Apple Polishing Mac OS X for Uncle Sam?

polarfleece writes "A report on Macteens that the latest build of Panther contains strong evidence that it is being customized for U.S. Government applications. I, for one, can't wait to see a whole lot of Apples being toted by gummint men (and women). Of course, do we REALLY want those gummint agents having access to the same technology we Apple users enjoy so much? On the other hand, to quote story author Clark Mueller, 'it just might be one of the more intelligent steps taken towards U.S. national defense.'"

Comments

Well ain't that cute... BUT IT'S WRONG!

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, can't wait to see a whole lot of Apples being toted by gummint men (and women).

Shouldn't that be: I, for one, welcome our new apple toting overlords!

embedded images?

[udecker]

I'm beginning to wonder why Apple would include items such as Department of Public Health and U.S. Army logos within the login panel, when individual customizations are usually done after installation?

Does microsoft embed specialized content for "preferred rollout" people in Windows as well?

Perhaps this is just a kitchen sink issue, and the release builds will not contain such images?

Re:embedded images?

[patman600]

The fact that they have every logo in there suggests to me that they will not have specialized builds, but just include them into the OS. If they were going to have specialized builds I would think that they would just have a specialized build for each division. Since they are just icons, and only take up a miniscule amount of space it seems easier to just have them in the commercial OS.

This should not come as a surprise

[Dan Ost]

The US government is one of the single largest consumers of computer
systems in the world. Is it really surprising that Apple might make
an effort to court it?

Re:This should not come as a surprise

[beetle496]

The Federal Government won't be purchasing OS X boxes in mass quantity until the operating system is usable by somebody who is blind. E&IT Accessibility Standards

Gummint Mac use

[nystagman]

For eight years I have had to battle tooth and nail to push my Mac purchases through, in contradiction of the VA's official approved platform BS. It's not impossible, merely ludicrously convoluted.

As I am a researcher, not an "information worker," (irony at its finest) my argument has always been that I know better what I need to do my job, than does some IT clown who wouldn't know scientific computing if it bit him on the ass. Yet EVERY computer-related purchase (right down to a cable or toner cartridge) must receive IT approval at some central location before it then takes weeks/months to actually GET purchased.

One thing that has helped is that I have completely segregated our laboratory network from the hospital network (which, by the way, for the longest time used unsecured WiFi until I showed them how easy it was to rummage around), thereby avoiding having to suffer through the mandated computer "training," which I can assure you is a complete waste of time, energy and money.

The IT guys here all know me, and are amused by me attempts to keep the lab Mac-based. I, on the other hand, am always amused by the nonstop labor on their part to keep the wintel stuff from falling apart. (Blaster, anyone?)

I hope that this offical addition of OS X to the supported list will make it easier for me to buy some G5s soon... Then I can pass some G4s down the line to the "Medical Media" (graphics) department, who were forced to switch from Macs several years ago. Not a popular decision. Not in the least.

Re:Gummint Mac use

[Anonymous Coward]

be careful how you word such requests. example (from a gov't organization):

my boss once ordered a "mac flatscreen". request denied: you don't need a flatscreen monitor.

the boss then ordered a "cinema display" (the same thing). response: here ya go! have a good day sir.

Re:Gummint Mac use

[Wyatt Earp]

Years ago, when I started working in the Public Sector I remeber there was a place that would sell PowerMac G3s in special configurations for schools, local government and the Federal Government who didn't allow Macs to be bought.

The included a CD of either AIX or MKLinux and were billed on FRPs and Invoices as "Unix RISC Workstations".

They were reboxed so that receiving wouldn't see the Apple boxes, but in all other reguards were G3 Minitower PowerMacs.

Re:Nice move

[IM6100]

Do the Bostisch Staplers, Canon photocopier, and 'HON' filing cabinets get old, too?

Geez.

It's just office equipment .

Navy Intranet?

[bluethundr]

This sounds really wonderful for the implementation of Apple Hardware by Uncle Sam. But one Gov't market the likley won't be able to penetrate is that of the Navy/Marine Corp intranet! That is one bigass contract they are not going to be able to take advantage of because of the decision to standardize on Windoze 2000. "Angels and ministers of grace, defend us!"

