Google Wins Injunction Against Agency Using Microsoft Cloud

jfruhlinger writes "A judge has granted an injunction stopping the US Department of the Interior from moving forward with the adoption of Microsoft's cloud services. The injunction was sought by Google, which of course has its own suite of cloud offerings. Google claimed that the Interior Dept. failed to consider other options as required."

Comments

No attempts at finding other sources?

[mykos]

Apparently they run the Department of the Interior like the Air Force. I remember waiting four weeks and paying $80 for three ounces of a very specific lithium grease for some of our equipment that had an extremely similar clone at Lowe's for $4.

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[Anonymous Coward]

But, the stuff at Lowe's isn't "mil spec" lithium grease. :-)

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[morgan_greywolf]

Sadly, a lot of stuff sold to consumers is actually better than "mil spec". Disclosure: I used to work for a major aerospace and defense contractor.

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[AK Marc]

They are likely made from the same ingredients in the same factory, but one comes with a piece of paper certifying it meets the standards. And since that is required, it's the piece of paper that's worth $75, and the grease is identical. They don't need grease that meets some standards. They need grease that comes with a certification that it meets some standards.

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would very much like to subscribe to your informative articles, dear sir!

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[tomp]

Perhaps. However in this case, I believe they felt burned by Lotus and decided to just buy whatever Microsoft was selling because surely it's what theprivate sector uses. And that must be what's best.

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[tlhIngan]

They are likely made from the same ingredients in the same factory, but one comes with a piece of paper certifying it meets the standards. And since that is required, it's the piece of paper that's worth $75, and the grease is identical. They don't need grease that meets some standards. They need grease that comes with a certification that it meets some standards.

Exactly.

Take an airplane, for example. A screw for it could easily cost $2 or more each, when you can get 1 lb of identical screws at the hardware store for $5 or probably a few cents each. But that aircraft screw comes with a document that can trace the metal it's made of all the way to the mine and even ore batch, should it be necessary.

That grease? Same thing. Tracability sometimes is quite important, and it costs a lot of money to maintain that paper trail...

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[TooMuchToDo]

That grease? Same thing. Tracability sometimes is quite important, and it costs a lot of money to maintain that paper trail.

Really? Competent businesses aren't keeping these records (electronically) as part of their normal supply chain process? That's somewhat sad to hear the government needs to pay extra for them to keep their own proper records that they'd use in day-to-day quality control.

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does everyone bitch at the government for this? They have to purchase shit and if no one will sell a $4 tube of grease to them for anything less than $80, that's not the government's fault. That's the fault of idiots who demanded the process of competitive bidding for everything. We should be shitting down the throats of businesses who rape our public resources by jacking up prices for government contracts.

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[DarwinSurvivor]

BAHAHAHAHA. I tried to get information about a laptop I purchased from BestBuy (3-4 months after purchase) and they couldn't even tell me i'd purchased it there. This was after giving them the date on my receipt (which i had in hand) and the serial number of the laptop. I then tried Acer directly, THEY couldn't even tell me which video card my laptop came with, even after giving them a serial and model number.

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[davester666]

That's the problem.

The box of screws at your local Home Depot is targeted at some spec [say, attach block of wood 1 to block of wood 2, of various types, with certain minimum/maximum dimensions]

The majority of screws in that box meet or exceed that spec. But it is unlikely that all of them do, and it is unlikely that the few screws that don't meet the spec will be used in a situation where someones life is at stake.

Mil Spec may be lower, but all the screws in that box better meet that spec, because the whole system is designed to need that spec, and lives will directly depend on that screw meeting that spec, and if that screw fails, the military will sort through their records, find the QA person on the line that approved that screw, beat them to a pulp, then order twice as much of the same from that company.

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[drinkypoo]

They have this data somewhere. They could tell you if they really cared. But we're talking about Best Buy and Acer here, and they don't, so they won't.

