Slashdot Mirror


Red Hat Advanced Server Gets DoD COE Certification

DaveAtFraud writes "CNET is reporting that Red Hat Advanced server has been certified as a 'Common Operating Environment' (COE) when running on an IBM server by the U.S. Department of Defense. Red Hat Advanced Server is the first version of Linux to receive this certification. The certification clears the way for broader use of Linux in governement computer systems. Its interesting to note that the certification effort was made for the more proprietary (and costlier) Red Hat Advanced Server and not the basic Red Hat distribution." This despite the best efforts of certain lobbyists.

186 comments

  1. Schu-chan! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    This one is for you!
    Good luck!

  2. FB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    FP bizatch!!!

  3. IN SOVIET RUSSIA by IN+SOVIET+RUSSIA · · Score: -1

    Red Hat Advanced Server Gets You!

  4. does anyone know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Redundant

    If any other Linux distro's have received this? If so what flavors/levels?

  5. Submission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Yeah, thanks:
    * 2003-02-12 00:52:28 Red Hat Linux Advanced Server achieves U.S. DoD CO (articles,redhat) (rejected)

  6. Don't look too far into this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    This is the same government that let Microsoft off. Now they register a local Linux distro rather than a foreign one.

  7. Security? by Snagle · · Score: 1

    could anyone who knows their stuff about redhat tell me the level of security it's got in relation to other distros and OSes ?

    1. Re:Security? by terraformer · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Well for example, I just installed the latest Mandrake distro and any service I installed was turned on by default. In RH 8.0 you can install any service/package available but nothing is enabled unless you choose to after install. That is one of the cornerstones of security. Only turn on what you need. Just because I want something installed does not mean I want it turned on right now. I should not have to remember to go through and turn off everything just to have stuff sit on my drive until I am ready to configure and harden it.

      Anyhow, all these distro's really have in common is the kernel code which makes them linux. The rest of the software (FTP, wm's, editors) bundled is up to the bundler. It is these choices that can make a distro more secure from another. EX: ssh v. telnet, std ftpd v. vsftpd, vi v. emacs (Sorry, I just had to ;-}) et al; The DOD is going to certify the whole bundle and not just individual pieces. Basically, they don't trust their admins (contractors mostly) to pick the right pieces on their own, so they will find a good bundle and certify that with special instructions.

      --
      Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
    2. Re:Security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      vi v. emacs
      I thought Linux could only address 4GB of memory. If this is the case, how is it that emacs can run on one of these computers? What changes did Redhat make to allow this to occur?

      Thanks in advance.
    3. Re:Security? by terraformer · · Score: 1
      http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs.html#Platf orms

      and

      ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/8.0/en/os/i3 86/RedHat/RPMS/emacs-21.2-18.i386.rpm

      --
      Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
    4. Re:Security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Linux supports 64GB of memory, so emacs will just barely fit in.

    5. Re:Security? by Judebert · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I work on a government project using, and interfacing to, DII COE machines. They're all Sun/Solaris, and when you install the DII COE software you actually modify the kernel. Other DII COE software (called "segments") depends on the DII COE kernel. So I doubt Linux is going to get any real play for a while.

      As far as security goes, I doubt the government will worry much about the bundled software; they generally disable everything they're not interested in and install their own segments for the functionality they need. While that does mean that the production systems probably won't have my favorite applications (because they haven't been ported to DII COE segments), at least my development systems can have what I want and still closely match the production systems. Heck, I could even develop at home.

      That said, getting *any* version of Linux certified is great for me. I expect most of the Solaris segments will run with very little modification, so my development environment can very closely match my production environment. An the performance benefits I get from running on x86 hardware -- not to mention cost benefits -- will be phenomenal. (Given the recent revelations concerning Java and Solaris, running under a different OS is welcome as well, since a large part of our software is affected.) I might even get to use bash! And vim! (And emacs, for the heathens. Or your editor of choice.) And gcc!

      I expect Linux will win its place in the DII COE hierarchy, and sooner rather than later. In fact, at least one very important DII COE segment is already adding Linux support. My job is about to get a whole lot easier.

      --

      For geek dads: Contraction Timer

    6. Re:Security? by mormop · · Score: 1

      If you install Mandrake in Expert mode you're given the choice of "Normal", "High", "Higher" or "Paranoid" security with Paranoid switching everything off by default and running routine checks and security tests as it goes.

      --
      Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
    7. Re:Security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's a joke!

    8. Re:Security? by praedor · · Score: 1

      That deal with all services being on by default is kinda misleading. The reason is that several steps later in the install you get a list of the possible startup services, most set on, and you can now deselect the ones you don't want running. If someone just blows by this very obvious screen, then yes, selected services will be running upon reboot.


      Kinda hard to miss this screen however. I always turn off everything except sshd, postfix, and a few other nice services.

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    9. Re:Security? by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 1

      could anyone who knows their stuff about redhat tell me the level of security it's got in relation to other distros and OSes ?

      It is more than just a security concern to become a Common Operating Environment. Coding custom applications is always risky business because the OS can be a moving target. Coding custom to Linux can be nightmarish because it is not "a floating target" but rather "multiple boagies". RH Advanced has a feature freeze to the distribution, every RHA Server has the same hooks and APIs as every other that more than anything is what did it for them. RH will not contact you next week and tell you that they changed their mind on the kernel version etc...instead in a year or so you might get RHA 2.0.

      For development purposes this is good news.

    10. Re:Security? by xchino · · Score: 1

      Redhat switched to the 2.4 kernel which can address 64GB of memory. So now you only need 4GB of swap space to run emacs :)

      --
      Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
    11. Re:Security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't actually run emacs under Red Hat. What they did was modify grub to let you choose to either boot directly into emacs (or xemacs for you gui fans) or Red Hat. They also included ext2fs.el to allow emacs to directly access the linux file systems. Quite an improvement overall!

    12. Re:Security? by LogicFlow · · Score: 1

      First, keep in mind I don't prefer one over the other.
      However, it isn't required that Emacs be so heavy. Yeah, it's the default, but if you happen to like emacs lisp, it isn't too horrible.
      Emacs was a good idea. It's just gotten _way_ to carried away like the Windows registry. You can fix it if you want.
      I would though love to see a 'real' emacs that just didn't come with a news reader, web browser, eliza-type bot, fs manager, calender, etc...
      And I have to wonder, if the little toys were rewritten to not need an underlying OS, and a kernel added to it, how popular would it be?
      At it's current state it might actually be feasable. You know EOS sounds cool. Real sick if the supplied editor was in fact vi.

    13. Re:Security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true, COE certification is very careful about which disto packages and settings that are compliant for the respective installations !

  8. Jesus W Christ. by tunah · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    I know reading the article isn't in vogue, but a couple of sentences of the slashdot write-up would be nice.

    Red Hat Advanced Server is the first version of Linux to receive this certification.

    Did that hurt so much?

    --
    Free Java games for your phone: Tontie, Sokoban
    1. Re:Jesus W Christ. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From where can I download this Linux to put it to my GNU/Linux system?

  9. Shoes by Want+Some+Shoes · · Score: -1
    --

    Want some shoes?

    1. Re:Shoes by handybundler · · Score: -1

      ah yes, Glaxxon, the hardest working alien in the galaxy when it comes to making sure we all have shoes. propz!!!

      --


      a/s/l here. Sorry, adding domain tags to your s
  10. Go read Part 11 from the FDA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    It is near impossible to use most open-source in a cost effective way under those regulations. Give it a read and and then move onto their understanding of software verification.

    The whole open-source model just don't fly.

    1. Re:Go read Part 11 from the FDA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Are you trying to say that the military believes in security by obscurity?

      Surely you must be joking...

  11. The Notion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The obvious notion: "Not that I really care about military level security for my home computer, but it would be kind of cool to have."

  12. Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    One small step for a distro, one giant leap for Linux!!! However, the LNUX stock has crashed and burned like the Challenger and the Colombia!!

  13. Of course they certify the expensive version by jht · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Its interesting to note that the certification effort was made for the more proprietary (and costlier) Red Hat Advanced Server and not the basic Red Hat distribution

    Why is this even worth noting? Certification efforts aren't especially cheap. If you're going to expend time and resources getting a version of your product certified, why not put the effort into the version that is likeliest to generate enough revenue as a result of the certification to pay for the effort.

    After all, while RedHat is in relatively good financial condition, it's not like they have around $40 billion in the bank (unlike some operating system companies). Certifying Advanced Server is a good use of limited resources.

    That said, any government security certification is a Good Thing in the commercial marketplace, too - it helps when the engineers need to make a positive case to their PHB's, and gives one more "checklist item" that can get marked in their favor when comparing RH to other vendors.
    --
    -- Josh Turiel
    "2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
    1. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by Jim+Hall · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Its interesting to note that the certification effort was made for the more proprietary (and costlier) Red Hat Advanced Server and not the basic Red Hat distribution

      Yes, it costs more. But it's about the same as (or less than) support & licensing costs for "big UNIX" like Solaris.

      I think it's incorrect to label RHAS as "proprietary". It's based on a Red Hat Linux boxed set, but I believe they bundle in software from partners.

      Each release of RHAS has a longer lifecycle (something like 14-18 months) so you don't have to upgrade every 6 months when the new Red Hat Linux comes out. You do get a "stepped-up" version of their Red Hat Network support, which we currently use on their boxed sets to stay up to date with erratas.

    2. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by Pharmboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why is this even worth noting? Certification efforts aren't especially cheap. If you're going to expend time and resources getting a version of your product certified, why not put the effort into the version that is likeliest to generate enough revenue as a result of the certification to pay for the effort.

      After all, while RedHat is in relatively good financial condition, it's not like they have around $40 billion in the bank (unlike some operating system companies). Certifying Advanced Server is a good use of limited resources.


      Amen. Their "more expensive" verion is what makes them money, not the free version. Certification of Advanced server doesn't take away from the benefits of their downloadable version, or other distros in any way.

      If Linux is going to take hold, SOMEONE has to make money with it. People just miss the point: OS software is free as in speech, NOT as in beer. OSS doesn't mean everyone just walks around and works for free. It means programmers contribute code for "free", but make money when they support this code (and the code others contributed "free") to end users. When they add value to it.

      If the GPL did not allow anyone to make any money, in any way, we would not be here talking about Linux.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    3. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by Wills · · Score: 0

      "OS software is free as in speech, NOT as in beer."

      Yes, that sometime is true of "open-source" software but free software is free as in speech, AND as in free beer.

    4. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by swordboy · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      Why is this even worth noting?

      Jeesh... With such a low user number, I can't believe how new you are to slashdot.

      --

      Life is the leading cause of death in America.
    5. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by haggar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think it's unfair to compare RedHat AS to Solaris. First of all, Solaris has gobs of system management tools, a kernel with many tricks up it's sleeve and a full UNIX98 compliance. And second, Solaris has a lifecycle of 11.5 years, while RedHat AS has only 3 year lifecycle.

      --
      Sigged!
    6. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, that sometime is true of "open-source" software but free software [gnu.org] is free as in speech, AND as in free beer.

      And it is not likely to ever get certified because there is no way to recover your costs.

      The point being made here is Linux being certified, making it more able to compete with Microsoft in the marketplace. The point isn't to argue over symantics.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    7. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by envelope · · Score: 1, Funny

      As a Redhat shareholder, I certainly appreciate the decision to certify the more expensive system.

      --

      appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars
    8. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by bjb · · Score: 3, Interesting
      It is also worth noting that you don't patch to the latest kernel with AS2.1. When RHAS comes out with a version (currently v2.1), it comes with a slightly patched kernel (of course, patches are available over the 'net in accordance with GPL). v2.1 currently comes with 2.4.9, but woah! 2.4.20 is out, right?

      RedHat might patch their 2.4.9 kernel to fix serious bugs, but they have only certified against the version that came out of the box.

