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."
You can be paid to have them, or you can have them due to some deeply held beliefs with religious fervor, or you can arrive at your opinion through a process of reasoning.
On the other hand, reasoning that it's better to move to an open source product just because said OS product is currently attacked less, is fallacious.
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.
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."
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"
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!
Minipax unuse openful computerwrite. Refs uncommercialism. Doubleplus ungood.
--The grammar police.
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.
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)
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...
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
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
Is this any different from a closed source product? If this where true there would be no issues with closed source. But there are, they are successfully attacked just as frequently as open source software, in many many cases more.
I suspect that there is a noticable difference between the most secure operating system and Microsoft's most secure operating system.
unsigned int question = 0x2B | ~(0x2B)
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
you can have them due to some deeply held beliefs with religious fervor, or you can arrive at your opinion through a process of reasoning.
It's my experience that people first tend to form their opinions based on deeply held beliefs (or otherwise) and later use reasoning to give justification to their beliefs. It is extremely rare for someone to start without preconceptions and use reasoning to develop an objective opinion. It is even rarer for someone to start with a deeply held belief and change their mind based on reasoning.
For example, do most people who share files have liberal views on intellectual property because it justifies swapping copyrighted files, or do most people who swap copyrighted files do so because it validates their predeveloped liberal views on intellectual property?
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
You can not do this. The license does not exist in a vacuum relative to the problem that the SW is trying to solve.
Help fight continental drift.
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."
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.
Strange,
;-)
I thought the warez group Drink Or Die already used Open Source software to distribute their stuff...
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!
I on the other hand recommended that they do use open source software.
I stole this Sig
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...
The argument is roughly analogous to reasoning it's better to move to a given neighborhood just because said neighborhood currently has a lower crime rate.
As a parent and homeowner, that logic sounds pretty good to me.
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!
No, you are a troll. Sincere Choice promotes the idea that people should have a choice. Software Choice promotes the idea that the best choice is proprietary software. That's their choice, but they shouldn't pretend that a policy that promotes that idea is the best for my needs.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
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.
--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
> 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.
Dude, I just want the latest Eminem CD. Sometimes piracy is just piracy.
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.
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
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!
"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."
And by some strange reason Software Choice tends to skew things a hefty bit towards closed source proprearity. That is, all things is best if that terrible cancer of Linus is avoided at all cost and that no university, government or entity within the state use it or develop anything for it. You have blue eyes i presume?
"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."
A government is suppossed to give the tax payers the most possible for their money. Cost should be a big part in the decision process, pick the thing that does the job at the least cost just like in other areas. They are as of today very poor at choosing anything else than Microsoft and they want to keep it that way.
"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."
I cant see that closed source is the best in every case. Running a webserver on IIS seems to me as a sign that they DONT choose the best tool for the job. I know many times that inferior products have been choosen, call it stupidity moral or whatever but it happens all the time because "nobody get fired for buying Microsoft".
"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."
This is a key element. I pay taxes right? I have the right to access material right? To force me to buy a proprearity product to enjoy my rights is very bad. Its favorism in its highest form and just as bad as if they would mandate linux everywhere. Open formats lets everybody use whatever they want. I cant see where this would hurt anybody but the monopoly.
"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. "
The "freedom" it gives is status qou for MS. They are very happy in forcing upgrades down everybodys throat.
" 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 governments start using theese tools they get a synergy effect that so far has never been seen. A sheriff in Idaho can take benefit from an application made in NY police office without double cost. What one entity make the others can benefit of without cost. The tools will be as good as they want them to be. OSS dont market themselves but rely on educated users that knows what they are doing. Thats hard when marketdroids is running rampant calling it cancer and warning about how it will destroy the country.
" 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?"
Ofcourse it will still be crap! Crap is crap is crap, get my drift? They should though have the choice of building their own software, with the help of OSS community. Thats not what Software Choice wants. They want all software to be bought, preferable again and aganin every third year.
"(if of course, Software Choice have changed their tack - then feel free to mod me into oblivion)"
Nope, i still see a little Mini-gates on their shoulders, they havent changed.
HTTP/1.1 400
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
Use "Ask Slashdot"!
A cleaned up 'strings' of the binary along with MD5 hashes of the binaries off the CD will be stored on slashdot for all to see. The supplier will not be able to deny anything, especially if those hashes match the hash generated from the binaries available via public sources.
Then let RMS know so he can don his suit with the big "S" and cape..
Trolling is a art,
> 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.
but government gets it's money from the people..
therefore they should spend it to our benefit!!!
if they buy m$ just the employes and shareholder benefit!!!
with open source everybody benefits!!! (at least everybody using software)
with this in mind there is nothig to decide if the open source software
can do the same job at the same price as a closed source option
stop supporting microsoft with pirating their software!!!!!
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!
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
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.
Rocket Scientists today comtemplated the theory
that Microsoft software could be "open sourced".
This of course violates all known laws of particle physics.
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!
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.
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
In a sense, yes, but that's not the point... Moving to an open source product because it is attacked less, means that you are at less risk from skiddie and worms. But a real attacker won't be randomly trying machines for known exploits, (s)he'll be attacking just the box/site that he wants access to.
To keep with the neighbourhood analogy, it's like moving to a safer neighbourhood when a hit-man's after you, it doesn't really matter how many petty criminals are in the area, there's still a goddamn hitman!
