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.
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."
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."
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!
"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!
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...
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
Indeed it does. The beauty of this is that every time a piece of FUD like this arrives, it adds mindshare of OpenSource to the equation.
It's like the old Monty Python sketch when in the cockpit of a plane John Cleese takes the microphone and informs the passenger that "There is no cause for alarm". When asked why he did that claiming the passengers now have to ponder "What is there no cause for alarm For!
This junk by MS almost ensures an invite for OpenSource to the party.
Help fight continental drift.
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.
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."
Oh I totally agree. I'm all for OSS getting an equal share of the limelight with others, even Microsoft. Personally I think on an even playing field, OSS has way more pros than cons as opposed to more proprietary solutions. However the OSS community also has to realize that all they can do is showcase themselves as best they can. If an individual/company/organization/whatever decides they want Microsoft products (as an example) then that's their decision. Hopefully they've made an informed one, but if they have then they've chosen what's best for them. OSS shouldn't take that as a slap to the face, they don't have to win EVERY battle.
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
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?
I do not understand why you think that OpenSource is exempted from capitalist market forces. It is precisely the market forces that the OpenSource movement wants put into play and that MS et al is afraid of.
Help fight continental drift.
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!
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
> 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.
Isn't it ironic that some people equate Open source with communism, but they equate "ein volk, ein reich, ein windows!" with democracy, choice, and capitalism?
It's been a long time.
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
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.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
See SincereChoice.org for a platform that really would give you choice.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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