      I've been using AS2.1 for several months now, and I haven't been disappointed. If anything, now my employer "has someone to sue" if the OS doesn't work right. Wasn't that part of the hesitation for larger corporations in adopting Linux?

      --
      Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
    9. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by slashbofh · · Score: 2, Informative
      Its interesting to note that the certification effort was made for the more proprietary (and costlier) Red Hat Advanced Server and not the basic Red Hat distribution
      You're right, it does cost more....for the first copy! After that, it's free.

      However if you want support for it, it will cost you about $1200 per machine per year. This is cheaper than most other OS's.

      Personally, I think you would be better served developing in house resourcs for the support, but that's just me.

      I'm also not necessarily happy with RH's choices on some packages to include in AS. The one that jumps out at me is choosing to use a beta version of an ntp4 release as opposed to simply using whatever was the stable version at the time.

      And yes, I work somewhere that is probably going to implement hundreds of copies of RH AS, and pay for the support.

    10. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by salimma · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not to mention that the certification is only valid for a specific version of the OS (what Microsoft neglected to say back when they were selling NT 4.0 was that it's NT 3.5 that is C2-certified).

      The Advanced Server is released every one and a half year or so - the desktop OS every six months. Personally I find it a very agreeable deal - the free users get faster releases and contribute towards bug testing, the paying customers get what they want, slower but longer-supported (and now certified too) releases.

      --
      Michel
      Fedora Project Contribut
    11. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 1

      Its worth noting because its fun to be somewhat of a troll when you post an article. It definitely stirred the conversation

      Oops. Did I say that?

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
      Ben
    12. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by Wills · · Score: 1

      It's only "unlikely", as you claim, if the US govt never changes the method of getting OS certification. Although it is currently expensive to get the certification for an OS in the US, the method may change and the costs may fall.

      In some other countries,there is no certification process to go through and OS software and free software are already used in applications which in the US would normally require certification.

    13. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by modulo · · Score: 1
      Not true: from their site: . . .

      ordering manuals, t-shirts and especially CD-ROMs from the FSF. Most of the FSF's funds come from selling copies of things that everyone is free to copy.

      --

      ...but the language is MUMPS, which I will not utter here

    14. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by Wills · · Score: 1

      Despite the fact that free software is sometimes sold, e.g. by the FSF, the Gnu General Public License guarantees that free software has the legal property that nobody is allowed to prevent anyone from distributing any free software completely free-of-charge, even free software that is being sold by someone else.

    15. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Have you actually used RedHat? Having been a sysadmin for both platforms I can tell you that RedHat's stuff is a bit nicer because they tend to sift the best of the best from the OpenSource community.

      Besides, last I checked Sun was hawking Linux.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    16. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Do you realize how much money the military is spending on Solaris and NT systems to run their apps? Do you realize that the ONLY reason, in many instances, they aren't running Linux instead is because it has never been COE compliant/certified?

      This isn't about some moron IT guy in a green/navy jumpsuit deciding to use NT because he likes it, it's about the moron IT guy having no choice in the matter because he HAS TO deploy a COE compliant system.

      This is big news for Linux.

    17. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by ratamacue · · Score: -1, Offtopic
      That said, any government security certification is a Good Thing in the commercial marketplace

      Three questions. (1) Why should I be penalized, through taxes and regulation, because you don't want to take responsibility for your own choices? (2) Why should the rest of the market be penalized, through taxes and regulation, because you don't want to take responsibility for your own choices? (3) Where is your proof that this government solution is better than the market solution?

      You are the one proposing that coercion (government) is the solution to insecure software products. Have you considered that coercion may be the problem?

    18. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by haggar · · Score: 1

      OH yes, I am using RedHat 6.2 and occasionally RH 7.1 every day for several hours, and I started using RedHat with RH 4.1.

      Having managed both environments for several years, I came to the conclusion that Linux in general has a broken development. RHAS will hopfully stabilize that. As for RH Linux, I like Slackware much better.

      (but I already said what I think re. Solaris vs. Linux)

      --
      Sigged!
    19. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by Major+Woody · · Score: 1

      > In some other countries,there is no
      > certification process to go through

      You say that like it's a good thing or something.

    20. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by tomkins · · Score: 1

      If Linux is going to take hold, SOMEONE has to make money with it.

      Companies will make money by using Linux, not from selling it.

    21. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by Mr.+Firewall · · Score: 1

      And yes, I work somewhere that is probably going to implement hundreds of copies of RH AS, and pay for the support.

      Do they have any openings? There's nothing but M$ shops around here...

      --
      In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
    22. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by ragefan · · Score: 1
      Companies will make money by using Linux, not from selling it.

      Actually, few companies ( if any) are making money from using Linux, but rather save money by using Linux

    23. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by JoeBuck · · Score: 3, Informative

      What Red Hat calls 2.4.9 has hundreds of patches compared to what Linus called 2.4.9.

    24. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by ewilts · · Score: 4, Informative
      RHAS does not have only a 3-year lifecycle. It's 5 from initial release, based on this official document: http://www.redhat.com/apps/support/errata/rhlas_er rata_policy.html

      Comparing that to Solaris, I have no idea where you pulled out the 11.5 year life cycle. According to Sun's web page, it's 5 years from last ship date. Reference this page: http://wwws.sun.com/software/solaris/fcc/lifecycle .html

      I will admit that 5 years from last ship is greater than 5 years from initial ship, but there's no way in hell it's an 8.5 year delta like you're trying to claim.

      Ya know, "gobs of system management tools" and "a kernel many tricks up it's[sic] sleeve" don't exactly add to much of a review :-). I believe I can honestly claim that Red Hat Linux Advanced Server has "gobs of system management tools" and "a kernel with many tricks up its sleeve". Of course, this claim holds true for Windows too.

      How you got moderated to 2 on your post is beyond me...

      --
      .../Ed
    25. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by jeremy_hogan · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that ISVs certify against AS, so having the base product in the COE was not as useful for the gov't.

    26. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by dzelenka · · Score: 1

      They already have one admin. That's all they will need!

      --
      Bah!
    27. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      Ouch I've stepped into that one.

      Allow me to grovel a bit and take my lashings for doubting your experience. You get so many folks who bitch about the one time they installed it on their mom's old 486 and try to extrapolate out.

      I too have some issues with RedHat. I personally don't use the graphical tools. I hack the config files with my own home rolled Tcl/Tk scripts. I just like having a stable and supported set of binaries to build on. That and what project these days doesn't put out a RedHat compadible RPM.

      Where I run into trouble is downloading the source and compiling it. I must have 4 different copies of Tcl installed on my system between the Tcl that comes with Linux, the development version I compile myself to write extensions, the version ActiveState puts out, and the somewhat self-contained one that is bundled with Tcl/Tk. (Not to mention a few other applications.)

      I have also managed to shoot myself in the foot with trying to do it myself on package management. I have an automation that downloads the patches, and distributes them to my linux cluster for installation. The problem is that a few of the patches have royally crufted my network.

      I also have to apologize for confusing Solaris with SGI. I have a bunch of O2's that are gathering dust because they are obsolete and a bitch to keep running. We have a pair of Solaris boxes for our Weather system and I have rather liked working on them.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    28. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Yes, it costs more. But it's about the same as (or less than) support & licensing costs for "big UNIX" like Solaris.

      The maintenace cost for my Sun Blade 1000s is going to be about $1300 and includes both hardware and software. (Including the fact that Sun owns everying in Solaris in terms of maintenance, and will fix it.) The Red Hat Advanced Server maintenance quotes I have are $100 more, only cover software, and most Linux support contracts only cover a subset of the distribution. Read the fine print.

      Oh, and my Sun Blades came with Solaris. I have to buy Red Hat Advanced Server at ~ $800 a pop.

      Commercial linux is increasingly about "free speech," and less and less about "free beer." Your chances of getting Oracle, or many other vendors to support "free beer" linux is going to be decreasing I think. With Linux companies going public, concerns about shareholder equity will start making commercial Linux more expensive.

      Even Linux coders have to eat.

    29. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by oconnorcjo · · Score: 1
      Its interesting to note that the certification effort was made for the more proprietary (and costlier) Red Hat Advanced Server and not the basic Red Hat distribution ... jht responds: Why is this even worth noting? Certification efforts aren't especially cheap. If you're going to expend time and resources getting a version of your product certified, why not put the effort into the version that is likeliest to generate enough revenue as a result of the certification to pay for the effort.

      You are too kind to these people jht! If they want the 40 dollar version certified, Slashdot whiners should start up a fund to PAY $$$$$$ for the certification (I am sure RedHat would be overjoyed that the Linux community would donate so much money to them) and while complainers on slashdot are about it, I would suggest a fund to get Debian certified too. DO I hear silence from whiners... I thought so.

      --
      I miss the Karma Whores.
    30. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not the same as a security certification. Perform a search on COE (maybe DII) and you will see that this has nothing to do with C2 type certifications.

    31. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by haggar · · Score: 1

      I did not see the document you have pointed me to, yet. I have read another one, that I guess has been updated since then, that implied a total lifecycle of 3 years (from GA to end of maint. support). According to the document you pointed to, it's indeed an interval of 5 years, and the following text spells that out most clearly:

      Red Hat Linux Advanced Server 2.1:
      General Availability: May 17, 2002
      Full Support (including hardware updates): May 17, 2002 -- November 30, 2004
      Deployment Support: May 17, 2002 -- May 31, 2005
      Maintenance Support: June 1, 2005 -- May 31, 2007


      However, the Solaris lifecycle, in the same terms (general availability to end of maintenance support) is 10 years which is twice the joy.

      I will admit that these terms look much more favourably on RHAS, though. Thanks for the link.

      --
      Sigged!
    32. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by guacamole · · Score: 1

      Solaris last ship date (LSD) happens sometimes after a second release after the version in question. Solaris releases come more than two years apart. That means, that typically a Solaris release ships for about five years. Add to that another five years promissed support -after- LSD, and you can see that most solaris versions are supported for at least 10 years since the first ship date.

      For example, Sun is still shipping Solaris 7 which first was shipped in 1998. At the LSD date of Solaris 7, it will be about five years since the first ship date.

    33. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by Wills · · Score: 1

      >You say that like it's a good thing or something.

      You say that like certification is necessarily a good thing.

  14. Yeah, I know, off-topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    But how come there are a bunch of red X's where title.gif, topicmusic.gif, topiccensorship.gif, and topicspace.gif should be? Surely Slashcode isn't COE certified?

    1. Re:Yeah, I know, off-topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Yeah me too, it's weird. I wonder if they're gonna upgrade the Slashdot pictures :-)

  15. Sure DoD uses the regular version.... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I use it on a box to run apps that I developed that our M$ monkeys haven't matched(or can't) match. Mainly a lot of situations where one line of code does what would take several more in M$ (Scheduler vs. cron)

    In our case it comes down to services. I work for the Commanding General and all he wants is "services not platforms".

    I think maybe that has helped to bring in open source in our little corner of the military more than anything. IM talks about how they are M$ certified blah blah and I just bring out a new app coded in Perl that the green suiters can't live without.

    Or better yet create one and let it run on one of my own outside servers and then demo it to them with a "Oh by the way, we need Linux to do this".

    It's like heroin, get 'em hooked. They gotta have it. Superior services, not platforms.

    As far as it being the more expensive version of RH that's certified, have you seen RH's stock price? You're still saving the military a lot more in the long run by getting the more expensive version.

    1. Re:Sure DoD uses the regular version.... by syle · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I use it on a box to run apps that I developed that our M$ monkeys haven't matched(or can't) match.

      ...I just bring out a new app coded in Perl that the green suiters can't live without.

      How do these things relate to Linux? No one's arguing that it isn't a good development environment, but perl runs in Win32 fairly easily.

      You say superior services, not platforms, but it sounds like you're taking programs that could otherwise be cross-platform using them to push Linux for its own sake. Or, are you doing something with perl that would tie it to Linux?

      (Ready to be modded into oblivion for implying that Linux should exist just for its own sake...)

