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."

Comments

training

[Bizzeh]

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

Re:training

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, as everyone keeps saying. Funnily enough though I have yet to see anyone provide any figures, experimental data or case studies from non-biased sources that supports this. Now, I've no doubt that any new application deployment requires training the end users, but just how much and at what cost?

Re:training

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't they just employ immigrants who learned to use computers in order to get a job? We're not talking complex applications here like 3D or compositing apps, those who can't use generic email, word processor or spreadsheet don't deserve to have a desk job.

Re:training

[linguizic]

What's interesting though is that the FAA seems to think that the costs associated with training will in the end be cheaper than an upgrade to Vista.

Re:training

[Iphtashu Fitz]

I don't think training/timing is a big issue. Any time MS releases a major update like new versions of Vista & Office it requires a fair amount of retraining for non-technical people and even a lot of technical people. Since there's a retraining cost involved no matter what, then it's up to the company/organization to decide their best upgrade path, whether it's to the latest MS offerings or an entirely different platform.

Personally I find the big news to be the fact that more and more corporations, governments, and entire countries, are using Vista/Office2007 as justification to seriously consider non-MS products. Granted it's still a very small percentage of MS customers that have done this so far, but if the groundswell continues and a number of these groups are successful, then it could just be the start of a trend away from MS dominance.

Re:training

[0123456]

"What's interesting though is that the FAA seems to think that the costs associated with training will in the end be cheaper than an upgrade to Vista."

Don't forget that they'll need to retrain people for Vista and Office-whatever anyway. So it's not like one option is free and the other costs money.

Re:training

[BlackPignouf]

-Either way, the'll have to learn a new system, and the learning curve for Vista+Office2007 is rather steep.

-Google's online business applications look a lot more like previous MSOffice than Office 2007 does.

-Just put them a decent user-friendly distro, 3 bigs icons on the desktop to link to Gmail, one to GoogleDocs & one to GoogleSpreadsheet. Done!

=>You won't need more than 2 days to explain them everything they need to know to get started, and you'll save a *lot* of money by leaving the Vista way.

Re:training

[aplusjimages]

Would upgrading to Vista would require training staff to use an entirely new system?

Re:training

[greenguy]

Maybe I'm just a quick learner, but I can't see how Google Apps would require all that much training. Like everything of Google's that I've tried (with the exception of Google Ads, whose pricing structure remains mysterious), I found it had almost no learning curve whatsoever.

Am I really that much smarter than the people who work at the FAA?

Re:training

[stuntpope]

I will be surprised if we see this take effect before the release of Microsoft's next OS. This *is* the government we're talking about. I've been waiting 3+ years for certain hardware that's been bought and been sitting warehoused. Was trained on it last year. Getting trained on it again this year. Someday...

Re:training

[zxnos]

Am I really that much smarter than the people who work at the FAA?

we are talking government employees right?

isnt the saying "those who do, do. those who cant do, teach. those whose cant teach work for the government?

Re:training

[Cadallin]

Exactly, it isn't just the costs of upgrading to Vista, its the cost of upgrading to Vista + Deployment + Retraining. I would also suspect that the FAA probably pays for some kind of actual support contract. They will still want to pay somebody like Redhat for a support contract (and probably Google as well), and they will still incur Deployment and Retraining Costs no matter what. The question really starts to become, who do they believe provides a product with the best productivity/TCO ratio.

Everybody's been through the Microsoft cycle multiple times now. Microsoft promises the world during development, but by the time a product actually ships, its years late, hugely over budget, and still has only 10% of the features originally promised (Remember Microsoft's database file system? The one that would revolutionize searches and data management and do away with folders? They've been promising that one since 1994 at least. It was supposed to be part of Windows 95!) And Microsoft's products End up having severe support issues during their lifetime (Business Crippling Worms anyone?) It heartens me that Organizations are really starting to think about going with other options.

Re:training

[Kennon]

90% of the training argument is pure FUD. I personally have converted many windows users to Linux who had never even touched it before and they are up and productive within a day. Your average office worker (at least in my place of work) uses a word processor, web browser, email client, and one or two propriatary apps specific for their department which are almost all web based and are browser friendly. There have been a few time in which people have some app that cannot be a web app, or will only run in IE or something and we will deploy it to them via Citrix until either a Linux version is written or it is converted to a web based app.

Funny enough, the hardest Linux converts are the Windows "Power users" because they no long know how to tweak...aka fuck up their new desktop. But for a large majority of office staff Linux either already is or could easily be working perfectly for them in almost no transition time.

I personally believe that if all the over protective MCSE's in the world woke up tomorrow with a decent level of knowledge about the Linux desktop within a couple months Linux and Windows in the corporate workplace would trade places for market share.

Re:training

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The FAA keeps what is by far the world's busiest civil air transportation system running with a remarkably good safety record. Every time you go to the airport, get on your plane, fly to your destination, get off your plane, and nothing else happens, you have the FAA to thank for it.

Re:training

[quixote9]

Um, hello? Vista is a new system, too, from the corporate training standpoint. I mean, it's got a new menu bar for cryin out loud.

Re:training

[pizpot]

Yeah, training is cheaper. You just fire those who don't learn.

Re:training

[lenne]

Boss got office 2007 a few days ago. We still haven't found the print button. Well, now he knows he can use ^P, but anyway. I'm sure he won't use any of the new "features"... Lenne

Re:training

[Anonymous Coward]

Shh, don't question the mindless libertarian bullshit. If everyone realized that government employees as just as human as private employees, it would cause CHAOS around here.

Re:training

[Billly Gates]

Training bla bla

How hard it would be to figure out how to click the applications menu in gnome and find OpenOffice. Also if you know Word and excell then openoffice should be a no brainer for almost all users.

The only training needed should be for the IT department and that is when real costs come into place. MCSE's do not know how to write a unix shell script unless they are trained are self taught but most users do not need special training.

Re:training

[smbell]

Not only that but they do it with horribly old and out of date systems. I'll give credit to the Canadians here, they have a much more modern setup (although I think they changed from a government agency to a private contractor).

Re:training

[gbobeck]

isnt the saying "those who do, do. those who cant do, teach. those whose cant teach work for the government?

Actually, the saying is "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, teach education. Those who can't teach education work for SCO or the US Government."

Re:training

[dyslexicbunny]

Everyone always thinks it's about the bling when some organization looks to switch to Linux. It this case, it would likely be the wrong reason for switching.

The FAA has a lot of in house software they've developed. This software does not run on Vista. Other government agencies are going to have this problem too. This is why they are not interested in switching to Vista. It would likely be more cost effective for them to not upgrade their software to run on Vista and switch to Linux.

My lab had to port over a lot of software from NASA that ran on Unix machines over to Windows so the reason makes sense to me. I don't claim I'm completely right but I think it would be interesting to see how this pans out.

Re:training

[ChrisA90278]

"training staff to use an entirly new system takes a lot of time and money"

This is why they don't want to jump on Vista. they'd have to train staff on the new system. A lot of people are thinking the same. If you are going to swap systems why not jump to Apple's Mac OS X or to Linux or to Solaris. You might save money and get better software at the same time.

Microsoft is in a bad place. If they don't make some radical changes they run the risk of being very much out of date in 10 years. But if they do make big changes then their users think "If I'm going to have to re-learn everything I may as well make a big jump to the Mac or to Linux. The need for backwards compatibility will eventually be what kills Windows.

As for training. It's over blown. I pit Linux and Open Offic on a system iones and just said "it's the new version of your software" For a normal user they can't tell and it works enough like what they had they just continue on and don't really care.

Re:training

[Technician]

Maybe I'm just a quick learner, but I can't see how Google Apps would require all that much training. Like everything of Google's that I've tried (with the exception of Google Ads, whose pricing structure remains mysterious), I found it had almost no learning curve whatsoever.

That does not need training. Google Apps on Windows is the same as on on Linux.

The training would include
how to log in using all lower case
How to log in without power down rebooting if someone left the screen locked.
Where is the start button?
Where is Internet Explorer?
How is Evolution not the same as Outlook?
Where is the My Documents folder?
Why does this email attachment want to know where I want to save it? Why can't I run it?

Other than those topics, there should not be too much training needed.

Re:training

[Patik]

Actually, those who are smart enough not to waste their lives working 60+ hours/week with laughable vacation time for a company who will fire them at the drop of a hat when profits dip .0025% for the quarter and provide lousy benefits are the ones who choose to work for the government instead.

Re:training

[mcrbids]

The FAA keeps what is by far the world's busiest civil air transportation system running with a remarkably good safety record. Every time you go to the airport, get on your plane, fly to your destination, get off your plane, and nothing else happens, you have the FAA to thank for it.

As a private pilot, I can happily support this. Really. Air traffic control is excellent, and available just about everywhere in the USA. Navigation aids (VOR, etc) are available just about anywhere that you'd ever want to fly, ATC is widely available just about anywhere that might resemble a proximity to civilization.

Not that I agree with every one of their decisions, and there are certainly warts here and there, but it really is generally a well thought-out and well enforced system with an excellent safety record.

Think about it: some small, 2-seat private plane crashes somewhere 3 states away, and it's frequently on the 6 o'clocke news. But it's unlikely that you would even find out about a similar-sized automobile that fatally crashes one block from your house.

Re:training

[Seraphim_72]

Amen.

Re:training

[Shadowlore]

Maybe I'm just a quick learner, but I can't see how Google Apps would require all that much training. Like everything of Google's that I've tried (with the exception of Google Ads, whose pricing structure remains mysterious), I found it had almost no learning curve whatsoever.

Am I really that much smarter than the people who work at the FAA?

Quite possibly.

Re:training

[JimDaGeek]

how to log in using all lower case

So I can log in to MS Windows with an all lower case password even though my password is not all lower case? Yeah, right.

How to log in without power down rebooting if someone left the screen locked.

Huh? What the heck does this even mean? Are you saying you do not know how to unlock a locked desktop in Linux? Man, you must be dumb. How about just entering your password?

Where is the start button?

Uhh, you can customize that in Linux. Make a start button if you want and just deploy it. I personally think it is stupid and think that the Applications and Systems menus in Ubuntu make more sense. However, if you really want a button that says "Start", you can do it very easily in Gnome/KDE on Linux.

Where is Internet Explorer?

Uhh, you can name the browser icon on a Linux system anything you want. And, *gasp* you can even change the icon to look just like the IE icon. I did that for my wife when I first moved her to Linux. However, after telling her how bad IE is, I got her to use Firefox. Now she loves her Firefox extensions. I have a Linux computer, an MS WinXP computer, a 17" Intel iMac and an Intel Macbook. When my wife uses any of those systems, she now only looks for the Firefox icon. It is not hard for a person to remember the Firefox icon. Just as it is not hard for a user to remember the IE icon. This is just a stupid "point" you have made.

How is Evolution not the same as Outlook?

Yeah, because the non-technical office worker is a "power" outlook user. Nope. They won't notice much difference at all. Evolution is close enough to not cause any snags.

Where is the My Documents folder?

Again, just put an icon on the desktop and in the Applications menu that says "My Documents". It will be a link to a folder in the users home directory. Heck, you can even make a folder in the users home directory named "My Documents" if you want. I did it for my wife.

Why does this email attachment want to know where I want to save it? Why can't I run it?

Huh? What are you talking about? You can click on inline images in Evolution and see the image. You can click on documents in Evolution and have the default app run it just like in MS Windows. The _only_ thing you cannot do is run some executable code from Evolution. If you think it is a bad idea to not be able to run an executable app attached to an email, well you have some issues.

Re:training

[Columcille]

It did strike me as odd that there is no print button by default, but it's easy enough to add. Top left of the window, next to the Windows logo, there is a "quick access toolbar" - click the little drop arrow on that and you can select some things to add or remove from that toolbar. The print button is one of those things. I think MS should have had it on by default, but it was easy enough to find.

Re:training

[bberens]

That's exactly right. When a business changes to a new application it's not as if the business tells employees that they can get by completing 80% as much for the next few weeks. It's basically "Yes it's new and we expect you to be at 100% speed immediately, deal with it." And it sucks for the employee for a week or two while they have to semi-rush or work a few extra hours but it's not the end of the world. Typically the same salary IT person that has always been there gets stuck answering all the questions. The only additional cost is anyone involved who might be paid hourly, they might have to work a few extra hours. In my mind, it's not the end of the world.

Re:training

[Technician]

Huh? What the heck does this even mean? Are you saying you do not know how to unlock a locked desktop in Linux? Man, you must be dumb. How about just entering your password?

You don't share a computer.. If you did, then you would know the problem of trying to use a Windows computer while some other user left for lunch and left the screen locked. In windows without the other user's password, it's a power switch reset which can be nasty on open files, network shares left open, etc.

In Ubuntu, it's just click on the switch user option on the screen's locked screen session. You log in and never boot the other user off of kill what he was doing. When done, just log off and the original user's locked screen is back ready for his return. I work the nightshift. I've lost count of the number of times I had to power cycle the Windows machine to login for the night. I have no idea what unsaved work I killed doing it.

Re:training

[Technician]

You can click on inline images in Evolution and see the image

Sorry I was a little obtuse on that one. I was referring to a Windows exploit that was popular a few years ago. The one where an attachment of my naked wife.jpg was realy a naked wife.jpg.exe where Windows hid the extension of known file types. The picture loaded, but after delivering the payload. On Linux, it simply wanted to know where you wanted to save the file.

If you think it is a bad idea to not be able to run an executable app attached to an email, well you have some issues.

I think it is a bad idea to run an executable app by being fooled into thinking it's a viewable picture.

Re:training

[Trogre]

Have you taken a look at MS Office 2007? They're going to need major re-training either way, so a jump to FOSS suddenly isn't as daunting.

In fact, OOo behaves more like MS Office 2003 than MS Offics 2007 does. (Okay, so OOo also behaves more like MS Offics2000 than it does MS Office 2003 but that's beside the point)

Re:training

[Sylver Dragon]

I would expect that one of the considerations for the FAA director is that, whether they go to Linux/Google Apps or Vista/Office 2007, they are going to face a re-training issue. Vista is different enough that a lot of old habits are going to have to be forgotten and new ones learned. Office 2007 is a PITA to relearn. You're stuck with the Ribbon, and you're going to learn it and like it, cause you cannot revert to the old interface. At this point, jumping to Linux, with say KDE, and Google Apps wouldn't be that much worse, if at all. The interface is very Windows like, so there shouldn't be a whole lot to relearn. I've not seen Google Apps, but I'm gonna guess that learning it after having been in MS Office forever is about on par with getting used to Office 2007.
In a way, I think MS is shooting themselves in the foot by redesigning the interface to their two flagship products at the same time. As an IT manager, you're now looking at retraining issues for both products at once anyway, why not look at alternatives which aren't so expensive and laden with DRM crippling?