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[BoneFlower]

It's not so much that milspec stuff is better, it's that the extensive testing is supposed to ensure a level of quality to a high level of confidence.

Sure, the regular civilian stuff might be superior in nearly all situations, but you don't want to be finding the one situation where it is not while on the battlefield with people trying to kill you. Sure, the odds of finding that situation at all might be smal, but knowing the odds, which those test seek to ensure, is a huge help in managing the risks.

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[Bing Tsher E]

As your Username says, TooMuchToDo. I don't want to pay companies to push that much paper around on desks for everything that I buy. It's important in some instances and needless in other instances.

I don't mean literally 'paper on desks' mind you. Any form of recordkeeping has a cost associated with it. Furthermore, you can lose the important data in a sea of irrelevant data if you retain everything.

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[TooMuchToDo]

I'm saying there is limited additional cost involved. You need to know that X materials came from vendors, was put into Y products, and was shipped to Z customers or resellers. This is not about extra paperwork, it's about properly accounting for what you already need to keep track of your business.

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[psychicsword]

The issue is that when a product's paper trail is lost and it is sold to consumers all you have to do is hope there isn't a problem with that batch and you are fine. With the government you can lost your multi-million dollar contract so I am assuming they have to take more precautions and keep the data for a long time.

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[thegarbz]

An airplane is easy. Getting replacement bolts for a flameproof case is hard. When the bolt needs to be certified to have exactly the right thread, and exactly the right dimensions down to the micrometer as they are designed to bottom out during install. I also remember getting a hole drilled in an aluminum flameproof box once. It cost $450 for the hole, took 1 month, and had to be sent to the other side of the country to be done. But we got a nice piece of paper back saying it was certified flameproof.

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[couchslug]

Trouble with specifying lube is that if it isn't mil-spec it might be ChiCom mystery goo that eats bearings. In many cases a Suitable Substitute would do.

Semi-OT, and note the choice of uniforms:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnPu-kk_eOA

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[Ephemeriis]

THEY couldn't even tell me which video card my laptop came with, even after giving them a serial and model number.

I had this problem several years back with an HP I bought...

Was having trouble with the AGP, did some research, and found that there were updated drivers available. But nobody could tell me what was on my motherboard.

I called up HP, gave them every number that was on the machine, and they still couldn't tell me. There were three different motherboards that went into my particular model, and they had absolutely no idea which it might be.

These days I run into the same thing very routinely with Dell machines. Two different machines built to the same specifications might wind up with significantly different hardware inside. If you go to Dell's driver download page they'll just offer all the possibilities. At least it isn't too hard to figure out which one is right these days.

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[Registered Coward v2]

Apparently they run the Department of the Interior like the Air Force. I remember waiting four weeks and paying $80 for three ounces of a very specific lithium grease for some of our equipment that had an extremely similar clone at Lowe's for $4.

An "extremely similar clone" is often not a good replacement - equipment may be designed to certain specs that seemingly similar, but much cheaper, parts don't meet and using them may result in unexpected or catastrophic results. I could buy 10 cent bolts and nuts, or various lubricants, at Lowes that look just like the ones used on our reactor, but there is no assurance they would work properly, unlike the much more expensive ones in the supply system.

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[Zakabog]

I had this problem several years back with an HP I bought...

Was having trouble with the AGP, did some research, and found that there were updated drivers available. But nobody could tell me what was on my motherboard.

Look harder next time. Put in your serial number and it'll tell you every part in your system.

These days I run into the same thing very routinely with Dell machines. Two different machines built to the same specifications might wind up with significantly different hardware inside.

Same thing with Dell. Put in your express service code, then click "Original System Configuration." The information is out there you just need to look.

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[Zakabog]

I've never seen a box of screws with a serial number on it or any information that makes it any more identifiable then the next box of the same brand screws. Probably because that information isn't that important. It would cost a lot of money for some big company selling screws to home depot to serialize and keep track of every box of screws they manufacture. They'd have to add another step to their manufacturing process plus they'd need a decently powerful system with a very large database that can handle all of the serial numbers from every box. All to keep serial numbers on something that is likely to get thrown out immediately by the end user (used to work in construction, we never kept the boxes for screws we just dumped them into the right sized bins.)

