Slashdot Mirror
Air Force Orders Up A Custom Windows Monoculture
Soulfader writes "It seems that the Air Force has not learned from the Navy's folly in single-source mammoth contracts and their attendant problems, and is now working on something similar with Dell and Microsoft. Particularly interesting is the article's assertion that the Air Force is 'fed up' with Microsoft OS problems--but not enough to switch to something else. Instead, they're going to be getting a custom 'solution' of Windows products specially configured for their use. Is this the ever-hoped-for 'good' version of Windows, or more along the line of the sucks-in-new-and-interesting-ways version of Highlander II?"
When will these people learn not to trust MS products for critical systems? I'm really not trying to play the "Linux Zealot" here, but damn...
Let's start using something stable for critical shit, shall we?
Doesn't say much for Air Force Procurement. I wonder (silently to myself) how much money changed hands and who was promised what job at Microsoft when he/she retires from the Air Force.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
This confirms to me that the US will be behind the world in a few decades. I am also very sure that portions of this custom Windows will be outsourced. The Russians will get some insight to what runs the so called "greatest military machinery" in the world.
Question is: Why are the American bureucrats making mistakes such as these?
Short answer: Some official's hands must have been greased for this deal to get a "seal of approval."
Before Slashdotters mode me unfairly, I'd like to mention that it has always been the case that whenever obvious mistakes have been made, one's hands have always been found as having been greased. Numerous inquiries have shown this.
I hope that this "extra security" means that they'll remove some of the cruft that Windows has (such as Internet Exploder, LookOut! Express, and Media Player), and focus their energy on things that would make Windows have some respectable form of security (such as a decent firewall and better user/admin. handling).
Widely used, mission-essential, net-centric software will be managed and supported with disciplines similar to those used with weapon systems.
Does anyone have an English translation available?
Slashdot: News for Nerds, Stuff that matters only to them
"The Linux community likes to hide behind the mantra of free and open software for all and as such has the twisted mindset that all software should be free for everyone. This should come as no surprise seeing that the Linux community seems to take pride in stealing anything they can get their hands on and breaking laws designed to protect IP at the same time." Linux is flat out a great OS, one that is truly customizable and flexable. And Open Source Software isn't just great because it's free - but it's great because there are more and more people every day with an interest in actually making it better. For example - MOZILLA. I don't mind paying for good software. What I am tired of doing is paying so much for hyped software only to discover it is crap wrapped in a bow. Linux on the other hand has beyond what XP can do... The latest Distros out there are so good, and so easy to use... and OO.o has become so much better, there really is no reason at all to have to pay such inflated prices for Microsoft's crap. I admire what Bill Gates was able to do with his little company and little actual tallent... but that doesn't mean I have to buy his crap. The only good product MS has made is Flight Simulator, and Combat Flight Simulator. But my god do they have a vanilla name. It's like Ford coming out with a new 2005 Model "Car".
MadOgre.com
It's not about the stuff you install, it's about the stuff that others install for you.
Include links to IE and Outlook exploits here.
bash$
More importantly, what's wrong with a mixed shop based on requirements of the tasks. What's wrong with running Sun for your mission critical servers, NetBSD for your web and mail servers, OS X for basic business/management desktops, Linux for developer and research desktops etc. All of those will play together quite happily. It's only when you try to throw MS Windows into a heterogeneous mix that things start having issues.
Throw out Windows, and everyone else will play nice together. Seems pretty obvious as to who should go in any hetrogeneous environment.
Jedidiah
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
He probably has faulty hardware. And he keeps getting spyware because he's fucking retarded, not because Windows magically lets the spyware in.
Worse, the sheer size of the NMCI contract pretty much precludes anyone but EDS from handling it. So what happens if their service levels suck? Or they go bankrupt from trying to juggle changeover?
Bill Gates could take a dump in a box and label it "Microsoft Windows SE (Shit Edition) 2005" and people would line up in droves to buy it. As long as an operating system has "Microsoft Windows" in the name, people will believe that they have to run it-- that if they don't, the world will end, or their computer will blow up, or they'll be confronted with an 80x25 greenscreen full of text, or something...
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
Well for one thing, they don't need to replace all of their hardware in order to run their "new and improved" Windows. It can run on the same PCs they already have.
Moving to OS X would not only include the cost of the software licenses. They would also have to buy an assload of Apple hardware.
Anyway, I can't really see some serious military type sitting in front of his cute new iMac. Maybe a G5. Also they would need a "military-style" Aqua without so many colors and cuteness. To be honest I would probably like that too.
I love my ibook but I hate the way it looks. Too...white. They got it right with the powerbook, but while the ibook is a nice piece of hardware it's pretty ugly. I could go with a nice black or slate grey. And a more "business" looking Aqua. It's too bubbly looking and cutesy.
But the most important part is how it *works* so I can look past the Mac-look.
