Slashdot Mirror
FAA May Ditch Vista For Linux
An anonymous reader writes "Another straw in the wind: following last week's news that the US Department of Transportation is putting a halt on upgrades to Windows Vista, Office 2007, and Internet Explorer 7, today comes word that the Federal Aviation Administration may ditch Vista and Office in favor of Google's new online business applications running on Linux-based hardware. (The FAA is part of the DOT.) The FAA's CIO David Bowen told InformationWeek he's taking a close look at the Premier Edition of Google Apps as he mulls replacements for the agency's Windows XP-based desktop computers. Bowen cited several reasons why he finds Google Apps attractive. 'From a security and management standpoint that would have some advantages,' he said."
this isnt going to happen tomorrow, or next week, or next month. training staff to use an entirly new system takes a lot of time and money. i will be supprised if we see this take effect before this time next year
portfolio
They need to bundle that up in a appliance so they can sell it to enterprises that do not wish to
store their data out of house.
Got Code?
From the article: If Microsoft can satisfy his concerns over compatibility with the agency's existing applications and demonstrate why such a move would make financial sense given Google Apps's low price
Sound familiar? It seems like the tried-and-true tactic of publicly looking into Linux so Microsoft will rush in and offer support and discounts. Hopefully, they are seriously considering Linux regardless.
But the article fails to mention why the XP systems need replacement. Any organization as conservative as the FAA no doubt waited a year or two before rolling out XP, so even the earlier systems are only a few years old, and probably far from slouches. Why does the release of Vista necessitate an upgrade, especially if you aren't going to be upgrading to Vista?
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
1. Some CIO flirts with the idea of migrating to a different platform in order to get a better deal on licenses.
2. Vendor with monopoly rushes in with truckloads of licenses at "discount rates" to secure their position.
3. CIO returns with whitepaper indicating a TCO in favor of monopoly.
4. ???
If the "ditch" occurs, then that would be news.
You can't outsource security [e.g. oh look google is so much better at keeping our documents secure] any more than you can outsource responsibility. Why isn't this guy simply looking at Open Office, or hell the other free tools like AbiWord, Gnumeric, etc.
Ah, to be ignorant of technology, but rife with enough buzzwords to be dangerous.
Not only are the google versions of the tools not nearly feature complete, but they're over the internet. Thus guaranteed to be sucktastically slow (especially when a lot of people use it) and very likely insecure in the end (hint: gmail has already had a few goofs). I'm all for ditching Windows, but using online office tools is just short sighted. Within a year or two of the switch they'll be climbing back into bed with MS Office [no doubt].
Also, if you're just going to use AJAX based web tools, what does it matter what OS you run?
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Bowen cited several reasons why he finds Google Apps attractive. 'From a security and management standpoint that would have some advantages,' he said."
What about openoffice.org surely its more secure than an internet app.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
Fast internet access for business customers is still somewhat expensive. Connecting to your own server in-house with a fast LAN will be cheaper in many cases.
C - the footgun of programming languages
Your whining sounds exactly like all the seamstresses who were replaced by looms, all the assembly line workers who were replaced by machines, all the telephone operators who were replaced by automated switching, all the freight train job losses due to the advent of the superhighway and freight trucks, etc. Changes happen. Get used to it.
I'd like to believe such a thing is being seriously considered but it's probably just the same-ole same-ole. Some poor MS salesdroid is going to be thwacked bloody until he comes across with big discounts and free consulting services and training for a Vista deployment. Still Linux has to be a least a credible threat for that to work. I wonder how many Aerons have come to a splintery end because of Linux induced discounting.
The guy is just trying to get his MS license costs down - sensible enough.
Whats the betting that after his Microsoft trip they will come up with a vastly reduced price?
At least with Microsoft Products i can still sell my services, support, licensing, hardware and services.
Boo-fucking-hoo. That proves that not everything that is good for the customer is good for you. Let the old business model die, long live new business model.
In the meantime, Free Software and co. will continue as if nothing had changed, their product continues free, revenue (for whoever is aiming for it) continues coming from the same sources.
We're talking about US Government documents being stored on non-government servers. First, I'd be really surprised if something like that was even legal. Second, I have real issues even if it IS legal.
.txt or .pdf that's emailed around (probably using google servers again, so it's moot).
If the "ditch" office/windows they're going to have to use GMail for ALL DOCUMENTS. Anything else would have to be like
Furthermore, tell me this slashdot: Why is it better to be locked-in to Googles proprietary software instead of Microsofts?
As others have said, this would only be a good idea, IMO, as a "GApps Appliance" that can be properly audited and approved by US Government security experts.
Fantastic, lets worship another "overlord" and move everything we do to a REAL "black-box" company.
I have to admit, this is what scares me.
Look, like most slashdotters, I want to believe in the 'do no evil' thing, and you know, when it comes to the intentions of Larry and Sergey, I do believe it. Everything I have seen of those two guys suggests to me that they are geeks first and billionaire capitalists second, I am just afraid that there is an element of 'Frankenstein's monster' in the whole Google phenomenon.
