Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Fed Goes Brand Neutral
Rollie Hawk writes "The White House and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) sent out notice this week that government purchases, including in IT, need to be open to many brand names. 'We are concerned the use of brand name specifications in agency solicitations may have increased significantly in recent years, particularly for information technology procurements,' according to the OMB. AMD is certainly happy with this news, having long complained of the unholy marriage between the Fed and Intel. Perhaps this will even open the way for Linux and other open-source options being chosen over Microsoft and the like. If this works out, it will lead to a better fiscal situation on many fronts. The increased competition will lower the cost to taxpayers (though the money will still get spent somewhere) and the wider spread of contracts will help competitors to chip away at the dominance of Microsoft and Intel."
How many people will now avoid the iPod since our commander-in-chief uses one. Of course, it's not like he picked it out or even filled the playlist himself, so I'm sure nobody would use that information when purchasing one. But that's my point. People don't make blind decisions just because a government agency likely made a blind decision before them.
Then again, people in Soviet Russia appear to be afflicted with amusing juxtapositions of the aforementioned situation.
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
Or maybe, instead of a fixed quota for each brand, they're buying only one brand now, because of some fancy cost-benefit analysis.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
Some government employees aren't the brightest when it comes to computing. I wonder what sort of problems having them learn to use linux would cause?
"The increased competition will lower the cost to taxpayers (though the money will still get spent somewhere)" So, the taxpayers never see a penny. How is this good news?
Perhaps this will even open the way for Linux and other open-source options being chosen over Microsoft and the like.
The government buys what its contractors tell it to. Thus, the only open source will get into the government is when the IBM's, EDS's and Oracle's of the world start pushing open source (or at least partial open source) solutions to the government. While there are many smart people in the government who like open source, they rarely make the spending decisions (and face it, MS and other proprietary vendors court the decision makers). The key is to raise awareness among the PHBs and to get the solution providers to push open source.
Not necessarily. As one familiar with public purchasing, to save a few $ some very crappy hardware (and software) have been purchased over the year. Sometimes these items are excessively buggy and shortlived, which means the entity goes shopping again before the anticipated lifespan of the items has been met. Sometimes the software is such crap that it takes more man-hours to get things done than with another package (seen happen over and over and over and over again...)
The increased competition will lower the cost to taxpayers (though the money will still get spent somewhere)
What you say? If it still gets spent then it did nothing for taxpayers.
and the wider spread of contracts will help competitors to chip away at the dominance of Microsoft and Intel."
But it will increase the need for contract management and oversight. Further, if you have one or a few vendors there's only so much opportunity for finger pointing when the fertilizer hits the impeller. Complexity may be good if you're looking for jobs to make X work with Y and/or Z, because it's your specialty, but it can be a nightmare for containing expenses.
While in general I think it's a good thing that there'll be more transparency in RFP's and RFQ's I'm too jaded to believe this is automatically all good.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
AMD: Armageddon Nuclear Devices.
I know that not being "brand name" as far as components go is a good thing, but if they keep buying Dell, this is nothing more than an empty promise.
Problems are like gifts, it's better to give than to receive
even open the way for Linux and other open-source options being chosen over Microsoft
...maybe they'll choose MacOSX I mean even according to Thurrott you'll see that Tiger is one impressive cat and besides, MacOSX is "slightly" more secure than Windows
I can see a $499 Mac Mini filling the needs of a lot of government agencies. And it's immunity to viruses and spyware is a big bonus.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
I'm all for the government opening up it's purchasing process in commodity markets such as PC purchases, but who is going to be making these decisions for the government? Consider this scenario:
Engineer: We need to purchase 2 Cisco 7206VXR routers for our internet T3s.
Procurement: I'm sorry, you can't specify the brand. I found this nice Linksys router for you. It's much cheaper.
Given the level of (in)compentancy in goverment offices, do you really think that the above scenario is so unlikely?