Re:training

[mcheu]

If they make the right choices, little or no training will be required except on the maintenance/IT side. All of the off the shelf Microsoft based applications have Linux or Java analogs that have near identical interfaces right down to appearance and keyboard shortcuts. When it comes to custom software, it will take some time to recode them for the Linux platform, but it's fairly easy to duplicate the interface there too.

If done right, I doubt anyone will even really notice the change over. You can set it up so that the differences are even smaller than the transition from XP to Vista. Remember that with the exception of the IT staff and developers, very few of the staff ever even see the command line, which is where the greatest differences lie between windows and Linux.

Re:training

[JimDaGeek]

I didn't _say_ an MS Windows computer. I said a Linux computer. A big difference there.

Yeah, I know what you mean about a locked MS Windows computer. It sucks. However, in most corporate settings the MS Windows computer is a member of a domain, so all you need to do is get your domain admin to unlock the computer.

While I am a senior programmer, I am good friends with the admins where I work. If I run into a locked computer (a bunch of dumb programmers log in to our dev servers and walk away) I just need to walk over a few desks and kick the chair of one of our admins and ask them to unlock the computer.

Re:training

[deblau]

Microsoft promises the world during development, but by the time a product actually ships, its years late, hugely over budget, and still has only 10% of the features originally promised

Yeah, so this sounds exactly like something the federal government would be familiar with. Why change now?

Re:training

[Kalriath]

Agreed. Our government practices work life balance. And "glide time" (not sure what it is, but I think it's a buzzword for "not actually doing anything when you get stressed out by heavy workloads"). And it pays way more than private industry, with comprehensive benefits. And it doesn't need to worry about profits. Yup. I like my government job. (Disclaimer: Not USA, New Zealand).

Re:training

[Short Circuit]

You missed the point of the post you originally replied to. Technician was pointing out that these are all questions Windows users would need to have answered (whether asked or not!) when switching environments.

If all one ever knows is Windows, one tends to make assumptions based on a Windows environment. Not having to reboot the computer to switch users is something that can be difficult with Windows, depending on situation and user management software installed. A user accustomed to Windows might not look for the "Switch User" button if his entire computer lifetime has been spent knowing that there isn't any such beast.

Prediction of user assumptions is important in predicting user behavior, and predicting user behavior is important in developing software and training programs.

Re:training

[mixmasta]

it's not that they arent human, it's that they have no competition ... leading to inefficiency.

Re:training

[flyingfsck]

You hit the nail on the head there. The problem is not user training - the problem is IT staff training.

Re:training

[holistah]

additionally a large portion of the training time is offset by turnover, people being trained for a new position anyway, whether new hire or transfer. It is also offset by the fact that a large number of employees generally have a small understanding of the old software anyway :)

Re:training

[Technician]

I just need to walk over a few desks and kick the chair of one of our admins and ask them to unlock the computer.

I work nights. The admin works days.

Yeah, I know what you mean about a locked MS Windows computer. It sucks.

The extra time it takes to power cycle reboot instead of login really sucks.
Ubuntu is so much better. Just login and go to work.

Re:training

[ncc74656]

Looks like some overpaid hack government worker got some mod points to play with. Too bad those points didn't come with the balls to mod posts as something other than "overrated." Too chickenshit to let the metamoderators have at you? Go suck the barbed cock of Satan.

I'll bet the downmod came on "company time," too. That's your tax dollars at work, boys and girls.

Google Apps Appliance

[codepunk]

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.

Re:Google Apps Appliance

[endianx]

I agree 100%. I think that is the future of software. Not applications that run on someone else's server, but ones that run on your own (but still not on hundreds of desktops).

Re:Google Apps Appliance

[kisielk]

The 1960's called, they want their computing paradigms back. Future of software? More like the past, we're coming full circle...

Re:Google Apps Appliance

[suv4x4]

The 1960's called, they want their computing paradigms back. Future of software? More like the past, we're coming full circle...

It won't be the first time we're coming full circle in computer technologies (or elsewhere), it doesn't mean that he's wrong. Do you think "organic food" is a thing of the past? It's pretty modern franchise these days.

In computer software, we see interpreted languages coming in an out every few years. When I had my Apple II, the primary means of programming it was an interpreted Applesoft Basic script.

As computers advance and more performance is required, the interpreters become full-blown compilers (C, C++, later Basic compilers), but then the needs for flexibility arises and today we use lots of interpreted languages again (JavaScript, PHP, Perl, ASP, Ruby, Java).

And yet again the need for performance converted those to compiled language in the mid term (later Java runtimes /JIT/, .NET which is compiled on demand, although stored as source or bytecodes). Microsoft even has C# compiler now which compiles to machine code with no CLR dependencies now (as used in their popular research OS - Singularity).

Still the portable version of .NET interprets... as a mobile device has no enough RAM to do the compilation and store the result, which is ironically the same reason Basic was interpreted on Apple II-s to start with.

The notion that the future of software is to store absolutely everything remotely, like is the case with Google apps, is a very shortsighted one. It's a current short-term / mid-term trend.

There's already lots of talk about rich clients which support "interrupted connectivity", which is, web apps that have lots of functionality even when you have no internet (i.e. with laptop on the go etc.). These apps operate by usually having a small and simple web-server or runtime and SQL database embeded in them, along with ability for rich caching of remotely downloaded assets. Examples include the upcoming Firefox 3, Adobe's Apollo, Microsoft's WinFX (aka NET3) and so on.

Re:Google Apps Appliance

[SCHecklerX]

Definitely. If Google started selling application appliances. Wow. Not only do you get the ease of central management, but if Google does it like they do everything else, it'd be easily scalable. I'd imagine the answer to "We need more processing power / Disk space" would be to add another appliance or so, and make a single config change. This is really exciting stuff, if it evolves to that point.

Re:Google Apps Appliance

[drinkypoo]

As computers advance and more performance is required, the interpreters become full-blown compilers (C, C++, later Basic compilers), but then the needs for flexibility arises and today we use lots of interpreted languages again (JavaScript, PHP, Perl, ASP, Ruby, Java).

Perl is compiled at runtime. It's halfway-interpreted.

ASP is not a language. To be accurate PHP isn't either. PHP+Zend=What we think of as PHP. ASP+A scripting language is what you are thinking about. Which can be (out of the box) Jscript or VBscript, and you can add in other languages (like Perl) via ISAPI. That applies to IIS anyway; If you use Chilisoft ASP you only get VBscript and Jscript AFAIK.

Java is absolutely a compiled language - it's compiled into Java bytecode. It does get translated by the runtime engine now, but that's not compilation, that's recompilation.

Re:Google Apps Appliance

[markov_chain]

Hey, I know, we could put all these appliances into some kind of enclosure with common power, cooling, and even super fast backplane. We would probably need to keep these "frames" in climate-controlled rooms. The main "frame" would serve the most common apps, and if some offices needed some specialized stuff they could buy small versions, kind of like miniature computers! Hah, I kill myself.

Re:Google Apps Appliance

[TemporalBeing]

As computers advance and more performance is required, the interpreters become full-blown compilers (C, C++, later Basic compilers), but then the needs for flexibility arises and today we use lots of interpreted languages again (JavaScript, PHP, Perl, ASP, Ruby, Java).

C and C++ are NOT interpreted languages. Interpreted languages are languages that make the final steps from a language (Basic, JavaScript, Perl, PHP, ASP) or byte code (Java, .Net CLR) to machine code during run-time. Compiled languages, however, are compiled directly to machine code at compile-time; yes, a compiled language may be interpreted internally to the compiler to another language (e.g. C++->C->Assembly->machine code), but all the compilation is done at compile time. This is a big difference - and is a difference that has existed since the two came into existence.

Microsoft even has C# compiler now which compiles to machine code with no CLR dependencies now

Microsoft has always had this. They turned their C++ compiler (VC, VC++) into a variant of the C# compiler; where the only difference is whether or not the code is compiled as managed code. They no longer truly support C or C++; while their C# language is similar enough for them to pull this off, it truly a different language using a different compiler. This has been around since VC++ 2002 - the initial release of VS where .Net was included.

Yes, we do migrate in and out of interpreted languages, namely as the interpreted languages mature they become too burdensome to remain interpreted and usually get converted to compiled languages (Qbasic->VB), only to have the need for an interpreted language create a new variant. In the case of .Net, Microsoft was told they could not modify Java, so they created .Net instead. Some times this is driven by academics, sometimes it is driven by industry (.Net), sometimes it is driven by hobbyists (PHP).

However, machine code and compiled languages have a longer history than interpreted languages.

Re:Google Apps Appliance

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Evolution, or revolution?

Re:Google Apps Appliance

[TemporalBeing]

Java is absolutely a compiled language - it's compiled into Java bytecode. It does get translated by the runtime engine now, but that's not compilation, that's recompilation

Java is an interpreted language. Yes, SOME virtual machines do a full recompilation to binary - but that is not required by the language - it is a shortcut to gain some performance at the loss of some flexibility, like a CPU with its cache and branch predictions. Since Java (and .Net for that matter) are compiled to byte code, they are still in an intermediary state that requires interpretation to run. Saving of the interpreted data (e.g. compiled byte code) is nothing more than optimization of the interpreter itself and applies only during that immediate run of the code.

Now, there are also java compilers (e.g. gjc) that do compile directly to full binaries. So, I guess it could be argued that java is a bit of both. However, by its nature - by its specification - Java is an interpreted language.

ASP is not a language.

True. ASP itself is not a language but a technology to enable languages to use Microsoft's system for providing dynamic webpages. It must be combined with another language (e.g. C#, VB.Net, VBScript, Jscript, etc.) to function.

To be accurate PHP isn't either. PHP+Zend=What we think of as PHP.

Wrong. PHP is a language, and one that uses an interpreter. Zend has added some additional things (e.g. the Zend Optimizer and Zend Compiler) to (i) add performance, and (ii) help companies hide secret stuff. But PHP does not require either of those to work. It just requires the PHP Interpreter to function - just like Perl and Python.

Re:Google Apps Appliance

[Maxo-Texas]

On some machines looks like assembly opcodes are really interpreted to the machine layer.

So the question is how you want to use the word "interpreted". These days I consider something like "wine" to have more of the characteristics that interpreted code used to have. Partially, I guess processors have just gotten bloody fast.

Re:Google Apps Appliance

[misleb]

Still, how do you do basic stuff like mail merges w/ Google apps? How about non-trivial print control? I mean, last I checked, HTML is not a very good markup language when it comes to print layout. I bet printing labels will be a pain. I think users are going to really miss some of the power of desktop office suites. Even if it is only a few people in the office every once in a while. That can be enough to drive the adoption of something. That is pretty muych the reason people use MS Office int eh first place. There's always that one group of people who use some relatively advanced features of Office and suddenly everyone is running it because otherwise exchanging documents is a pain... more of a pain than buying a site license is.

But whatever, I'll believe it when I see it. The Linux part is doable, I think. But with OpenOffice. Google apps are an unnecessary handicap as far as functionality.

-matthew

Re:Google Apps Appliance

[suv4x4]

I agree. Plus the whole fad of storing programs and data on that thing called a "hard disk" is a trend that is soon to wane. Why have a device separate from the ALU to store things when you turn the power off? ... If you need the information so badly, just punch it onto paper tape or onto cards. Same thing with storing programs on this "hard disk" thing... I've got a drawer full of paper tapes that will run on ANY of the PDP-8 machines... I don't need this "hard disk" to get work done.

TDz.

May I ask what is your sarcasm targeted at, or trying to prove?

Re:Google Apps Appliance

[suv4x4]

Zend has added some additional things (e.g. the Zend Optimizer and Zend Compiler) to (i) add performance, and (ii) help companies hide secret stuff. But PHP does not require either of those to work. It just requires the PHP Interpreter to function.

I really don't want to drop the discussion to clarifying the basics that drive modern web and desktop languages, but I guess I will.

The PHP Interpreter, which "doesn't need Zend to work", is called "Zend Core".

Since most of us are aware of the basics (like that ASP is a framework for IIS that embeds other languages etc etc), I hoped you would all comment on the big picture I'm painting, versus decompose my post for the purpose of nitpicking into it. Guess I was wrong.

Re:Google Apps Appliance

[PPH]

They may already have plans to do so. We've* got Google 'search appliances' on our intranet. A rack of yellow boxes with the Google logo on them in our server room. I'm not certain what the arrangement is, but probably a lease plus maintenance and upgrade contract. Installing another rack with Google apps on it would be a no brainer.

Many of our apps. run on *NIX systems to X servers on the desktops anyway. Some are migrating to web services. This client-server model has proven to be the most economical means of maintaining central configuration control, keeping data secure (i.e. off the desktop) and performing applications maintenance. The Windows desktops that most people see are there just to provide a level of comfort.

*'We' being someone who deals with DoD contracts and just can't have classified information floating around outside the company walls.

Re:Google Apps Appliance

[bob291]

I second that comment. How secure is data on the Google servers? Stories about gmail harvested for whatever don't make it sound good. But an appliance would be a great idea.

Re:Google Apps Appliance

[Trogre]

Oh, you mean like a cluster? Wow, imagine.

Re:Google Apps Appliance

[Kalriath]

I'm not certain what the arrangement is, but probably a lease plus maintenance and upgrade contract. Nah. You pay a flat fee to buy the hardware. Support is what you pay for on an annual basis (the buy cost includes 1 year free though). It's actually a pretty good deal compared to most vertical appliances.

Re:Google Apps Appliance

[I'm Don Giovanni]

I'm surprised that slashdotters, of all people, would advocate software/hardware "appliances". It would be impossible to modify the code and distribute it to others, since it would be a piece of hardware. How is this in the spirit of OSS?

Re:Google Apps Appliance

[ralphdaugherty]

I'm surprised that slashdotters, of all people, would advocate software/hardware "appliances". It would be impossible to modify the code and distribute it to others, since it would be a piece of hardware. How is this in the spirit of OSS?

      And along those lines, wouldn't Open Office running against networked files be a better choice all the way around than proprietary browser versions of office software?

  rd

Re:Google Apps Appliance

[Emetophobe]

They already sell the Google Search Appliance, I doubt it will be long before they offer a similar package with Google Apps. My guess is that it will be out within a year.

Re:Google Apps Appliance

[jZnat]

A lot of the geezers on Slashdot are from the mainframe days, and that's how it worked back then.

Re:Google Apps Appliance

[Chandon Seldon]

To divide all programming systems into "compiled" and "interpreted" and put Java in the latter category is strictly inaccurate, and does a giant disservice to both the meaning of the word "compile" and the fact that the topic is reasonably complex. At least say "compiled to native code" if that's what you mean, but even that is oversimplifying.

You definitely want to maintain at least these categories separately, and note that they're linked to programming environments, not languages. You could write an one-line-at-a-time interpreter for assembly language if you wanted, or a native-code compiler for BASIC (actually, there are a couple of each out there).

• Compiled to native code, like C normally is.
• Compiled to bytecode, with a JIT-enabled VM, like Java usually is.
• Compiled to bytecode with a traditional VM, like many "research" languages.
• Compiled on startup, like Perl and Python.
• Interpreted line-by-line, like a traditional shell script.

