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?"

Comments

Re:WTF?

[Coryoth]

It's worth noting that massive amount of Air Force computing needs are not "critical shit". There are an awful lot of desktop machines running basic office apps to fill in reports in triplicate, make requisititons, do accounting, and all the other "needs" of any bureaucratic system.

That such problems can't be readily addressed by a nice locked down desktop distro (anything from Novell desktop 9 to Sun's Java Desktop) using OpenOffice and the like, well that's certainly up for debate. When the claim to be fed up with MS it is a little odd that they didn't even bother to evaluate the competition.

For all those out there who will say "But Linux isn't good enough on the desktop", or "OpenOffice is no replacement for MS Office", I would point out that both Linux and OpenOffice can be perfectly serviceable in some situations; Why didn't the Air Force at least evaluate these products to see if their situation was one in which they would work?

Jedidiah.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, it's highly doubtful they are starting with no desktop computing infrastructure. If they have any inhouse applicaitons that run on Windows, that pretty much puts the ball in Microsoft's court.

Second, I imagine that such decisionmaking processes take years to complete. If they started in 2001, those fairly recent Linux desktop distros were not available. Face it, Desktop Linux faces a long long haul among large shops, and hasn't proven shit yet.

Finally, the AirForce is doing exactly what 99% of corporate America has done -- standardize on Windows desktops. I'm always puzzled why slashdot feels that government should lead the way with speculative IT projects. It makes more sense to save the taxpayer's money and stick with the known factor.

Re:What's wrong with OS X?

[sdmacguru]

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.
One, the FBI does use Mac OS X. The article referenced by the GP is at http://www.securityfocus.com/cgi-bin/sfonline/colu 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.
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.