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[Ephemeriis]

Look harder next time. Put in your serial number and it'll tell you every part in your system.

Either that web page didn't exist at the time, or the folks at HP didn't know about it.

Same thing with Dell. Put in your express service code, then click "Original System Configuration." The information is out there you just need to look.

Yup. Like I said - At least it isn't too hard to figure out which one is right these days.

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[Skater]

Similarly, non IT story: I bought a special air conditioner/furnace from a company a number of years back. A year or two later it developed a problem - the compressor died. I asked the company I bought it from about the warranty and they insisted I didn't buy it from them. I showed them the receipt, and they said they did a track on the serial number and found it had been sold to some other shop. I didn't know what to tell them - I only ever dealt with one company, because our options were extremely limited for companies in the area that would sell us that type of unit, and I had the canceled check with them in the "Payee" line.

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[petermgreen]

If it was just a competitive bidding process then someone would step in and buy the stuff at market price and let the government bid on it at a bit over market price and take the profit.

The real issue is that the government (and certain high-risk industries) insist on a lot of tracability and QC that most customers don't. That means extra work for the manufacturers and they rightly charge for it. Sometimes this is really nessacery but afaict it is often done just to cover arses.

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[Attila Dimedici]

Why would I in the ordinary course of business keep that paper trail. The number of times that a business would reference that paper trail comes nowhere near justifying the cost of setting up a system to acquire and store that data. If I spend the money to acquire and keep that data trail, I will be selling screws for $2 that my competitor is selling for 2 cents (or less).
The standard method of quality control used in industry is to do tests on randomly selected items from a given production run.

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's his point. Your laptop is a reasonable price because of this.

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[kriston]

It's not just the certification process as others have mentioned. In the military there's a persistent need to keep people busy. Therefore, parts and supplies must be provided to spec on an immediate basis. You're replacing brake shoes at 3000 miles, belts at 5000, batteries at 10000 miles. It's just the way they work.

Granted this article is talking about the Dept. of the Interior but procurement is procurement. At least don't get $500 hammers and $300 toilet seats so often anymore.

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[mcgrew]

I was stationed at Dover AFB in 1971, and if you saw all the problems with the then-new C5As, you'd understand why that piece of paper was absolutely necessary. Engines falling off the plane in flight, landing gear failing to retract, tail booms falling over (that killed a couple of guys and grounded the whole fleet for months), etc.

For want of a nail a shoe was lost; for want of a shoe a horse was lost; for want of a horse a war was lost.

When a hundred million dollar aircraft and its plot and crew are at stake, that "overpriced" $75 grease or machine screw is a bargain.

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just the records it also the guarantee.

if the company doesn't guarantee the $4.00 bottle meets the necessary specs, they aren't liable if it doesn't. However if the $8.00 bottle which was guaranteed fails to meet specs the company is liable for damages caused by that failyer. Thus even if both bottles come from the same batch and passed the same QC, there is more risk to the company in selling the one the guarantee. Thus the higher price.

As to why you can't use the less expensive bottle in your airplane, well you don't have any way of knowing for sure that the bottles went through the same level of QC. The manufacturer may or may not have sell lubricant that passed some requiernments but not all as the unguaranteed grade. If you want to be certain you aren't using lower quality stuff you _have_ to get the stuff that's guaranteed, because without that guarantee you can't hold the manufacturer responsible should the lubricant fail.

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[VolciMaster]

Look harder next time. Put in your serial number and it'll tell you every part in your system.

Either that web page didn't exist at the time, or the folks at HP didn't know about it.

Same thing with Dell. Put in your express service code, then click "Original System Configuration." The information is out there you just need to look.