      --

      /syle

    2. Re:Sure DoD uses the regular version.... by StandardDeviant · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because linux (or any unix really) is a far superior application development and execution environment for the kinds of applications the Original Poster is probably talking about. The Unix toolset is *available* in some cases on NT (I've developed with perl et al on both platforms), but that should not be mistaken for it being *optimized*. Further, Unix/Linux is far easier to admin (speaking as someone who has admin'd both), has lower hardware costs (for x86 Unix), and generally higher throughput. This is of course leaving aside that Unix is *far* easier to secure than NT...

      Don't mistake me for a Unix zealot, if MS came out with something better I'd use it in a heartbeat. But I live in the real world, and I solve real problems under real time and budgetary constraints. Unix lets me solve those problems on spec, on time, and under budget... NT doesn't.

    3. Re:Sure DoD uses the regular version.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get this at all. You are arguing "services not platforms", but ultimately you're the platform droog who says "we need Linux to do this".

      It's not like MS doesn't understand this. NT is all about services -- SMB, RPC, ODBC, name resolution, 'web services', and so on are all wired into the OS. Maybe you could argue that actually *using* that stuff is developer hostile....

    4. Re:Sure DoD uses the regular version.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also live in the real world and solve real problems... using both Unix and Win2k.

      In my experience administering a variety of services on both Unix (mainly HP-UX) and Windows 2000 both have certain areas that are easier than the other to administer and maintain. I've had situations where, as the original poster stated, a one line command on Unix has the same effect as a lot of point-and-click on Windows. I've also seen the reverse where clicking a few buttons or even, yes it's true, typing in a one line command on Windows beats having to hunt down the right config file and make the right changes on Unix. Both can be easy or hard depending on how much you know.

      This also applies to securing Windows 2000 vs. Unix. For our network, when I want to bring up a new server I load Win2k (with only the services I need), run a custom script I have to bring it up to current patch level, then I just load our baseline security configuration using secedit and I'm basically done. Most anything else can be handled by the firewall. The patches aren't really that bad, either. If I stack the security alerts for our HP servers up against the Win2k there wouldn't be much difference between them.

      As for the previous poster's comment, I agree that the original poster sounded like he was trying to push Linux just for the sake of it. He may very well be using Linux because it is superior for his particular applications, but the comment that "you need Linux to do that" really makes it sound different. I haven't run across anything that I could do on Linux that I can't do on Windows. The guy is obviously pushing an agenda. Users being impressed with his Linux solutions doesn't mean much, either, since the average user is impressed by anyone with an above average knowledge of computers. Our database group uses a combination of Access, VB, and SQL Server to create a lot of little custom applications for our different departments and you would think they were programming gods if you listened to some of the users.

  16. From the Red Hat site by sczimme · · Score: 4, Informative


    Read the RH press release here.

    --
    I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
  17. Sorry to be a spoilsport, but... by TheMidget · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... isn't that the same certification than the one we scoffed at when Windows 2000 got it?

    1. Re:Sorry to be a spoilsport, but... by nemaispuke · · Score: 4, Informative

      You are talking about two different things, Common Criteria is about security and Common Operating Environment is a military standard for mission critical applcations (Command and Control, Intelligence, etc). What it means is that if you use applications designed for Motif/CDE and use COE as a standard, they can run on RedHat Linux Advanced Server. This is more about functionality than security.

    2. Re:Sorry to be a spoilsport, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Ein Volk. Ein Fuhrer. Ein Weblog. Ein Operatingsystem.

    3. Re:Sorry to be a spoilsport, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      You know, the original version was: Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Gott! (One empire/country, one people, one God!) It dates from the Second Empire (1871-1918), and stresses the unity of the people of the German states that united to form Germany in 1871.

      Naturally the worthless Hitler thought himself a suitable replacement for God, hence the Nazi slogan: Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Führer! (One empire/country, one people, one leader!)

      Sorry for the rant, I just get bored with one particular era and one particularly evil regime overshadowing every other.

    4. Re:Sorry to be a spoilsport, but... by Drestin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually no, this is a lesser certification. Linux has never achieved any security certifications of any kind while MS has starting with NT4. NT4 and W2K has also held this certification for some time. So, once again, linux playing catch up. Next thing you know various distributions will even try to match the look and feel of win-- opps, already happened.

    5. Re:Sorry to be a spoilsport, but... by Anonym0us+Cow+Herd · · Score: 1

      ....security certifications of any kind while MS has starting with NT4.

      Are those only valid if NT is NOT connected to any network? Isn't that the only configuration that was certified? Or do I have some facts incorrect?

      --
      The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
    6. Re:Sorry to be a spoilsport, but... by Mr.+Firewall · · Score: 2, Informative

      You are correct

      Micro$oft's marketroids have been making a Big Deal out of their C2 certification for years, but have never bothered to mention that their systems only pass C2 if they're not connected to a network, are in a locked room with armed guards outside the door, and are powered off.

      OK, just kidding about the last two criteria. But the part about not being connected to a network is no joke.

      --
      In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
    7. Re:Sorry to be a spoilsport, but... by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course this rating has no intrinsic value.

      It's simply a barrier to entry that has to be dealt with. This only means that there is one less bullsh*t excuse for someone to not use Linux.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    8. Re:Sorry to be a spoilsport, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't that be: "Ein Volk. Ein Führer. Ein Webstuhl. Ein Operationssaal"?

    9. Re:Sorry to be a spoilsport, but... by Drestin · · Score: 1

      You are incorrect. At one time the first certification NT4 had was one that didn't involve being connected to a network. Current NT4 certifications are fully networked. Windows 2000 Server is also certified to a higher level with networking.

    10. Re:Sorry to be a spoilsport, but... by Drestin · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry but you are also incorrect. The original certification did not involve a networked system. The CURRENT cerfications for both NT4 and Windows 2000 are indeed networked systems.

  18. Wait wait NT has COE too? by gatesh8r · · Score: 0
    Egads I'm afraid one our WMDs will be shot at DC!


    This program has commited a General Protection Fault and will fire ICBMs at DC. If the problem persists, quit calling Microsoft a monopoly.

    --
    Karma whorin' since 1999
  19. NMCI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad the Navy/Marine Corp already sold their soles to M$ until something like 2007. (Slashdot ran a previous story about it.)

    1. Re:NMCI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would Microsoft want with their feet?

  20. Not seeing it. by smcdow · · Score: 2, Informative
    I've been tracking the status of COE compliance for Linux for a while -- I have several projects in the works that would benefit greatly from an "official" designation of COE compliance for Linux from DISA.

    I can find only one relevant page on DISA that pertains to Linux/COE. This page has a link to a draft of COE Compliance Critera for Linux. The information on this page hasn't changed in several months, AFAICT.

    So, what's new here? Can anyone point me to a place on DISA that substantiates the claims made by the news.com article? Where is the "real", final COE Compiance Critera for Linux?

    --
    In the course of every project, it will become necessary to shoot the scientists and begin production.
    1. Re:Not seeing it. by BRock97 · · Score: 1

      Not only this, but COE has something called a segment that allows pieces of software to be installed in the base OS in a common manner. My question is where are the COE segments for pieces of software like Oracle 9i (to be a segment in late March I hear, but still no mention of a Linux segment) and others that run under Linux?! If your project wants to be COE compliant (and there are various levels, but we are shooting for 5), you need to use COE compliant software. What good is an OS if you can't run some common apps on it?!

      If we could find segments like that, we could actually consider running Linux in our project. Until then, it will have to be Solaris and a 280R.....

      --

      Bryan R.
      The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, or $12.50 as seen on eBay.....
  21. Red Hat Advanced Server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmm, good question. A reasonable place to start: Red Hat.

  22. Imaine a Beowulf clust... err... *hides* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    When I think of dirty old men, I think of Ike Thomas and when I think about Ike I get a hard on that won't quit.

    Sixty years ago,I worked in what was once my Grandfather's Greenhouses. Gramps had died a year earlier and Grandma, now in her seventies had been forced to sell to the competition. I got a job with the new owners and mostly worked the range by myself. That summer, they hired a man to help me get the benches ready for the fall planting.

    Ike always looked like he was three days from a shave and his whiskers were dirty white under the brim of his battered felt fedora.

    He did nott chew tobacco but the corners of his mouth turned down in a way that, at any moment, I expected a trickle of thin, brown juice to creep down his chin. His bushy, brown eyebrows shaded pale, gray eyes.

    Old Ike, he extended his hand, lifted his leg like a dog about to mark a bush and let go the loudest fart I ever heard. The old man winked at me. ÒIke Thomas is the name and playing pecker's my game.

    I thought he said, "Checkers." I was nineteen, green as grass. I said, "I was never much good at that game."

    "Now me," said Ike, "I just love jumping men. . ."

    "I'll bet you do."

    ". . . and grabbing on to their peckers," said Ike.

    "I though we were talking about. . ."

    "You like jumping old men's peckers?"

    I shook my head.

    "I reckon we'll have to remedy that." Ike lifted his right leg and let go another tremendous fart. "He said, "We best be getting to work."

    That summer of1941 was a more innocent time. I learned most of the sex I knew from those little eight pager cartoon booklets of comic-page characters going at it. Young men read them in the privacy of an outside john, played with themselves, by themselves and didn't brag about it. Sometimes, we got off with a trusted friend and helped each other out.

    Under the greenhouse glass, the temperature some times climbed over the hundred degree mark. I had worked stripped to the waist since April and was as browwn as a berry. On only his second day on the job and in the middle of August, Ike wore old fashioned overalls. Those and socks in his hightop work shoes was every stitch he wore. When he bent forward, the bib front billowed out and I could see the white curly hairs on his chest and belly.

    "Me? I just love to eat pussy!" Ike licked his lips from corner to corner then stuck it out far enough that the tip could touch the tip of his nose. He said, A man's not a man till he knows first hand, the flavor of a lady's pussy."

    "People do that?"

    He winked. "Of course the taste of a hard cock ain't to be sneezed at neither. Now you answer me, yes or no. Does a man's cock taste salty or not?"

    "I never. . ."

    "Well, old Ike's willing to let you find out."

    "No way."

    "Just teasing," said Ike. "But don't give me no sass or I'll show you my ass." He winked. Might show it to you anyway, if you was to ask."

    "Why would I do that?"

    "Curiousity, maybe. I'm guessing you never had a good piece of man ass."

    "I'm no queer."

    "Now don't be getting judgemental. Enjoying what's at hand ain't beiing queer. It's taking pleasure where you find it with anybody willing." Ike slipped a handside the side slit of his overalls and I could tell he was fondling and straightening out his cock. Now I admit I got me a hole that satisfied a few guys."

    I swallowed, hard.

    Ike winked. "Care to be asshole buddies?"

    ***

    We worked steadily until noon. Ike drew a worn pocket watch from the bib pocket of his loose overalls and croaked, "Bean time. But first its time to reel out our limber hoses and make with the golden arches before lunch."

    I followed Ike to the end of the greenhouse where he stopped at the outside wall of the potting shed. He opened his fly, fished inside, and finger-hooked a soft white penis with a pouting foreskin puckered half an inch past the hidden head.

    "Yes sir," breathed Ike, "this old peter needs some draining." He exhaled a sigh as a strong, yellow stream splattered against the boards and ran down to soak into the earthen floor.

    He caught me looking down at him. He winked. "Like what you're viewing, Boy?"

    I looked away.

    "You taking a serious interest in old Ike's pecker?"

    I shook my head.

    "Well you just haul out yourn and let old Ike return the compliment."

    Feeling trapped and really having to go, I fumbled at my fly, turned away slightly, withdrew my penis and strained to start.

    "Take your time boy. Let it all hang out. Old Ike's the first to admit that he likes looking at another man's pecker." He flicked away the last drop of urine and shook his limp penis vigorously.

    I tried not to look interested.

    "Yer sir, this old peepee feels so good out, I just might leave it out." He turned to give me a better view.

    "What if somebody walks in?"