P.S. I'm aware that Cisco owns Linksys. That just adds to the irony IMHO.
My UID is the product of 2 primes.
If I recognize the brand, that means the company could afford advertising, which means the products are over priced.
Stick my percentage back in my Social Security account please.
I know what you're thinking. Did I forward 65,535 packets or 65,536 packets?
I knew holding my eMachine stock would pay off.
If you think
spent on something like..financing tax cuts.. ?
The Fed actually gives money back to the US Treasury because they make more money on interest on the US T-Bills they hold than is required to operate.
Really, I'm not trying to be clever with my signature.
because you can't afford one.
Sincerly,
The "You're Just Sore Because You Can't Afford One Troll"
The government is never going to help chip away at the Wintel dominance. Governments are about status quo and consolidating power. And those who are currently on top can pay to preserve their position long after the market might naturally.
Old spec:
Microsoft Word 2003
New spec:
Word processor which supports the following requirements:
{insert long list of specifications at least one of which is covered by a Microsoft patent}
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
As I understand it, the UK has a policy that specifically mentions Free Software and Open Source, saying that should be considered equally alongside other options. But years after this policy was put in place, I've actually heard of contractors who were *ideal* for a job being told that they said all the right things in their tender, "except for one word: 'Microsoft'". This, because they said that they were keeping abreast of Open Source technologies, since the government had a policy on it!
According to the article, the prohibition seems to be limited to specifying the brand in the procurement contract. Basically, this means that any business could submit to fufill the contract and that in doing so they would not be required to contract with any other specific business.
That said, as long as "office computer" means capable of dealing with the very latest proprietary formats in the Microsoft Office suite"...
Isn't it amazing what a waste of money our government is? No politician would ever consider actually NOT SPENDING money they don't need. Tax freedom day falls on April 17 this year (after which, proportionally, you will spend the rest of the year working for yourself rather than the government).
We went to war with Britain over 5% taxes. Today, we're practically a socialist country. Ever wonder why the IRS takes your money automatically and invisibly? We'd never support such ridiculous taxes if we had to send them a check every month.
Ok, sorry for the rant. I feel better now.
The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible: A Free Market Odyssey
How about just design ( and make available to the public ) a system design, right down to the components and open it up for bidding.
Forget choosing 'off the shelf' items and just specify EXACTALLY what is needed.
One standard system, across all levels of government. Share the production across several companies, no one gets 'preference'.
Start with open technologies like SPARC, and work from there.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The federal government is also considering purchasing from "Üb3r-1337 ch1pz", which is run out of a warehouse in Taiwan.
Do, do not, or delegate to someone else: there is no try.
Arrgh typos suck...
Wonder if they are already patented?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
followed by the word switch. I've got KVM switches at a couple of the computer stations in my house and love them. I don't multiple boot, I've got separate computers for the different OSes I use. They are very cost-effective. No need for multiple keyboards, mice and video monitors.
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
Not necessarily. As one familiar with public purchasing, to save a few $ some very crappy hardware (and software) have been purchased over the year. Sometimes these items are excessively buggy and shortlived, which means the entity goes shopping again before the anticipated lifespan of the items has been met. Sometimes the software is such crap that it takes more man-hours to get things done than with another package (seen happen over and over and over and over again...)
But it will increase the need for contract management and oversight. Further, if you have one or a few vendors there's only so much opportunity for finger pointing when the fertilizer hits the impeller. Complexity may be good if you're looking for jobs to make X work with Y and/or Z, because it's your specialty, but it can be a nightmare for containing expenses.
While in general I think it's a good thing that there'll be more transparency in RFP's and RFQ's I'm too jaded to believe this is automatically all good.
I couldn't agree more. Still, I think that enforcing these already extent regulations is a good thing.
I believe that the necessary follow-up would be for the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (executive branch) or perhaps even better, the US General Accounting Office (GAO) (legislative branch) to require that these fufillment contracts include specifications for interoperability, useable life and the like, including provisions for failure.