As reported in this older /. story it's the largest federal IT project ever undertaken! The goal is to get as many people as they could up to a reasonable level of modernity. Some of those sorry fuckers are STILL using wordstar and the tech of similar vintage! So I guess that even Win2k would be somewhat of an improvementin those select cases. I'll bet however that some of the other branches are going to have to give up their brand new Apple hardware due to the new standardization (those mil outfits are a true tower of Babel!) are going to be *reeeealllly* unhappy!

The Navy/Marine Corps intranet is being used as a template for the tech that the "Dept. Of Homeland Security" will use. Fortunatley, for the time being anyway, that department seems as largely fictional as the name is ominous. Fictional in the sense that the departments that are supposed to be talking to one another in a free flow of information...aren't. Not even to mention that in true 'big gov't' fashion the project is massively over budget and deadlines keep getting pushed back further and further.

Go Uncle Sam! *yeesh*

Great for enterprise use

[dschuetz]

I used to support a three-letter-agency (I still can't bring myself to say it out loud :) ), and we were 100% NeXTSTEP on the desktop.

It was fantastic -- trivial to administer, and every machine was configured such that absolutely no user-specific data or configuration information was stored on the local desktop. You could log in to your officemate's computer, another one down the hall, or clear across the country, and everything was exactly as if you were at your own desk (though cross-country use was a little slow at times). This is something I've never seen done with Windows.

It also made changing out hardware in case of failure a no-brainer -- grab a spare slab out of the closet on your way to the person's office, power down, swap units, power up, leave. 15 minutes, tops.

Just about all the users loved the system, too (imagine! Secretaries, using UNIX! :) ), but they all wanted Microsoft Office on it -- that was the main reason they finally dropped NeXT for Windows (well, that, plus NeXT pretty much closing up shop to remake apple).

Anyway, if the MacOS X boxes are anywhere near as reliable and easy to manage as NeXT was, then I'd really hope that Apple starts to push the enterprise angle stronger....

Re:Great for enterprise use

[BWJones]

Just about all the users loved the system, too (imagine! Secretaries, using UNIX! :) )

Ahhhh, now I know you are talking CIA. This actually surprised me back in 1991 or 1992 to see NeXT slabs on secretaries desks, but I thought it was very cool (I liked the Cubes). Aside from the rather interesting angle that certain current Apple fellows (former NeXT employees) had with cryptography, the security, built in scriptability, built in optical storage and other obvious choices for a critical, yet secure installation, NeXT had those cool black cases. :-) The running joke among the spook crowd was that that the black cases were the sole reason for the contract.

Lockout?

[secolactico]

Of course, "everyone" is saying that the desicion to standarize on Win2k is wrong because it ties you to a single software vendor (Microsoft). Wouldn't the adoption of Apple tie you down to a single software *and* hardware vendor?

Re:Lockout?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

What I find interesting about this post is the assumption that there has to be a single vendor for anything. This mindset seems to me to be the product of the Microsoft era; I don't know how many comments I've seen, in many different contexts, of the "Well, replacing Microsoft with ___ would be just as bad." ("___" is usually Apple, although I've seen Sun and, lately, Red Hat.) In fact, of course, "Microsoft or ___" is a false dichotomy. Buyers -- especially government buyers, although I'd argue that large business acquisitions should follow this policy too -- should insist on interoperability standards which all vendors will follow, and then pick and choose systems that meet these standards, making a deliberate effort to avoid vendor lock-in and the "monoculture crop" security problems that inevitably follow. There's no good reason that a single organization can't have machines running Windows, OS X, Solaris, Linux, and God knows what else sitting side-by-side and working with each other, as long as buyers insist on it.

Re:Lockout?

[imnoteddy]

Of course, "everyone" is saying that the desicion to standarize on Win2k is wrong because it ties you to a single software vendor (Microsoft). Wouldn't the adoption of Apple tie you down to a single software *and* hardware vendor?

Only if you had a "Mac only" policy. It is better to allow the best tool for the job rather than mandate a monoculture.

Re:Lockout?

[fermion]

Actually, in my experience the only time one gets a 'single vendor' policy is if one uses MS. Even in the old days, Apple products inter-operated with other machines unless those machines were specifically designed to work only with PCs. And if they were, one found that they were obsolete much faster than general machines.