    Ike shrugged. He looked at my strong yellow stream beating against the boards and moved a step closer. "You got a nice one,boy."

    I glanccd over at him. His cock was definitely larger and beginning to stick straight out. I nodded toward his crotch. "Don't you think you should put that away?"

    "I got me strictly a parlor prick," said Ike. "Barely measures six inches." He grinned. "Of course it's big enough around to make a mouthful." He ran a thumb and forefinger along its length and drawing his foreskin back enough to expose the tip of the pink head. "Yersiree." He grinned, revealing nicotine stained teeth. "I t sure feels good, letting the old boy breathe."

    I knew I should button up and move away. I watched his fingers moving up and down the thickening column.

    "You like checking out this old man's cock?"

    I nodded. In spite of myself, my cock began to swell.

    "Maybe we should have ourselves a little pecker pulling party." Ike slid his fingers back and forth on his expandingshaft and winked. "I may be old but I'm not against doing some little pud pulling with a friend."

    I shook my head.

    "Maybe I Ôll give my balls some air. Would you like a viewing of old Ike's hairy balls?"

    I swallowed hard and moistened my dry lips.

    He opened another button on his fly and pulled out his scrotum. "Good God, It feels good to set Ôem free. Now let's see yours."

    "Why?"

    "Just to show you're neighborly," said Ike.

    "I don't think so." I buttoned up and moved into the potting shed.

    Ike followed, his cock and balls protruding from the front of his overalls. "Overlook my informality." Ike grinned. "As you can see I ain't bashful."

    I nodded and took my sandwich from the brown paper bag.

    "Yessir," said Ike. "I just might have to have myself an old fashioned peter pulling all by my lonesome. He unhooked a shoulder strap and let his overalls drop around his ankles.

    I took a bite of my sandwich but my eyes remained on Ike.

    "Yessiree," said Ike, "I got a good one if I do say so myself. Gets nearly as hard as when I was eighteen. You know why?"

    I shook my head.

    "Cause Ikeep excerising him. When I was younger I was pulling on it three time a day. Still like to do him every day I can."

    "Some sayyou'll go blind if you do that too much."

    "Bull-loney!" Don't you believe that shit. I been puling my pud for close to fifty years and I didn't start till I was fifteen."

    I laughed.

    "You laughing at my little peter, boy?"

    "Your hat." I pointed to the soiled, brown fedora cocked on his head. That and his overalls draped about his ankles were his only items of apparel. In between was a chest full of gray curly hair, two hairy legs. Smack between them stood an erect, pale white cock with a tip of foreskin still hiding the head.

    "I am one hairy S.O.B.," said Ike.

    "I laughed at you wearing nothing but a hat."

    "Covers up my bald spot," said Ike. "I got more hair on my ass than I got on my head. Want to see?"

    "Your head?"

    "No, Boy, my hairy ass and around my tight, brown asshole." He turned, reached back with both hands and parted his ass cheeks to reveal the small, puckered opening. "There it is, Boy, the entrance lots of good feelings. Tell me, Boy, how would you like to put it up old Ike's ass?"

    "I don't think so."

    "That'd be the best damned piece you ever got."

    "We shouldn't be talking like this."

    "C'mon now, confess, don't this make your cock perk up a little bit?"

    "I reckon," I confessed.

    "You ever seen an old man's hard cock before," asked Ike.

    "My grandpa's when I was twelve or thirteen."

    "How'd that come about?"

    He was out in the barn and didn't know I was around. He dropped his pants. It was real big he did things to it. He saw me and he turned around real fast but I saw it."

    "What did your grandpa do?"

    "He said I shouldn't be watching him doing that. He said something like grandma Ôwouldn't give him some,' that morning and that I should get out of there and leave a poor man in peace to do what he had to do."

    "Did you want to join him."

    "I might have if he'd asked. He didn't."

    "I like showing off my cock," said Ike. "A hard-on is somethng I always been proud of. A hard-on proves a man's a man. Makes me feel like a man that can do things." He looked up at me and winked. "You getting a hard-on fromall this talk, son?"

    I nodded and looked away.

    "Then maybe you should pull it out and show old Ike what you got."

    "We shouldn't."

    "Hey. A man's not a man till he jacked off with a buddy."

    I wanted to but I was as nervous as hell.

    Ike grinned and fingered his pecker. "C'mon, Boy, between friends, a little cock showing is perfectly fine. Lets see what you got in the cock and balls department."

    In spite of my reluctance, I felt the stirring in my crotch. I had curiositythat needed satisfying. It had been a long, long time since I had walked in on my grandfather .

    "C'mon let's see it all."

    I shook my head.

    "You can join the party anytime, said Ike. "Just drop your pants and pump away."

    I had the urge. There was a tingling in my crotch. My cock was definitely willing and I had a terrible need to ajust myself down there. But my timidity and the strangeness of it all held me back.

    Hope you don't mind if I play out this hand." Ike grinned. "It feels like I got a winner."

    I stared at his gnarled hand sliding up and down that pale, white column and I could not look away. I wet my lips and shook my head.

    Old Ike's about to spout a geyser." Ike breathed harder as he winked. "Now if I just had a long finger up my ass. You interested, boy?"

    I shook my head.

    The first, translucent, white glob crested the top of his cock and and arced to the dirt floor. Ike held his cock at the base with thumb and forefinger and tightened noticably with each throb of ejaculation until he was finished.

    I could not believe any man could do what he had done in front of another human being.

    Ike sighed with pleasure and licked his fingers. "A man ain't a man till he's tasted his own juices."

    He squatted, turned on the faucet and picked up the connected hose. He directed the water between his legs and on to his still dripping prick and milked the few remaing drops of white, sticky stuff into the puddle foming at his feet. "Cool water sure feels good on a cock that just shot its wad," said Ike.

    ***

    "Cock-tale telling time," said Old Ike. It was the next day and he rubbed the front of his dirty,worn overalls where his bulge made the fly expand as his fingers smoothed the denim around the outline of his expanding cock.

    I wasn't sure what he had in mind but I knew it wasn't something my straight-laced Grandma would approve of.

    "Don't you like taking your cock out and jacking it?" Ike licked his lips.

    I shook my head in denial.

    "Sure you do. A young man in his prime has got to be pulling his pud."

    I stared at his caloused hand moving over the growing bulge at his crotch.

    "Like I said," continued Ike, "I got me barely six inches when he's standing up." He winked at me. "How much you got, son?"

    "Almost seven inches. . ." I stuttered. "Last time I measured."

    "And I'm betting it feels real good with your fist wrapped around it."

    "I don't do. . ."

    "Everybody does it." He scratched his balls and said,"I'll show you mine if you show me yours." Then, looking me in the eye, he lifted his leg like a dog at a tree and let out a long, noisy fart.

    Denying that I jacked off, I said, "I saw yours yesterday."

    "A man has got to take out his pecker every once in a while." He winked and his fingers played with a button on his fly. Care to join me today?"

    "I don't think so."

    "What's the matter, boy? You ashamed of what's hanging Ôtween your skinny legs?"

    "It's not for showing off."

    "That would be so with a crowd of strangers but with a friend, in a friendly showdown, where's the harm?

    "It shouldn't be shown to other people. My Grandma said that a long time ago when I went to the bathroom against a tree whan I was seven.

    "There's nothing like a joint pulling among friends to seal a friendship," said Ike.

    I don't think so." I felt very much, ill at ease.

    "Then what the fuck is it for," demanded the old man. "A good man shares his cock with his friends. How old are you boy?"

    "Nineteen almost twenty."

    You ever fucked a woman?"

    "No."

    "Ever fucked a man?"

    "Of course not.

    "Son, you ain't never lived till you've fired your load up a man's tight ass. "I didn't know men did that to each other."

    "Men shove it up men's asses men all the time. They just don't talk about it like they do pussy."

    "You've done that?"

    "I admit this old pecker's been up a few manholes. More than a fewhard cocks have shagged this old ass over the years." He shook his head, wistfully, "I still have a hankering for a hard one up the old dirt chute."

    "I think that would hurt."

    "First time, it usually does," agreed Ike. He took a bite from his sandwich.

    I looked at my watch. Ten minutes of our lunch hour had already passed.

    "We got time for a quickie," said Ike. "There's no one around to say, stop, if were enjoying ourselves."

    He unhooked the slide off the button of one shoulder-strap, pushed the bib of his overalls down to let them fall to his feet.

    "Showtime," said Ike. Between his legs, white and hairy, his semi-hard cock emerged from a tangled mass of brown and graypubic hair. The foreskin, still puckered beyond the head of the cock, extended downward forty-five degrees from the horizontal but was definitely on the rise.

    I could only stare at the man. Until the day before, I had never seen an older man with an erection besides my grandpa.

    Ike moved his fingers along the stalk of his manhood until the head partially emerged, purplish and broad. He removed his hand for a moment and it bobbled obscenely in the subdued light of the potting shed. Ike leaned back against a bin of clay pots like a model on display. "Like I said, boy, it gets the job done."

    I found it difficult not to watch. "You shouldn't. . ."

    "C'mon, boy. Show Ike your peckeer. I'm betting it's nice and hard."

    I grasped my belt and tugged on the open end. I slipped the waistband button and two more before pushing down my blue jeans and shorts down in one move. My cock bounced and slapped my belly as I straightened."

    "That's a beaut." Ike stroked his pale, white cock with the purplish-pink head shining. "I'm betting it'll grow some more if you stroke it."

    "We really shouldn't. . ."

    "Now don't tell me you never stroked your hard peter with a buddy."

    "I've done that," I finally admitted,. "But he was the same age as me and it was a long time ago." I though back to the last time Chuck and me jerked each other off in the loft of our old barn. Chuck wanted more as a going away present and we had sucked each other's dicks a little bit.

    "Jackin's always better when you do it with somebody," said Ike. "Then you can lend each other a helping hand."

    "I don't know about that," I said.

    Ike's hand continued moving on his old cock as he leaned over to inspect mine. "God Damn! Boy. That cock looks good enough to eat." Ike licked his lips. "You ever had that baby sucked?"

    I shook my head as I watched the old man stroke his hard, pale cock.

    "Well boy, I'd sayyou're packing a real mouthful for some lucky gal or guy." He grinned. "Well c'mon. Let's see you get down to some serious jacking. Old Ike's way ahead of you."

    I wrapped my fist around my stiff cock and moved the foreskin up and over the head on the up stroke. On the down stroke the expanded corona of the angry, purple head stared obscenely at the naked old man.

    Ike toyed with his modest six inches. "What do you think of this old man's cock?" His fist rode down to his balls and a cockhead smaller than the barrel stared back at mine.

    "I guess I'm thinking this is like doing it with my grandpa."

    "You ever wish you could a done this with your grandpa?"

    "I thought about it a lot."

    "Ever see him with a hard-on."

    "I told you about that!"

    "Ever think about him doing your grandma?"

    "I can't imagine her ever doing anything with a man.

    "Take my word for it, sonny, we know she did it or you wouldn't be here." Begrudgingly I nodded in agreement.

    "Everybody fucks," said old Ike. "They fuck or they jack off."

    "If you say so."

    "Say sonny, your cocks getting real juicy with slickum. Want old Ike to lick some of it away?"

    "You wouldn't."

    Ike licked his lips as he kept his hand pistoning up and down his hard cock. "You might be surprised what old Ike might do if he was in the mood for a taste of what comes out of a hard cock."

    And that is what he proceded to do. He sucked me dry.

    Then he erupted in half-a-dozen spurts shooting out and onto the dirt floor of the potting shed. He gave his cock a flip and shucked t back into his overalls. He unwrapped a sandwich from its wax paper and procede to eat without washing his hands. He took a bite and chewed. "Nothing like it boy, a good jacking clears the cobwebs from your crotch and gives a man an appetite."

    ***

    The following day, We skipped the peliminaries. We dropped our pants. Ike got down on his knees and sucked me until I was hard and good and wet before he stood and turned.