Re:Google Apps Appliance

[ajs318]

You don't have to do mail-merging with Google Apps directly. You can do that locally. It takes like, what, about a dozen lines of Perl? And that's allowing for use strict;. Every Linux distro has Perl. Or if you don't like Perl, you can always do it in Java. It'll take a couple of dozen screenfuls, is all.

Re:Google Apps Appliance

[misleb]

Ok, lets say you have this script. You download your document from Google. You run your little string substitution Perl magic (we'll just forget about how you map the data to the fields in teh document or how you support various different input formats, such as a spreadsheet, for now)... then what? How do you print the results? Perl can't render a Google document to the printer. Do you then have to load your 100's of output files from your awesome perl script back into Google, one by one, for printing?

Mail merge is just one of many examples of where Google apps falls short.

-matthew

Re:Google Apps Appliance

[ajs318]

I usually do my own mail-merging at quite a low level. First I create (by whatever means) a PostScript document with ==PLACEHOLDER== data in it. In my Perl script, I read the whole of this file into a scalar variable. I take my data from an SQL database or CSV file. For each record, I make a copy of the PS (so I don't have to read the file again) and do a series of $ps_copy =~ s/==NAME==/$record[0]/g; -type things. (The CSV version is even smarter, in that the first line of the CSV file is treated as a header and expected to contain the placeholder field names, so I can use a loop and $ps_copy =~ s/==$fields[$i]==/$record[$i]/g .) Then I just chuck the munged PostScript out to the printer, using open PRINTER, "|lpr -"; print PRINTER $ps_copy; close PRINTER; .

Re:Google Apps Appliance

[misleb]

Well, I just printed this page to PS (OS X save to PDF/PS from the print dialog) to see if I could find your ==PLACEHOLDER== string in there and it wasn't there. So I don't know what methods you are using which reliably preserve your placeholders. Have you tried it with Google Docs? Can you put a placeholder string in a Google Doc, print to PS, run your perl script over it, and print the results? What about if you want to print to a specific tray in the printer such as the one that holds your envelops or company letter heads? Sending to lpr is just goign to use the default tray. What if you want to print labels on Avery label sheets? You're script is useless then because it depends on documents that print on full pages. MS Word, on the other hand, handles labels w/ mail merge great and has done so for well over a decade. Word even has all the Avery label types built in so you just select which type you have, add you data place holders, select your data source, and fire away.

Maybe *you* got mail merges to work with a perl script for you, but I can tell you with a fair bit of confidence that it won't fly in a general office environment.

-matthew

Re:Google Apps Appliance

[ajs318]

I made the PostScript file myself using vi. I just defined a few useful constants, macros and functions to make things easier. What you need to write is mostly just function calls, and I could do that using a script except it was easier to hard-code them in. (Next time, I will write a script to turn a text file with a bit of markup into PostScript.) I used absolute positioning so as just to print the address on the page, lined up against the window of the envelope. If I ever need to do sheets of standard labels, I'll just add constants for the positions of each label on the sheet. (I have a file that generates a 5mm. / 1cm. grid, to help with finding positions on a page.)

I've noticed a few modern word processors produce a slightly weirdy PostScript output with spacing information per-character, and it requires the strings to be broken up. Wordworth on the Amiga never used to do that; its PostScript output just had the human-readable text right there in it. It was a bit more primitive, though .....

Re:Google Apps Appliance

[misleb]

So what you are saying is that your solution is a lot of work and requires a high level of knowledge to accomplish... well out of reach of your average MS Office user. Honestly, what you described is a pretty good reason for people to KEEP MS Office.

-matthew

Re:Google Apps Appliance

[ajs318]

No, I'm just saying I'm hardcore :) I'd rather be working in vi than waiting for something prettier to redraw itself. When I can type faster than the screen can keep up with me, something's being too slow. Does anyone really need a continuous preview of what things are going to look like on the printed page?

You're right that not everyone has teh l33t h4x0r 5ki11z. And I'm not complaining, because it means there are opportunities for people who do have them! But there's no reason in principle why a word processor shouldn't be able to output "editable" PostScript (with macro-based rendering rather than just a static page description; PS is a computationally-complete programming language, and it's a shame to waste that). You should never assume your program is the last thing between data and its destination; it's polite always to allow for post-processing.

Re:Google Apps Appliance

[misleb]

No, I'm just saying I'm hardcore :) I'd rather be working in vi than waiting for something prettier to redraw itself. When I can type faster than the screen can keep up with me, something's being too slow.

GUI's haven't been THAT slow in like 12 years.

Does anyone really need a continuous preview of what things are going to look like on the printed page?

Sometimes, yes. But the drawbacks to your system that I mentioned do not involve continuously seeing updates. Just simple convenience. It saves people a lot of time to just be able to select a type of label from a list, fill out some fields, merge in the data, and print. With your system, you have to code every feature yourself. Don't get me wrong, I understand the satisfaction involved in beign hardcore, I'm just saying that most people just want it done. They don't want to mess with Perl code or generating their own PostScript files.

You're right that not everyone has teh l33t h4x0r 5ki11z. And I'm not complaining, because it means there are opportunities for people who do have them! But there's no reason in principle why a word processor shouldn't be able to output "editable" PostScript (with macro-based rendering rather than just a static page description; PS is a computationally-complete programming language, and it's a shame to waste that).

Considering the way that modern printing works, yes, there are reasons why a Word Processor can't always (if ever) create editable PostScript. Maybe back on your old Amiga programmers had to manually generate Postscript, but these days it is all abstracted. Heck, OS X doesn't even use postscript directly. Programs generate PDF when they print, AFAIK.

You should never assume your program is the last thing between data and its destination; it's polite always to allow for post-processing.

As a programmer, you don't always have direct control over everything teh application does. Things get abstracted, programmers use libraries. And there is nothing wrong with that. It helps get things done. It helps the users by creating standards and consistency.

-matthew

Re:Google Apps Appliance

[ajs318]

GUI's haven't been THAT slow in like 12 years.

You obviously haven't been using KDE recently :)

Maybe back on your old Amiga programmers had to manually generate Postscript, but these days it is all abstracted. Heck, OS X doesn't even use postscript directly. Programs generate PDF when they print, AFAIK.

Oh, the Amiga had word processors that could generate PostScript output. (And I had much good fun learning about the language by changing things and examining the output in a text editor!) The OS could handle drivers for many different printers; the programmer only had to worry about ANSI escape codes, which the OS would translate to printer-specific codes. This was back in the days when most DOS software supported the IBM Proprinter and that was pretty much it. Mind, by then almost every printer on the market was emulating an Epson FX-80 or IBM Proprinter (and they're embarrassingly similar until you try to invoke some of the more advanced features. The main difference being the extended charset: the IBM has graphics characters from 128-255, where the Epson has control codes from 128-159 and italic versions of the main character set from 160-255).

OS X is "just" a BSD unix variant, and so would almost certainly use PostScript natively for printing -- that's the unix standard. All applications expect all printers to speak PostScript; and for the ones that don't, you just run a PostScript interpreter (as likely as not, GhostScript, which is GPL) on the host computer and turn PostScript into the printer's own native control codes.

Considering the way that modern printing works, yes, there are reasons why a Word Processor can't always (if ever) create editable PostScript.

Such as? (Apart from bad programming, obviously.)

Re:Google Apps Appliance

[misleb]

You obviously haven't been using KDE recently :)

I have, and simple font rendering in a document, just like ever other modern GUI system (except maybe java), is plenty fast enough. I mean, I know what you are talking about with that initial delay before a keystroke registers in a word processor, but I have not seen that in over a decade.

OS X is "just" a BSD unix variant, and so would almost certainly use PostScript natively for printing

It does not. It uses PDF. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocoa_(API)

Maybe the lpr compatability (through CUPS) accepts postscript, but Cocoa applications (meaning nearly all graphical applications on OSX) print to PDF. BSD is just the *basis* for OS X (as in the commandline utilities and large portions of the kernel). But there is very little of BSD in the GUI parts which much more closely resemble NextStep/OpenStep. That is why when you do Cocoa programming, almost every function starts with 'NS'. As in "NextStep."

that's the unix standard. All applications expect all printers to speak PostScript; and for the ones that don't, you just run a PostScript interpreter (as likely as not, GhostScript, which is GPL) on the host computer and turn PostScript into the printer's own native control codes.

Well, that is just "unix" and not necessarily other modern systems.

Considering the way that modern printing works, yes, there are reasons why a Word Processor can't always (if ever) create editable PostScript.

Such as? (Apart from bad programming, obviously.)

Such as Cocoa applications which use PDF. Such as any application that wants to take advantage of native print rendering instead of getting bogged down in manual Postscript generation. Using libraries to print is not bad programming.

-matthew

Hunting for a discount?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Hunting for a discount?

[codepunk]

Yep noticed that they are doing a little "Price Phishing"....

Re:Hunting for a discount?

[sabernet]

But why? If the company has already switched and have a staff capable of running the possibly equally buggy Linux software, why invest much more money into using an apparently equally buggy software and retrain again?

Re:Hunting for a discount?

[CreatureComfort]

That may be true, but the big difference this time, I hope, is that instead of some poor, overworked linux zealot in the IT department trying to get the switch made, there should be a highly paid, highly intelligent, Google team dispatched to counter the MS FUD pushers that will be dispatched from Redmond.

There is no way MS can win a fair fight, but until Google threw its hat into the ring, there was never any chance at a fair fight against MS. There may still not be, but at least now the competition is only one or two weight classes undersized.

Re:Hunting for a discount?

[mpsmps]

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.

And this is bad because...? This is why monopolies are bad and competitive markets are good. I'd say this is the expected benefit of having two credible choices available: prices, however you measure them, go down. Whichever is chosen, Linux has already helped ensure that the FAA will pay a market-set rate for their software. There's nothing wrong with making vendors compete on cost.

Google apps/security?

[brennanw]

...

Maybe I'm thinking of a different Google apps, but how is running Google software more secure? Aren't google apps accessed from google servers? Doesn't that mean this government agency would be running applications from and storing data on servers they aren't maintaining?

I'm not saying that google makes lousy software, I'm just saying that I would be nervous if I couldn't actually directly manage the servers that were responsible for creating and storing the information.

Re:Google apps/security?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't google apps accessed from google servers? Doesn't that mean this government agency would be running applications from and storing data on servers they aren't maintaining?

Then there is the obvious issue of having documents stored in a repository that is by nature openly accessible on the internet. Users already do a massively lame job of creating/maintaining/securing passwords. Now that, admitidly sometimes weak, physical barrier is gone, I can see major issues. Of course that's an easy fix by forcing users to have strong passwords, but at least before you had to have a way of physically getting on to the network even if you were to use social engineering to get the passwords (BTW, that's gonna be even easier now, "ring, ring, yes, this is Chuck at Google Apps, I need your password to reset your documents, yeah, thanks", at least before when it was "Chuck in IT", there was a small chance of you saying "I don't know any Chuck in IT").

Another thing (I should turn on the Andy Rooney tag), I don't know if I'd be all that excited about being a part of ANY FAA computer plan. Their track record absolutely sucks when it comes to IT and technology. But since it's anti-M$, I guess it doesn't matter.

Oh, and I can't wait til ad's start popping up as users start entering data using the Google office apps. I can just see an accountant working in the spreadsheet and an ad for "Bankruptcy Liquidators" suddenly pop up.

Re:Google apps/security?

[UnknowingFool]

He didn't say that Google was more secure. He only said that there would be advantages when it comes to security and management. The FAA like the DOT are two agencies that usually operate in the public eye. Unlike the DOD, they really don't have much to hide. So if an FAA document was compromised by hackers, there wouldn't be much damage as it would have been public anyway. I'm thinking that's what he meant.

Re:Google apps/security?

[eMbry00s]

It's not more secure, but security issues are placed in somebody elses hands and mind. If something goes wrong it's Google who will take the (financial) fall. In essence, they are outsourcing security to Google.

Re:Google apps/security?

[EMeta]

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.

Re:Google apps/security?

[gkhan1]

They not only operate in the public eye by convention, they do so by law. Has nobody heard of the Freedom of Information Act? Virtually all data that the FAA would store on those servers would be public anyway, and promptly available on request from anyone in the general public.

Re:Google apps/security?

[drinkypoo]

Virtually all data that the FAA would store on those servers would be public anyway, and promptly available on request from anyone in the general public.

"Virtually All" - is that like "Fresh Frozen" or "Military Intelligence"?

If ANY data they will store on those servers is confidential, then they should not be using external services for that data. Period, end of story.

Re:Google apps/security?

[Nezer]

"Maybe I'm thinking of a different Google apps, but how is running Google software more secure? Aren't google apps accessed from google servers? Doesn't that mean this government agency would be running applications from and storing data on servers they aren't maintaining?"

What it means is that the application security becomes someone else's problem. Granted everyone reading /. knows this isn't true, but management in every large organization I've worked for or with has this mindset.

I know for a fact (because I've supported at least 3 of them) that other government agencies do exactly this. In fact, I would be willing to say that most, if not all, government agencies rely on out-sourcing a pretty hefty portion of IT services to companies that specialize in IT management (IBM, EDS, HP, etc).

Re:Google apps/security?

[mysticgoat]

Maybe I'm thinking of a different Google apps, but how is running Google software more secure? Aren't google apps accessed from google servers? Doesn't that mean this government agency would be running applications from and storing data on servers they aren't maintaining?

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!

Re:Google apps/security?

[gkhan1]

I'm certain that they already have serious security routines for dealing with sensitive data. But that would be a tiny minority of the total data. The rest of the stuff, the millions of boring documents that any government agency produces every year, that can be put on these servers (and properly backed-up, of course). It's not like it's classified or anything. If it is cheaper than what they use now and it fills all their needs, I say go for it! I mean, what does the google app suite cost, $50 per person opposed to $250 of MS Office, plus a couple of hundred bucks for the OS? That's some major savings. Also, you get a whole lot more with google than just the software you get from MS.

Re:Google apps/security?

[jilles]

Not having data local on a laptop that can get stolen is a lot more secure than having them on a huge cluster of servers with Google guaranteeing scalability, quality of services, more or less continuous back ups etc.

Outsourcing file and mail services is nothing new, IBM has been doing it for years and for most companies it is a lot more secure than putting their idiot sysadmin in charge of some Dell server running exchange. Adding office stuff is a small step if you can live with the reduced featureset that Google offers. Though some of their stuff is not that bad. For instance, I prefer the Google calendar to outlook which I have to use at work. Same for gmail (faster, better search).

Re:Google apps/security?

[drinkypoo]

To me the problem is that sensitive data will necessarily be mixed in with non-sensitive data. It always happens. I just don't think that storing the data outside is appropriate. I would be okay with applications being delivered via the web, and the data being stored locally, which is quite doable (although it requires tweaks to the security model.)

Re:Google apps/security?