With OS x the choice becomes even greater. The Mac has entered the *nix community and represents choice for the user. Web boxes do not have to be running IIS with the accompanying license and month patches, but can be Apache boxes with reliable support contracts. For the data entry person, a x86 Linux box running thin net to the application and data. More secure that a full fledged Windows box in which the person has rapid access to all the data. For the superuser who needs more box, a Mac or even Sun Blade. Oracle or MySql would handle the database needs. Standardize on MS Office and StarOffice. Administration is the pretty much the same on all machines. The kernel is customizable, and shell commands can be added or subtracted as need.

Hell, you can even put in some windows machines for the apps that require it.

No MS is the definition of single source. Everyone else knows how to play together.

Re:Lockout?

[tres]

"Lock" is the key word here. If you look at the way that OS X is built, you see that Apple isn't trying to lock anything. They're pushing a hardware platform that can interoperate with your pre-existing legacy systems. They're doing it by using open standards and open source.

Really, I think you're mixing Apples and oranges. When you talk about a vendor lock in, it's where systems aren't interoperable with software or equipment from other vendors. If you want to use a BSD or Linux server on your network, OS X will work quite well with it. If you want to put a Windows server on your network, OS X will work quite well with that. It goes the same for our UNIX cousins. By utilizing open standards, Apple has made a system that doesn't lock you in to any vendor.

This is where Apple "gets it," and Microsoft never will. Using open source and open standards gives the users the choice, not the vendor. When the entire commodity of your company is based on "intellectual property," when there are no tangible items being traded for money, of course you're locked into protecting that property by locking other people out of it.

When you are providing a real good, i.e. computer hardware, you don't have all the restrictions that tie up a company like Microsoft, that tries to sell intangibles as if they were goods. As a hardware vendor, you want to provide people with the ability to integrate your systems into different environments. Making your system more extensible means that you will sell more.

I think this was a hard lesson for Apple to learn, it almost drove them out of business in the '90s, but it seems evident that Apple doesn't intend to lock anyone in or out.

Re:Lockout?

[phillymjs]

Wouldn't the adoption of Apple tie you down to a single software *and* hardware vendor?

Perhaps, but only for the client machines. Thanks to Apple's wholehearted adoption of open standards, you can mix and match to form the rest of your network, if you desire-- whereas Microsoft's stuff only plays nice with competitors' products grudgingly, when it plays nice at all.

~Philly

Re:Lockout?

[Anonymous Coward]

are all windows users illiterate?

the point obviously was that a Mac does not lock one in any more than a windows, which was a direct response to the original comments. You proved that point.

In many offices, however, there is a notion that MS only has an advantage because of a common management scheme. Again, in direct response to the original assertion, a valid observation was made that OS X has the advantage of, at some level, using the same skillset of other *nix., another point that was refuted.

Also, the original comment specifically spoke of single vendor lock in. It is very common for a firm to purchase a Windows system, install an MS webserver, an MS database, and develop with MS tools. This is what the original post probably was speaking to. If a firm purchases a Windows system then installs MySQL and Apache, then the firm is no longer tied to a single software vendor, and the case in the original post does not apply, unless they like many comapnies only use MS Windows.

Again, the response only tangentially spoke of Windows. The main thrust was that Apple can be a part of an efficient diversified IT setup. It would be useful to add, however, that given MS licensing schemes and increasingly aggressive marketing, one can assume that most shops would find it easier to single source, especially if, as in the case of dual booting machines, alternatives would anger the MS salesforce.

White Hats vs. Black Hats

[Frightened_Turtle]

Well, as anyone can tell you, the movies always show the good guys using Macs, and the bad guys using Windoze.

So if government types start using Macs, that'll mean that the good guys are taking over! Woo! Hoo! (I love how the sun always shines in my own little reality...)

Re:Nice move

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Well, when the staplers start randomly putting staples through people's hands, the photocopiers suck people in and spit them out in neatly collated slices, and the filing cabinets show an alarming tendency to decapitate the temps ... it might be time to start looking for alternative brands.

oh you americans

[BortQ]

Now that it's becoming uncool to buy microsoft because of their egregious security (even though they are an american company) it's good to see that the US gov is turning to another american company to throw their moneys at.

Not that I blame them. One of the jobs of government is to promote local businesses. The US would do well to develop many different competing computer platforms, rather then have all their eggs in one (shoddy) basket.

I'm also pleased that some other governments (germany, some asian ones) are trying to do the same. Perhaps we may have a range of interoperating platforms after all!