There are people out there (and lots of them) that would literally kill to control the kind of wealth and power that google has amassed. It would not be completely ludicrous to suggest that Google is currently the most powerful organisation on the planet. Google results can make or break companies and build/ruin reputations and with the Google apps model we are poised to hand over a lot more. That information will be around for a long time, it will probably outlive us all. It isn't going to bio-degrade, it isn't going to self-destruct.
It's too much trust. There are things I might put into a document or spreadsheet that I would not be comfortable discussing with my close family. There are things I do at work that I am not even allowed to discuss with my wife. Yet, we are expected to hand them over to google on the basis of the 'do no evil' promise (which as we have seen is impossible to keep regardless of how well intended). Right now I would rely on security through obscurity. I am a relatively obscure individual, it is unlikely anyone (beyond a small group of competitors and friend/family) would be interested in what I write in my documents, but what about if someday I want to become less obscure? Go into politics or a similar type of public life... then there will be more interest, and it will all be sitting right there.
I guess what I am saying is that it is important to bear in mind that it was Sergey and Larry that promised 'do no evil' not 'Google'. Google doesn't have a conscious, it doesn't care about good vs evil, even human's struggle to make that distinction. We are talking about handing over data that will outlive the founders, and will outlive the promise. I am the only one who is nervous about that??
The problem is that even at $75 for Vista and Office 2007 combined, the problems still don't go away. WinXP with Office 2003 was also overpriced, but at least it worked reasonably well.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
I've tried them (Google apps). The web based word processor is roughly identical to wordpad (free with Windows), or the text editor with OSX. This is a MASSIVE reduction in functionality compared to word or open office. I do not understand how this web based word processor can be used for anything more complicated than a simple memo. I suspect that if you put down any user remotly farmiliar with MS-Office and force them to use Google apps, there will be some serious revolt. Put them behind Open Office, which may be somewhat different than MS Office, but HAS SIMILAR CAPABILITIES, that user will learn to use it with possibly minimal rumblings. What is wrong with Open Office? Why would anyone choose Google apps which have I estimate 5% of the functionality of Open Office ??? So, IMO, any web based attempt at anything as remotely complex as a office suite is going to suck so freaking hard compared to a desktop application, no mater what the platform be it Linux, OSX or Windows.
If I had to leave important FAA information on a server, I'd feel safer with Google than from either the lowest bidding or highest bribing IT company for the FAA.
What does google have to do with free software?
...
Summer of Code, contributions to Wine, Firefox money
My question is a serious question. Even though you may hate Microsoft, it created jobs.
And so did wars, look at the amount of jobs in the Military Industrial Complex. You may want to take a look at the parable of the Broken Window. It explains how eventual positive consequences of negative acts shouldn't be used to justify them.
That is something i seriously question and find it terribly ironic you chose not to answer and throw around you illogical praise for free software as if its the magical dust that will save your future.
Small Business USA will adapt to the new reality. Many companies will die, others will spring. Possibly, the ones that mimic Google business model (Free (as in beer or as in speech, it depends) Software, Paid Services) will have more chance that the ones what follow Microsoft strategy (Software lock-in, extend, embrace, extinguish). Time will tell.
Security is NOT one of the things I'd be claiming, using a third party to provide my app
functionality by remote. If I were the person in charge, I'd probably nix this one about
as fast as the DOT did Vista and Office 2007. Simply put, you can't guarantee anything
about information leakage, snooping, and so forth with this model.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Google Apps, the way they're doing it, can't be assured to be secure. It's a nifty idea, but
unless you LIKE the idea of a potential information leak (including business critical and identity
type information...), you probably don't want to be using their service unless you've no other
choice.
An Apps appliance probably would be a way around this problem. Buy one like you buy some of their
search engine cluster as an appliance for indexing your intranet and exposed Internet presence-
that way you get the security and control you need (Though make no mistake, while it is more secure
than what the FAA is now proposing, it's not as secure as OO.org would be on a desktop...)
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
How is the parent post a troll?
I think that's the idea.
It's sort of like a company getting rid of its security force, armory, strong room and safe, and putting all its money in a bank. Wow, what a novel concept!
training staff to use an entirely new system takes a lot of time and money.
Technical similarities to XP aside, Vista basically IS an "entirely new system" as well, from an end-user and administrative perspective. The UI has been messed with. Security, right from the user prompts down to alterations in driver architecture, has been altered significantly. Applications released roughly in conjunction with Vista (IE7 and Office 2007) have significant changes (new XML file formats in office, more strict compliance with XHTML and CSS in IE7...). Compounding that the benefits to business are minimal compared to XP in its current state. The business case to upgrade vs migrate is less convincing than ever before.
It is nearly that case with my employer as well--we almost might as well move to macs or Linux vs. XP--the impact of Vista on the enterprise thereis nearly that big. Almost all of the intranet apps are designed and tested against IE6. Running them on Firefox is glitchy but it works, but using IE7 often completely BREAKS the app. Over three quarters of the products we sell will not function under Vista and never will ("next generation" replacements are being developed for release over the next couple of years). Fully half of the hardware we have is not "Vista capable". We have XP and it (mostly) works (good enough anyways). Why risk breaking what is essentially unbroken? Do we really need eye candy? We are already firewalled and antivirused to high heaven so is there any REAL benefit to Vista's largely unproven security enhancements? Which brings up the fact that our corporate antivirus stuff apparently breaks in Vista...