[jimicus]

Firstly, I agree with earlier suggestions that this is just a ruse to get cheaper prices from MS.

Even so, with the kind of money the government has available, "getting Google to put their apps onto an appliance and selling the FAA a few dozen|couple of hundred such appliances" shouldn't be too difficult.

Re:Google apps/security?

[CiRu5]

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.

Re:Google apps/security?

[bslorence]

promptly available on request from anyone in the general public

Sure, but it's not promptly available for anyone in the general public to change.

Re:Google apps/security?

[Kalriath]

Oh, and I can't wait til ad's start popping up as users start entering data using the Google office apps. I can just see an accountant working in the spreadsheet and an ad for "Bankruptcy Liquidators" suddenly pop up. Haha, that's pretty good. Except that in the Premier edition, ads are optional (optional? Who in their right mind will turn them on?!?)

Ditching the monopolistic...

[BigBadRich]

Great to see someone thinking about ditching software made by a monopolistic behemoth in favour of the little guy!

Oh wait, Google apps? never mind.

Re:Ditching the monopolistic...

[Miseph]

I'm not seeing how parent is flamebait.

Silly mods and their silly moderation choices.

I hate to step back a second

[bconway]

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?

Re:I hate to step back a second

[Chris whatever]

i'm not pro Mac nor linux but would it not be just simpler to swicth to one of these two other option instead of looking at puting your trust to outside storage?

Specially for the security of the Data

Re:I hate to step back a second

[Iphtashu Fitz]

But the article fails to mention why the XP systems need replacement.

Simple. MS says they won't support XP after a given date. After that date the FAA (and everybody else) would have to upgrade to Vista to continue getting support from MS.

If the DOT/FAA goes with linux they'll likely go with a vendor like RedHat or Novell who will offer full support services without arbitrary drop-dead dates for support, much easier upgrade paths, etc.

Re:I hate to step back a second

[SixFactor]

Like some (maybe most) corporations, they probably have a hardware life cycle. It could be that, like where I used to work, the XP rollout was done on Celerons (well at least they were Socket 478). Instead of having to upgrade hardware to the semi-bleeding edge because of Vista, the FAA may be opting to go low-end, hence the seeming interest in a thin-client strategy. This is a smart move for them to look ahead; for budgeting purposes, and the possible downward effect the effort will have on Vista prices.

Re:I hate to step back a second

[Orange Crush]

Any organization as conservative as the FAA no doubt waited a year or two before rolling out XP

And any organization as conservative as the FAA will begin evaluating their options and planning their next steps at least a year or two before they implement anything.

Re:I hate to step back a second

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Sometimes I wonder if the support angle is a crutch. Any large organization should have enough people qualified enough to manage the systems without any help from Microsoft. If there is some mysterious valid reason to need support, I'm surprised they can't buy a long term support contract anyway, MS does sell support for supposedly EOL software. I think the DOD has support contracts for VAX/VMS through to 2012, so an extra three years from Microsoft isn't an unreasonable demand, and I think Microsoft can make good money on those contracts too.

Re:I hate to step back a second

[Iphtashu Fitz]

Sometimes I wonder if the support angle is a crutch. Any large organization should have enough people qualified enough to manage the systems without any help from Microsoft.

I heard an interview on NPR yesterday while driving home about a company having to upgrade some Exchange 2000 servers in preperation for the daylight savings time change. They had to remain on Exchange 2000 - they weren't about to try to upgrade to the latest version of Exchange. MS claimed the cost of creating a patch for Exchange 2000 was in the neighborhood of $40,000 but they were only charging this customer $4,000 for the patch. How does having a qualified in-house support staff negate the need to pay MS through the nose for software patches like this?

Re:I hate to step back a second

[AlHunt]

But the article fails to mention why the XP systems need replacement

Sure it does: From TFA:

"We're trying to figure out what our roadmap will be after we're no longer able to acquire Windows XP."

Just looking down the road. Or bottom fishing for cheap MS software.
Also from TFA:

"We have a trip to Microsoft scheduled for later this month," said Bowen.

Re:I hate to step back a second

[LurkerXXX]

Qualified in-house support staff are able to find and understand information such as registry change patches and other tools online and implement them on their network. MS actually has a list of the changes and tools you need to do everything available online. But it takes a while to read, understand what needs done, and do it. I just rolled out a patch to our networks win2k boxes last week. It took in total about half an hour to research it, create the patches, and set the policy in active directory to update the machines. MS wanted $4000 for an automagic tool to do that. I'd say that that makes it well worth the in-house staff.

Re:I hate to step back a second

[511pf]

Support. Microsoft will eventually end support for Windows XP. Here's a good example: Exchange 2000 is now in "extended support" which means it gets security updates and nothing else. If you want the Exchange 2000 DST Calendar fix, you've got to pony up $4,000 for the Microsoft fix. If you're on Exchange 2003, the fix is free. You can stay on older products for a while, but eventually you've got to upgrade or switch.

Re:I hate to step back a second

[kbielefe]

If you needed advice on how to secure your own personal data, who would you ask given the choice between google engineers or the IT department of some random government agency? No offense to government IT workers, but I think the choice is blindingly obvious from an objective viewpoint.

Re:I hate to step back a second

[I'm Don Giovanni]

Microsoft is supporting XP thru at least 2014. Microsoft supports their OSes longer than does any other OS vendor. Red Hat isn't even supporting the distro they released 3 years ago.

Re:I hate to step back a second

[jimmyharris]

Microsoft is supporting XP thru at least 2014. Microsoft supports their OSes longer than does any other OS vendor. Red Hat isn't even supporting the distro they released 3 years ago.

Are you just making shit up? Red Hat released 2.1 during the first half of 2002 and will support it until 2009. Just over seven years of support there.

Well, Compare it to Vista

[eldavojohn]

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

Well, I'm not a systems integrator in real life but I've taken classes. One of the big things to consider here is the potential for an intermediary stage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Google's Apps are largely platform independent. What this means is that I can think of an instantly perfect intermediary stage--instruct the employees to use Google Apps while they still have XP and old Office applications on their machines. But, you know, give them a hard date by which everyone should be using Google Apps (oh, there's always problem workers but leave that to middle management). I assume the large thing these people rely on their computers for is simply these editing suites so once that barrier is broken, install Linux and give them quick 8 hour orientation classes in how to do the same things in Linux that you used to do in Windows (pretty minimal, I assume).

Other option is just Vista & the new Office. Where at some point you just have to install the new Office (I don't think old & new can be installed at the same time) and make them use it. Now, while I'm sure Vista is more similar to XP than Linux and the Office applications are probably similar also, you know there's going to be bumps.

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 suppose time will tell though. Hopefully my assumptions are correct and this sparks interest on this huge cost savings?

I guess if you really wanted to promote Linux, you would write tutorials on how to take advantage of this switch to Vista/Office and how to put your workers on Linux/Google Apps. When you make cheap and extremely convenient, they will come.

Re:Well, Compare it to Vista

[BigBuckHunter]

One of the big things to consider here is the potential for an intermediary stage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Google's Apps are largely platform independent.

As are OpenOffice, MSOffice, and the majority of Windows applications (thanx to wine). If they have a particular desktop application that does not work under linux or wine, all they have to do is ask on wine-devel and it would be fixed like flies on stank because of how high-profile the situation is.

BBH

Re:Well, Compare it to Vista

[LurkerXXX]

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.

Re:Well, Compare it to Vista

[ragefan]

But, you know, give them a hard date by which everyone should be using Google Apps (oh, there's always problem workers but leave that to middle management).

Usually middle management *are* the problem workers.

Re:Well, Compare it to Vista

[mackyrae]

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

Re:Well, Compare it to Vista

[511pf]

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). There are little to no rollout or upgrade costs with a hosted app (someone actually has to INSTALL Office on all of the machines). You don't have to worry about patches, upgrades, backups or security 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. The problem with Google Apps is functionality and offline use. It's just not as functional, even for basic use, as a full-fledged office suite. It also can't be used by a laptop owner on an airplane. I'm sure Google will address these issues over the next few years. At some point, hosted apps will become a better solution than applications that are locally installed.

Re:Well, Compare it to Vista

[tmarthal]

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.

Re:Well, Compare it to Vista

[LurkerXXX]

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.

Re:Well, Compare it to Vista

[BlueStraggler]

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 same conversation took place in the 1940s.

His grandfather: at some point watching newsreels from a broadcasting service will become a better solution than running your own home projector.

Your grandfather: I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one.

Re:Well, Compare it to Vista

[LurkerXXX]

Horrible analogy. You don't upload any of your own data to the broadcaster. You play your own data on your VCR/DVD-player, etc. You use the same TV set, but you are free to record/play your own data even if the broadcaster goes offline.

Re:Well, Compare it to Vista

[timeOday]

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.

Sounds like a lot of good reasons to keep your money in your mattress instead of a bank.

Re:Well, Compare it to Vista

[Kalriath]

Nope, wrong. Still hosted. Still by Google. Oh, and GMail for your domain *IS* Google Apps For Your Domain (the service you mentioned in your first paragraph). Google hosts the application and data, you pay an access fee.

Re:Well, Compare it to Vista

[psaunders]

Well, I'm not a systems integrator in real life I guess we all have our fantasy occupations...astronaut, firefighter, elven ranger. Systems integrator is just a little further down my own personal list.

--Pete

I think I've seen this movie before.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I think I've seen this movie before.

[Klaus_1250]

As bad as that may sound, eventually, if the competition is fierce enough, the rates that a monopolist can charge to keep clients from switching will drop to a point that they won't make sense business-wise for monopolist. I expect a good number of businesses to switch to Vista using the above technique to get a bigger discount and I don't think MS has much to worry about, yet. But I wouldn't want to be in their shoes in, say, 3 years from now.

Why does the release of Vista necessitate an upgra

[vasanth]

so that they can bargain some discount from microsoft..

Outsourcing Responsibility

[tomstdenis]

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

Re:Outsourcing Responsibility

[Capt James McCarthy]

"what does it matter what OS you run?"

Two words: Licencing Fee

Re:Outsourcing Responsibility

[tomstdenis]

So they ditch msft and shovel the money to Google instead? Doesn't make sense. If they truly wanted to cut costs they'd use OSS office tools instead. To me this sounds like someone gave a *wink* *wink* *nod* *nod* to someone in charge.

Tom

Re:Outsourcing Responsibility

[vidarh]

You can't outsource security [e.g. oh look google is so much better at keeping our documents secure]

Of course you can. For many organizations, handling document security is a major problem. Even basic stuff like backups is a major PITA

But even more than that, presumably one of the things he was referring to is the security implications of having people download "stuff" that may or may not be legitimate documents, and accidentally running it (and don't even try to give me shit about how there aren't any real viruses for Linux - if a major government agency starts relying on Linux boxes, you can bet someone, somewhere will start looking at ways to use it for intrusion). Yes, lots of apps have far saner policies about running things than Office has, but avoiding downloading files from mail accounts entirely in favor of processing those documents outside of your normal environment whenever possible would have the effect of limiting the potential damage further.

It's not that a webapp is required to do that, but that Google's apps present a possible way of doing it that is convenient and available.

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)

Maybe, maybe not. Google Spreadsheets handle a lot of Excel files that breaks badly in Open Office for me, and it's also FAR faster to open a document in than Open Office is on my box, and far less resource hungry to just keep open, which reduces the time to open even more. If I'd been editing lots of large spreadsheets instead of mostly viewing the occasional small one, perhaps Google Spreadsheets would be a pain, but for MY use it's actually far more efficient than Open Office. Haven't tried Gnumeric for a while, and I rarely need a word processor but when I do Abiword just haven't cut it for me (I tried it again a couple of days ago, and the printouts of the document I tested it on just came out horrendously ugly).

Also, if you're just going to use AJAX based web tools, what does it matter what OS you run?

It matters because the IT department has to manage the systems regardless what apps you run on them.

Re:Outsourcing Responsibility

[Sique]

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.

Of course you can. Security is one of the oldest businesses ever outsourced (that means taken away from your own employees/slaves/servants and given to a foreign group for money/treasures/valuable gifts). What do you think the name 'soldier' comes from? It's a person working for sold (from latin solidus = a Roman gold coin), not because of loyality or proudness or legal requirements. Having foreign groups serving as your protection is one of the oldest tricks in the book because you hope that the foreign people are ignorant about your internal struggles and intrigues or don't have any local alliances, and if they aren't as independent as expected, you might replace them without fear of a local unrest.

That's the business of Pinkerton and all the other security agencies, and even outsourcing bookkeeping and document production, exchange and storage is old news. Every middle age town had its writers or calculators whose business was to work for the local traders who weren't able to write or didn't have the calculatory knowledge for bookkeeping. And even today you go to a solicitor if you really want your documents to be correct, authentic and secure.

Re:Outsourcing Responsibility

[tomstdenis]

OpenOffice is not the only OSS office tool out there. AbiWord and Gnumeric spring to mind (both open way faster than OpenOffice).

And while you may think you're delegating responsibility you're still ultimately responsible. If I give company ABC my CC info to buy a product from them, then they choose to pass it off to someone else that I didn't authorize to process the payment, and eventually I learn that they did something fraudulent with it. You can be damn sure I'll hold ABC responsible, if not legally, than at least consumerably [as in I won't shop at ABC anymore].

Likewise, if they start hosting their customer data through AJAX on a Google server and it gets leaked, I won't do business with them either. The simplest way not to leak a secret is to NOT SEND IT TO OTHER PEOPLE. Even over TLS the data is stored somewhere at google, where one mishap can destroy any privacy I may or may not have had.

I use things like gmail because my personal emails are not private. i don't care if the entire world knows that I'm going to a Wii party this weekend [or whatever]. It doesn't matter.

But you can be damn sure that my private matters, technology, ideas, source code, etc, are not being hosted on free/near free web services just because it's nice and tidy.

Tom

Re:Outsourcing Responsibility

[Pyrusj]

Just a note: while security is one of the stated reasons, chances are what he means is the "security" of stable apps with a service contract. The reason he's looking at Google rather than OpenOffice or any of the other -- probably more secure from your viewpoint -- options is because of that pretty little "24x7 support" Google offers for a mere 50 per head per year. From a simple business standpoint, Google is a reliable company offering a low-cost, little training needed alternative to Office with full support. Microsoft can't offer a comparable price including support contracts, and other options either don't have dependable support (remember that forums are not an option for busy business people who don't want to sift through information and "play" with things to make them work) or are too little known (again, in the business world at least) to be considered dependable themselves.

No one wants to be stuck with an option that might go up in smoke. That's probably the security he's more concerned with.

Re:Outsourcing Responsibility

[sarathmenon]

i don't care if the entire world knows that I'm going to a Wii party this weekend

That's definitely a first, you pervert!

Re:Outsourcing Responsibility

[tomstdenis]

Maybe I missed a joke cuz I'm all mature and what not. But what is perverted about playing with a Nintendo Wii?

