Slashdot Mirror
Navy Now Mandated To Consider FOSS As an Option
lisah writes "In a memorandum handed down from Department of the Navy CIO John Carey this week, the Navy is now mandated to consider open source solutions when making new software acquisitions. According John Weathersby, executive director of the Open Source Software Institute, this is the first in a series of documents that will also address 'development and distribution issues regarding open source within Navy IT environments.'"
but i'm sure that one of M$'s lobby groups will pay to try and have that changed shortly.
The government saving money?
I am speechless.
The new MSV alpha
In the navy
... hmm I've kind of painted myself into a corner there...
Yes, you can sail the gcc's
In the navy
Yes, you can open source with ease
In the navy
Come on now, people, make && make install
In the navy, in the navy
ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
If you're a large enough organisation there's no better way of getting your M$ licensing costs down than 'investigating FOSS solutions'. Mind you, with the US navy's long history of cost effective purchasing maybe this isn't a factor here!
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
Yeah I bet what will happen is that thay will consider the open source and then lube up for old uncle bill's mad upgrade cycle as usual.
I'm going to f***ing KILL the Navy!!!!
Maybe now someone will finally download (or, dare I say, contribute?) to my sourceforge project. It's an Open Source nuclear submarine guidance system forked from an early beta of GAIM. Still in alpha, and right now it's got a little bit of a bug where if you try to get the sub to surface it will occasionally launch all of its missiles, but it's still pretty usable.
Next thing you know, they're going to start messing with the coffee -- it ain't gonna be pretty.
[1] OK, probably since George Washington's quartermaster. When he was in his 20s. Certainly since the people who supplied the Army of the Republic in the Civil War.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Anyone else here find this article lacking? I'm as thrilled as the next guy that alternatives are being sought out by, well, any Gov't agency. But now what I'd like to see is an article detailing the cost associated with the transition from COTS to FOSS and its associated learning curve.
When I worked for the Army I had to unilaterally implement FOSS solutions because the people who controlled the purse strings knew nothing about technology. They were dazzled by Oracle, M$ and every other vendor. One young green suiter from the front office put it to me this way: "Just say that this great open source solution will cost you X million dollars and take two years to implement. That's the only thing we understand".
Step 1. Consider FOSS - COMPLETE Step 2. Dump Microsoft Step 3. Make P2P sharing legal Step 4. ??? Step 5. Profit!
...at least, the fellows at CGA are looking into using Linux for Coast Guard systems. Coast Guard, the armed service that works for a living!
The Army reading list
Ahem... excuse me, but I disagree with you. I've been in the Navy, yes the same one, and Training is a regular process, not something that happens only when new systems are installed. Training is part of the job. The cost of adoption will be less of a problem than you think it might be. Porting applications to *nix from Windows will be the big cost as a portion of it is purchased from military contractors. Unless those apps are ready to run on Linux, it will cost. Training a sailor on a new system is a regular part of the job, no big sweat.
In short, I think you are wrong.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
That's what I would think... unless they're talking about office apps to run on their own closed networks.
Running general purpose software on special-purpose machines (e.g., battleships, weapons, etc.) seems like a bad solution to me.
But, then again, I have been accused of being idealistic.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Open source != free
they will have to endure the cost of installation, training, etc. No way can they do that efficiently!quote>
Because currently they have to pay for installation, training, ect., AND the license. Considering that they have to train from the assumption that the user doesn't know what electricity is anyway, if you subtract the cost of software everything else remains the same and cost goes down.
FOSS: The F stands for Free!
IOU one (1) signature
That's been done for programming languages, Ada anyone? I'm sure it's been done for operating systems as well.
I don't see why leveraging years of open source development work can't be an effective place to start when a solution is desired. That's open source: build and extend. No reason to start from scratch, for "security purposes." Open source has proven a flexible, viable and secure paradigm.
The beauty of something like Linux is that you don't have to include anything that's *not* secure for the functioning of a system. All you have to do is strip it down for your needs. It can be as secure as they want to make it for their particular purpose.
Fresh horses and more whiskey for my men.
I didn't say they were unable to be trained.
My point is, the software is not the only costs associated. Support contracts from vendors can be huge.
