running on your laptop while they are still getting the hardware to work. But I do like the vxworks debuggers, esp. for real time stuff.
-steve
We have data we keep on clinical trials that must be saved for 15 years after the patient dies. So we have to store data for 20 to 40 years. We also have to be able to revive the data and possibly process it. Clearly the storage strategy to meet this REQUIREMENT should not include proprietary data formats or programs.
I want to be alone with the sandwich
Representative Adam Smith from Washington State is cosponsoring a bill that would make it illegal for Federal tax dollars to be spent on Open Source code that is under the GPL and similar licenses.
The Microsoft lobbyists are fighting hard to buy our lawmakers. Clearly Adam Smith's loyalties lie with Corporate America rather than the average American.
Please help me to convince Adam Smith and all Representatives that they should represent the average American and not just Corporate America.
His Washington D.C. Address is:
116 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
His Tacoma Address is:
1717 Pacific Avenue #2135
Tacoma, Washington 98402
I wrote him a letter laying out my concerns and he replied as follows:
Thank you for contacting me regarding open source software. I
appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns
with me on this important matter. Please allow me a moment to
explain the situation as well as my position on this matter.
The debate over open source software revolves primarily around
information security and intellectual property rights. As you may
know, open source software refers to a computer program whose
source code is made available to the general public to be improved
or modified as the user wishes. Closed source programs are those
whose source code is not made available and can only be altered by
the software manufacturer. In the case of closed source software,
updates to a program are usually distributed in the form of a patch
or as a new version of the program that the user can install but not
alter.
For some, open source software is viewed as a means to reduce an
organization's dependence on the software products of a few
companies while possibly improving the security and stability of
one's computing infrastructure. For others, open source software
is viewed as a threat to intellectual property rights with unproved
cost and quality benefits. Critics of open source software suggest
that it is less secure than closed source software because it allows a
potential hacker to search the source code to discover and exploit
flaws. Some computer security experts suggest that it is not
possible to conclude that either open source or closed source
software is inherently more secure.
The use of open source software by the federal government has
been gaining attention as organizations continue to search for
opportunities to enhance their information technology operations
while containing costs. Public-private partnerships have been
hallmarks of technological innovation and government has played
a positive role in fostering innovation by allowing the private
sector to develop commercial products from the results of publicly
funded research.
During my time in Congress questions over cyber-security have
been of growing concern. At the same time, it is vital that we
continue to encourage and foster technological growth and new
and innovative ideas.
It is my belief that cyber-security will improve if federally funded
research and development is made available to Americans under
intellectual property licenses that allow for further development
and commercialization of that work-product.
Please be assured that I am a strong supporter of research and
development and I will work hard to increase our investment in
new ideas and new technology. I hope that you have found this
information helpful and that I have clarified any questions you
might have had.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Hey bmajik, this is Bill. Your check is in the mail. Thanks!
"How the fuck is the truth a troll?"
Corollary: how the fuck is a troll the truth?
VxWorks have recently changed there pricing policy and for a nominal fee you can get the sources.
They made a big play about it being for better customer support, but I think we know the real reason.......
Choose your allies carefully, it is highly unlikely you will be held accountable for the actions of your enemies
These guys want to stop laying huge license fees to WindRiver for their vxWorks software... and want to spend the $$ elsewhere.
What really weird is the MS seams to think that a move from VxWorks to linux somehow affects them, they cant really think that missile launchers will run windows CE in the future, especially if microsoft poeple have admited that its not even ready for mobile phones.
It starts a paragraph by saying that the DoD should choose the software that best meets its needs and qcquisition requirements, but then goes on to say that they shouldn't use open-source.
wierd.
They are trying to say that open software is the licensing model, or open software is the development process, and they claim decisions to pick software should not discriminate on these grounds. (Even here they have a weak argument.)
But of course open software is a valid feature of software! Its not just a licensing model, or a development process.
As a feature it has many benefits, so choosing software based on the availability of this feature, is a very good reason to choose software!
(And of course one Microsoft et al would like to deny!)
Well, I've been living in the UAE for years, and it surprised me to see so many companies on the list. Yes, most of these stores ARE really small, and I really don't know what the heck they have to do with government-choice and the like over here. There is always constant pressure here to comply with Microsoft's moves, though.
a recent report that concluded the Defense Department relies on open-source software and recommended its further adoption
i'd like to read this report. working for the (DoD), we just got our hands thoroughly slapped for using OSS. our higher-ups were NOT please that we were using MRTG, Apache, and others, instead of using such high priced software as HP-OpenView and IIS.
I'm sorry, I must be mistaken, but didn't thier name indicate choice?
The group also assailed the General Public License (GPL), which generally permits programmers to incorporate code released under the GPL as long as they make their own source code available.
"While the law on this matter remains untested, it makes sense for companies to be highly risk-averse in this area, striking a more defensive posture when confronted with software development that may implicate GPL code or similar coding environments," the initiative said. "Commercial and hybrid software developers generally do not want to risk losing their investment."
Proprietary software companies such as Microsoft have labeled open-source software as a serious threat and have begun to oppose its use by governments. At the same time, however, nations such as France and Germany have begun to encourage open-source software to limit their dependence on proprietary vendors and to stimulate local software development.
I hope they aren't implicating that the GPL is dangerous because they would have to release source code if they make changes, AFAIK that is not true if the code is only used internally within the organization. It only has to be released if a binary is release to other organizations (hence keeping it GPL)
What does the Dod have to do with software companies losing their investment? Their only jobs is to protect US interests (the people). The companies programming Linux apps don't have to release their source unless their product is a modification of another entities program.
It's all FUD to scare the non-techies in the goverment but they should talk. Closed source programs being as secure than Open source? Which programs, Hello World?, under which track record?
DOD is a prime move in funding research &
development. Since this research is govt funded
most/all of it is released to the public domain
and therefor "open source"
The most advantageous, pre-eminent thing thou canst do is not to exhibit
nor display thyself within the limits of our galaxy, but rather depart
instantaneously whence thou even now standest and flee to yet another rotten
planet in the universe, if thou canst have the good fortune to find one.
-- Carlyle
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...