Tom

Re:Outsourcing Responsibility

[tomstdenis]

OpenOffice can take a while to open, but it will open none the less. Compare that to gmail for instance, oh wait, it says come back in 30 seconds ... for the last 3 hours ... oh shoot there goes my work day. gmail isn't down often, but it does slow down often. And that's just mail. Wait till google is parsing multi-megabyte documents with embedded crap and etc.

I don't get your complaint against AbiWord. It works just fine for editing documents. Sure it doesn't import .doc super well, but if you're not using Word who cares? AbiWord loads almost instantly, is fairly smooth, and as a word processor is fairly feature rich. Has less doo-dahs and whatnots then Word, but honestly I question how much of that is actually used.

Tom

Re:Outsourcing Responsibility

[sarathmenon]

With a Nintendo Wii, its fine. But when its someone else's wii ... :-x

Re:Outsourcing Responsibility

[misleb]

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].

Definitly within a year. Probably soon after the first secretary tries to do a mail merge or print some labels and they realize that Google apps are useless for all but the most trivial of office documents.

-matthew

Re:Outsourcing Responsibility

[misleb]

I don't get your complaint against AbiWord. It works just fine for editing documents. Sure it doesn't import .doc super well, but if you're not using Word who cares? AbiWord loads almost instantly, is fairly smooth, and as a word processor is fairly feature rich. Has less doo-dahs and whatnots then Word, but honestly I question how much of that is actually used.

It only takes a couple people who DO use the extra doo-dahs to make MS Office a general requirement. Well, maybe not a "requirement" but certainly it is a lot easier to just get a site license than to buy individual copies for select users and then worry about document interchange issues.

-matthew

Re:Outsourcing Responsibility

[511pf]

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.

Sure you can. There have been close to a dozen zero-day Microsoft Office vulnerabilities over the last year. These vulnerabilities are bring used to exploit machines and turn them into spam or Denial of Service bots. To combat this, you've got to roll out 3-4 Microsoft Office updates to every machine in your enterprise every month. No matter how efficient you are, there is a huge labor cost associated with running these updates. The chance of Office being hacked is infinitely higher than the chance of Google being hacked, and you'll never have to deploy a Google Office update to thousands of machines on a short time frame.

Why isn't this guy simply looking at Open Office, or hell the other free tools like AbiWord, Gnumeric, etc.

Because these are fat clients. You save on licensing costs, but not on deployment, maintenance or updates.

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 agree that lack of features is a big problem. I also have little doubt that this will be addressed over time. Same thing with the speed issue. I don't think now is the time for a hosted office suite, but I'm willing to bet they'll be good enough in the next 2 years.

Also, if you're just going to use AJAX based web tools, what does it matter what OS you run?

It doesn't, which is why Linux would be a better choice than Windows (when running hosted apps) given that it's more secure and less expensive.

Re:Outsourcing Responsibility

[tomstdenis]

Most folk who insist on using MS Office, haven't the first fucking clue what they're doing. I'm not saying there aren't people that use Office well, because there are. I'm just saying most are lazy, and learning where "find/replace" is in that new Wordprocessor is beyond them (but running a fortune 500 isn't... go figure).

I'm just glad I work in a relatively small company capable of just saying "use whatever gets the job done properly."

Tom

Re:Outsourcing Responsibility

[zsau]

I do not know what "sold" is in this context. If you're referring to the word in the phrase "I sold my labor", then that's the past tense of "sell", it's no more special than "teach"->"taught" or even "walk"->"walked"... Certainly has no relationship to "solidus".

Re:Outsourcing Responsibility

[Sique]

"Soldier" (or the french version soldat, also used in German, where the related term "Söldner" always means a military person who serves solely because of the money, while the soldat also might be conscripted or be a volunteer of patriotic motives) definitely derives from the latin word "solidus", which was the gold coin Severus Alexander (Roman emperor from 222 to 235) introduced for the quarterly payment of his troups. Since then the soldier is someone who receives a sold (a solidus) for his military services.

It may be that the english word "sell" has a similar source or is somehow related to the German words "sollen" or "Soll" (must resp. debt), because if you sell something, the receiver now is required to pay. For details ask a language specialist :)

An interesting related Roman concept of security outsourcing was that of the foederati, mostly german tribes which had a contract (foedus) to protect the Roman border (limes) against other german tribes in exchange for land for settlement and certain rights within the Roman society. Interestingly though the intermarriage with the local celtic or roman population was forbidden, so the german tribes always were considered foreign, thus the foederati were indeed some kind of "outsourcing companies".

This concept worked very well for more than 250 years, between the Varus Battle 9 AD and the plundering of Trier (Augusta Treverorum) in 275 AD by the german Alamans. After the Christianisation of Rome by Constantin the Great the German foederati even served as regular Roman troups, and Germans were filling the highest ranks in the Roman military. Famous Roman foederati were the Goths (Southeast Europe) and the Franks (northern Rhine), which later founded their own kingdoms in todays Spain (Visigoths, conquered by the Arabs in 711), France (Franks, what a surprise!) and Italy (Ostrogoths, conquered by byzantine troups in 553) on the remainings of the Roman Empire. The end of the Roman Empire is often considered as the time when in 476 the german-roman officer Odoaker (of the German Skires) removed the child-Emperor Romulus from the Roman Throne and called himself Rex Italiae (King of Italy). Reason? Open payments for German military services!

Re:Outsourcing Responsibility

[zsau]

Ah. I even checked up the dictionary for "sold" and it only gave variations of "to sell". As I say, there is no special relationship between (this sense of) "sold" and "soldier", although it's possible if you go far enough (common origin some five thousand years ago rather than borrowing).

I can therefore only assume "sold" is either particularly specialist terminology or not an English word, which explains my confusion :)

Re:Outsourcing Responsibility

[Sique]

No. Sold is just the German word for "military salary" ;)

Re:Outsourcing Responsibility

[zsau]

Ah! Now it makes sense. You should've said that it the first place :)

And now for something completely different...

seriously?

[mastershake_phd]

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.

Re:seriously?

[RKThoadan]

What about openoffice.org surely its more secure than an internet app.

Your documents might be more secure wit OpenOffice, but is the desktop more secure? If you are using fully web-based tools, you can install next to nothing on the desktop and lock it down incredibly tight. You don't have to worry about helping people find their files, repairing corrupted installs, etc. I guess the management bonus is probably greater than the security bonus, but it really depends what aspect of security you are talking about. For example, you might actually be better protected from internal security problems, and we all know those are the biggest risk.

Re:seriously?

[mastershake_phd]

but it really depends what aspect of security you are talking about

Hey Jim Could you print that report for me on those Google Apps that were my brilliant idea? Sure thing sir....OMG the internets are down. Panic!

Re:seriously?

[fontkick]

-What about openoffice.org surely its more secure than an internet app.-

Unless you have it installed on a government issued notebook with social security data entries for 26.5 million U.S. veterans.

Agree, with additional reason

[Lonewolf666]

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.

Pilot advisory - Seattle airspace

[HangingChad]

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 issued a pilot advisory for the Seattle area: Pilots should be aware of the potential to encounter flying chairs any time they are east and slightly south of Seattle center controlled airspace.

Re:Pilot advisory - Seattle airspace

[TobascoKid]

Honestly. . does anyone find these jokes funny anymore?

Seeing as it was modded funny, at least one person does.

Re:Oh yeah, another nail in the coffin

[cloudkiller]

So let me get this straight... we stop a good product because you can no longer make money selling your services to companies? If there truly no longer is a need for the services you offer, why should we support you?

Re:Oh yeah, another nail in the coffin

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Big Discount Stick

[frogstar_robot]

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.

It's a bargaining chip

[thatjavaguy]

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?

They should just tell Microsoft

[TheLink]

They should just tell Microsoft - give us Windows XP for 5-7 more years OR we go Linux.

After all apparently Windows XP already works OK for them, and new computers capable of running Vista tolerably will run XP pretty well ;).

It'll be crazy for the FAA or DoT to switch to Vista, there are only a handful of pluses for them (nope DirectX 10 support is not it), whereas there are so many minuses - trouble with drivers, trouble with compatibility, costs of retraining and support, lower performance (so far most of the benchmarks indicate that Vista is slower even for office apps) etc.

Then after 5-7 years, maybe Linux/Wine will have a decent Windows XP compatibility layer and the FAA and others can continue running their apps on a free OS of their choice (or a commercial Microsoft Windows compatible competitor ).

Re:They should just tell Microsoft

[oliverthered]

it would be a lot shorter that 5-7 years if they were prepared to spend a bit of money getting the apps they want supported.

Re:They should just tell Microsoft

[Lord Ender]

Using bold in a sig is bad form.

Re:Oh yeah, another nail in the coffin

[vivaoporto]

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.

moral?

[blakmac]

The FAA has a real problem when things crash.

Re:But Google's gmail has been cracked

[Orgazmus]

Could you back this up with something showing that gmail is routinely cracked?
I use it on a daily basis, and this is interesting if true.

I can see why the FAA dumped Vista......

[8127972]

.... as they'd have to deal with this all of the time.

- A plane is about to land. Cancel or Allow?
- A plane is about to take off. Cancel or Allow?
- A transport truck is about to crash. Cancel or Allow?

You'd get sick of having to click Cancel or Allow all of the time too.

Oh wait.

Will never happen

[bleh-of-the-huns]

I work within the DOT, there has been no discussion of linux or Mac replacing windows, the discussions are about not upgrading to Vista and Office 2007/IE7 due to inconsistancies with the custom applications, and much of the hardware would need to be replaced, not even upgraded, but totally replaced.

Re:Will never happen

[UnknowingFool]

I would suspect that is one reason that the Mac is not considered. Definitely you would have to replace all hardware. Linux is a viable alternative depending on the functions of each worker. Now if the FAA made ODF the standard format then OpenOffice and Linux is looking better.

Re:Will never happen

[drinkypoo]

I work within the DOT, there has been no discussion of linux or Mac replacing windows

Oh yeah? Do you work directly for David Bowen?

If not, you can go take a flying leap.

Hey, guess what! I'm a janitor for Apple, and I haven't heard any hot new mac rumors lately. Guess they're all wrong!

Re:Will never happen

[bleh-of-the-huns]

No, Actually I work for the CIO's office, who Dave Bowen is accountable to. Linux is used extremely sparingly, and mostly for specialty applications. The same goes for the DOT. As for Macs, there are a number of them, they are in the imagining department, and a few select people high in the chain of command.

Re:Will never happen

[codepunk]

You are somewhat correct in that it did not say anywhere that your personal workstation will change. It did say
that google apps would be used and that means that "You Are Using Linux, might be housed at google but you will be a user of Linux". Of course there is not likely too many people in the world that are not serviced greatly each and every day by linux or linux related infrastructure.

Re:Will never happen

[drinkypoo]

The thing you are forgetting is that the absence of evidence is not the same as the evidence of absence. YOU haven't heard anything about this. It's true that could be a result of no such discussion going on. It could also be that you simply don't need to be involved and they weren't ready to have the world know about it until now.

As for Macs, there are a number of them, they are in the imagining department

Heh, imagining department. I like that. I like to imagine what it would have been like if Apple had gone with BeOS.

and a few select people high in the chain of command.

...who are too stupid to handle multiple buttons.

Re:Oh yeah, another nail in the coffin

[cybrthng]

What does google have to do with free software? My question is a serious question. Even though you may hate Microsoft, it created jobs.

Google - they don't have a VAR channel or partner program - They own the entire supply chain almost end to end.

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.

I agree. This is a _HORRIBLE_ idea

[encoderer]

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.

If the "ditch" office/windows they're going to have to use GMail for ALL DOCUMENTS. Anything else would have to be like .txt or .pdf that's emailed around (probably using google servers again, so it's moot).

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.

Re:I agree. This is a _HORRIBLE_ idea

[gkhan1]

Of course it's legal. Why wouldn't it be legal? The government can use contract private enterprises to do anything they need, whether it be data storage or building a house. Also, ever heard of the Freedom of Information Act? 99% of the stuff stored on those servers will be open to the public anyway (I suppose air-port security stuff and on-going investigations and the like would be the exceptions), so there is not like there is a pressing need to hide it.

I would also like to point out that it is not necessarily true that this will be stored on googles servers. It might very well be that the databases are maintained in-house and the google apps access those. Or it might very well be that google simply sells their apps to the FAA so nothing is run on google servers.

As for google/microsoft lock-in, the only thing that I guess would make google better is that it's cheaper and it is automatically backed-up to central servers, without any hassle. Also Microsoft == Evil and Google == Good. Where have you been the last half-decade? ;)

Re:I agree. This is a _HORRIBLE_ idea

[MindStalker]

I've read many hints that Google allows comanpies to host their own google apps. While it may seem silly, its something that could be done.

Re:I agree. This is a _HORRIBLE_ idea

[mbrod]

Furthermore, tell me this slashdot: Why is it better to be locked-in to Googles proprietary software instead of Microsofts?

It isn't about the proprietary software in so much as it is about the proprietary formats of the MS Office documents, presentations, and spreadsheets. Google backs the open formats.

Re:I agree. This is a _HORRIBLE_ idea

[mysticgoat]

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.

Okay, I can follow that logic. It's sort of like the way US Government agencies do not use private financial institutions to manage their money, but keep it all in Fort Knox, and use only Fort Knox Credit Cards? Huh?

Google's specialty is high volume data management and security, and they take that very seriously. If they cannot yet do a better job for less cost than any business or agency whose main purpose is something else, then I would be very much surprised.

Perhaps the government should establish a National Data Management Agency for its own information needs, at the cabinet level. But that won't happen with this administration: it lacks the foresight and considers "intelligence" to be disinformation that will permit them to invade Middle East countries.

Hmm, possibly establishing a USNDMA would make sense. The USDVA (Veterans Affairs) already has a massive data sharing network for the CPRS (Computerized Patient Record System). It wouldn't be much of a reach to build out from that for all other government data. A USNDMA that was hardened against earthquakes, hurricanes, terrorist attacks, etc, might be a good idea, and perhaps cost less than the total the individual agencies are already spending on data security and management.

Re:I agree. This is a _HORRIBLE_ idea

[encoderer]

Yes, the VBA/Automation is a big part of what's missing.

But as others have said here, Google Documents doesn't even have Find & Replace capabilities yet. (They only have a "Replace All" option and even that is "experimental").

This is the future, I think. I really do. But not today. Not yet. It's just not ready.

Re:I agree. This is a _HORRIBLE_ idea

[Morrigu]

If you think that the VA's CPRS system or network is good model to follow for a National Data Management Agency, I've got some real estate to sell you.

(The DoD already has an agency like this, it's called DISA. Ask your average DoD techie about DISA and see how they like it. There are DoD agencies who have gone as far as getting budgetary approval and funding contracts to build out their own non-DISA-managed wide-area networks because of the issues involved with DISA network support. :)

This problem has already been solved!

[babbling]

This was a problem in the first few days of Windows Vista at the airport, but now we just click "Allow" for everything and it seems to work fine.