    "C'mon boy, Shove that pretty cock up old Ike's tight, brown hole and massage old Ike's prostate.

    Ike bent forward and gripped the edge of the potting bench. The lean, white cheeked buttocks parted slightly and exposed the dark brown, crinkly, puckered star of his asshole "Now you go slow and ease it along until you've got it all the way in," he cautioned. "This old ass craves your young cock but it don't want too much too soon. You've got to let this old hole stretch to accomodate you."

    "Are you sure you want to do this?"

    "Easy boy, easy," he cautioned. "You feel a lot bigger than you look. Put a little more spit in your cock."

    "It's awfully tight. I don't know if it's going to go or not."

    ""It'll go," said Ike. "There's been bigger boys than you up the old shit chute."

    I slipped in the the last few inches.. "It's all in."

    "I can tell," said Ike. "Your cock hairs are tickling my ass."

    "Are you ready," I asked.

    "How are you liking old Ike's hairy asshole so far?"

    "It's real tight."

    "Tighter than your fist?"

    "Might be."

    "Ready to throw a fuck into a man that reminds you of your grandpa."

    "I reckon."

    "I want you should do old Ike one more favor."

    "What?"

    While you're pumpin my ass, would you reach around and play with my dick like you would your own? Would you do that for an old man?"

    I reached around and took hold of his hard cock sticking out straight in front of him. I pilled the skin back amd then pulled it up and over the expaded glans. I felt my own cock expand inside him as I manipulated his staff in my fingers. I imagined that my cock extended through him and I was playing with what came out the other side of him.

    "C'mon, boy, ram that big cock up the old shitter and make me know it. God Damn! tickle that old prostate and make old Ike come!"

    I came. And I came. Ike's tightened up on my cock and I throbbed Roman Candle bursts into that brown hole as I pressed into him. His hairy, scrawny ass flattened against my crotch and we were joined as tightly as two humans can be.

    "A man's not a man till he's cum in another man." said old Ike. "You made it, boy. But still, a man's not a man till he's had a hard cock poked up his ass at least once."

    Every time I think of that scene, I get another hard-on. Then I remember the next day when old Ike returned the favor.

    I never have managed to come that hard again. If only Ike were here.

  23. better link to the story... by imag0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here's a better link to story, sans linkspam:

    http://news.com.com/2102-1001-984202.html

    COE? Here's the link to their homepage:

    http://diicoe.disa.mil/coe/

    Admins! Get your fucking heads out of your asses and check to see if something is linkspam before posting it. This isn't the first time. Someone is making money from the click through.
    Fuck them.

    1. Re:better link to the story... by Cplus · · Score: 1

      Sometimes I wish that Taco et al were as vicious as irc ops, you could use a kick you whiner.

      --
      "Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
  24. Re:Red Hat Advanced Server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't download the Advanced Server. Well, ok, you can download all the sources, but the distribution is strictly commercial.

  25. How to get it? by haggar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    RH Advanced Server has generated some ill-will in our company when we realized the only way to "have a peek" was to shell out 800 buxors. We did that, but the venom dented some people's enthusiasm.

    Is there a way to get the .iso image, under a non-commercial license of some sort? I mean, shit, even Solaris 9 is available for 20 bux as a non-commercial, and 100 bux for commercial license.

    --
    Sigged!
    1. Re:How to get it? by fuzzyping1 · · Score: 1

      I was wondering this just the other day. I found a "developer's" version that costs under $100, but I can't find the damn page anymore! Grr.

      They also have AS running in the HP Test Drive site (http://www.testdrive.compaq.com/). Unfortunately, it appears that Test Drive registration is disabled until the end of this week.

      -fp

    2. Re:How to get it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nonsense.

      Anyone can download it for free from Red Hat.

      You just don't get the support for free.

      Mirrors: http://www.redhat.com/download/mirror.html

      Check the "enterprise" directory.

    3. Re:How to get it? by fuzzyping1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Are there any download sites with the binary RPMS? Everything I've seen is SRPM only.

      -fp

    4. Re:How to get it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's here:
      https://www.redhat.com/software/advancedser ver/dev eloper/

      $60

    5. Re:How to get it? by soupmaster · · Score: 1

      At LinuxWorld Expo NY, RH announced a developer edition of Advanced Server ( I believe it to be around 60 bucks with no support )

      --
      - soupmaster
    6. Re:How to get it? by cowbutt · · Score: 2, Informative
      Not for gratis, but a US$60 download as the Advanced Server Developer Edition

      --

    7. Re:How to get it? by gimple · · Score: 1

      Yes there is a way to get a test version.

      It's called Advanced Server Developer Edition.

    8. Re:How to get it? by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you want to save money to evaluate this product, you need to build it yourself.

      RedHat is under no obligation to provide free binaries, just free source files.

      Hey, they even helped you a bit by providing SRPMS instead of Tar files.

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    9. Re:How to get it? by jeremy_hogan · · Score: 1

      We have an eval edition as well. Or you could download it.

    10. Re:How to get it? by haggar · · Score: 1

      thank you, and thanks to the others that pointed me to this link.

      I hope it's not too late to cancel our order.

      --
      Sigged!
    11. Re:How to get it? by Nohea · · Score: 2, Informative

      I compiled the SRPMS myself and installed. Not easy, but it worked.

      - Download
      - rebuild all the SRPMS on Red Hat Linux 7.2 (seemed to be the closest)
      - look at the errors from missing devel packages
      - install *-devel rpms
      - rebuild again
      - rpm -Fvh *.i386.rpm
      - rpm -ivh the redhat-release package

      No installer seemed to be included.

      Then repeat every time a patch SRPM is released!

      Maybe it's worth the $800.

  26. This is great by hackstraw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And impressive considering the other certified OSes (Solaris, AIX, HPUX, and NT). I first used the Advanced Server a couple of months ago while evaluating some Itanium2s, and I was plesantly suprised. I really like RH's decision to make the Advanced Server their "Enterprise" class distro with about an 18 month release cycle. Makes my job easier (TM).

    I never thought I would say this, but I've gotten accustomed to using RH. I was a die hard Debian fan, and in philosophy still am. But when it comes to 3rd party support, and announcements like this, I have to say that RH is the distro right now, and probably will be for some time to come (at least in the US).

    For all of the advancements that RH has done for Linux, and in spite of itself, including RPM. I would like for them to get a better package system. Yes, I know theres the apt-rpm or whatever its called, but I'm talking something that already comes with the distro and works on all architectures supported by RH. Someday...

    1. Re:This is great by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Ack. Short of passing around source tarballs and having them compiled on demand, I don't think an ideal package system exists for all platforms.

      That said, why DON'T we just package the source tarballs instead of the binaries? I mean, back in the day it took forever to compile something on a beat up old 486. But today I can build Tcl/Tk in a little under 7 minutes, and the Linux Kernel in 20 or so. As the machines get faster and the compilers get more efficient tracking the binaries is going to seem downright silly after a while.

      My US0.02

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    2. Re:This is great by program21 · · Score: 1

      But then you get something like OpenOffice. I run Gentoo, started from Stage 1, so I've compiled everything, and when it came to OpenOffice, the compile took me 16 hours on a P3/1GHz.
      I have no problem with stuff being compiled from source, it's just that in some cases it's more time-efficient (OO, for example) to have a binary, and in others, it prevents having to worry about the subtle differences between systems that prevent code from compiling.

      --
      This has been a test. Had this been a real emergency, we would have fled in terror and you would not have been informed.
    3. Re:This is great by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      I've got 62 Alpha machines, 2 Intel 32bit, and 3 Itaniums on the way plus my laptop and this is only a 3 day a week job.

      You want me to compile what?

      I have a hacked version of PBS, a stock version of Maui, and a number of scientific libraries/applications that are compiled from source. I think thats enough :)

    4. Re:This is great by A+Masquerade · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That said, why DON'T we just package the source tarballs instead of the binaries?

      Source doesn't fix the packaging problem - it just moves it around a little. You still have basically the same problem removing, replacing or upgrading a package with a source based package as you do with a binary

      The killer of this idea for me is that I produce service systems which are designed for a particular (set of) function(s). Part of the philosophy I use is that the systems have only the software I need on them - which makes them more secure (fewer packages to have security bugs, easier to audit). In the case of service boxes they do not have compilers or tool chains on them - don't need anyone fiddling with stuff, if you need to do fixes those are done on a development machine, moved to a test machine and then deployed. Adding a compiler, and the associated tool chain, and the (development - then run times are probably already there) libraries to make stuff build makes my package set much bigger and consequently increases the maintenance task.

    5. Re:This is great by StandardDeviant · · Score: 1

      I too am a die-hard debian-ite who works with RedHat a good bit (it is the flavor du jour at work). Rpm is a little ugly compared to debs, but up2date combined with a RHN subscription (a whopping five bucks a month per system entitlement, and you can float that across as many systems as you want to the limit of your patience) takes a *lot* of the pain of RH package management away. Yeah, yeah, it costs a little bit of money, but it'll save you so much time as an admin it's worth it and it's a way to kick back a little to the people that put in hard work on the distro you use. (On that thought, it'd be interesting if debian set up some sort of subscription/donation system where you could set it up to donate say $5/month from your account like a subscription. Nobody's budget is hurt by that but spread across N many users that's a good, reliable revenue stream for the project that could be used to fund development, bandwidth costs, etc.)

    6. Re:This is great by Da+Schmiz · · Score: 1
      Short of passing around source tarballs and having them compiled on demand, I don't think an ideal package system exists for all platforms.
      One word: Gentoo.
      --

      "Anything is better than IE, and you can quote me on that." -- Wil Wheaton.

    7. Re:This is great by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      I'm not worthy...

      I'm downloading a copy as we speak. I feel like I've found the holy grail or something.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    8. Re:This is great by burns210 · · Score: 1

      package them however you want, as long as I can click a pretty little icon, which opens a dialogue box and an install button. I don't want to _have_ to use the command line to install something. If it is an option, then great, but 90%+ of every type of user would rather just click a button and tell the software where to install to.

  27. I thought Tinfoil Hat Linux was the way to go? by RMH101 · · Score: 1, Funny

    http://tinfoilhat.shmoo.com/

  28. (typo) by syle · · Score: 1

    shouldn't exist for its own sake. bleh.

    --

    /syle

  29. BOYCOTT REDHAT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    redhat: sellout to the man. must be nice to sit in little cubicles all day instead of getting shot at in a trench, and still be able to claim you 'helped the war effort'

  30. and how much do they pay you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    i wonder how much they pay slashdot to parrot this crap?

    1. Re:and how much do they pay you? by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      I don't know. I was starting to think they were drifting over to the dark side with some Pro M$ stuff lately.

      Frankly the .NET adds on Slashdot turn my stomache.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  31. Red hat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Now red hat is red due to the splattered blood of Iraqi kids! Defense my arse.

    -j

    1. Re:Red Hat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't that be Blue Hat?

  32. linux kernel, redhat distro by ftvcs · · Score: 1

    The Linux kernel you can download from here, the Red Hat distrubution here.

    1. Re:linux kernel, redhat distro by jruschme · · Score: 3, Informative

      I haven't seen a COE Linux environment, but based on my experience with COE Solaris, I can tell you that the answer is a bit more complicated.

      Starting from a bare system, you first install the COTS (Common Off The Shelf) OS (RHAS, in this case). This will likely be a "custom" install since it will likely have some strange partition requirements.

      On top of this, you would then install the COE "kernel". This is a core set of COE services, scripts, utilities, etc. Part of this process is the creation of several user accounts (sysadmin, etc) as well as a general lockdown of the box (no root logins allowed, lots of permission changes, etc.) This step will also likely involve installation of package updates to close various security holes.

      From there, one would install the various "segments" (COE name for packages) needed to set the box up for a specific usage.

      Personally, I'm curious to see if the COE kernel will load on top of a regular RH 8.0. I can see having RHAS for target systems, but it would be nice to be able to use the regular version as a development platform.