Who are you and what have you done with Dubya?!
"...having long complained of the unholy marriage between the Fed and Intel." ;)
Shhh. With the current administration, that's an "unholy civil union." And don't think you can just talk about it that way either. We'll not discuss how a federal institution and a chip maker are living in sin, thank you very much
Ignore the rantings above. Poster is an idiot.
Get rid of the free advertising Dell and Microsoft have had in schools for the last 5 years.......
I always wondered why the use of Linux in government was criticized. They claimed that it was a security threat to use an OS operating system since anybody could find the code online. But they never took into account that the government could change the code as much as they wanted to make it more secure, more efficient for their purposes, and even less compatible with other programs if they wanted. And since they wouldn't be marketing the changed versions, they wouldn't have to post or even announce them. Why would you want the government using an operating system whose code nobody is allowed to see? Isn't that more of a security risk?
Esoteric reference.
Am I the only one that sees this as possibly a bad thing?
I mean, sure, it's all fine and good to use an AMD cpu instead of an Intel...
...but the plain fact is that far too many OSS alternatives just don't interpolate well enough with proprietary applications. Take Microsoft Office as an example. OpenOffice is about the only real OSS alternative, and yet, there are far too many instances where OpenOffice cannot handle the way that MS-Office did something. In such instances, OpenOffice might crash... or worse, it might read the data incorrectly and the problem go unnoticed. If NASA can have space shuttles crash because they get confused dealing in both metric and english systems... what do you think the IRS will do when OpenOffice gets confused with Excel files and vice-versa...?
Alternatives are always good to have, and open source software is all well and good... but it's worth the money to purchase a mass MS-Office license if it will insure that important government agencies don't have issues working with each others' files.
Just my 2 cents worth. (actually, it's considerably more, seeing as how it's my tax dollars being thrown around)
/dev/random
George W. Bush, the President, uses a Macintosh. I saw it in an article at www.theonion.com and he was even writing a blog.
It was one of those old skool macs that look like a desk lamp. (so very old skool because Bush likes it that way!)
But let's take a look at Bush's blog.
Today the 5th, 2005.
Today I was writing on my imac. It is very cool to be able to not care about brands anymore. Macs have a great image because they are trendy and I'm hoping that if I have one then maybe I could make some friends on friendster or on craigslist who live in Brooklyn and ride fixed gear bicycles (or maybe even unicycles!! haha lol!). Anyway, one of the great things about this computer is it has a user interface, while on my other computer I had to type cd id then keen and then the game started up now all I have to do is click on the icon on my desktop (I really like this game called King's Quest 2--I will tell you about it in my next installment, as soon as I figure out how to get into Little Red Riding Hood's House).
Back to not being brand specific, though. It is really rad. I have a Mac, Cheney has a blackberry, rumsfeld has a palm pilot, Wolfowitz uses the palm zire 21 (totally rad--it looks kind of like an ipod). I just hope that mac doesn't stop using firewire because I REALLY LIKE IT! USB is for loserz like Kerry. Alright thanks for visiting my little corner of the internet check you later dudes
That would be "MOO-cular" (as opposed to nukuler) You miserbable shaved biped.
Faith: n. -- That human impulse that drives them to steal appliances when the power goes out
Microsoft might optimize for amd? Many AMD boxen Ive worked on always seeemed to have problems in windows that a intel box didn't. Not so much on XP except for gameplay. I don't blame amd's processors and chipsets I blame microsoft. A couple of ... Sometime back you had to turn a amd down to install windows, install a patch and turn your processor back up. I didn't blame AMD im sure without numerous bugfixs by microsoft intel boxes would have problems with windows. Offtopic my other main gripe with is that they will not sell the old OS on the cheap. They are missing out on big bucks by not dumping their old OS to the general public 6 months to a year before the new Fat Cow aka longhorn comes out.