Yup. Like I said - At least it isn't too hard to figure out which one is right these days.

Those pages have existed for at *least* 7 years, because I recall using them during my fall semester in 2003 while working for the school's computer services group

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[Will.Woodhull]

To summarize this and several similar posts:

Mil spec is not at all about quality. It is all about reliability.

Sometimes there is a trade off between quality and reliability.

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[VolciMaster]

Perhaps. However in this case, I believe they felt burned by Lotus ...

If you're getting burned by your Lotus, maybe you should let the exhaust manifest cool off before touching it.

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what effect this will have on the huge USDA cloud award to Microsoft. I'm pretty sure Google wasn't considered at all. What it comes down to is that: 1. The system admins and sub-contractor companies know how Microsoft works so they select MS without any thought whatsoever. If no one calls them on it, they get away with it. 2. MS has deep, deep talons into civilian government operations. Everything from embedded consultants to hoards of sales droids taking senior CIOs out to lunch and golf. Generally at the CIO level there is very little technical knowledge and most decisions are made on the input from the senior IT consultants (MS) and since the CIOs are very risk-averse they pick the no brainer, go out to lunch and play golf for free. I've seen this first hand.

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[Ephemeriis]

Look harder next time. Put in your serial number and it'll tell you every part in your system.

Either that web page didn't exist at the time, or the folks at HP didn't know about it.

Those pages have existed for at *least* 7 years, because I recall using them during my fall semester in 2003 while working for the school's computer services group

This would have been roughly 1999/2000ish.

I had a problem with an AGP card under Windows 98 and was hopeful that the upcoming release of Windows 2000 would make it work better.

And it is entirely possible that web page did exist at the time. But I was on dial-up back then, and the Internet was not my first source of information. I did look around HP's website, but didn't find anything terribly useful. I wound up looking up some model number printed on the motherboard itself. The information I found pointed me towards some driver updates... But it was hard to tell which one applied to my motherboard because it was some kind of customized OEM version for HP. So I called HP to see if they could give me any help. The folks I spoke to (there were several) asked for every number we could think of, and none of them were able to tell me what motherboard was in my machine.

It may very well be that I was speaking to idiots. Or maybe they were just giving me the run-around. Or maybe we just happened to look at all the wrong numbers.

Regardless, the end result was that we were completely unable to determine what motherboard was actually installed in my computer. I eventually gave up, returned the video card, and bought PCI version instead.

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[Coren22]

Some of the problem is which Dell or HP line you are using. The consumer machines are built to be cheap, therefore they have whichever component was cheap at the time. The commercial level machines are all built the same, and often machines from the same line can use the same drivers, even years later. Dell's line is the Latitude line, they are built better, and they have a standard set of parts.

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[Illicon]

Never tell me the odds!

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[s73v3r]

Why would you? If you're just making a box of wood screws for the Home Depot, it is highly unlikely that anyone will ever need or want that information. So why go to the expense of keeping it?

On the other hand, the military (and some other applications) may not need that information either, if everything goes just fine. However, they are willing to pay to make sure that information is kept, just in case. That, and the rigerous amount of testing that those parts go through is what causes the price bump.

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[TooMuchToDo]

Because if you make a bad batch of product, no matter what the product is, you can be liable for the value of the product and have to cough it up if your resellers/brick and mortars decide they want the money back they fronted for said defective product.

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[DarwinSurvivor]

Actually, he was talking about "normal supply chain". That would imply consumer products as well.

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[DarwinSurvivor]

HAHA, reminds me of a desktop I bought at A&B Sound a while ago. Less than a year afterwards I had a problem (thought it was video/motherboard, turned out to be broken mouse cable causing BSOD) so I phoned them up and asked for the computer department, they didn't have one. I had purchased the computer IN the store (not online), so I knew they used to have one. Thank god that when they closed their computer department, they at least left warranty contact information with the other departments...

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[mabhatter654]

choking on your Lotus Mana doesn't cause burn anymore.