    2. Re:linux kernel, redhat distro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      distrIbution

  33. couldn't resist, seems appropriate by laejoh · · Score: 0

    all your base are belong to us...

  34. Besides... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: -1, Troll
    The military doesn't take anything seriously if it doesn't cost money. These are the same folks who brought you the $800 toilet seat and the $200 claw hammer.

    Unless it costs money, they frankly don't think it will work.

    --
    "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
    --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  35. SRPMs only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    Anyone can download it for free from Red Hat.

    Have you actually tried this? There's nothing but source RPMs.

    1. Re:SRPMs only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops, sorry. I was mistaken. No .iso:s, only srpms.

      Guess it's my Cosmic Schmuck Day today (see below).

      The search for certitude -- like the pretence of moral righteousness -- appears to me as
      a medieval habit that should have vanished long ago. None of us knows enough to be
      certain about anything, usually, and none of us are nearly as "moral" as we feel obliged
      to pretend we are in order to be acceptable in "Decent" Society. If we are not totally
      stupid and blindly selfish on all possible occations, we are about as bright and ethical
      as anybody in history has ever been. The greatest batters in the history of baseball all
      had batting averages well below 0.500, which means they missed more than half the time
      they swung. Medieval morality and theology have left us with the hypocritical habit of
      pretending batting averages close to 0.999 in both knowledge and ethics. On average, I
      think I score under Babe Ruth, and I suspect you do, too. There thus appears to be a
      great deal of conceit and selfdeception in the habitual poses of intellectual certitude
      and ethical perfection among the educated classes. It would appear more in keeping with
      honesty, I think, to recognize, as analogous to Murphy's Law, the unscientific but
      useful generalization I call the Cosmic Schmuck Principle. The Cosmic Schmuck Principle
      holds that if you don't wake up, once a month at least, and realize that you have
      recently been acting like a Cosmic Schmuck again, then you will probably go on acting
      like a Cosmic Schmuck forever; but if you do, occasionally, recognize your Cosmic
      Schmuckiness, you might begin to become a little less Schmucky than the general human
      average at this primitive stage of terrestrial evolution.

    2. Re:SRPMs only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can build your own version of RHAS2.1 by compiling all the SRPMS. I have done this for my organisation, now we can deploy it throughout our organisation without needing to pay Red Hat license fees on a per server per year basis.

  36. just in time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is actually a pretty big deal for my company right now. we have a java/tomcat/apache application running on a linux box and need to host it for the AF.. we have been struggling to get DISA certification and this will certainly help our cause!

  37. SRPMs are available by d3xt3r · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All the source is right there on Red Hat's FTP servers. Download it and build it for yourself.

    1. Re:SRPMs are available by haggar · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I know I can download the SRPMs. Fuck that.

      --
      Sigged!
  38. Command and Conquer Conspiracy? by Root+Down · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ... this coming when we are nearing war with Iraq and simultaneous with the release of Command and Conquer Generals? Coincidence? I think not!

  39. COE Segments by zaytar · · Score: 3, Informative

    Disclaimer - I work for the DoD but i don't speak for them.

    "Segments" are basically customized software installs for COE. This includes Government produced software (Government Off the Shelf, GOTS) and commercial software (Commercial Off the Shelf, COTS). For instance there is a "segment" that installs Netscape.

    These segment installs basically install the software such that it conforms to the COE environment. For example, applications must live in a certain path, follow a certain naming scheme, use certain environment variables to find things, only put user data in a certain place, etc, etc. Think "rpms" or FreeBSD packages - segments are just big tar balls with a standardized format and install scripts :)

    The segments are available via DISA to those programs that are developing COE software - you have to show proof of need and sponsorship (i.e. somebody has to pay somewhere along the way for you to have access). Basically if you are developing applications for the DoD, you can get them - we have to get them through a certain chain of command. I think vendors can get access, but you have to talk to the DISA folks about how that works.

    --
    /* ICBM Coordinates 32.78N, 79.93W */
  40. Red Hat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Red Hat, is that a brand of condoms?

  41. Microsft Internally using Linux and Java by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    There has been a leak that Microsoft internally uses third party Product Management application written in Java that runs in Redhat Linux and the back end database is Oracle 9i.

    The MS internal audit team has found numerous security hole in Windows XP , SQL Server and .Net.
    Based on their test the Java, Linux and Oracle database was the most secure and stable.

    1. Re:Microsft Internally using Linux and Java by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Any links to substantiate this?

  42. Don't think this was easy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There was a LOT of bureaucratic inertia standing in the way of this effort inside the DoD. In the office this little initiative started in within ESC, the push for this cost two program managers and one engineer their positions, with extra effort made to derail their careers. Another person had to keep his head down and toe the line for a long time. The replacement for the second program manager was frusterated and constrained and a little scared, having entered the arena of combat by stepping over the corpses of the previous two (figuratively).

    The efforts by DISA and Red Hat were started because the little program that those people worked on provided the customer for the product. Sure, there was a lot of "anecdotal" demand for Linux, but this was the first formal acquisition program that was committed to it. The guinea pig, so to speak.

    Let's give proper respect to RH (those involved know who he is) at Red Hat, who took that first call and pitched it to his management, even though it looked like all the risk was on Red Hat.

    1. Re:Don't think this was easy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG - i can't believe DII/COE has fscking linux.

      And i can only imagine the smoldering heap of dead junior Captains who had 50 pounds of balls to push this thru up at Hanscom.

      JTA/DII/COE (sorry, but its all the same fscking beast, despite some trying to say it all isn't) is one of the most bitchy shackles placed on military program managers when it comes to getting the computers to run the programs.

      JTA/DII/COE is basically - in not so many words for the unititiated to govt. procurement and program development - the latest standard of software by which one must build one's system... the particular version of this, and this particular version of that.... but what's more evil about it has been "one may NOT use this or that". Read: Windows and Solaris good - all others, bad.

      This has led to satellite's orbits being calculated on Excel, space operators playing Solitare while not flying thier satellites.. but far far worse...

      Tell me how the fsck i'm supposed to buy new replacement Pentium 150's running Windows NT 4.0? Because i have to - because that's what was speced out when the program began, and damnit, that's what's going in.

      I'd love to push for some Mac OS X boxes to do some user interfaces i'm going to build here - which would take about 15 minutes with the supplied developers tools for Mac OS X (actually, i've already built some in my spare time, hoping to sneak it in somewhere) but, of course, Mac OS X is not DII/COE compliant.... so hell no, lets make user interfaces with X11....

      hell yeah! That should be fun! ...and don't forget to bring 100 pounds of money for the contractor!

      I'm all for configuration management - but sometimes, they CM shit that shouldn't, and stuff that should. I've worked on a comm program where they couldn't tell me what version of Windows they were going to use beyond "NT 4.0?", and yet, they were damn specific when it came to "now, we're going to use this particular brand of HD at this size, etc..."

      in any case - i'm glad to see JTA/DII/COE finally pulling in som OSS. There are more than a few programs out there running on DOS 3.31 still.. because the code was NOT open, and the drivers didn't work on anything else.

      but to say that there was a lot of bureaucratic intertia standing in the way of this is putting it mildly.

      Commanders have stood by as millions were spent on upgrading from Office 95 to 97 to 2000... people yanking perfectly good Solaris machines to replace them with NT machines... all in the name of "its easier and its Microsoft". I'm thinking that, finally, some of the problems that we've had with the vast array of fast acting viruses are finally getting some colonels to wake up and smell the coffee...

      I applaud the dead Captians and Majors that pushed for this - and i must confess that i didn't have the sack at the time to stand up and fight for what made sense... oh well.. i'm a contractor now.. making twice as much as before...so i don't give a shit.

      at least i'm going to get the chance here in the near future to get my hands on one of the thousands of NeXT boxes that the NRO ran thu the whole 80s and 90's. I'll isntall linux on it, and tell them "hey, its DII/COE compliant!" :-)

      geesh... sorry for the rant.

  43. peanuts by SubtleNuance · · Score: 0

    Well, you yankees spend $400 billion of your $79X Billion discretionary budget on Weapons and Military -- a few thousand to RHAT is zero for the US Military.

  44. DII -COE compliance is a pain by Karma+Star · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is a major achievement for linux, seeing that the only UNIX based system that is DII-COE compliant is solaris. however, anyone who has ever had to read the DII-COE compliance documentation knows that it is ambiguous and very hard to follow. it's easy enough to make any os installation noncompliant by adding in non-DII-COE approved software, or by accidently opening up a port or two on the system.

    --
    Me email iz skyewalkerluke at microsoft's free email service.
  45. so where can I download... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    bomb-iraq-1.0.src.rpm?

  46. Spell Check - Grammar Check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    "governement computer systems. Its interesting"

    C'mon guys, proof your stuff.

    Government and it's.

  47. the business of government contracting by Stalcair · · Score: 3, Interesting
    here is a clue for those not "in the know." Government contracting is based upon a business model that does not factor in things like the quality, efficiency or effectiveness (actually works AND provides what the end user needs) of the product or service in question. What is more important than anything is the ability to schmooze your way to the top and bring in that business (on the contracting side) while on the government side what is important is that you equally schmooze your way up the ladder by repeatedly demonstrating an amazing lack of care, concern or knowledge about the impact of poor development practices, confusion of personal and professional relationships, buzz words versus any actual understanding of the systems (and the systems' objectives) or any sort of ethical concern for actually being a good steward of both the tax payer's money and of the warfighter.

    In a free market economy the consumer has the option of making choices based on any number of factors including price, quality, speed/efficiency, convenience, and just plain old personal taste. However, in any system that shuts out all but the most deep pocketed (and well connected personally) companies then you had better be willing to pay more for less. Furthermore if the weights of the value of a product, service or the company that renders it has moved from the above factors (price, quality, etc) to that of the prettiest proposals, the slick talkingest (reverting to my Yosemite Sam mode) company personnel and the prettiness of words and documents presented then you will inevitably end up with less quality. Competition has then moved completely to the realm of draft picks for the cheerleader squad. It doesn't matter if they do nothing but look pretty and say stupid repetitive cheers... hey! they look pretty.

    Bullshit artistry is _THE_ factor in government contracting, as a track record of proven quality does not factor in. Now to be fair, there is the SEI system in place (Systems Engineering and Integration) which mostly inherits from the ISO 9001 system. With five levels (1 - 5, no zero... 1 is granted to anyone whether they can find their ass with either hand or not) you have a criteria of process quality by which you can judge an organization. However, with all the money and obvious effort that went into creating and maintaining this system the Achilles heel is no different than in any other of the "best laid systems and plans" to date. That my friend is the factor of non-compliance to the very processes that define who is granted what level. In other words, they don't use it like it was intended thus rendering it as just another acronym. The ironic thing (but typical in entrenched bureaucracy) is that even though pretty much anyone will admit (if you ask them lightly in the break room over coffee) that the system is rather broken most of those will still puff up with pride (if contractor) if they are a talking head of an organization with higher than SEI Level 2 or will speak with awe and wonder (if government) of an organization with SEI Level 2 or higher.

    What I fail to understand is why some will defend this bastardization on the grounds that those organizations with an undeserved SEI level are "Working Towards it." Well, that is good... really, however that is illogical when you look at the fact that the SEI system is not a projection but a grant of current operational status. I somehow doubt that there would be much validity in being granted a good bill of health after being shot 10 times if it was based on the fact that the surgical staff would "Soon fix me up good." No, instead I should be labeled as "In Critical Condition" and any other status be viewed as such. (Hmmm, is THAT what STAT comes from... meaning right NOW? I sure don't know) Back to IT work, if I was the customer then I would not care one damn bit of a system in place that is not consistently applied. The minute it becomes acceptable practice to arbitrarily award the SEI Levels is the same instance that such levels loose their meaning.