I dont think the navy will settle for:
"Man, this thing doesnt work"
"Uhhh, post a question on the fourm, and hope you hear back"
Judging based on my knowledge of DoD networks and computer applications, I don't believe this will have much of an effect on IT decisions in the Navy. (at the Air Force base I work at, we have some BSD, but it's running on specialized devices on a very small scale). It reminds me of how my father did equipment purchasing at the university he worked at (and I'll bet most Navy IT sections will do the same): The university had a set of requirements for big computer purchases that favored specific venders and things like low bit. By dad simply wrote the specs for what he wanted so strictly that only one product would satisfy the requirements.
Also, keep in mind that great scads of DoD IT is standardized on Microsoft networks and applications that would be difficult to integrate with OSS for a variety of reasons. And, there will always be FUD based "security" reasons that military networks will want to avoid OSS.
Net result: very little.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
I agree.. But, I do wonder what this actually pertains to? (if I had the attention span to read up, I'd probably find out.)
I know that several Electronic Attack jets in the Navy actually run on a windows base, but, it's probably a special flavor of some sort. I could see general IT tools, programming and such, playing a key when it comes to new open source ideas as well.
I work at a company that deals with secure financial information and they rely on quite a few open-source tools, but they're windows-based programming.
It would be nice to know the details of it all... and I doubt that even if they did decide on products, it would be wise to not tell the public what they choose. (In other words, we'll hear about it tomorrow.)
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
Sure, because security through obscurity like that always works.
Wouldn't you rather have something peer reviewed and thoroughly tested?
Technology tips and tricks.
Something tells me you wont be able to go and download a guidence system for nuclear weapons of sourceforge. it is like the FAA switching to redhat but i doubt you will be able do find anything of that nature floating around. :( when in the middle of war. still alpha though
although i did hear about a project for a nuclear sub on sourceforge. it is pretty neat. a happy face when all is good and a
When I was writing software for the USAF we were required to use ADA. I worked at the USAF's largest software factory. No one there used ADA for anything.
So to me the announcement means nothing. Military doesn't always eat it's own dog food.
Talk about an arrangement of words that don't mean cr@p in the real world.
Navy: Yeah we thought about it. Considered it even. Then went back to what we've been doing all along. Only terrorists use FOSS. Microsoft told us so.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I can see the Navy using FOSS since they can hire people to modify it to their specific needs and save money while also increasing security.
Yeah, to an extent.. ...but I'd rather my family test the lock on my door that I just made, than buy one off the shelf that has a manual for everyone to read on.
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
No surprise here. The Navy has a history of being very ahead of the curve with their IT compared to many government counterparts, including cabinet level agencies. When other agencies were begging for connectivity with handhelds, the Navy had already had long rolled them out aboard their ships for connectity with the server operations of different onboard departments. Navy IT has been forward thinking for quite some time now. They'll consider FOSS very seriously and hopefully it'll have a ripple effect in other USG areas.
"He's using a quantum encryption scheme! That'll take hours to break!"
What happens when it crosses the International Dateline?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
If I understand this correctly.
Before the navy had no idea under what label they were supposed to put open source software so they didn't consider it (out of lazyness?). Now open source is defined as a commercial item so the navy can purchase it the same way they do with other software.
However this doesn't seem to in any way prevent the large companies from doing what they always do. Just bribe the officials responsible for deciding what software/hardware to use and get them to make the navy pay for their expensive useless stuff.
I doubt we'll see any great rise in the amount of open source software used in the navy just yet. It's a fairly big step in the right direction though. I would seriously not have thought that one of the big difficulties of using open source was defining it for your paper work o.O
While I heartily support and use FOSS, I wonder if this adds yet more red tape?
A long while back I worked for USGS. We were hampered with hiring people, getting new software, hardware, etc because of all the paperwork. If we made a decision we had to consider 50 different laws and regulations. Individually, they were great ideas. Put together they were paralyzing. This is the reason we were stuck with Data General for so long, because no one wanted to do the paperwork to change vendors.
I think the International Dateline was a red herring.
I doubt *any* flight control system works on the local time of the location being overflown, but on Zulu (UTC) or on the local time of the point of origin.