Sorry for the rant but I reloaded 9 boxes today 9 spyware 8 XP home no service packs 1 repeat offender with XP home sp2 microsoft antispy and avg free think they get the big host file this time;)
"Then again, people in Soviet Russia appear to be afflicted with amusing juxtapositions of the aforementioned situation."
.sig. Nice.
Dude, I think you just found a new
Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
Whatever happened to the government requirement that systems and technology be POSIX compliant? I know I first was aware of that bent back in the early nineties, because that's when I went to work with Microsoft under the auspices of NT and its "POSIX compliance". It's also when I quit working for Microsoft when at the NT POSIX sub-system presentation (video-taped for posterity's sake) "Margaret" prefaced the presentation with the announcement (and I paraphrase), "Before we get started with the presentation, let me make clear that as far as Microsoft is concerned, we don't care about the POSIX sub-system, we don't intend to support it, and we don't intend to do anything with it in the future. It's simply a check box so we can get Government contracts."
I thought the move to POSIX compliant systems was a step in the right direction, and I'm not sure I've seen any news or publicity to the contrary. Guess something's changed...
For the record, a subsequent followup phone call to Larry Kroger at Microsoft confirmed the message in a strong way....
The problem is that technology changes, and the government is MASSIVE.
Add in standard comittee and govt beauracracy slowdowns, and you end up with a spec thats 2 years out of date by the time its finished.
And then you start all over.
Besides, what do you think will be cheaper, getting whatever consumer items fit your needs without specifying brands, or specifying custom hardware and not even getting a lowest bidder, but spreading it across several competing companies.
...on many mission critical systems. I happen to know the latest and greatest submarine Fire Control and Sonar systems run on Linux. I'd say about 90% of the stuff that runs Windows is non-mission critical. If the sub,s LAN goes down, sure it sucks, but no one is going to die as a direct result...at least not on a 688. If we lose Fire Control or Sonar, we're screwed.
I can say 100% firsthand that UNIX in government offices does not lower costs to taxpayers. In fact, it can (and has) multiplied them by a factor of up to 10. (that I have seen) Well-meaning unix admins convince directors to go over to things like unix, not realizing that there are a GREAT MANY users that do more on their computer than browse the web and write in word. Running terminal services is not always sufficient, and can be VERY expensive.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
what a novel fucking idea - what geniuses.
The thing is, they could have set up the tender and give contract to the lowest bidder. Or, like Dell, they could have said (each year) "Hey folks over at Intel, you're chargin' too much, we're gonna go AMD" and see a nice fat discount come in. Changing processors and hardware won't break much so these threats are realistic.
What? the Feds use Linux? Surely you jest sir. These bureaucrats are the same ones that allow Medicare to be billed $20 each for individual foil-sealed packages of aspirin. These people don't save money they spend your money for you in ways that even the most foolish American consumer would be hard pressed to emulate. Besides, who would want to use Linux when even Gartner says that Windows has a lower total cost of ownership and better performance than Linux *smirks*, and hey if Gartner says so then it must be true...sheesh.
The feds can spend tens of thousands on small projects...millions on bigger ones...and still consider it "department" expenses. Imagine what a $100k check would do for many OSS projects...but it's just another "notch" for the big guys. The govt is known for paying cash up front to help the "little guy" start up projects. a great many "meatspace" minority businesses are started that way. More than that govt gives credibility to the project. Imagine if you could simply get some govt agency to require Openoffice.org for their latest round of paperwork [don't worry about backward compatiblity...they really like making new paperwork!] It would be a logical step..as Openoffice is available on 3 platforms...and available for free! simply requiring people to use the format gets it out there.
The govt is the one entity that has vast sums of money available to new projects by fiat... They write huge checks, and affect a large number of people that have to "talk" to them. Being as M$ is a convicted "felon" it would be the least they could do to throw some projects to the little guys... like it's not fair M$ is a monopoly...but they continue to write them 1/2 Billion $$ checks!!!! Imagine that much money in the hands of RedHat, Suse, or even Debian & Ubuntu... It's a fraction of M$ budget, but 100's of times what most OSS companies would hope to see!