Anyway my bash prompt is always at my side, pure utility in a world of fluff!
hmm. don't know how this turned into an Apple design rant, but whatever...
Either way the Air Force seems to be making a completely boneheaded decision. Let's see...We have tons of security problems with Microsoft software. I got it! Let's get them to make us more software! They've got to get it right THIS time! Right?
Because if you run a base, you'll have systems on said base. When said base is assaulted, you may lose people. When you lose your Sun guy to an IED who's going to run your mission critical servers at the forward deploy bases?
Maybe not the actual answers, but a good try - here goes:
So the question to anyone out there is "Why would the admirals think it's a success?".
Is some group of people in the Navy actually better off now that NMCI is here?
Yes, those who put NMCI implementation bullets into their FITREPS, much like those who benefitted from the TQL bullets during the TQL fiasco.
Is NMCI meeting some special need the Admiral has?
Yes, the ability to put IT infrastructure upgrade management bullets into his future resume.
Why didn't the Air Force at least evaluate these products to see if their situation was one in which they would work?
two words: intense lobbying.
There is also the little fact for the price of one Apple I can get three windows machines which is the real reason why the military won't consider it. The specialized security guys in the FBI or the military may have enough budget and justification to buy these toys, but jo blow slob is going for bottom dollar.
Besides the only reason OSX is "secure" is it's the littlest fish in the pond. Virus writing is a numbers game. What would you want to do, write a piece of code with the opportunity to infect dozens of machines or one that could infect hundreds of thousands? I assure you if Max ever managed to claw above their misserable market share then they'd see their fair share of viruses, same goes for Linux.
You can't tell me an organization that will spend $20,000 for a toilet seat will care about the price difference between macs and PCs. Seriously.
Well NMCI (the Navy/Marine Corps Internet) boondoggle awarded to EDS is a disaster for both the Navy and EDS. NAVSUP and SPAWAR, which I have contacts in are both furious at EDS and the needlessly restrictive policies that require them to use outdated (and vulnerable) software. For example, of the three mobile devices available on CLIN 0023, one of them is a Palm 3xe. Another is the Palm M505. They're livid they can't deploy anything remotely useful because they're limited to hardware that was obsolete three years ago.
But EDS isn't faring too well on this. You'd think that $60/month for every network connection, without any OS support or server storage would be a cash bonanza, but somehow EDS has managed to screw this up and is actually losing money on the contract. Yep, that's right -- being an ISP charging double what AOL charges for internet access for a million or so customers, and they're losing money. They've proven unable to manage the contract and had to bring in subcontractors charging rates far above what they can recover from the Navy. It's a complete mess that noone these days bothers to defend.
Now USAF has uniquely been able to keep it's head out of it's butt on a lot of IT stuff, and I can't believe they're going to go this route (presumably on the NETCENTS contract). I can imagine a few people at some of the NETCENTS awardees (as well as a lot of USAF IT guys and gals) would be mighty unhappy if this came to pass, so given the history of NMCI and the traditional buck-the-trend attitude of the USAF, don't think for a moment that this will be as bad as you think.
I understand your reasoning there, and it makes a certain sense, the part your missing is that any organization that spends $20,000 on a toilet doesn't HAVE much in the way of sense. So expecting them to do something that makes sense is, well, non-sensical.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
I have had the opportunity to work on some of the AF's critical applications. They all run on Sunfires running Solaris. Windows is for the desktop, unix is for the servers. The only exceptions I've seen are the Exchange servers and the domain controllers. The whole reason for going with MS for the desktops, as explained to me, is that the cost of supporting and training the unwashed masses how to use *nix shifts the TCO so far that windows turns out cheeper. Also, the AF can bulk buy PCs at rock bottom prices with windows preloaded, which turns out to be cheeper than getting custom machines with linux. Here is a link to where the AF is going on the server end: http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2003/08/0308 acton.html
I think this post is borderline trolling, but I can't be sure. In case it isn't, I wanted to pipe in with some counter-points.u mnists-item.pl?id=215. It is anecdotal, but unsurprisingly, the FBI doesn't seem to publish an official document detailing which OS's they operate and in what numbers.
One, the FBI does use Mac OS X. The article referenced by the GP is at http://www.securityfocus.com/cgi-bin/sfonline/col
Two, it doesn't matter how many el-cheapo Intel boxes you can get at Fry's from the bargain bin: what matters is how many can an institutional buyer like the Air Force get. Yeah, I think they can get a pretty good price on Macintoshes by agreeing to buy truckloads of them.
Three, the initial cost is far from the largest factor in the lifetime cost of a PC to the military. Focusing on purchase cost of a commodity good is really a case of diminishing returns. TCO is the place you want to focus.