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[morgan_greywolf]

True, but when you get into items more complicated than a screw, like, say flight avionics or tank nav system? You can't begin to believe the quality control problems that exist.
 

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[t14m4t]

Like this, where the materials used were the wrong ones and caused even survivors to go through difficult tragedies.
weylin

Re:No attempts at finding other sources?

[Anonymous Coward]

They do but tracking all that data is tough. What these systems do is accumulate all the data at each step and at the final step they have a complete history. As this previous post states trails and identification are sometimes important. As this sort of practice is made standard in the industry this is why when planes etc are recalled they are able to recall all of them in targeted batches to correct issues. Makes for a much more efficient repair and recall process.

Us department of interiors response

[Octopuscabbage]

1. Google cloud services 2. Have random intern scroll through 100 pages of google 3. Go with microsoft.

Not a good sign...

[hawks5999]

When a company has to litigate to get customers/compete, it's not a good sign.

Re:Not a good sign...

[dangitman]

When a company has to litigate to get customers/compete, it's not a good sign.

On the other hand, when the government simply decides to go with an existing vendor without considering other options, it's also not a good sign. After all, we don't want government wasting money on inferior solutions, do we?

Re:Not a good sign...

[hawks5999]

Sure, but how much time is going to be wasted now that the inevitable bake-off has to happen? And how much more will it cost to continue to operate the existing infrastructure until the decision is finally made to go with Microsoft anyway? This is just a waste of taxpayer money all around. It remains that if Google has to sue to try to get a customer, even a government customer, it looks as though they can't compete on the merits of their offering. I'm not asserting whether that is true or not.

Re:Not a good sign...

[Anonymous Coward]

How dare we expect an IT decision be made on the merits, no just what they read on some MS shill site.

Sad part is that they will not fire the gooberment turd that failed TO FOLLOW BIDDING RULES.

Re:Not a good sign...

[Anonymous Coward]

How dare we expect IT people to make informed decisions in the job they were hired to do without companies sueing or screaming foul. I am constantly appalled at the waste of money in cases like this where it is blatantly obvious the IT department has made a pretty reasonable decision. just last year I had to watch a similar situation where the department I was contracted into was forced to go to tender for a measly 100k product (the tender process alone costs a minimum of 150k). Not all rules and processes are good or well thought out and they most definitely do not all happen with the best interest of the public in mind.

Re:Not a good sign...

[Anonymous Coward]

When a company has to litigate to get customers/compete, it's not a good sign.

In the regular world, yes. But in the world of large government contracts, this is routine.

Re:Not a good sign...

[wygit]

So competitive bidding is a bad thing and we should just let whatever appointed drone with the authority over an agency choose to spend a few tens of millions because of a pretty sales pitch?

Re:Not a good sign...

[wygit]

You really think the Department of the Interior manager who made this purchasing decision is an IT person?

Re:Not a good sign...

[MightyMartian]

I have no idea what your objection means. The whole point of requiring a tendering process by government departments is to prevent abuses like politicians and/or bureaucrats giving their buddies lucrative contracts. Heck, I don't even directly work for the government, but am employed by a government contractor to run certain programs, and when purchasing equipment for those programs I'm required to get three separate quotes, and if I don't go with the cheapest one, I have to state why (ie. cheapest bid includes workstations with older CPUs, less RAM, insufficient OEM software, wrong edition of OS, etc.) It's a pain, but I understand the reasoning. Tax dollars are at play and I need to justify the expenditure.

Re:Not a good sign...

[MightyMartian]

I don't think you've got the AC's argument quite right. He seems to be saying "Putting contracts out to tender is hard and expensive so contracts should be awarded as those seeking the goods or services see fit, regardless of anything else."

First of all, I have no idea where the claim putting any contract to tender should be that expensive. Someone is going to have to determine the requirements of the contract before they even consider looking for a contractor, and the tendering process is simply publishing those requirements for potential contractors to bid on.