    Now some might say (who lack working neurons) that this is exactly what happens with capitalist Evil Corporations (TM) yet in reality we see that it is the government itself that creates this system. If the government would place individuals in decision making roles that had both a sense of ethics as well as refined professionalism then you would find that requirements would soon show a dramatic shift towards the quality of the products and services rendered. Networked people are important, to that there is no question. Yet a professional organization will correctly view those connected personnel as one of the many factors involved in doing business. ("Professional" defined here not just as "they get paid to do X" but referring the the ethical and motivational set of standards and practices they employ) Some actually believe that without business developers sliming their way through the system, charming the customer and confusing them when they question bad quality, that there would be no business. Perhaps in some cases there would be less, but there have been entirely too many cases in history (large and small) that show that if there is a need on one end and a supplier on the other than things can work out just fine. The middle man is nothing more than a facilitator of this process... a catylist (sp) but since they themselves do not do any real work they are expendable in reality. Before them business happened at perhaps a slower rate. Without them business adapts. Without those providing the actual product and service than there is nothing to be made of the best of deals. Take out the bullshit artists in the government and soon you will find that their contractual counterparts will begin to vanish as well.

    On a different but very much related note: Has anyone ever done a study of the percentage of commercials split up by radio, television and print (including the net) that actually advertise the uniqueness of the product, its advantages over competitors and why you should buy it? Don't get me wrong, I LOVE those beer commercials usually. However when so many commercials have become little sitcoms or tools of the "arteest" then I really fail to see how I as a consumer am supposed to do anything but ignore them and focus on doing research (to include ratings). I rarely see any commercial that is useful however that could just be where I live.

    --

    I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.

    1. Re:the business of government contracting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are only two important criteria regarding getting large government purchases:
      How many previous generals/ administrators/ congress persons you have given highly paid positions to when they retired
      and
      How many members of congress you have bribed (excuse me, made large campaign contributions to). Nothing else matters.

  48. COE platform compliance documents by akeep · · Score: 1

    Amusingly all of the COE 'platform compliance' documents are in microsoft word format, including the posix based and linux based drafts...

    1. Re:COE platform compliance documents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi, welcome to reality. Nice to see you check in every once in a while.

  49. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is absolutely hilarious, someone give that man a 4, at least

  50. Unfortunately... by tellezj · · Score: 1
    the open source model doesn't lend itself to the CYA mentality. Its not that a manager doesn't necessarily trust his contractors, its that he doesn't trust his boss. If something bad happens, it won't be the contractor that gets ripped. However, if there is some "approved solution", then liability is shifted to that approving athority.

    For the record, most govmnt managers are very tight with their program dollars. If there are more cost effective ways of doing something, that is cheaper to operate and maintain (which is a HUGE part of the cost of ownership), then that is an extremely attractive option. BTW, the folks in my shop use many open source tools to do their work, in combination with several proprietary packages. The os versions of the proprietary software is either 1) not mature enough to use, 2) too expensive to maintain in house on a rapidly evolving system with changing mission reqmnts, or 3) not supported by a 3rd party vendor with the right expertise. However, as os solutions mature, you can bet the govmnt will be moving towards that.

    --

    End of Line.

    1. Re:Unfortunately... by clue_phone · · Score: 1

      It's not just about cya, it is about "he doesn't trust his boss".

      Downloading and evaluating uncertified open source requires the ability to evaluate it, and the authorization to evaluate it. And it requires the ability to convince your superviser that you evaluation was correct.

      Government is a big fat exercise in mistrust. Blance of power, oversight, transparency, and all the other inefficiency is about not trusting someone with money and power.

      I applaud the certification of Red Hat, the process of certification, and I am very happy that vendors do need to get certified.

      I agree that government will increasing adopt open source because there are certified versions.

  51. Don't do it that way. by dmaxwell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A more sane way to manage source packages on production boxes is to have a machine similar to the production boxes but with the developer toolchain installed.

    The production boxes will still use debs or rpms but the compilation boxes can easily use something like checkinstall to make packages. This won't work in a potpurri environment but it would be fine if there's lots of identical machines. You mentioned that you wanted only particular software on your machines. With source compilation, you can even specify that the software only have certain options compiled in.

    Since the dev toolchains are confined to a few boxes, maintaining those shouldn't be onerous either.

  52. Sounds just like Guardent by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    And I should know.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  53. Will the Green Berets use Red Hat? by digitalgimpus · · Score: 2, Funny

    If the Green Berets use Redhat as part of a war (borg like) body suit... will they still be the Green Beret? Or the Red Hats?

    1. Re:Will the Green Berets use Red Hat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll be Red-Green Berets. Now where is that damn duct tape?

    2. Re:Will the Green Berets use Red Hat? by LogicFlow · · Score: 1

      If I had mod points at all, I would blow them all on this. I loved that show. Do you know if it's still on anywhere?

  54. GPL vs RHAS License... by Raleel · · Score: 1

    Please take a look at the RH-AS license. Tell me that it does not conflict with GPL, and don't be lying about it. I think it does. It specifically states that I have to buy another copy to put it on another machine. Isn't this against the gpl? I bought the software, it's mine to do with as i please as long as I give out copies of the source along with it?

    --
    -- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
    1. Re:GPL vs RHAS License... by lal · · Score: 2, Informative

      IANAL, so take your own read of the EULA:

      http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhlas_us.html

      It looks like each copy of RHAS installs with proprietary client to the RedHat network. This client is not GPL. It is "RedHat Intellectual Property". That's apparently what's licensed.

    2. Re:GPL vs RHAS License... by JoeBuck · · Score: 1

      The GPL has a "mere aggregation" clause, which basically states that you can distribute GPL code alongside proprietary code, without affecting the licensing of the proprietary code, as long as the proprietary programs are separate programs. The distributor has to make source available to all of the GPL components, but can apply traditional rules to the proprietary components.

      So no, the RH-AS license does not conflict, and Red Hat follows the GPL. The same is true of the other Linux distros that include proprietary components: supplying source to the GPL and LGPL components is all that is required, and you can forbid people from copying the proprietary components.

    3. Re:GPL vs RHAS License... by jeremy_hogan · · Score: 2, Informative

      The GPL requires that we make GPL and GPL derivative source code available to recipients of the binaries. We do that, AND post the source on ftp for anyone to use, which we don't have to do for this or any other of our products which are posted on ftp. We feel we should adhere to the spirit of the GPL as much as to the letter.

      AS has a stack of support and services that require a fee for use, reality is that no one will stop you from building your own or installing on multiple machines. But you won't get full support, ,services, RHN, and in some cases ISV/IHV support.

      Only part of the value of AS lay in the bits.

  55. emacs on linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Ah, you see linux has a long history of providing support for the emulation of other popular operating systems such as Dos (dosemu), Windows (wine, technically not an emulator), any number of things via Bochs and VMware, and of course EMACS, which is a really great operating system hampered only by a lousy editor. HTH!

    1. Re:emacs on linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and of course EMACS, which is a really great operating system hampered only by a lousy editor.

      Rubbish.

      M-x vi-mode

      it has a quite decent editor, thank you.

  56. No .isos for enterprise just source RPMs by Corporate+Gadfly · · Score: 3, Informative
    Anyone can download it for free from Red Hat.
    Can someone mod the parent down? As pointed out in several other replies to the parent, there are NO .iso files available for the Advanced Server. Just the SRPMs.
    --
    Corporate Gadfly
    Jonathan Archer: the most beaten up Enterprise captain in Star Trek history
  57. click here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.kingsofchaos.com/viewprofile.php?id=237 516
    http://www.kingsofchaos.com/viewprofile.php?i d=237 516

  58. Sadly, RHAS isn't very good. by ElGuapoGolf · · Score: 1


    We're using RHAS here at work, and I have to say, to date I've been very unimpressed.

    One of the RH sales rep went on about how RH made a lot of kernel modifications so their kernel worked better on MP machines than the default Linux kernel. Fair enough. But they also prefer you use IBM's JDK/JRE, which doesn't work out of the box on MP machines. Not to mention it seems to eat twice the memory of Sun's JDK/JRE.

    It also seems that RedHat only supports ext3 in their Advanced Server. It seems to me that anything calling itself an "Advanced Server" should support JFS or ReiserFS. Now, I know that JFS is relatively new, but Reiser has been around long enough and was considered "stable" before ext3 I believe, so I see no reason why it shouldn't be available for me to use without having to pass silly kernel paramaters to get it to show up.

    Don't even start me on xinetd. Stuff like "maintaining compatibility with other unix flavors" is important if they want to move AS into big iron shops where Solaris and AIX are the norms.

    1. Re:Sadly, RHAS isn't very good. by rhavyn · · Score: 1

      Neither JFS or ReiserFS were stable enough to use when RHAS was released. I'm not even sure either of them has managed to pass Cerberus even today. Anything calling itself "Advanced Server" should provide high reliability, not come with you favorite pet filesystem.

      Xinetd is more secure then inetd. It is also completely compatible with regular inetd (I'd like to see how you can write an inetd that isn't compatible). The configuration is different, but I don't see anyone advocating that Linux perfectly duplicate the configuration of AIX or Solaris (and then, which would you pick, they're both different as well).

      Finally, IBMs JDK works on the pSeries and zSeries systems. I'm sure it supports SMP just fine.

    2. Re:Sadly, RHAS isn't very good. by jeremy_hogan · · Score: 1

      Well, make one or both of them stable, and maybe we'll have a new pet.

      Anything calling itself Advanced Server should not ship with buggy components.

    3. Re:Sadly, RHAS isn't very good. by ElGuapoGolf · · Score: 1


      My points were

      1) ext3 was far from stable at that time as well. Why choose one quasi-stable filesystem over another?

      2) IBMs JDK does not work on MP systems out of the box. At least, not the one that RH ships. Want proof? Install and Run Tomcat 4.1. It won't work. Switch to Sun's JDK. It will work. Then read the readme, and notice that IBMs JDK has 'issues' with MP systems.

      Yes, I know you can install sun's JDK yourself. But that's not the point. When you're trying to make this simple and easy to install so the guy in the Toledo datacenter can reinstall a machine that exploded, died, was abducted by aliens, or is missing, you really don't want to have him doing stuff like that.

      3) Configuration is a big deal when you have tons of Solaris and AIX admins grumbling about having to learn something new. Personally I don't think it's a big deal, but it does seem very RedHatish to screw with everyone else.

    4. Re:Sadly, RHAS isn't very good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where to begin:

      So install Sun's JDK/JRE that's what we did, the same procedure on the non advaced.

      Reiserfs is included with AS: /lib/modules/2.4.9-e.8smp/kernel/fs/reiserfs/reise rfs
      Look on the original CD and you also see the reiserfs-utils RPM just use it and go.

      Xinetd isn't AS specific, many distro's, etc are using it.

    5. Re:Sadly, RHAS isn't very good. by ElGuapoGolf · · Score: 1

      Where to begin:

      1) See my above comment. Big Conservative Companies want things to work out of the box. The guy restoring a system that failed at 3am shouldn't have to head out to Sun's site to find the proper JDK at 3am. This isn't a huge deal, but big enough.

      2) Yeah, it's included. Now tell me how to get it to show up in the installer. See above comments about the guy at 3am and mix them with kernel parameters on install.

      3) If RH wants to mix it up with the big boys, which they clearly want to, don't irritate the sysadmins by making them learn new stuff. It's nice to leverage existing skills.

    6. Re:Sadly, RHAS isn't very good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If RH wants to mix it up with the big boys, which they clearly want to, don't irritate the sysadmins by making them learn new stuff."

      Yeah, god forbid you should learn something on the job. That's a totally unreasonable expectation in the sysadmin/computer field.

    7. Re:Sadly, RHAS isn't very good. by ElGuapoGolf · · Score: 1

      It is when your understaffed/overworked admins have to instantly learn yet another configuration scheme when something breaks.

    8. Re:Sadly, RHAS isn't very good. by rhavyn · · Score: 1

      1) ext3 passed Cerberus at that time. Reiser didn't and was known the nuke filesystems. JFS still isn't particularly stable today.