Seems unlikely to me - probably a demo build

[Angostura]

Yes, Seems an extraordinary decision to me, if this is right. I suspect that something is being mis-reported here. What does Apple do when the Department of Whatever becomes a customer, patch the general distribution of Mac OS X? That sounds sensible, and scalable - not.

Surely Apple would be much more lilely to create a separate 'Government Edition installer' that wouldlet the customer define a logo for the start-up screen and a message etc.

I suspect this build has some demo code in it, or that someone is pulling someone's leg.

Bo$tich sucks!

[SYFer]

You obviously haven't used a Swingline 37860 Easy Touch. The Swinglines are so much more innovative than the Bostich and the designs are more elegant and forward-looking as well.

Most Bo$tich users bash Swinglines without ever having really used them beyond the ubiquitous consumer "Tot 50" model they had as a kid. Believe me, pro-level Swinglines can "ream-crunch" just as well as the Bostich line!

The old straw-man arguments over refill compatibility have long since been resolved and the myth that Swinglines cost more to buy and maintain was put to rest with the redesign of the famous 747 Business Stapler series.

When I was forced to use a "Bo$t-bitch" for my job, it jammed constantly--and always at the wrong time. My Swingline has been operating jam-free for 19 straight days (and I AM a pro user).

PS: Anyone hear about the possibility that SL might roll out a water-cooled electric at the Paris Office Machines Fair? That would blow the springs out of any current BS device!

Re:Bo$tich sucks!

[commodoresloat]

I don't know what's with you Swingline fanatics. I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Swingline 37860 Easy Touch trying to staple 17 pages together for the past twenty minutes....

ahh, forget it.

Re:Bo$tich sucks!

[Chaset]

This totally reminded me of a little cartoon I drew one time. I wish I'd kept it. It was a cover of a hypothetical "Stapler Monthly", with headlines such as "The New Swingline 447, is it Worth the Wait?", "Shootout: 20 latest Staple Removers Compared", "Stapling Tips: 20 do's and don'ts", "2003 Product Guide Issue"

The sutbtle point of the cartoon was that non-enthusiasts of any given topic will never understand the enthusiasts. (In this case, taken to the extreme with staplers.)

Finally, tax payers money go in to good use!

[Hackie_Chan]

Have you guys read the EULA you have to agree when installing Mac OS X? It says that you can't use it in anyway in connection to flight controls or nuclear facilities, or any form of weapon of mass destruction. So much for putting Macs in to the coolest agencies...

Seems to me that the reason why the Navy used Linux on their newly acquired Xserves were because they couldn't use Mac OS X without violating the contract!

Oh, but maybe you think this maybe be the reason to all this?

Or maybe it's because the government wants to become "hip" again? :)

Re:Nice move

[mkldev]

If you take my stapler, I'll burn the place down.

Apple in the Military

[TrippTDF]

iGrenade (shaped like everyone's favorite logo, in one of five fruity colors)

iMine (out of the box and into the ground in 10 minutes)

iTank (now with 40 GB hard drive to store 10,000 of your favorite songs while you drive around the desert and kill people)

The real reason?

[defunc]

What about it's good to have an ex VP on your board of directors to help you connect with the right people? Don't mean to minimize Apple's OS effort, but worth a thought...

Obvious /. answer

[AvantLegion]

Of course, "everyone" is saying that the desicion to standarize on Win2k is wrong because it ties you to a single software vendor (Microsoft). Wouldn't the adoption of Apple tie you down to a single software *and* hardware vendor?

But... but.... Apple, good!
Microsoft, bad!

Yes, but in a GOOD way!

[MarcQuadra]

Think of this:
Government chooses Apple, gets 'integrated' solution and support for hardware and software. No more 'ping pong' between hardware and software vendors.

Also, Apple is the 'little guy' in that situation, they would be able to focus on their biggest client's needs, while MS has to be everything to everyone. If Uncle Sam says 'Jump' Apple would ask 'how high?' while Microsoft says 'maybe later!'

Using the 'underdog' is often the best way to get top-notch service, I work for a small company contracting on Citizens Bank, we all absoultely bust ass to make 'big brother' happy, while our larger competition has much bigger things to worry about. Sure, Citizens pays a bit more for us, but the VALUE is much better.

GAAAH! I already debunked this crap twice...

[Anarchitect]

...both here and here .

C'mon people - a little Google can take you a long way.