Four, to get that large a price-differential on initial cost, you must be comparing bargain bin boxes with a Mac, or a 'typical' Dell box with the absolute highest-end Mac workstation possible. If you go apples-to-apples, feature-to-feature, you find that the price differntial between a Mac suitable for general purpose computing (iMac) and an Intel-based box from a major vendor like Dell or HP to be very small, under %10, plus/minus %15. Yeah, sometimes the Mac is cheaper.
Five, that security dig at the end of your post really sets the troll-tone for the whole message. Market share isn't installed base, please go do some research on that point. It is one of the most commonly misconstrued pieces of data that appears in technical columns. Security isn't synonymous with a lack of viruses, either, it goes well beyond that.
Lastly, cost, security and viruses are all tangential to the main question: which platform is going to actually perform with the necessary functionality, with the necessary uptime and meeting all other requirements? It may not be Mac OS X, but I really doubt its going to be Windows.
You know, I'm reading your message again, and now I'm sure: IHBT. You aren't advocating anything in your post and don't have any references to back up anything you do say. You assure us that Max (sic) would have their fair share of viruses if they had a larger market share, by which I must assume you mean installed base, but without any evidence to support the assurance. Has there been even a proof-of-concept virus for OS X? Not root kits, and not some kind of honor system virus ('Please email this shell script to all your friends and ask them to run it as root. Thank you!'), but an actual auto-execute and auto-propogate virus?
No.
Could it happen? You betcha, but the fact that it hasn't after this many years tells me that it is far from easy.
I'll assure you of this: so long as Windows is so easy to target with viruses that kids in VB classes do it for class projects, there won't be a virus issue on Mac OS X or Linux. Why would there be, when there is such a susceptible population of machines available? Even when Windows installed base drops to 30%, it will still have the majority of viruses. Why? Because its just too damn easy.
Stick that in your troll-pipe and smoke it.
If I had some ham, I'd make a ham sandwich, if I had some bread
The objects you would need to control to take over the system are kernel objects which IE plays no part in managing.
Since the Win32 server moved into kernel mode (in NT4), it has its own system function table, and none of those functions are a part of IE either.
Show me ONE malware program that can install itself for all users when only a normal user runs it.
Unfortunately, Joe User already runs a mail server because his box was owned by a spammer.
English is easier said than done.
I just got out of the AF after 8 years of Avionics maintenance, and this is actually what the Air Force needs. For about the year or so before I got out, they bought an INSANE amount of Dell systems. We were running PII 350s, and 450s through 2001 or 2002 (If you were an officer, you were lucky, and had a 1.5Ghz system, but not us enlisted folks). Talk about frustrating... There is actually a lot more computer work done that just the accounting and forms that you think... everything from documentation of maintenance actions to a database, to doing the usual forms, troop performance reports, etc. Anyways, the AF has a HORRIBLE track record with software. They changed the personnel information system to a new, fangle-dangle thing, hailing it as a new wave. Unfortunately, by the time it was implemented, it was outdated, and never tested. Troops spent anywhere from 6 months to a year and a half getting paid at a lower rate, because the system wouldn't register their promotions (just one example of the poor quality of this system). If you had ever worked around the AF 'Small Computers' shop, you would know that they CANNOT handle Linux, or anything other than Windows. These people are MORONS. It got to the point that when one of my workcenter's 6 systems failed, I ended up formatting it and reinstalling Win because when the system was unrecoverable, they would rather spend 5 days running Norton AV than spending 1 hour reinstalling the OS. They always thought a virus was involved for some reason (that tells you about the quality and security of the networks, I suppose). In any case, I witnessed the incompetence first-hand, and think that, although Win sucks, the AF can't handle anything less user-friendly.
Throw out Windows, and everyone else will play nice together. Seems pretty obvious as to who should go in any hetrogeneous environment.
Yes, it's pretty obvious. And obviously, for lots of IT people, heterogenous environment means Win2K, WinXP, WinNT, WinME.
It's only when you try to throw MS Windows into a heterogeneous mix that things start having issues.
Ka-ching! That is job security for you.
Starting price for a PC desktop: $499
This is an old and tired argument. There is no way you can find a Mac laptop or desktop that *starts* at a price as low as that offered by Dell or some other PC vendor. That's because Apple is not willing to drop below a certain quality point with their hardware.
As you move up the ladder in performance, you'll find plenty of high-end laptops and desktops that exceed their Mac counterparts in price.
Expense also includes a wide variety of other factors, including necessity for hardware and software support, ease and speed of peripheral deployment, time (and money) spent dealing with security and malware issues, and so on.
Comparing a bottom of the barrel PC with the lowest-priced Mac is like comparing a Dell Inspiron to an Alienware Area 51 machine.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
The government should standardize on an Open format for all of the documents.
Then, any company can build a word processor that handles that format.
Only then can the best "tool" be chosen for the job.
Otherwise, if MS Word doesn't have the capabilities you need, you don't have any options because you've locked yourself into a proprietary format.