Slashdot Mirror
US Army Signs $471,000,000 Deal for Microsoft Software
zero_offset writes "According to this article at Yahoo, Microsoft will provide software for 494,000 Army computers during the next six years. At roughly $950 per computer this clearly involves more than just the OS, although the article unfortunately doesn't provide details, and I was unable to find any references to this on the Microsoft website." The great things about this deal: the Army is going through a reseller, when clearly they have the purchasing power to buy direct; and most of the computers they purchase are normal consumer machines which will be purchased with Windows and Office already installed, so the Army will be paying twice for each machine.
I agree with you that about the price of Linux, but there's obviously something more there than an operating system. They may have had a need, that their bureaucrats didn't see and open source solution for.
This is almost 1/2 a trillion dollars that won't be spent on "smart" bombs.
1/2 a billion dollars, right?
Anyway, wouldn't you rather the military use expensive "smart" bombs than cheap "dumb" ones? It's not like a lack of funding is going to stop them from entering into conflicts in the first place.
I have numerous work and personal machines (6 or so) all running XP Pro and I cannot think of the last time any one of them crashed (back through w2k).
Most of my friends' issues aren't from the major vendors like Dell but rather self-built PC's that utilize a mishmash of buggy motherboards and the like.
RedHat and the other major distributions seem to release major revisions far more frequently than does Microsoft. To get any meaningful support on those systems you would have to actually buy the distribution or hire someone to help if you aren't capable. Free isn't that easy.
In the end I would take Microsoft anyday... and if anything goes severely wrong, there is always someone to hold accountable. You and I might not have the leverage, but the US military backed by a half-billion dollar contract sure will. Where is that accountablility with free software?
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
Jebus Crisis. Just make the ashtray out of metal, then it won't break at all. And what are they doing smoking in a sub anyway, can you say very tight environment with a limited supply of air?
Not that this invalidates your basic premise, that many military-grade goods are specially made to military spec and therefore justifiably cost more. However, I have to wonder how any Microsoft product meets the kind of quality standards set for even a simple ashtray.
I do not have a signature
If an application crashes and brings down your whole damn network, then the problem is not with the application it is with the OS.
So the issue was quite clearly with the substandard OS.
Reading various comments here, I thought Iâ(TM)d stick my nose in. [background â" former USAF Windows programmer]
Wait a minute... they just agreed to purchase half a billion dollars worth of software and you're saying they can't afford to hire people to oversee the customization and support they might need with something like Linux?
Fools
Waste of tax dollars
Use a FOSS solution!
Linux would be way better
Simple corporate welfare
Shame on the military for using Windows in the first place!
BSOD
Crashing missiles
blah de blah de blah
Hereâ(TM)s a shocker. Windows may be more cost effective for a huge organization that already is using Windows. Let me repeat thatâ¦
Windows may be more cost effective.
How so? They already use it. Switching to Linux for the desktop would take several years, and be considerably more than $0.5B. With the possibility of it going very, very wrong. Not all Win -> Linux conversions go smoothly.
Why so long and costly? There are literally thousands of custom apps, large and small, that the Army runs on. Already written and in use. Everything from creating ID cards to allocating training munitions to various units. Currently, they run on Windows. What do you think they use now? Pencil and paper?All of these would have to be rewritten in some way. 2, 3, 5 10 years ago when all this stuff was being written, guess what? A viable Linux solution was but a wet dream. You had but 2 choices, Apple or Windows, for regular desktop deployment.
Now...of course you cannot roll out a whole new desktop environment all across the Army on the same day. There will be considerable overlap. So you also have to ensure interoperability between old and new as you roll out. The Army cannot stop business for the several years while this is going on.
You also have to ensure that all of your current hardware is supported. Are there Linux print drivers for the ID card printers? How about the digital camera for that?
Can we build a Linux solution to interface with the hospital patient records db? Sure...but we already have a Windows solution that works, and works well.
Can Civil Engineering find a Linux CAD solution, equivalent to AutoCAD, to design the plumbing and electrics for a new dormitory? Haven't seen one.
What about Public Affairs and the imaging shop? Are there Linux drivers for the digital Nikons they use? Oh..we have to have those written. But there are already native Win drivers for those...supported from the factory.
Laptops. Will Linux work on all the various laptops (with their custom mouse and video drivers) the Army deploys? Maybe...maybe not. But Windows already does. They might well have to buy a whole fleet of different laptops, if Linux can't be made to run effectively on the ones they have.
Linux may well be more stable, secure, and crash (slightly) less. But this is basically desktop use. So what! This is regular desktop use. It just doesnâ(TM)t matter if it is not the most absolute secure system on the planet. These systems are not facing the outside. And not running life critical apps. They don't steer missiles with Win2K.
Take all that into account (and this is but the merest tip of the iceberg) and staying with Windows might well be cheaper than trying to switch.
He's right on track here. As a software developer for the Army we are CONSTANTLY tackling this problem. You have to remember how are operating these systems. They ARE NOT CS degrees or engineers. In fact, most do not have anything higher than a High School diploma or equivalent. We field for operational systems, both Heavy (mounted in humvees, and lights (rugged laptops)) that are being used by enlisted and junior grade officers. These guys don't give a shit about learning the wonders of the bash shell, they only want to use what they are comfortable with. And for 95% of the graduating class that's windows. We used Solaris for years with Ultras for heavys and tadpoles for lights. Guess what, they are being phased out do to complications of getting a grunt straight out of bootcamp using them. In fact, the first thing we did to try to ease the use of the solaris machine was dump CDE in favor of FVWM with a windows theme.
You guys have to remember that there is a HUGE digital divide out there and getting soldiers with out much education comfortable with computers tends to be quicker and easier with Windows. This believe it or not does NOT boil down to money.
----- "Blame the guy who doesn't speak English." -- Homer J. Simpson
Linux can be tedious to set up but I'm so sick and tired of hearing, "But Windows is so much easier. Bash is too hard. Config files are too hard." My mom uses Linux, you know why? Because I set her computer up. It boots into a GUI and a nice clean windowed environment with graphical icons to let her get into all the programs she needs. Is Mozilla Firebird more complex in Linux than in Windows? Is it more complex than IE? My dad still uses Windows because unlike my mom who finally decided to stop being a luddite my dad's been using one for years and has apps he's used to. Still, that's all he knows. When he needs a new email account set up, the background changed or whatever, who does he call? Me. Whether it's a check box or a config file he's gonna call me. My point? Either you're the type that can tweak a computer in which case it doesn't matter if it's a config file or something in a preferences menu because you're trained enough to figure it out or you're the type that's gonna call a tech. I'm sitting here using Xfce4 right now and I almost never touch the shell for standard, day to day operations. I do for certain file management tasks, network troubleshooting and compiling but is the average yutz gonna do that? No. Ultimately we're talking about an organization who has no problem spending MY money on a $400 toilet seat, so why should they even worry about evaluating an alternative? I can see using Windows because they're used to it. That makes sense. But I'm so sick and tired of hearing crap like, "These guys don't give a shit about learning the wonders of the bash shell." There is NO NEED TO EVER SEE A CLI IN LINUX! The Windows GUI isn't any "easier." Clicking an icon and running a program is pretty much the same in both arenas.