FAA's serious consideration of Google's apps really looks VERY compelling and makes a lot of sense, even if adoption would be over a couple of years. The architecture of Linux is more proven and more secure by far than Windows XP OR Vista. The price per client is significantly less. Google's application-server-thin-client model is much less burdensome. Open and Free systems have much better "real" support (MS makes the argument that closed software gets better support because it is backed by a big, rich vendor but I think most people in the know realise that in practice thereis WAY MORE help and support for Linux because of backing by many vendors and a huge developer community, whereas only MS can offer certain levelsof support).
I do thing that Vista is STILL very much on the FAA's horizon though. Government agencies as well as big corporations are coming under more scrutiny and are being more compelled to do due diligence and put as much up for competitive bid as possible--and get the best deal possible. MS' standard prices and offerings are VERY FAR from competitive since they've gone a long time without competing. Governmental agencies around the world are, as often as not, playing low cost Linux-based alternatives against Microsoft to "force Bill's hand" as it were. Even if Google's software suite falls short of requirements in the end, the FAA could very likely get a special sub-$100-per-user offer from Microsoft for Office upgrades.
I'd hate to seeit turnout that way, but anything that cuts down MS (either inmarket share or insane profit margins) is good in my book.
Why does everyone assume that all of the documents will be stored on a google server? If this is a service that you pay for then perhaps google will give companies the option of hosting their own google apps server.
"Some of the worst mistakes in my life have been haircuts." - Jim Morrison
That said, I don't think the transition to Google Apps on Linux would be any more painful than the transition to Vista running Office.
I don't know about that. This is the same Google Apps that many users got locked out of a couple weeks ago. Putting your productivity apps on someone else's servers just isn't a good idea. OpenOffice would probably be a much more prudent move.
As far as Office, OOo has a UI that is much closer to that of old MS Office than to Office 2K7. Very little moves going from old Office to OOo. Everything's weird in 2K7. Oh, and Google's web toolkit is Java-based, so if their apps are based on the web toolkit, then yes, they're platform independent thanks to java
look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
There would, however, be traing for IT and support people.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I'm pretty sure that with the Professional version of the Google Applications, they install a server on your premises and it is managed by your IT staff.
Same with thier GMail service at your domain.... they supply the server and software, you just pay them somehow.
Putting your productivity apps on someone else's server is actually a great idea. You have no software licensing cost ($300-$400 per copy of Office 2007).
You don't have any with OpenOffice either, which was what my suggestion was for.
There are little to no rollout or upgrade costs with a hosted app (someone actually has to INSTALL Office on all of the machines).
If you have a decent administrator, those should be rolled out smoothly over the network to your machines, so the overhead for that is fairly low.
You don't have to worry about patches, upgrades, backups or security
Oh yes you do. You have to worry that the 3rd party company is backing things up. If they screw up, it's your documents that are toast. Those documents mean a lot more to your company than they do to the 3rd party. You have to worry about patches as well, because if they have bugs those are going to get you. And you most certainly have to worry about security. You can't do much about it yourself of course becase it's now totally out of your control, but you have to worry that the 3rd party *IS* doing it right. Especially when all your documents are potentially open to the world through the internet if they get it wrong.
and a hosted application is going to be down a lot less than the collective crashes of Word, Excel, Outlook and PowerPoint across all of your machines.
If Bob's copy of Excel is crashing for some unknown reason, he can go to the cubical next door and ask Fred to look something up. If the hosted 3rd party web app is down. It's down. Everyone at your company is now going to sit around with his thumb up his bum until it comes back online.
The problem with Google Apps is functionality and offline use.
The *extra* problems with Google apps is functinality and offline use.
At some point, hosted apps will become a better solution than applications that are locally installed.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one.
This is made even worse by most people's completely incompetence when judging danger. For example, travelling by train in Britain is MUCH safer than travelling by car, but whenever there is a railway accident hordes of idiots switch to cars because they think trains are dangerous. Yes, I do know about people preferring dangers they have a feeling of control over, but it only makes me think them even more idiotic.
If we ever relied on market forces to promote safety, it would merely lead to a lot of resources being spent on marketing (rather than achieving) safety, and even more misinformation being spread.
I didn't realize how many of you libertarian fucktards there are crawling around this web site until comparatively recently. Sadly, very few of you seem to have studied any economics. This is a shame since it underlies your whole system of beliefs. While I'm sure they don't teach this at DeVry, there in fact are cases where government intervention improves overall welfare. Lots of them. Any time a market is incomplete, a case can be made for some sort of coordinated intervention. You can quote me the Coase or fundamental welfare theorems ad nauseum (or not), but until you can demonstrate feasible plan for assigning property rights and assuring perfect, symmetric information, your misguided theories are simply hollow and deluded.
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.