Re:Not a good sign...

[bonch]

I'm sure Slashdot is the most objective place to determine which solution is the inferior one.

Re:Not a good sign...

[Anonymous Coward]

*They* are IT people.

Re:Not a good sign...

[hedwards]

The irony there is that individuals like Sen. Coburn go apeshit over the wasting of a few million dollars on a multibillion dollar budget item even as getting equally worked up when suggested that he should take it out of defense or raise taxes on the rich.

Pretty much anything in the US budget for less than about $15b isn't worth worrying about unless it's really easily pruned. And certainly anything under $1b isn't. We're going bankrupt on the huge expenditures for no gain, such as the DoD ridiculously huge budget and the various tax breaks to people that already have mansions.

Re:Not a good sign...

[sjames]

Especially when that existing vendor is a serial felon all over the world.

Re:Not a good sign...

[dangitman]

I'm sure Slashdot is the most objective place to determine which solution is the inferior one.

When did I suggest that slashdot was the appropriate venue to make such decisions? All I said was that options should be evaluated.

Re:Not a good sign...

[Dhalka226]

Even if they usually make good decisions, one has to allow for the possibility that that is not always the case. Google does not feel that it is, and the judge believes they have enough of a case to bring it to trial and to enjoin the Department of the Interior until that is complete.

Maybe they're wrong. Maybe it is from an abundance of caution. But really, if the process is valuable at all then people need to be made aware that they will be asked to account for it and for their decisions. Absent that, what is the point of it at all?

Re:Not a good sign...

[hawguy]

I've never worked in government, but I've found that writing the requirements specs is the hardest and most time consuming part of putting together an RFP, but until the requirements are known and documented, IT can't make an informed decision.

So by the time you document the requirements enough to make a good purchase recommendation, you may as well do a full RFP, and you may find out something new in the process.

In a recent procurement, IT's favorite choice (leader in the industry and some in IT had experience with the product) had to bow out because their product couldn't do something that the Finance department required from the product. If IT had just made the choice on our own, we would have bought the wrong product and found out later that it couldn't work for us.

Re:Not a good sign...

[Grimbleton]

Why should someone who has have to give it up for someone who hasn't?

Re:Not a good sign...

[Lincolnshire Poacher]

The purpose of a tender is to find a solution to a problem, not to minimise outlay.

Wouldn't a more rational approach be to sort the bids by their ability to satisfy the terms of the tender, without reference to price?

Once this order is established the prices could be assessed. If the price of the vendor that best meets the requirements is considered excessive *then* one would have to justify picking a cheaper but less satisfactory vendor.

Re:Not a good sign...

[outsider007]

They don't need to litlgate, they need to learn to play the game. That means kickbacks.

Re:Not a good sign...

[drinkypoo]

If the lowest bid is adequate then you take it and everyone is happy. If not then you explain why. If you fail, your accountability is directly proportionate to how connected you are and has nothing to do with any of the paperwork anyway. Seems like a working, defective system to me. I don't think your proposal would actually fix anything, though.

Re:Not a good sign...

[Anonymous Coward]

You actually believe that having a tendering process prevents abuses? Wow, just wow. I have this nice shiny bridge over here, barely used, will sell it to you for a steal.

Re:Not a good sign...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is suggesting the rich give up their mansions to the government or the poor. But that was a nice attempt at trolling. ;-)

Re:Not a good sign...

[micheas]

Why should someone who has have to give it up for someone who hasn't?

Because the are disproportionately benefiting from those taxes?

A substantial percentage of US government aid in the last decade went to people with a net worth of over 50 million dollars.

A decent percentage of Military spending is spent to reward the contributors to Congressional campaigns, which makes that spending essentially Communism for the rich.

(Why do you think Lockheed Martin donates to Nancy Pelosi?)

The average Republican gets more financial aid from the US Government than they pay in taxes, the average Democrat gets less in financial aid from the US Government than they pay in taxes.