What's lost in this is that the Dateline is also longitude +/- 180. I'd argue that the NAV system software probably choked on the sign change of longitude.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
The Navy Marine Corp Intranet http://www.eds.com/sites/nmci/ is controlled by EDS, Ross Perot's old company. It is very restrictive and last I knew only allowed windows on it. Only selected applications can be installed on a computer on this network and it is tough to make the list. This could be good for some software that runs on windows to show it is ready for prime time, but it is going to be tough to get managers to go through the hassle of getting it approved. The Navy and Marine Corps have put themselves in a Microsoft box on this one I think.s -selling-solar.html
--
Rent Solar Power, no installation cost: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Read the best of all of Slash: seenonslash.com
Also, commercial licensing usually doesn't fit the military all that well. You may want some software for a certain project and that is fine. Once it has proven itself you usually find other area's / forces (or even friendly nations) wanting it, yet the cost/product/licensing/configuration s have changed and you're not free to share. With OSS you may be free to simply roll it out across the service / other nations.
There are many inter-service & inter-country programs that actually work very well with sharing tools and software, and often the proprietary models are just not accommodating. I don't mind fulfilling and complying with commercial licenses (of course), but often, we need the flexibility to change the actual hardware and don't have the time to 're-activate' the product via some crazy product key tied to the hardware (one example of a product with a ridiculous 'DRM' scheme, tied to hardware, no backups) Also, some licenses have actually prohibited us from making a Ghosted backup - if all turns to hell, then we actually need the ability to trace our footsteps by seeing if we can re-create the behavior that caused the proprietary software to go T.I.
At least forcing some in acquisitions to at least acknowledge OSS is a start. A good start.
Finish your chorus with this and then fall back to the original lyrics:
They want GNU
They want GNU
They want you as a GNU recruit
The original Lyrics:
I'll stay away from the "signing up new seamen fast" part, but the learning and adventure part is probably more true in the free software world than it is on a boat and anything beats Bill Gates slave galleys. Pressing on with a few special mods for you WinDOS fanboys afraid of the plunge:
But, but, but
I'm afraid of Penguins
Hey, hey, look men
I get seasick
Even watching it on techTV
They Want GNU
Oh my goodness
They Want GNU
What am I gonna do in a GNU machine
They Want GNU
They Want GNU
In the Navy
In the Navy
Yes, you can apt-get with ease
In the Navy
Yes, that will put your mind at ease
In the Navy
There will be no blue screen disease
In the Navy
Can't you see we need a hand
In the Navy
Come on and share the source code
In the Navy
Come on and help your fellow man
In the Navy
Come on people and make a stand
In the Navy
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Can we please put a clause in GPLv3 that prevents GPL'd software from being used to kill people?
I work in a Navy research IT environment and have used OSS for years in variety of environments.
In the last few years the Navy has straddled us with the hideous NMCI IT contract that dictates operating systems, software applications, and hardware. When NMCI was conceived, in the womb of ignorance and shortsightedness, they were thinking of providing a common monocultural solution that might work if the only thing the Navy did was to send email and make PowerPoint presentations.
In a research environment you need flexibility in order to match solutions to problems. NMCI forbids the installation "unapproved" software or hardware. This includes software drivers and communication applications for special purpose hardware such as serial/USB/PCI devices. You cannot connect any web enabled devices like cameras, 1-wire control, power control devices, UPS devices, weather stations, data acquisitions, etc.
So what happens at the Navy Labs is there are two networks - the NMCI network and the "Legacy Network" where the work gets down.
In the spirit of reducing cost we have have to maintain two networks and two computers on each desktop and have two exposed flanks to the outside world! It is wasteful, dangerous and inefficient.
Oh did I mention NMCI is inefficient and near useless. I have a NMCI laptop. I would rather have a 286 with two floppy drives and a sharp stick. The other day I needed to access a jpeg image that was on the NMCI network and edit it with Coral Draw (the application they felt I should be using instead of the more useful, efficient and cheaper PSP). I timed the process from pushing the "On" button and loading the remote desktop, mapping the network file system, logging on, clicking thru all the various dialog windows, loading the bloated application and load the file - it took over 27 minutes.
I dont think the navy will settle for:
"Man, this thing doesnt work"
"Uhhh, post a question on the fourm, and hope you hear back"
That is exactly why companies like IBM and RedHat exist.
The U.S. government's biggest gift to Microsoft since the abandoned anti-trust suit.
If you thought it was hard finding ATI drivers, try finding nuclear sub drivers!
Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
with a mandatory UserFriendly appearance: http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20020428
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Are you suggesting that they would jump at the chance for a simpler, less time consuming process? I don't think so, that would mean the loss or downgrade of a manning position. It may be a pain in the ass, but it translates into someone's job.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Linux is used all over the place already. Linux/Unix is actually preferred from a security accreditation and certification point of view.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
External IT security attacks happen all the time but they are pretty ineffective because the network can be monitored, CERT alerts are acted on promptly, patches applied as they are released and such. The damaging attacks come from people carrying data out on disks for pay. Those are hard to detect and also quite demoralizing, in part because trust is broken and in part because of the pompous zenophobic lectures from the folks who didn't do their job well enough. Resorting to name calling is unprofessional.
In the F-16A there was a code problem like this and it was fixed quickly. The F-22 FCS code is a derivative of the F-16 code base, so depending on where they forked it could be there. I doubt the problem occurred in a real flight most likely in a simulator and rumors got started.
*Considering* open source software often generates substation savings from Microsoft. How many articles on /. have we seen where some government or huge company says they are switching away from Microsoft, only to have Microsoft come back with huge savings?
It's a great negotiating advantage to be "forced" to consider open source.
"Pretty usable"?!
I heard the Russians used your guidance system on one of their newest subs and had a nuclear radiation leak, shortly after which they got torpedoed by an American sub which just 'happened' to figure out how to listen to their silent caterpillar drive.
Don't expect me to be running your system any time soon. I think you have a lot to answer for.
In general, it is safe and legal to kill your children. -- POSIX Programmer's Guide
Spoken as someone who has never served in the Navy. The military does have greatly skilled technicians that gets brand spanking new equipment straight from the labs (where it passed all tests with flying colors) but as soon as it's installed on a ship that moves, rolls, and lists has problems. Not to mention unstable power sources and such. Speaking from personal experience, it won't be pretty, but we'll make it work.
Mr. Universe: "They can't stop the signal, Mal. They can never stop the signal."
As a Navy IT whose responsibilities include administrating one of the largest afloat networks in the world I can tell you two things: Linux and FOSS are already present onboard, but only in a quasi embedded role because the contractors who supplied the system (ala SPAWAR or similar) based the platform on Linux. These systems typically do not exist as a network asset. That is they are a ship's system and not a part of the "network" as user services are concerned. And two: It is a Microsoft shop from top to bottom and will have to remain that way. The Navy simply does not train it's personal to administer a Linux or Unix based network. Finding a few IT's with the requisite Windows admin knowledge is hard enough, but making the fleet utilize Linux? The IT workforce simply does not have the experience or training to make that jump at this time. I don't think it ever will. This is why advancement for the IT rating is so high. IT's with skill sets in Network Administration get out and join the civilian ranks after their first or second enlistment and open the ranks up for new IT's to advance.
Believe me I HATE the Windows 2003 enviorment I am forced to administer. And the SPAWAR forced enviorment on top of that which increases the issues. I'd thank God for reliable servers and workstations, but I don't for see this ever occuring. Alas I have to do my time and move to a sector that does. Nothing to see here. *shews away readers in MiB suit*
"Stupid, stupid !!"
Were you summarizing your comment?
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
COTS stands for "Commercial, Off The Shelf"... Items that can be found in the civilian world. For example, instead of spending millions of dollars developing a navigation radar, they might just buy a commercial model from Furuno. This is the first step of undoing the stupidity that ensued when they mandated that all official documents be written in the proprietary format of Microsoft Word, a couple of decades ago.
Oh no! Somebody set us up the bomb.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
If it's anything like:
A: We need a new database system because the one we're using isn't supported any more
B: Should we use *Insert OSS*
A: Is it created by Oracle?
B: No
A: Then that's your answer
...then there's no hope. I'm sure there will be *some* adoption, but I doubt this new 'policy' will have any net effect.
I never said "its not going to work" "the navy doesnt have skilled technicians" or anything of the sort.
I simply said that they will need to have support, from Redhat, IBM, or whatever vendor sells support for open source products that they will use.
I just attended a (non-classified) talk from a department of the Canadian government about the role of FOSS in our military. A few interesting points:
* On average, commercial, off the shelf software (COTS) tended to be slightly cheaper for life cycles in the mid-term range, which seemed to be 5-12 years or so. Shorter than that FOSS was best because of the low up-front costs, while on the longer term the lack of vendor support for COTS was a concern. The number that was thrown out was COTS being about 15% cheaper for the mid-term, although there were cases where FOSS was still better.
* To avoid finger pointing between the OS and application manufacturers during bug hunts, it was desirable for a single company/consultant group to take responsibility for all software. They weren't inclined to wait in a war zone while tech guys played telephone tag while repairing a bug. The ideal would be to purchase hardware from a given supplier, and having one contact point for all software.