Today, we're practically a socialist country.
Either you have no idea what socialism means, or you're wilfully misusing the term.
The US is presently at the opposite pole from socialism, you'd do better to choose fascism (in the sense of govt being close to corporations) if you wish to exaggerate. Taxes are currently relatively low in the US. I still wouldn't want to live there though, because healthcare and education don't seem to be government priorities (relative to the UK for example). Military spending, in contrast, is at an all time high. Not all government is bad, contrary to received wisdom on this website.
I have destroyed several PS2 controllers. And while I have yet to break a keyboard, I have to admit pounding on them sometimes after (or rather during) some online gaming sessions...
Amazing how a dumb device can inspire such passion in the user.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
But this is the federal government we are talking about, not Bob who lives down the street. Unless you think the government has warehouses of keyboards, mice, and monitors laying around somewhere.
Take any corperation that's been around longer than a year or so - I can say for sure that they are indeed going to have essentially a warehouse filled with keyboard and mice. Why?
Because systems generally come with all pices (keyboard and mice too). But only the core system really breaks - thus leaving behind an abundance of keyboard and mice.
Now it's not quite the same for monitors, yet all companies I've worked for (large and small) seem to wind up with a lot of those too. Mostly smaller which is I think how that happens, as people get larger monitors the older ones just sit around. Sometimes if you're lucky and the place is small they have a "firesale" and you can get stuff cheap.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
He didn't choose the playlist, but there's only one mp3 on it anyway. It goes:
..." ..." ..." ..."
"Breathe in
"Breathe out
"Breathe in
"Breathe out
I hope they remembered to have it loop...
Some items not considered by the article:
Purchases under $2500 are done by credit card, not contract. This includes most pc's.
Govt. agencies have 'preferred' pc providers with streamlined purchasing procedures. If the provider doesn't carry AMD, you won't see much of it at the agency.
If the person requesting the contract wants AMD, they can specify it (either directly or indirectly). It is not difficult to 'effectively' sole-source a contract.
In a past life I worked for a data processing equipment manufacture. Our top of the line machine had a direct competitor. The competition sold their competing model for about 10% - 20% less then we sold ours.
In our office we had a salesman who sold to federal, state, city governments who had to deal with bidding. The law is that when bidding apples to apples the lowest bid must be taken. When the government makes a purchase, they write a request for bid, specify what they want, send it to all their suppliers and take the lowest bid amount.
He had an "in" with his accounts and they all wanted our machine over the competition. However, with the competition selling for less, legally they were bound to purchase the lower cost alternative.
The got around this in how they wrote the request for bid. They would take the manufacturing and option specifications for each machine and write the bid in such a way as to include items that only our equipment had.
This could be a simple as including a second power switch that we had but the competition didn't have. I.E. Must be able to turn on/off equipment from either the front or rear. They would load the request for bid with such items so that the competition would not be able to quote apples to apples.
When the bids returned, even though the competition was a lower cost, they could reject the bid because it did not include all the specifications listed. They could then purchase our machine even though it more expensive.
The difference between the two machines were like Toyota vs. Honda. Both equally able to do the job. Strictly speaking, they should have taken the lower cost of the two. But when they had a preference they just worked around the bidding laws. It was common practice and common knowledge and that was 15 years ago.
It's an egregiously bad idea for governments, operating with public funds in the public trust, to allow themselves to get locked into any proprietary data format.
I absolutely agree with your statement and do believe that governments should not just support free and open standards but should mandate them. In other words, if the government wants a private sector entity to build software and hardware for them, such projects should promote the creation and maintenance of free and open standards. (Don't ask me what to do about classified data and hardware projects.)
But something I've been thinking about lately is how it would take all of maybe 5 minutes for the US government to force a US company to open its IP if, say, national interests depended on it.