Re:This problem has already been solved!

[thrillseeker]

This was a problem in the first few days of Windows Vista at the airport, but now we just click "Allow" for everything and it seems to work fine.

You work in Homeland Security?

Re:Oh yeah, another nail in the coffin

[D-Cypell]

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??

"...Linux-based hardware..."

[Browzer]

WTF?

Sounds like FAA's top technology official can't differentiate between hardware and software.

Re:But Google's gmail has been cracked

[Rob the Bold]

Could you back this up with something showing that gmail is routinely cracked?

Why? I see no reason not to take the word of an AC on faith and stop using gmail based only on his/her (unsigned) opinion. I'm sure the AC has no interest in any of Google's competitors.

$75

[flyingfsck]

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.

Re:But Google's gmail has been cracked

[Donniedarkness]

What's wrong? Don't you trust someone with an ip address of 64.523.21.HOTMAIL?

Google Enterprise Professional Program

[TobascoKid]

Perhaps you should consider the Google Enterprise Professional Programme...

Google Enterprise Professional partners are product experts who provide value-added services or products to Google customers. As a Google Enterprise Professional, you'll have the ability to reach Google's rapidly growing customer base. We'll also provide you with either your own Google Search Appliance for development or a set of Google Apps Premier Edition user accounts for your own use. Plus you'll receive in-depth product training.

Re:But Google's gmail has been cracked

[twistedsymphony]

The only hack I ever remember seeing is one where someone was able to log back into someone else's account on a public terminal even after the cache had been wiped, but that was quite a while ago and IIRC it was fixed rather quickly.

Re:Oh yeah, another nail in the coffin

[TobascoKid]

What does google have to do with free software?

Well, they fund some of it and they'll host anybody's OSS project for free.

Re:I've got something to say....

[Anonymous Coward]

Right band, wrong song

What's the point of Google apps?

[halfdan the black]

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.

Re:What's the point of Google apps?

[SCHecklerX]

If Google were to do an appliance for this, it'd be much easier to manage for, say, a 50,000 employee company than having to maintain applications on every workstation, for starters. Bonus, you can now use a linux 'smart client' as the workstation, getting you away from licensing costs and even more management costs. Even at my most recent job, most people spend most of their time using: 1) email. 2) web-based databases. Getting rid of the need to use word processors and spreadsheets locally is a good thing in terms of IT resource management, security, and cost.

This isn't going to work as well for your mom and pop shops (which, unfortunately are the way many *large* businesses are also run). But for the enterprise, it's a good way to go.

Re:What's the point of Google apps?

[halfdan the black]

Ever hear of X-Windows and X-Terminals ??? Run Open Office on a server(s), and each user just access though X-Windows. You get the same functionality as a native application because it is a native application, just running on a server.

Re:What's the point of Google apps?

[vidarh]

I agree Google Apps can't replace a full office suite. But I have repeatedly resorted to Google Spreadsheets when Open Office was unable to correctly handle Excel sheets I received. I also frequently use it to open small spreadsheets I only want to read, as it's usually faster to upload to Google Spreadsheets than start Open Office on my machine... Open Office is ok, but it's far too slow and so I only ever use it when I absolutely have to.

Re:What's the point of Google apps?

[kbielefe]

If this is so easy, why hasn't it caught on?

Because people are locked in to MS Windows, and it isn't easy on Windows.

Outside of the Microsoft world, that sort of remote display functionality is taken for granted.

Re:What's the point of Google apps?

[Kalriath]

Wrong. Terminal Server is beyond easy. It's bloody expensive though.

Re:What's the point of Google apps?

[dbIII]

I do not understand how this web based word processor can be used for anything more complicated than a simple memo

That is probably the idea - why have flashy documents that consume lot of time to generate when you really want content?

MS Word fills the niche between a text editing program and a desktop publishing program but does a dismil job if you attempt to get it to do the task of either. For example - embedded images in MS Word documents that are still in the process of being written can still be as much of a pain as it was in 1995. People can spend days on document formatting of relatively short documents when they really should be focusing on content and using a tool that requires less experimentation to get results or passing it on to someone with a better tool and skills in layout.

Re:Oh yeah, another nail in the coffin

[beavis88]

I am the only one who is nervous about that??

No. No you are not. :|

No real difference

[rumith]

Do you think that use of proprietary software, and especially an operating system is any more secure? That damned Windows XP computer may be uploading all your documents through your Windows 2k/2k3 server to Microsoft HQ, and you'll never know.

XP just works.

[Neutrino Linguino]

XP's success is Vista's [initial] downfall. If it just works, and works well, why replace it.

Microsoft has a long history of putting out buggy software, release after release, to keep the users paying.

The people there are not stupid, I'm sure they have something planned that will turn this around.

Already there

[gr8_phk]

"Hopefully, they are seriously considering Linux regardless."
FAA is outsourcing the whole flight services infrastructure to Lockheed. A rep from Lockheed gave a presentation to our local EAA chapter on the new system and it's rather cool. Each person gets a multi-head display and all the software is running on Linux. I don't recall the distro. So when you call in for a weather report or to check if there are TFRs in your flight path, you will be talking to a guy running Linux. It makes sense for the FAA to switch because they will likely want access to the same software. The only downside is that there will be fewer of these people, so you may be talking to someone far away who doesn't know the local area and local weather.

Re:Already there

[Anonymous Coward]

And why do you have to call in to flightwatch at all? Because a ground worker is allowed to have a full color display wheras to put the same information in the cockpit would step on the AIR group's "2020 cockpit" turf if you use more than 2 of the allowed colors in AC 25.11. Don't applaud anything the FAA does regarding linux until the FAA becomes less about policy development turf and more about actual innovation and safety.

Re:Oh yeah, another nail in the coffin

[cybrthng]

True, but so does every other company out there. Are they charming you to blind you to there own intentions? after all thats the famous line against novell/microsoft.

Link

[TobascoKid]

I forgot to add a link

Re:Link

[Kalriath]

Ah, but Microsoft doesn't charge me, as a person helping THEM as a company reach a larger customer base, $10,000 per year to be a VAR for them. Google does.

Re:Oh yeah, another nail in the coffin

[vertinox]

At least with Microsoft Products i can still sell my services, support, licensing, hardware and services. Google? I can sell a short contract to replace myself.

I can see where you are coming from because for the past 10 years I have made my livelihood because of the massive spread of Microsoft products... Rather the massive failure of Microsoft Products.

However, I have always been aware that if either Microsoft fixed their products, made them easier to use out of the box, or a competitor did it for them and gained market dominance then I would be out of a job.

So in truth I have made a living for the past 10 years because a large company has broken products, but I have always been looking for alternative work or something more or less social. (*coughs* Music *coughs*)

So my suggestion to all of those who are MSCEs or anyone support Microsoft Boxes/Networks/Applications...

Diversify now!

Learn a new programming language... Get into robotics... Learn a foreign language... Start using OS X or Linux...

Because as the Anti-Virus companies have realized, times change and your bread and butter may just go away one morning.

Who is to say that Microsoft won't just copy Google's application method anyways?

They don't need to hire anyone

[ishmalius]

Remember that this is a government agency. The training people are already on staff.

Re:They don't need to hire anyone

[mdozturk]

It is the government: you have to train the training people.

Re:Oh yeah, another nail in the coffin

[vivaoporto]

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.

As much as I like seeing these articles..

[Svartalf]

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.

Re:As much as I like seeing these articles..

[Colin Smith]

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. Yeah, but you have a four digit slashdot UID. Most windows users can't be relied upon to run such basics as firewall or virus scanner.

Re:As much as I like seeing these articles..

[dbIII]

It depends - can you licence this from google and run these applications on a local server within your organisation?

When the Microsoft salesman calls...

[dpbsmith]

...always have your Ubuntu mug, your Debian mug, and your iPod lying on your desk.

Or are security minded...

[Svartalf]

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...)

Re:Or are security minded...

[quanticle]

>>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...<<

Why not? Isn't a single server easier to secure than hundreds of desktops?

Re:Or are security minded...

[misleb]

Why not? Isn't a single server easier to secure than hundreds of desktops?

First of all, not matter what, you need to secure your desktops. Second, the documents themselves would be stored on a file server.

-matthew

Re:Or are security minded...

[nasch]

First of all, not matter what, you need to secure your desktops.

But if the documents are never stored on the desktops, a security failure on a desktop doesn't expose your documents.

Second, the documents themselves would be stored on a file server.

Exactly. It should be possible to more reliably secure a file server, right? I'm not a security expert, but it seems that way to me. You don't need to have somebody sitting at it, so you can do things that might not work for a workstation. Plus you could (possibly) choose a more secure OS than the Windows that your desktops (may) require.

Re:Or are security minded...

[bslorence]

But any given document will only be as secure as the least-secure workstation which has access to it. If the user of that workstation browses to a compromised site, and, oh I don't know, his browser loads an image with malicious code embedded in it that Windows blithely executes, then oops! you've got a backdoor into your network with at least the privileges of the user who "installed" it, including any privileges he has on the file server. Doesn't really matter how secure the file server is at that point, or what OS it's using for that matter.

Ahh...

[SoulRider]

microsoft releases a new version of their OS. Let the negotiations begin.

While that IS an insightful comment...

[Svartalf]

I have a big problem with them outsourcing ANYTHING of theirs, information-wise, to ANY
IT provider. That's just not something I'd have thought they'd have done. They might
be closer than other branches of the government to be able to do this thing and have
the least profile to risks, it still is a much higher risk of real problems occuring
from them doing this over choosing OO.org and a migration to some other OS in a staged
manner- anything supported would work, Solaris, Linux, MacOS, they all would work
reasonably well for this situation.

No, I don't think that.

[brennanw]

I don't think Windows XP is particularly secure, but I DO think that an IT guy working for the FAA has a better chance of managing his own server environment than he does Google's.

Why are you assuming my question indicates a preference for proprietary software? It indicates a preference for local management...

Why do idiots have mod points?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is the parent post a troll?

Outsourcing this only changes a few aspects...

[Svartalf]

It doesn't make security any easier or better. IF you compromise the boxes that people are using
to access Google Apps, you've still got a problem. Either the workstations used, or a man-in-the-middle
attack would be the way for someone to go if they wanted to make a hash of things in this situation.

It's folly to presume that this would make things "easier" security-wise.

There are many regulations....

[encoderer]

There are many regulations regarding the security and control of US Government data. Approved systems. Approved technologies. Approved standards.

And how does FOIA have anything to do with this? Surely the FAA Has confidential and secret documents. Even if 99% is available to the public, are you just going to glaze over the other 1%? Personally, I doubt the numbers are that high. FOIA requests are often returned redacted, meaning that there's a lot of confidential information peppered about.

Re:There are many regulations....

[gkhan1]

The FAA probably has serious security routines for the 1% already, I'm sure that they can figure something out. But for the vast majority of their data, reports, emails, archives and all the other stuff there is no reason not to use google apps. I mean, I'm sure they back it up. It's a cheap, easy and very good way to deal with that data. My point about FOIA is that all of this data is already public, so there is very little need to spend huge amounts of money designing their own super-secure system when google has one already done. Sure, they don't want hackers to get in (and I'm sure google protects against that), but there isn't like a strong need to hide the data from the four google administrators that might debug the system. They don't need clearance or anything.

If the administrator says that it serves their needs and that it is cheaper, I say go for it! More money for hospitals and stuff. Plus, it removes some of the monopoly MS has on software on government computers, which is always nice.

Re:Oh yeah, another nail in the coffin

[drinkypoo]

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.

Yes, yes it would. The Feds could destroy Google in a second, and if it were in their best interest they would do so. Google's power is primarily US-based. Wipe out Google in the US and in every country that can be counted on to kowtow to our might, which is most of them even as world approval ratings for the US drop into the sub-basement, and Google will be irrelevant.

He who can destroy a thing controls it. Google is effectively an arm of the US government.

Now THAT is what worries me.

Bottom line, anyone who trusts sensitive data to an outside agency when they have a choice in the matter is being an idiot.

Trust no one. Or trust everyone, but double-check everything "just in case" which boils down to the same thing. But you have to be paranoid about security, because you need to be effective if/when they really are "out to get you".

Re:But Google's gmail has been cracked

[badonkey]

There have been issues.

Some are recent.

Both are declared "fixed," but it's a bit unsettling. Contact lists and email are one thing, highly sensitive documents are another.

no discussion ? ..

[rs232]

'there has been no discussion of linux or Mac replacing windows, the discussions are about not upgrading to Vista'

He does seem to say he is considering replacing the desktops with thin clients running Google apps on a server. Unless you can get him to publish a msg saying he never said this.

"In an interview, FAA chief information officer David Bowen said he's taking a close look at the Premier Edition of Google Apps .. It takes the desktop out of the way so you're running a very thin client. From a security and management standpoint that would have some advantages."

Will never happen (Score:4, Informative)

Re:no discussion ? ..

[bleh-of-the-huns]

I never said he did not say it, what I said is it would not happen, atleast not in the forseeable future. You have no idea how much trouble I had just trying to get a copy of RH EE purchased at one point for a DB, since Oracle will not support anything other then RHEE n the linux side of things. (It will run on other flavours, but will not, or would not have been at the time, about 4 years ago). However, Dave Bowen is not the ultimate decision for the entire FAA, although they do operate independantly from the DOT in many cases, they still have many sub agencies, and those agencies are extremely teritorial, and do not always listen to the FAA or DOT CIO's office.

Re:Oh yeah, another nail in the coffin

[advocate_one]

At least with Microsoft Products i can still sell my services, support, licensing, hardware and services. Google? I can sell a short contract to replace myself.

hmmm... sounds like one of those buggy whip makers when the horseless carriage was being introduced...

FAA's IT staff is already...

[Anonymous Coward]

...full of Linux geeks who are well-versed in Open Source, and have been chomping at the bit to kick Windows out of their agency for several years now. Upper management has been the stumbling block, not the IT staff, and not really the end-users but they will be needing some training. And now that the budget is in a big pinch, upper management is warming to the idea of stretching the service lifespan of existing hardware, free software, and spending some money to help train end users.

Re:FAA's IT staff is already...

[wift]

The budget has been on hold for over a year now.

Just like Intel and Dell...

[bigtallmofo]

This is just a ploy to get lower pricing from Microsoft. Dell used to do this all the time with Intel... Every year or so they'd threaten to start buying AMD chips. Then Intel would give them lower pricing and it never happened... oops, wait a minute... never mind.

Wow; Do you have it wrong

[WindBourne]

This is replacing the Office package. Nothing more. Laptops are still needed. Desktops are still needed. It is just that they are more likely to run Linux. With MS, you have no real way to offer true service to a group like the FAA. You can't get into the OS and fix the problems. Worse, all you have are virus fix after virus fix. All in all, MS is bad for you and bad for the buyer. Only 2 groups really come out ahead with Windows; MS and crackers. If all of your customers switched to Linux today, they will still need training and apps.