--
Hollywood representatives have publicly stated that skipping commercials is "stealing."
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.
On Windows box I honestly don't know. If you could FTP (in binary mode!) to a *NIX box, you could just "md5 filename"
Sorry, my Windows skills are limited to playing games.
Personally, I'd resubmit the story; they repeat stories that ran just a day before, your odds of getting approved are pretty good, eh?
Trolling is a art,
>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.
Sure it's not perfectly secure and some criminals will overcome the defensive measures.
But it's better than the tent (=Windows) you had before, so I don't see why this move should be wrong.
But they seem to have absolutely no problems when government organizations implement Microsoft and only Microsoft policies, at least I have never heard them complain about that.
With OpenSource, you have an open market for supporters and companies - with a MS-only policy you have to swallow anything MS throws at you. (including rising fees and license costs, changing EULAs and registration/activation hassles)
A MS-only policy is much more restrictive than a OSS-only policy. If ISC's main goal is to "educate policymakers about the need to remain neutral with respect to government purchase of software" why don't they critizise MS-only policies?
Face it: ISC is just the long arm of Microsoft.
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
The license of a piece of software is just one factor when it comes to whether it's the best solution for the problem. You can't reasonably ignore the license when making your decision, and neither should you focus entirely on the license -- either way lies madness. A balanced approach, taking into account all relevant factors (quality of software, up-front and continuing monetary costs, license, etc.), is the only reasonable way to go.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
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
In this case, it would make the hitman resort to hitman tactics instead of script kiddie tactics. Besides which, it doesn't matter who breaks into a box -- if an important server(or even workstation) is compromised, it has been compromised. It helps if you don't have to worry about being killed in a carjacking while you're trying to figure out how to keep the hitman from getting you.
It's been a long time.
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.
But wouldn't it be even better if FAA (no idea what it is, but it probably has something to do with airplanes and america (Flying Assosicaition of America?)) developed an in-house system with good auditing AND make it open source? The more eyes, the better.
You could argue that if the source is open, a nasty cracker (133t, is that it?) might stumble upon a security hole (3xp101t?) and take advantage of it. But it wouldn't take long before the rest of the 'net (or whatever the fora) knew it as well, and some smart people at FAA would at that time probably pick up the information, and have patches from the community waiting for in-house auditing. It's a better scenario than if a cracker found a security hole (3XpL0itz?) in a closed source, and nobody would know but the cracker. Your airplane goes down just like the servers..
I dunno if this is my honest opinion. I'm just asking, trying to establish a position. If I'm wrong, enlighten me!
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."
The Initiative for Software Choice was featured on Slashdot a while ago, when their opposition was formed: Sincere Choice . More than a tad tounge-in-cheek.
Don't be so surprised. When in politics, label yourself the opposite of your intention. Remember the "non-discriminatory" RANDs licensing that certain W3C members were promoting a while back? I particularly like the prefix "non-", as opposed to "anti-". Consider it.
Then there's the "homeland security" bill. A bill genuinely about "homeland security", but without the prepositional explanation of who's being secured.
Really, it's pretty easy to spot when people try this. Remember, organizations, people, or bills, act. They are not "about terrorism" or "about protecting". They do things. When someone says this [noun] is about [noun], the preposition is not the verb. When they say "[noun] is about [noun]", they're avoiding answering you by stating "[noun] is". It exists! Don't question it!
They're always actions. Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory licensing proposed to slacken the W3C's vigilance against proprietary siezure of W3C recommendations. Initiative for Software Chioce proposes choices to improve the economic conditions of its members. Homeland Security proposes intercommunication with agencies and increased surveilance of the populace for the purpose of securing the homeland against threats. Now, I can't stress this enough. Fuck the prepositions. They're there to tell you about intentions and ideas, not about what's actually going to happen.
Ranting? You bet! I bet you never thought that high-school grammar would ever be useful!
I'm as mimsy as the next borogove but your mome raths are completely outgrabe.
I swap Mp3's because I could give a rats ass about some overpaid rich jerk's claims that I am making him poor.
I swaped Casette tapes of CD's back in the early 90's and late 80's and (THE HORROR) recorded music off the radio for my own use.
The RIAA and the artists had no problem with this back in the 80's and 90's.. now they start whining like babies...
I dont care, and actually I now flip them a collective bird due to their stupid bitching.
Music trading IS NOT NEW and has been around cince the late 70's... my brother used to trade reel to reel copies of albums and (OH THE HORROR!) copies of radio shows.
it didn't hurt them then and it certianly is not hurting them now (with record sales on the books... only a complete idiot would say otherwise.)
trading music is piracy? only the stupidest people on the planet make that statement... and if you dont believe me... just look at the people saying it.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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!
If I BUY a piece of software, I do have the right to do just about anythign I want to it EXCEPT distribute it, for free or profit.
Often with proprietary software you are buying a permission to use the software, with conditions which go far beyond any incarnation of copyright law. Though what a court might think of the blatent "bait and switch" sales tactics which are frequently involved is an open question.
I am a taxpayer. Most programmers are. So are corporations.
At least in theory, many large corporations appear to be very good at tax avoidance.
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.
How would having the targetting program help you if you came under attack from such missiles?