I'm thinking maybe, just maybe, this is one reason US legislators have not concerned themselves much with the excellent rationale for open source software and open standards. As long as the money is flowing, so does the licensed IP. Once that flow is in danger, expect Congress to break out their IP hammers.
To return to this post's subject line, what Microsoft learned despite only having its wrists slapped is that the US government, had it really need to, could have cleft Microsoft into half a dozen parts, forcing the resulting companies to either license the IP to which they once had unfettered access or to open that IP in order just to survive.
blog
What are you talking about? The taxpayer will hopefully see better, faster service. What else would you expect? That this decision will some how mean that the government will start sending you checks because they can now consider AMD chip sets?!?
Bark less. Wag more.
http://www.egovos.org/rawmedia_repository/822a91d2 _fc51_4e6e_8120_1c2d4d88fa06?/document.pdf
is just one thing..there are many to google your eyes about. Look before you cross the street!
A system has to provide something like 22 system calls to be POSIX compliant. But you can't construct anything but the most basic program using POSIX calls only. So POSIX is pointless. It didn't mean even source could be ported to a platform, let alone binaries.
I'm a sysad for a DOD simulation center, and unless the application requires Windows (ie, Active Directory domain, certain simulations, etc...), by choice we (sysadmins and network engineers) run Linux (RHEL) as the first choice, Solaris as the second. Approximately 95% of what I work on day-to-day is Linux, a few of our core servers for various reasons are Solaris. We're talking hundreds of clients and dozens of servers, and that is only for my contract, we're not talking about building infrastructre where the core stuff (Oracle, DNS, Web, File Server, etc...) is Solaris or Linux.
Here is a small list of military systems that I have worked with that are linux based:
JCATS (Joint Confilct and Tactical Simulation)
JTLS (Joint Theatre Level Simulation)
CBS (Corps Battle Simulation)
AWSIM (Air Warfare SIMulation)
GIAC (Graphical Input and Aggregate Control)
ADSI (Air Defense Systems Integrator)
MTWS (Marine Tactical Warfare Simulation)
JSAF (Joint Semi-Automated Forces)
Unfortunately, the PC's on our desks are admin'd by a different section so we can't run linux on them.
"Get a bicycle. You will not regret it, if you live." - Mark Twain, "Taming the Bicycle"
here's a fun thing to do on a slow saturday (like today):
1) find a copy of the communist manifesto, scroll down until you reach the ordered list of tasks to accomplish.
2) find a summary of the accomplishments of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "New Deal".
3) compare and contrast.
the united states is more democratic and socialist than you would think.
That's why Dell doesn't use AMD. They have enough buying power to dictate pricing if they can put Intel and AMD against each other and then go with just one vendor who offers the lowest price. Next year they can lower their price even more by threatening the vendor to go to the other one.
democratic and socialist
Democratic; definitely, Socialist; not remotely (not that I view socialism as a panacea).
Communist manifesto... New Deal
That's a fun comparison, but the communist manifestos claims were made in the midst of the industrial revolution, almost 2 centuries ago, when child labour was common and workers lives and health were disregarded. It's not surprising they'd focus on egregious abuses that today we find abhorrent. I'm sure Marx and Engels would have a few things to say about current Western conditions - though perhaps they'd focus more on the export of our wage-labour to other countries (Mexico, China etc) than conditions at home. Our current economies in the west depend on conditions elsewhere after all.
The New Deal is no longer in force in the States, though many of the advantages remain (though far less so than in many EU countries).
Public works programmes are anathema to the current US administration (unless they happen to be military ones it seems). They are talking about undoing the public pensions part of the New Deal in the new term. I wouldn't call any of their ambitions, aspirations or achievements socialist - by any stretch of the imagination. To say that the US is therefore socialist is really disingenuous at present.
Confusing socialist with liberal with communist does nothing but muddy debate and leaves us using labels and accusations (like those in the grandparent's post).
And when was the last time you read that ingredients list?
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.