If and when Google decides to start competiting in all avenues, then you have issues. But they are showing that they are looking to break MS's monopoly. If that happens, then computers will flow everywhere as computing prices will drop. And there will need to be a LOT of training (read services).

Re:Wow; Do you have it wrong

[WindBourne]

Well, you obviously do not code, nor do you use logic. People crack and write virus on MS because it is the easiest target. Read what the current generation of virus writers say. They do MS ie because it is SOOOO easy. They will openly tell you that the 5 million linux boxes would be MORE than enough if the could. Likewise the same is true of the apples, the standard unixes, the other BSDs, and even the mainframes. So The day that Windows is no longer the easiest target, then shortly thereafter, the new virus will target a different system, And not one day earlier.

likely...

[pizza_milkshake]

likely just an attempt to get a better deal from Microsoft. an attempt that will likely succeed.

All options require training

[WebCowboy]

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.

Re:All options require training

[speculatrix]

when I install windows, I always redo the entire start menu. I also change XP theme to Windows2000, turn off the eye candy, turn off the annoying "remove unused icons", turn off the hiding unused menu entries, fix the quickstart bar... takes me half an hour tops. If vista is so damn configurable, it surely is possible to make it look sufficiently like Win2k or WinXP so no training required, and this would be a custom install so that trivial to rollout systems.

My first step would be to migrate existing users to OpenOffice, and thus break the MS Office cycle. Most users should need no more than half an hour to get up to speed. New users and/or upgraded computers would become linux desktops if possible. Also, at the very least, a lot of older file servers could be replaced with Linux, which could be quite a big saving.

Having gone down this route at former employer, the biggest problem in converting staff were the senior managers who love their Outlook/Exchange/calendaring, and the techies loved converting to linux as it meant they could avoid being put on Outlook and micromanaged using calendars!

Re:All options require training

[WebCowboy]

If vista is so damn configurable, it surely is possible to make it look sufficiently like Win2k or WinXP so no training required, and this would be a custom install so that trivial to rollout systems.

Vista is very theme-able to be sure. My experience with Vista is limited to pre-release versions but employing the "Windows Classic" theme was (and apparently still is) VERY FAR from a complete emulation of the REAL classic interface. How do you make explorer go back that way? What about IE7? I've heard that the newest Office is about less similar to the old MS office as OpenOffice is, and that any means to switch back to "classic" mode don't do a full job either. I still think there would be a period of adjustment in an upgrade to Vista--unless you waited a year or two until enough users were used to using Vista at home.

and this would be a custom install so that trivial to rollout systems.

Well, being that Vista is an "image-based" install right out of the box, making a custom install image might indeed be improved over XP (like where you try to put a ghost image of XP on different hardware and more often than not id blue-screens on bootup...). Product Activation still seems to me like it would be burdonsome--has anyone got experience with the creation and deployment of such an image (can you still get corporate editions without activation issues with Vista?) I've only installed an individual, non-custom Vista straight from MSDN media.

Perhaps not hard, but I still think more than trivial...and it also begs the question of "what's the point"--pay big bucks to get Vista everywhere just to make it function as much as possible as the OLD stuff, except it'll be just different and incompatible enough to confuse people. If you are going out of your way to avoid much of what Vista has to offer (its pretty face) then why not stick with XP and save your money?

My first step would be to migrate existing users to OpenOffice, and thus break the MS Office cycle. Most users should need no more than half an hour to get up to speed.

This is along the lines of what the FAA must be looking to do, except with Google's applications. I'd like to see something truly Free used over Google, however the online-nature AND platform-independent nature of Google's applications may make migration that much easier. I'd have to say that it isn't entirely unreasonable to expect users to adjust to OO.o faster than MS Office 2007 or even Google Apps though.

the biggest problem in converting staff were the senior managers who love their Outlook/Exchange/calendaring

There are enough alternatives to MS out there to fulfill the needs of PHBs...our PHBs happily get along with Lotus Notes for example, though new people coming in that are used to Outlook grumble about the Notes UI being a step back. The thing about PHBs is that they are creatures of habit, and if it looks or feels any different AT ALL from Outlook then it must not do what outlook does. Once they actually find out you CAN do what outlook and Exchange do then they dive right in and (ab)use those tools to the greatest extent possible (using meeting invites prolifically, inserting their presence into your calendar, etc etc).

As for Google Apps, the central deployment and management of them would be a micro-manager's wet dream--I really think for them that the days of the old IBM mainframe and 3270 sessions were the glory days.

Re:All options require training

[irenaeous]

I run OpenOffice at my 9-5 job on my windows box at work. I have had documents open (Word and Excel) and allowed others to work at my desk to look at something or make a quick change and be completely unaware that they were not using MS Office. I find that amusing, and it illustrates your point.

Re:All options require training

[asylumx]

Google's application-server-thin-client model is much less burdensome. Open and Free systems have much better "real" support

It concerns me that you think this is open source. Google's apps are closed just as much as MS's. They are also not free, at least not to the degree that the FAA would be using them. Also, Google will be the only company offering support for their apps, whereas there are many windows experts out there already who will offer their services to you.

Finally, the last thing I want is to have our government entirely dependant on an ADVERTISING company such as google.

Re:All options require training

[timeOday]

it surely is possible to make it look sufficiently like Win2k or WinXP so no training required

Themeing is irrelevant, it's eye candy. Many things, such as the new security model, really are different. They cannot be "themed" away. This is especially true for those with the most hours invested in learning all the undocumented intracasies of XP - the admins.

Re:All options require training

[ralphdaugherty]

Finally, the last thing I want is to have our government entirely dependant on an ADVERTISING company such as google.

      Selling systems to government and business is not advertising, so you are discouraging that which actually makes it not entirely dependent on advertising. And the more software services they sell, the less dependent they are.

      And what's wrong with free services suupported by advertising anyway? Radio and TV have been making a mint off of it since the beginning. Google and the internet in general are looking to get their share of those billions of dollars, a share equivalent to eyes on the internet and Google instead of tv.

      But neither Google or the networks are going away anytime soon because they are mostly dependent on advertising.

  rd

Re:All options require training

[WebCowboy]

it concerns me that you think this is open source.

But it IS an open system--just not a COMPLETELY open source/Free one. Google's infrastructure is all Linux based, the applications are platform independent (ie...an OPEN platform) and will run on client OSes like Linux and *BSD (OPEN source and Free). Firefox may be used as a browser even if Windows clients are retained (open source).

It concerns ME that people like YOU confuse "open architecture" and "open source", and as a knee-jerk reaction condemn, or at least severely criticise, any system architecture that is not totally and completely Free. In my original post I said "open and Free" in meaning two different things, because they are NOT the same thing, though they are nearly equally important, and achieving at least one of the two is a great step forward. There are examples of "open" (even "open source") that are not Free--Many commercial Unices are examples (they may comply with the openly available POSIX standard, the source code is even available, they are very well documented). MacOS X is very open compared to MS Vista for example, however MacOS X is even less Free than MS Vista (as the latter at least is not locked in to one hardware vendor). MS has a lot of open software under a "shared source" license, which is not Free (you cannot alter and distribute it freely, nor is the license "viral" to use Microsoft parlance)

Similarly there are Free software projects that aren't particularly open (it is subtle, but notice that I say capital-F-Free software to mean what the French might call "logiciel libre" whereas small-f-free is "gratis"). Often such a project is the vehicle that carries a business that uses support as a means of revenue generation--which is a valid way to try to make money. Such a Free project might even be licensed under the GPL and fully functional versions easily downloadable in source and binary form. However Free they may be they are not truly OPEN. It might be basically impossible to be as closed as a completely closed-source system like MS Vista but it is pretty easy to introduce elements that "close up" a Free system from an architectural standpoint. For example (a minor one anyways) MySQL is not standards compliant in terms of both behaviour or syntax, so many applications designed around MySQL become "locked in" (just to avoid totally offending MySQL people, PostgreSQL is MUCH more compliant with standards but has its own nonstandard extensions and behaviours too, which when used can lead to lock-in). Of course, if care is taken in application design this lock-in can be mitigated. Another way of "closing" a Free application is to withhold some or all documentation or create non-free support forums (SQL Ledger and Mandrake are past examples where these practices have limited interoperability and "openness" of a system).

Yes, Google's office suite is definitely not free OR Free but Google is VERY good at making "open" systems (unrestricted access to APIs, majority of offerings are not single-platform, etc), and furthermore these apps will run on a Free platform. Still a great deal better than non-Free AND non-Open a la Microsoft if you ask me. The next step could be to move to Free applications on a Free system some day...but hey, we are talking about a US government department here...baby steps...

FOIA...

[encoderer]

That data must be given to the public if it's requested doesn't mean that such data is "already public." Not at all. If that were the case, why not just setup a huge anon FTP?

FOIA requests are vetted. The data is scrutinized. On any given document, huge parts of it may be redacted before being given to the petitioner. This suggests that even in "public" documents, much security is required.

Re:FOIA...

[gkhan1]

But the documents wouldn't be "public" like a website is public. It would still be stored encrypted and behind lock and key. Just anyone couldn't access it, and even FAA employees could probably only see a very limited subset of it. I'm just saying since these documents are public (and no, you can just censor any public document, you can only censor classified documents, and you can even sue to make those documents public), it wouldn't be a big deal if the FAA used Google's services. The Google sysops wouldn't need credentials or background checks or anything.

I would like to iterate this again: any government agency (that isn't the NSA) produces enormous amounts of documents. Millions and millions, and there is only a teeny-tiny amount that someone would even consider to be anything other than completely open. In the post-9/11 Bush-world it seems like anything a government does is a huge national secret. The truth is that the US is still a very open society (a little less so than some European countries perhaps) when it comes to government documents. Virtually all of them are completely public. The thing is, the very select few that aren't public (a fraction of a percent), those are the interesting ones, while most the public ones will probably never be read by anyone because they are mindnumbingly boring.

There is a large need for places to store these documents, and services that can retrieve them from anywhere in the world in a smooth way. If Google can do this cheaply, I say go for it! The teeny-tiny select few that are sensitive can be handled in a different way. There are huge savings to be made here, tax-dollars that can be spent on rescuing puppies and curing lupus and stuff. <span class=Colbert>Are you against puppies? PUPPY-HATER!</span>

(sorry about that last thing, but you get my point ;)

Oh...

[Sfing_ter]

OH SNAP!

Sorry... Try Again...

[encoderer]

There is _no_ Google Apps Appliance. You're confusing this with their search appliance. If they did have such a server, I think it would be fine. It's no different than using an Exchange server, for example.

So, I'd take your own advice if I were you: Please visit google and study their google apps model: http://www.google.com/a/enterprise/

Re:Oh yeah, another nail in the coffin

[Maxo-Texas]

The eventual new model will mean not much "work" for most people.

That should be a paradise (lots of stuff, only a small percent of workers) but is more likely to be a distopia (lots of stuff you can't buy unless you can work even tho it is basically free, only a small percent of people who can earn money to buy stuff).

Compatibility?

[UncleMidriff]

From TFA:

"Bowen, however, said he has not definitely ruled out an FAA-wide upgrade to Windows Vista and related software -- 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. 'We have a trip to Microsoft scheduled for later this month,' said Bowen."

He considering an OS change and a business productivity suite change, but he's concerned about compatibility?

I've been a contractor on-site at an FAA campus for the last 2-3 years, and I can tell you that we are very much a Microsoft shop out here. Just about every in-house app is developed using Microsoft technology, from .NET to VB 6 and even Access. I can think of only one app, out of many, many apps, that runs on Linux. I'm not sure about other FAA sites, but from what I've heard, I get the feeling that this is the case throughout the majority of the FAA.

So, if we do change to a Linux/Google Apps combo for desktops, it's going to require approximately 28,751.00234 crap-tons of money to rework the majority of our in-house apps to work with Linux. I'm not saying that isn't feasible...but I would definitely be surprised if it cost less than switching to Vista. I'm not a huge MS fan, mind you; I use Linux at home, and hell, I think it'd be kind of neat for everyone around here to be using Linux. But I just don't see that happening.

I'd also like to note that the FAA just switched from Windows 2000 to Windows XP less than about 6 months ago. Thus, I'm not expecting the next change, whether it be to Linux/Google Apps or to Vista, to occur any time soon.

Uhh...

[encoderer]

The "native" Google format is to have your data locked away on their servers. Yes, you can export it. But you can just as easily save a word document in RTF. ...Just a thought...

Bullshit detector going through the roof

[hodet]

This is the oldest trick in the book. Threaten to leave and then get a huge discount from Microsoft. Laugh your ass off knowing full well you never intended to change. So lame.

FYI...

[Alari]

The FAA's main data system is driven by HP-UX, at least last time I worked for them. Considering the amount of custom software involved, I don't think they've switched away. I'm guessing that these are probably people's "personal" work computers that they're talking about.

It's definitely nice to know they're looking to Linux for a desktop solution.

Re:Oh yeah, another nail in the coffin

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

When you start to compare someone's choice of OS to an actual war, not just a metaphorical one, you should step back and realise you're taking it too seriously.

Assuming a comparison somehow implies that the things being compared are quantitatively similar makes no sense. "The sun is like a nuclear reactor," in no way implies that the sun is the same level of importance to human survival as the nuclear reactor outside Green Bay, Wisconsin. They are comparable in qualities (nuclear powered) the same way that a war and Microsoft's monopoly are both similar in that they both create jobs. This comparison demonstrates that just because one quality exists (job creation) that does not logically follow that another quality exists (net positive impact on the world).

Picking out which system you want to run your apps on is not on the same moral level as human beings shooting each other.

Morality is wholly subjective, by definition. Why do any of us care about your morals? Is it relevant to the discussion in some way?

Upgrading to Vista yet?

[NinjaTariq]

Why would they be choosing over Vista/linux now anyway, it would be years before a large organisation like that would even consider using Vista. By then we'd be on our second service pack, they would have nailed problems with backward compatibility.

Its a hard enough decision for a large organisation to switch to a different word processor, or even upgrade, an entirely new platform would cost a prohibitive sum in training, implementation and rewriting internal apps. Its going to take a long time to make the decision, and meanwhile microsoft will be "Hey, how about we give you this to stay with us"...

vista, the windows killer...

[josepha48]

LOL.. and here Microsoft though that Linux or mac would be a real threat to their operations and low and behold, their own operating system is so bad that people just don't want this crap anymore. ROTFLOL... I think MS would have been better off creating just 1 version of Vista with install options. Mac sells 2 Server and Desktop. Most modern Linux distros let you choose what you want to install it as Server or Workstation, and then let you pick the packages you want to install too.

How many times have we seen this?

[mergy]

An executive from a big organization X is looking at upgrading his Microsoft-centric network of products. He thinks he will get a good deal from MS because he is a big shot and the company or government agency is a big deal. He is shocked at the initial price MS comes back with. He knows he is not going to rip-out all the MS stuff across the massive network but really has no other way to bargain other than issuing a release saying he is evaluating (Redhat/Suse/ and now Google) and wants bargaining chips to take back to MS.