* Long-term software support was a concern for both COTS and FOSS, but the ability to either maintain the software yourself (least desirable) or form a consortium with other like-minded entities was an advantage for FOSS.
* Licensing was identified as a major hassle. The speaker identified that computer types are very highly trained from a technical perspective, but not trained from a legal standpoint, so navigating through licensing conditions was a problem. They were hoping our Treasury Board could handle government-wide licensing issues.
* There was definite interest in shifting the computer systems on-board our latest warships from HP-UNIX to Linux-based systems to avoid the vendor end-of-lifing the systems.
The talk continued on to discuss issues related to hardening systems from attacks, but I didn't stay for the whole thing. Just before I left, the speaker was bemoaning that while FOSS gave great tools for the good guys, they also empowered the foreign script-kiddies as well, so it was a two-edged sword.
Navy Now Mandated to Consider FOSS as an Option
What is an option? What is consideration? FOSS has always been an option for the Navy. The Navy has always had the choice to consider it. Now they are forced to consider it as an option? What?
The only way to truly examine this is through a car analogy.
Say you are driving a car, and you are trying to get to Algeria. You come to a junction where you could turn off and head to Libya, or you can keep going straight and arrive in Algeria. You have the option. But maybe you don't consider it as an option because it is not mandatory. Now, let's say you are driving as you normally do but now there is a boomgated checkpoint at the junction! A mean looking man with a rifle points the rifle at you and demands that you consider it an option, because under the new law it is mandatory to consider your option.
So you just say "Algeria" and keep doing as you wanted to do anyway.
Do you see what I did there?
Think about this next time it becomes "Mandatory" to consider Pepsi an option instead of Coke... you can still choose Coke.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
I'm not surprised by this at all. There's actually an effort within the Navy now to build a massive shared, OSS repository of combat system software components and code for combat systems stuff. Everyone gets to examine code, fiddle with it, pick at it, adapt it, go play. And you're required to submit whatever you come up with to the same scrutiny. It's part of a larger effort to get away from lock-in with Raytheon, LockMart, etc. and get more competition and more small players. The surface warfare centers have experimented with creating their own quasi-incubators for small business industry to get a foot in the door. I've heard of a few neat products so far.
My only fear is that all of our efforts will go for nothing when some doofus admiral says, "Vendor X says he can do it cheaper. Drop everything and go prove that you really know what you're doing." Yup. All of my team's work grinds to a halt for 3 months while we pursue a damn wild goose chase to justify that we're more trustworthy than a retired O-6 who's now a salesman.
Wish us luck. We'll bloody well need it.
Basically we're now throwing strategic security out the window too - BRILLIANT. First we let soldiers blog and e-mail from an occupation zone, and now this. I'm sorry, but having the source code to milspec equipment being OSS is NOT a step in the right direction. But then, COTS itself is a bit #DDD for military application - see WinCE crashing a wobbly goblin, or the whole Aegis NT fubar. OSS might not crash as often or in the same way as COTS - but I don't even want to THINK what vulnerabilites hackers could exploit when given access to the source code because some OSS project got used on milspec hardware. If it is to be considered COTS, it should be rejected for those same reasons. I know the WWII generation has faded from our ranks and is now fading from memory as well, but are we to forget the lessons learned as well? Loose lips sink ships? Don't murder men with idle words? Do these phrases ring any bells? There's a REASON for military secrecy, and it has nothing to do with the evil bullshit your tin-hat wearing leftist pussies claim. It is about saving lives and defeating the enemy. We are so badly underestimating our enemies in regards to operational, strategic and logistic security, and it is now only a matter of time before it costs lives, if it has not already. SHAME on the people running todays military if this is their idea of genius... and double shame on all of you praising it.
I went looking for trouble, and boy, I found her...
The incident in which some new F-22s en route to Japan had to turn back was a real incident, according to the Air Force. What's not clear is what the actual cause was. All the Air Force seems to have said officially are things like "a software issue affecting the aircraft's navigation system was discovered Feb. 11 causing the aircraft to return to Hickam" (from here).
A retired Major General Don Sheppard had more to say on CNN, but gave no details about where his information came from. Although one is presumably supposed to assume he had inside knowledge, he could just have been speculating based on the official reports.