      2) Perhaps that is true, I dont use IBM's JDK.

      3) Linux is different. This isn't just an issue with inetd vs xinetd. Linux defaults to bash as a shell, Solaris to csh. People shouldn't encourage Red Hat to include the less capable, less secure piece of software to appease people who find other more glaring differences anyways. The admins will have to learn to cope. Or get some Linux admins, it's not like there aren't some out there looking.

    9. Re:Sadly, RHAS isn't very good. by rhavyn · · Score: 1

      The point was, ext3 was stable, Reiser and JFS weren't. Red Hat has no need to go and fund more filesystems, they need to ship something that works. Ext3 worked so they shipped with it.

    10. Re:Sadly, RHAS isn't very good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With all the talk of certification, Oracle RDBMS which is supposed to be certified for RHAS2.1 does requires Sun JRE/SDK not the IBM one included in AS2.1.

      Add to this, Oracle also needs to replace Red Hat's binutils package with its own.

  59. Other Linuxes? by jhoffoss · · Score: 1

    Does anyone have information on other Linuxes on their way to COE certification? SuSE Enterprise? (Can't think of any other commercial "enterprise/advanced server" type distros...)

    --
    Linux: The world's best text-adventure game.
  60. Off-Topic my ass. by ratamacue · · Score: 1

    Way to moderate based on personal opinion. Now let's see you prove that it's off-topic.

  61. Short-cut to the policy papers... by onlyabill · · Score: 1

    For anyone that missed it, the original MITRE report is here (this basically started things going) and the rebuttel paper from the Initiative for Software Choice is here.

    Again, for those that missed it, the Initiative for Software Choice, though at an 'org' is funded by MS and others of the big software makers.

    The response paper goes through quite a bit of trouble to label the GPU as a viral license and the resulting dangers as well as going into how giving 'preferential' treatment to open source will hurt the software industry (monetarily) and the government (by cutting off choice).

    They definitely try to do a nice 'turn around'. Open source is hit as not being any more secure than commercial software, that the GPL (specifically) can/will pollute developed works and that the policy change is not only not needed but will deprive the government of choice and the ability to select the best software for a given job.

    For completeness, the cnet article is also here.

    --
    I have to use this cause I can't afford a real sig...
  62. SELinux by mu51c10rd · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Why did Red Hat bother? I think NSA's Linux kernel at their website is probably better than anything Red Hat has put together. Seems a waste of time and effort for the DOD to certify something when they already have a distro for DOD purposes. I recommend SELinux for it's kernel security (it's only a kernel, no fluff). Red Hat is probably just looking for another revenue stream and DOD decided to go along with it.

    1. Re:SELinux by hughk · · Score: 1
      SELINUX us a lovely system but essentially it is just a modified kernel and a couple of utilities. The SELINUX mods are guaranteed pretty secure, but so is a PANICed machine. A lot of what RH has done is to stabalise the kernel and then to package around it.

      In any case, the loadable security module sounds like a better bet for the future as it minimises what has to be a permanent part of the kernel (gets it past Linus) and concentrates the changes in one place for an easy audit.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
  63. Re:No .isos for enterprise just source RPMs-BGs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can go to the binary groups and get a copy.

  64. Majorly wrong there bub by Srin+Tuar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How do these things relate to Linux? No one's arguing that it isn't a good development environment, but perl runs in Win32 fairly easily.


    Have you tried to use perl on windows?
    It just isnt the same. Perl proggies typically make heavy use of syscalls such as "fork" and "pipe".

    Performance of these under windows is atrocious, not to mention that the whole windows filesystem/exec is shockingly low performance.
    (Its not designed to be used in the way perl programs typically use it)

    perl is seemingly perfect for linux, with its low forking overhead (comparable to creating a thread or lwp on other OSen) and its I/O subsytem performance.

    Programming, even in high level languages, is a totally different ballgame under windows, if you want performance. You have to do it differently.

  65. why not openbsd or freebsd? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

    I don't get it. linux is great for desktop and hardware-oriented things (soundcards, pcmcia cards, etc).

    but for the most stable servers running free unix, how can you beat the BSDs? and with CVSup et al, you can be sure you're really really up to date and secure.

    I'm a linux user since the 1.x kernels and a freebsd user since maybe 2 yrs ago. these days I use linux on the desktop and bsd on my servers. so I know and love both for the right purpose.

    linux has name recognition, but for ultimate stability, I'm just not sure its the right choice here...

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  66. Cost not a distinction between "Free" and "Open" by modulo · · Score: 1
    Right, but I don't see any difference between the free-as-in-beerness of "Open Source" vs. "Free" software.

    Neither philosophy prohibits you from charging the first person to get the software, and neither prohibits that person from either charging for or not charging for it. Maybe under the "Free" model you say you are charging for your time (instead of the software, or a license to use it), but that's just semantics - I could reduce the price by a factor of 1000 and hope 1000 people buy it. It would be less likely if it was "open source" or "free", but it's possible. How many people bought CDs from the FSF?

    I thought the distinction was more a philosophical one based on *why*: "Open Source" says allowing redistribution of the source to more practical, while "Free" software declares it to be a right. Neither says you have an obligation to hand it down to the next guy. I have the ability to let a friend borrow my Knoppix CDs, I'm not *obligated* to do so at all, money or no money.

    From that angle, having free or low-cost copies available is just a statistical side effect of people offering copies because it doesn't cost them much and it makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside, cheap bandwidth, and others caring more about the software itself more than the pretty boxes it might otherwise be available in.

    If we were all stuck with 300 bps modems, you, me, ESR and RMS would all be hiking down to the nearest Best Buy for our next software fix. And we'd all be smilin' because the source code would be inside, as long as they were charging less than it would cost for us to download it. (I used to buy boxed Linux distros until they went over $30)

    See?

    --

    ...but the language is MUMPS, which I will not utter here

  67. GPL licence guarantees source availability by Wills · · Score: 1

    I think you missed the reason why the GPL licence is unique. Not all open-source software licences guarantee you have the right to redistribute source code without limitations. Some open-source licences are ambiguous on what, if any, rights you have to redistribute source code. Other open-source licences try in various ways to restrict your right to redistribute source code.

    In contrast, the Gnu General Public License guarantees in clear English that you, as well as everyone else, have the right to redistribute the source code free-of-charge, or if you prefer for no more than the reasonable cost of providing storage media etc.

    There is no ambiguity about the meaning of the GPL licence. That's the real benefit of being able to have GPL-licensed free software as opposed to any other type of open-source software licence. I'm not saying one type of licence is better than the other for all purposes. However, if you value your right to redistribute source-code then the GPL licence is probably the best choice when considering which software to use.

    1. Re:GPL licence guarantees source availability by modulo · · Score: 1
      I don't think it's coincidental that those who view source redistribution to be a right, invented a license to guarantee that right. (We're just talking about different ends of cause-and-effect.)

      My point was that money is not the difference.

      As a programmer, even the distinction between closed and open source is irrelevant, because although some people at work will use my code (and there are no potential users elsewhere!), there isn't anybody who can (or wants to) read it there. OK, there's one guy who copies & pastes where I tell him to, but that's not the same thing :0)

      If I ever make something for public consumption, though, I will probably GPL it.

      --

      ...but the language is MUMPS, which I will not utter here

    2. Re:GPL licence guarantees source availability by Wills · · Score: 1

      "My point was that money is not the difference"

      I think that's wrong. The GPL licence implies fundamental financial differences between GPL software and open-source software. GPL software may be distributed by anyone in return for any amount of money, including no money at all. You may not want to release or distribute software that is under a GPL licence; your company may also choose not to do so; but if someone somewhere likes the GPL licence and wants to distribute free-of-charge a piece of software they have written as GPL software or to re-distribute free-of-charge existing GPL software written by somebody else, nobody else can stop them, without legal recourse.

      • Financial issue #1:
        Anyone is always free to distribute GPL software free-of-charge. Nobody can prevent someone else distributing GPL software free-of-charge or for any amount of money, without legal recourse. By contrast, with certain open-source software the licence says everyone may not distribute it, whether free-of-charge or for money.

      • Financial issue #2:
        Anyone is always free to use GPL software free-of-charge. With GPL software nobody can stop someone else using it free-of-charge, without legal recourse. However, with certain open-source software the licence says everyone may not use it free-of-charge.
      Money is therefore a vital aspect of the way the GPL affects software usage and distribution. This is a major difference with respect to many types of open-source software licences.

      When you said, "those who view source redistribution to be a right, have invented a license to guarantee that right", you have misunderstood the way the "common law" legal system works in countries like the USA and the UK; unless there is a specific law that forbids you from doing something, then you are generally free in law to act as you choose so long as your actions do not harm anybody or anything else (which would create a tort). If you obtain a piece of software, that software is provided to you under a software licence which is interpreted according to the principles of contract law. Therefore, by default -- no need for any extra licence(s) -- you already have the legal right to do whatever you like with a piece of software unless the legal contract you enter when you accept a software licence explicitly removes your right to take certain actions.

      Most commercial software licences take away rights that you would otherwise have by default. When you have rights by default, then a licence which takes away rights, whether willingly entered or not, must be correctly described as causing a loss of rights to the end user of the software. Whether the end-users' loss of rights is good or bad from the point of view of the software author/rights-holder depends on management strategy, shareholder expectations, market competition, etc. Nonetheless, I think the advantages of GPL software -- apart from price -- from the point of view of end users -- especially of end-users who are not interested in source-code availability -- are so strongly appreciated when explained in non-technical plain English, that any GPL software which has an adequate feature set and sufficient usability for end-users will eventually achieve greater distribution and usage than equivalent commercial software, whether open-source or not. This process will be damaging to commercial software companies that do not adapt and develop ways of cooperating with and harnessing GPL software for their benefit e.g. by selling correctly priced add-on services (no unsustainable "dot-com" marketing strategies).

      Lastly, I think you can be a programmer and still find the distinction between closed-source software and open-source software to be absolutely vital in many senses. You cannot speak for all programmers. It depends on the situation, the programmer, the software, the licences, the business, the management, the costs, the benefits, etc.

    3. Re:GPL licence guarantees source availability by modulo · · Score: 1

      The GPL licence [gnu.org] implies fundamental financial differences between GPL software and open-source software.

      Well, without rehashing different scenarios, I'm not saying you can't get Free software for free. I'm taking issue with the original post that said you can't charge for it. You can - how effective that is depends on market conditions, (ex., media vs. bandwidth costs, altruism of your audience) but you are free to try.

      Strictly speaking, you're right that there may be economic consequences that devolve from the "Free" model. For example, some people say you can't build a business model on it. I think the jury is out on that one, I'm certainly not on the "other" side if that's what you are afraid of.

      unless there is a specific law that forbids you from doing something, then you are generally free in law to act as you choose so long as your actions do not harm anybody or anything else

      Not sure about the UK, but in the US as I understand it, creative works are governed by copyright, modified by the doctrine of fair use, which basically say that you *can't* copy anything without the owner's permission with some exceptions (ex., backups). Which is why the GPL is called "copyleft" (it explicitly permits what copyright would deny). It's a joke, get it?

      You cannot speak for all programmers.

      I'm not speaking for all programmers at all, or even everything I will ever write. I just said that the stuff I've done so far isn't ready for public consumption (so, nobody would want to "consume" my source code, either). Can I take my Nomex longjohns off, now? (whew)

      --

      ...but the language is MUMPS, which I will not utter here

  68. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 0

    Mr. Jones related an incident from "some time back" when IBM Canada
    Ltd. of Markham, Ont., ordered some parts from a new supplier in Japan. The
    company noted in its order that acceptable quality allowed for 1.5 per cent
    defects (a fairly high standard in North America at the time).
    The Japanese sent the order, with a few parts packaged separately in
    plastic. The accompanying letter said: "We don't know why you want 1.5 per
    cent defective parts, but for your convenience, we've packed them separately."
    -- Excerpted from an article in The (Toronto) Globe and Mail

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...