Let me tell you the end of the story for all of you, MS comes back and gives the software away on the initial upgrade pricing but nails them to the wall for years on support.

In 5 years, rinse and repeat.

WTF? Tallking to Dell about Thin Clients?

[HighOrbit]

From TFA interview with FAA chief information officer David Bowen

Bowen cited several reasons why he finds Google Apps attractive. "It's a different sort of computing strategy," he said. "It takes the desktop out of the way so you're running a very thin client. From a security and management standpoint that would have some advantages."
....
Bowen said he's in talks with the aviation safety agency's main hardware supplier, Dell Computer, to determine if it could deliver Linux-based computers capable of accessing Google Apps through a non-Microsoft browser once the FAA's XP-based computers pass their shelf life. "We have discussions going on with Dell," Bowen said. "We're trying to figure out what our roadmap will be after we're no longer able to acquire Windows XP."

I'm sorry, but do you really think Dell is going to enthusiastically push thin clients? AFAIK, Dell isn't even in the thin client business, they are in the PC business. Dell has an interest in dooming this from the start in order to protect their PC business. This CIO Bowen has no idea of where to go with this, so somebody needs to whisper in his ear. He needs to talk with Sun, since they have considerable experience with Sunray thin clients. Maybe even Neoware thin clients from IBM/Lenovo.

Re:WTF? Tallking to Dell about Thin Clients?

[wilec]

"AFAIK, Dell isn't even in the thin client business, they are in the PC business."

There are hundreds of cute little Dell branded cigar box sized units setup to boot XP across the network where I work,(health care). Started seeing them about 3 years ago, now they are everywhere and seem almost the exclusive solution where the clinical staff needs a wired network access point. Not to mention the nearly equivalent number of 1u Dell's racked in the data center.

Wabi-Sabi
Matthew

Better bargaining position

[Idaho]

It's probably the usual stuff going on here....

They'll now get a large discount from Microsoft, which is probably what they're really after anyway.

Nothing to see here, move along...

"FAA May Ditch Vista For Linux" ?

[rehtonAesoohC]

That title is totally misleading... They're not ditching Vista for Linux... They're thinking about the possibility of ditching Vista in favor of google applications. Google applications running on Linux has no bearing on the fact that the FAA is choosing google applications...

That's like saying: "I like Hondas better than Fords because the gas tank is made with different materials."

... and those that can't even can't teach...

[EmbeddedJanitor]

work for the FAA?

I was thinking of flying on vacation. How long does it take to walk to Europe?

Only minor training required

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Probably most FAA systems run with a few forms-based applications sitting on top of some data base. They are not installing printers etc, the IT folk do that. Most likely very few people ever interact with the OS (except to reboot).From a user's perspective, it is not very hard to switch from one OS to another since the OS is hardly visible.

There would, however, be traing for IT and support people.

Re:Only minor training required

[jlizard43]

Flipping from M$Office to Google apps is one thing, but flipping from XP to Linux is an entirely different matter regarding TCO. What nobody seems to be discussing here is centralized management and security when it comes to access and control over the desktop. It's one thing to re-train your busy bee workers, but you would need an entirely new IT staff to work with the centralized management tools for a fleet of Linux desktops. If you want a mature set of tools then you are going with Novell or RedHat anyway, which doesn't seem that politically or monetarily different than Microsoft and the cost of your IT workers with expertise on enterprise managed Linux systems is 15-20% higher than getting a cast of MCSE's to keep everything in top shape for you.

Re:What training?

[Technician]

What's interesting though is that the FAA seems to think that the costs associated with training will in the end be cheaper than an upgrade to Vista.

They are probably right. They are using web applications. Linux training would be pretty much;
1 how to log in
2 how to open firefox
3 how to use the local filesystem eg; My_Documents or \Home
4 how to switch users withou logging off the first user or rebooting if the screen is locked
5 how to logoff

Running most applications in this case is not needed. That is google webapps training. It's the same in Windows in IE as it is in Linux in Firefox.

6 Maybe how to run evolution

This has got to be simpler than training the Vista users how to flip the cube of desktops upside down and re-stack the applications on each desktop.

Re:... and those that can't even can't teach...

[igaborf]

I was thinking of flying on vacation. How long does it take to walk to Europe?

Give it a try and let us know. Don't forget your galoshes.

This should scare you

[An dochasac]

FAA (after several extremely expensive false starts) finally deployed a flight control system to replace the Sperry-Univac 8300s. You'd think they would have learned something from these mistakes, but there are several things that scare me about this:

1) The fact that Windows Vista (an unproven not yet released OS) is being considered for mission critical systems.

2) The fact that Government might tie a crucial part of national infrastructure to any single company (Microsoft or a high-flying dot com)

3) The fact that Linux was considered but not BSD, OpenSolaris, OSX and any number of other OSs suggests that the FAA still doesn't understand their problem, instead they focus on a sole-source vendor who can claims to be able to solve it, whatever it is.

This just in

[Arceliar]

The FAA Reports several airlines have collided with pigs mid flight. Scientists are baffled yet too busy to find the cause, as they all have hot dates tonight.

Seriously though, the FAA switching would be a pretty big step..but I don't see it actually happening. At least, not till something post-vista.

Re:Oh yeah, another nail in the coffin

[nasch]

If MS loses so much business to Google that the MS reseller industry is significantly impacted, Google will have to hire a LOT of people. Maybe you'll be one of the ones they hire, maybe you'll be one of the ones that has to find a different job, and maybe you'll be one of the MS people who sticks around. If Google can do things more efficiently than MS (what a shocker that would be) then there will be a net loss of IT jobs. But arguing against improved efficiency in order to increase demand for labor is a very short-sighted economic position. In other words, you could lose a job, but the industry and economy as a whole will be just fine, and maybe even better off. And - sorry to say it - there's no reason we should care more about you (or me) than we do about everybody.

Re:Every time I go outside...

[the_womble]

The inevitable result would be more casualties, and market forces would only show up after the fact.

To say nothing of the difficulties in relying on market forces when consumers lack any clear way of judging the safety of a flight they are planning to buy a ticket on.

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.

Re:Every time I go outside...

[TFloore]

Sorry, I don't give thanks to the government for non-incidents. I'll thank the FAA every time I take my shoes off or have to throw out a perfectly good bottle of water to board. If airplanes started to crash the problem would be corrected without government intervention because the airline business would pick up the slack. They have other reasons besides mandated regulation to keep air travel safe. If they didn't, people would be scared to fly and the business would fail.

Who pays for air traffic control? Right now, that is paid for by the traveling public, through taxes levied on airline tickets, paid to the FAA. If you wanted to privatize it, sure, that would work well. (That was sarcasm you just missed.)

Or do you think that we'd be better off with ATC run by a private company. And, of course, they only route traffic that has paid up. Hope there isn't a problem with your license negotiation when you get handed off from one ATC controller to another and they refuse to tell you where to fly for the next leg, or from the ATC company that runs the southeast to the one that runs the northeast. Or maybe ATC company 1 and ATC company 2 on the west coast both route planes through the same bit of air at the same time. Because, hey, competition is good, right?

Or maybe we've fixed all those problems... but once the system is paid for, why should a new airline pay to use it? The service is already there. And what are they going to do, not let you fly? (Yes, I'm assuming that the company running the ATC does not control every airport also. Because private airports are good too, right?) Once you're in the air, the ATC really has to provide the service, just to keep the paid-up airlines safe. So then you have more companies that don't pay, because, hey, they'll get routed by ATC anyway, for the sake of the paying customers. And then no one pays, and ATC goes out of business, and you have planes running into each other in midair. Yes, it's a big sky, but not that big.

Some services require a monopoly. Some monopolies require the power of government to levy fees. Any monopoly service paid for using the power of government to levy fees may as well be supplied by the government, because a private company running the same service will get the same level of mismanagement as government very quickly. For an example of this, look at AT&T in the 1960s and 1970s, or any local monopoly cable company with no competition.

Learn some history. You'll be able to argue more effectively.

Have you ever flown?

[Shadowlore]

- A plane is about to land. Cancel or Allow?
- A plane is about to take off. Cancel or Allow?

You do know that this is essentially a large part of what the FAA does, right?

Different needs

[Shadowlore]

Why would anyone choose Google apps which have I estimate 5% of the functionality of Open Office ???

If they only need that "5%", why should they suffer the bloat for 20X as much stuff as they need?

Seriously, *most* people in an organization such as the FAA do not need word processors at all. *Most* people in an organization do not need Excel or Powerpoint either. Especially in organizations like the DOT or the FAA do not need external email and web either. Seriously. When businesses start realizing that in a large number of organizations there is no business need for much, if any, of an office suite and external email, they will see their costs start dropping like rocks in a pool. It's a positive feedback loop to an extent as well. Lower IT costs.

Sure we like being able to browse the web when we get bored at work, but from a business standpoint even many of us on /. probably don't need it. Developers, sales, marketing, certain management types (but not all), research, purchasers, etc. of course have business needs for such things as external email and web, and parts of an office suite as well.

But not everybody.

Re:Every time I go outside...

[drix]

I'll thank the FAA every time I take my shoes off or have to throw out a perfectly good bottle of water to board. To which they'll probably laugh in your face, considering the FAA has absolutely nothing to do with that. TSA is DHS, FAA is DOT.

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.

anger management?

[kennygraham]

woosh. I'm pretty sure he was saying that the average senior citizen "where's my blue e?" employees would need that training, and was more insulting those employees than your precious linux. Down boy.

Re:anger management?

[Nutria]

I'm pretty sure he was saying that the average senior citizen "where's my blue e?" employees would need that training

How much "training" is it to say, "Scratch the Blue E. Now look for the Orange Blob."?

Re:Every time I go outside...

[walt-sjc]

I'll thank the FAA every time I take my shoes off or have to throw out a perfectly good bottle of water to board.

Why? The FAA, which is part of DOT has nothing to do with the TSA, which is part of DHS.

Enter Linux.

[SanityInAnarchy]

Much easier to secure a bunch of Linux desktops that only have to run Firefox to access Google Apps than a bunch of Windows desktops...

Easier to manage, too, I'd imagine. You could have them all be net bootable, and if that's too slow, you could cache them localy (fscache/cachefs).

Google apps?!

[johansalk]

Umm...Google apps?! That's even more "proprietary" than Microsoft's. Madness!

The point is to hurt Microsoft profitability

[snowwrestler]

If 99% of the businesses that consider Google Apps instead go with a deeply discounted solution from Microsoft, Google still accomplishes their goal--taking money out of Microsoft's pocket.

Google's core profit center is ads. They're using that money to subsidize an effort to undercut Microsoft in their core profit center: OS and office apps. If all they do is drive down the price, that's still a win, because Microsoft is trying to do the reverse. Every dollar Microsoft loses to discounts is a dollar that's not available to subsidize attacks on Google.

As for why an organization would choose Google Apps over Open Office, who knows. Maybe because they think it will be a better bargaining chip in their talks with Microsoft.

Re:What training?

[drsmithy]

They are probably right. They are using web applications. Linux training would be pretty much;

If they're using web apps, the "retraining" on Vista would be zero.

I _really_ don't understand the whole kerfuffle about how "different" Vista is. It's not. The basic UI constructs (Desktop, "Start" Menu, "My Documents", Explorer, etc) are not significantly changed from XP (or Windows 95, for that matter). People who get confused by the changes in Vista are highly likely to be people who spend their whole day inside one or two applications - in which case what the rest of the UI is doing is irrelevant, because only the app UI matters.

A great deal of noise about a relatively insignificant issue, methinks. Even the hardware requirements - another non-issue, really - are more noteworthy than the UI changes.

Google a kindeler gentler MS

[gomadtroll]

If the FAA wants to gain control of there systems go with a Linux infrastructure, locally. Google offers net apps, but Google is really no different than MS when it comes to your IT infrastructure, keep it loacla, keep it Free. The fact that Google uses Linux on its servers is not an endorsement of Linux or FOSS, it just makes $$$.

Quality support...

[flyingfsck]

Running your applications on someone else's properly maintained Linux servers, may be much better than running your applications on your own virus ridden Windows servers. The 1970s Computer Beuros are coming back...

Re:Every time I go outside...

[progbassman]

I think his anger stems from the fact that he feels TSA security checkpoints are completely inefficient. Many of them seem to routinely fail tests, and a number of threats still seem to get through. After all, the shoe bomber was stopped by passengers and not at the security checkpoint. At the same time, the Federal Air Marshals are probably some of the best trained LEO personnel out there. What explains this? TSA officers start off making about $8 or $9 an hour last time I checked. FAMs get paid much more, and receive more in depth training. If we want the TSA officers to be better, then we have to be prepared to pay for experts instead of hiring massive numbers of semi-competent individuals.

Re:Oh yeah, another nail in the coffin

[bensch128]

You've been watching too much TV. The FAA would BUY a APP SERVER from google and use thin clients to access the data+services.
The FAA is not storing documents on google web server. That would be insane and probably illegal.

Please, get a grip.
Ben

Re:Every time I go outside...

[scatters]

>To say nothing of the difficulties in relying on market forces when consumers lack any clear way of judging the safety of a flight they are planning to buy a ticket on.

You can check out the NTSB's accident database here (only for US based carriers/aircraft). It provides the accident history for an airline, aircraft type, etc.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

Re:What training?

[teh_chrizzle]

i doubt seriously anyone was trained in the first place. not re-training should cost pretty much the same.

But then...

[Svartalf]

You're back to the "why do Google Apps?" comment at that point. You've got the apps you need on the secured desktops...

Re:But then...

[SanityInAnarchy]

Well, securing a desktop that only has to run Firefox -- not even a full window manager -- seems a lot easier than securing a desktop that has to run a bunch of apps.

Also puts more responsibility on you -- for example, you now have to run the fileserver, or sacrifice the ability of an employee to sit down at any terminal.

Personally, I'd do it all in-house, but this is a way of outsourcing to Google and only having to maintain a very simple disk image and a bunch of extremely lightweight desktop machines. Bonus is if you change your mind and have to migrate to something else, or even back to Windows, all your stuff is already there, you don't have to convert a bunch of opendocument stuff to something else. It's not hard to see the attraction.

That would be an improvement...

[Svartalf]

It's something that could be managed with security. It's still less desirable than other models of thin
clients or doing things like OO.org on a desktop (Each item in that order has risks that can still be
exploited internally, with the Google Apps and thin client plays being exploitable in the same manners
as before, just with internal attackers.) It would be a tolerable thing for Google to come up with an
Apps appliance like the search appliance they sell/lease- but it's not going to be without more issues
than doing middle-weight desktops and OO.org on them.

Re:Every time I go outside...

[Nutria]

I think his anger stems from the fact that he feels TSA security checkpoints are completely inefficient. Many of them seem to routinely fail tests, and a number of threats still seem to get through.

Security checkpoints also sucked pre-9/11, when this function was still privatized.