More often then not posting questions on the forums will get you faster response then any vendor.
evil is as evil does
Oh, come on. Every nuclear sub manufacturer/terrorist I know gives their nuclear subs Depend® submarine undergarments for those inevitable incontinent moments.
Whether your subs have crappy open-source code or Windows 3.1, you can get all you want out of disastrous global thermonuclear war(TM) with Depend®!
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
ONI is the same way.
But a lot of the operations parts of the Navy is a MS infrastructure.
OTH you'll see Unix-likes and other estoeric stuff in some command/control situations and deployed systems but that's not the same thing.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Yes, I know.
But the OP's point was "I'm posting this in a random mailing list" is generally not an acceptable answer to the PHBs of this world who want someone they can point at and shout "fix it", and (while I have no direct experience) I would imagine the military is chock-full of such PHBs.
What law require(s|ed) evaluation according to the NSA "rainbow books" before a system can be used for government work? Where I work, even systems which process Classified information are not required to have trusted system software. You have to protect the system, but that's most often accomplished by far less sophisticated means. It is what is called "system high" or "dedicated" operation -- you treat everything as classified, lock everything up, and only let cleared people near it. The OS is not part of the safeguarding. Hell, eight years ago, there were plenty of Windows 95 and Windows 98 systems processing Classified information.
The more sophisticated measures -- an OS supporting multi-level security -- is only required if you want to let people who are not cleared to the information access some other part of the system. In other words, if you want to have Joe Blow without a clearance store his order for janitorial supplies on the same system that has SECRET data.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
...loaded on the missile directed straight at you.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Right. So... same question. How is that redundancy?
Redundancy would be having a copy of the operating system another partition/disk. Another copy which was mirror nightly (or on some routine basis) so that, in the event of a system crash, you can move to that mirrored copy, which is an exact replica of the original system.
Moving from Windows to OS X is in no way redundant, under any definition.
Perhaps the CIO happened to witness a BSOD on board an aircraft carrier's control systems one day?
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Topically enough, this month's issue of CrossTalk , "The Journal of Defense Software Engineering", is on the subject of COTS Integration. Well worth a read if you're interested in this kind of thing.
This is good. A couple years back there was a DoD-wide directive forbidding "Freeware, Shareware, and stuff without a license" that many in IT incorrectly assumed meant no Open Source. Lots of confusion about that one ("what about Java? It's free" was often brought up). There already was a lot of FOSS in my non-Navy shop. Long after several of us had this clarified to confirm that Open Source *was* allowed, some IT staffer would persist with the wrong interpretation. But still, there was a "compelling need" aspect to non-commercial (but licensed, GPL, MIT, BSD, what have you) software, like Apache. MS was and is favored by most that I encounter. It's heartening to see this Navy directive come out. You may not think it will make a difference, but it serves to legitimize FOSS to those managers and techs who assume it has to be MS, Oracle, or Sun (usually MS). There are quite a few of us pushing FOSS in DoD, now we can point to this.
When I worked for the Army I had to unilaterally implement FOSS solutions
I'm curious when this was. In the days of the battleships running NT?
These days, linux hackers go work for military contractors and build UAV's, guidance systems, and perhaps more importantly saving our troops in Iraq.
When our military thinks Linux is a competitive advantage, well, they're playing for higher stakes than your average business user is.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
>PHBs of this world who want someone they can point at and shout "fix it", and (while I have no direct experience) I would imagine the military is chock-full of such PHBs.
Honestly if there are PHBs like this I wish somebody would put their companies on a web site so I can make sure I am not investing in them.
Every PHB I know knows that you call the vendor, the vendor takes your name down and promises to get back to you sometime in the near future. It then calls you back to tell you that they need more information. Then you give them the information and they say they will get back to you. Then they get back to you and ask you to reboot the machine or to uninstall your database or some other program they don't like and try again, yadda yadda yadda.
Everybody knows MS or Oracle or Veritas aren't going to do jack shit because your PHB said "fix it damnit". If a PHB thinks they are going to threaten MS when windows crashes is a dumbass who is going to grind his company into the ground due his stupidity.
I once worked a case with veritas for three weeks before some completely random person on the internet said "did you try X?" and it worked. I told veritas about the solution and they didn't believe me!.
evil is as evil does
That being the case, the PHBs you describe are not PH.
I've worked with both the pointy and the non-pointy variety. The non-pointy are far easier to work with - and believe me, there's plenty of them out there.