I'm not sure why so many people that are well off have this delusion that they receive no help from the government. It is almost as nonsensical as Justice Thomas complaining about the beneficiaries of affirmative action. (Justice Thomas would not have been admitted to his law school without affirmative action.)

Re:Not a good sign...

[rcoxdav]

I am curious, do you have a link showing the distribution of financial aid from the government figure?? Also, what are you calling financial aid?

Re:Not a good sign...

[bloodhawk]

There was a competitive bidding process, google just objected to one of the requirements of the bid. ie that they have to provide a costing for MS BPOS. specifying the technology to be used in a bid is hardly unusual, it just seems not enough due diligence was done behind the scenes, It would not suprise me if they basically do exactly the same thing again but this time have the background paperwork done,

Re:Not a good sign...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, really. Any time there's an article with the word "government" in it, everyone starts waving their copies of 1984 and siding with whatever the opposing side is.

Re:Not a good sign...

[Attila Dimedici]

So Google should accept that the government is going to go with Microsoft because the government has always gone with Microsoft? That would mean giving up on the market because, in the long run, they will have to spend more to make sure that the documents their products produce work the same way in the Microsoft product as documents produced with the Microsoft product. Even if they do that, there are still a lot of people who will go with the Microsoft solution because it is the one the government uses, so it must be the best, yet the government chose the Microsoft product solely because it was the Micosoft product without ever cosidering alternative products.

Re:Not a good sign...

[Anonymous Coward]

I know some of the people involved with this team. And, yes, they are IT people (a few of them amongst the sharpest IT folks I've had the pleasure of working with) and it's more than one person making writing the specs and making the decisions.

Procurement in the government is a highly formalized process especially when we are talking about $60 million contracts. Mistakes can and do happen but I'm not convinced this is one of them. The specification specifically calls for Microsoft Office and this spec has, IMO, reasonable justification. Now, whether or not you agree with the justification is another story. Google clearly disagrees and it's their right to take it to court (the losers always protest). I'm fairly confident that when all the facts are laid to bear the courts will lift the injunction and everyone will go on their merry way.

This injunction will slow our migration to BPOS down quite a bit which means several of my coworkers (Notes Administrators, I'm talking about you) will likely have jobs a few months longer than without the injunction.

And regardless of who the vendor turns out to be the cost savings of consolidating these systems which, thus far, have been managed by each bureau are enormous. This is the responsible thing to do with the Taxpayer's money that ultimately funds this stuff.

Re:Not a good sign...

[MightyMartian]

No, I don't believe that for a second. But effectively having no tendering system guarantees abuses.

Re:Not a good sign...

[mcgrew]

A lot of financial aid that is allegedly for the poor actually only benefits the rich. Take food stamps, for example -- they allow an employer to pay his employees less than they can live on. Without food stamps they'd never take the job in the first place, and the employer would have to offer a higher wage.

Or an even worse one, section eight housing. An apartment that might net $200/mo on the open market is rented to a poor person for $150, the landlord gets that plus another $250 from the government, driving up rent prices for everybody and allowing the renter's employer to pay less.

Who has more use for the interstate highway system, the average joe who might take a vacation once a year, or the multibillion dollar corporation that has a fleet of semis on it every single day?

Who benefits from police protection? Not the poor!

The more money you have, the more you need government. "When you ain't got nothin', you got nothin' to lose" as the song says.

Re:Not a good sign...

[s73v3r]

When the merits of their offering are denied just because its "not Microsoft", then there is a problem, and its not with Google.

You can try to bitch and moan about taxpayer waste all you want, but at the end of the day, Google is still entitled to a fair shake. If they feel they aren't receiving that, then their only remedy is to go to the courts.

Re:Not a good sign...

[s73v3r]

When the spec itself calls for a specific vendor's product, then its not a spec, and its not giving anyone else a fair shake.

Re:Not a good sign...

[Alaska Jack]

"The average Republican gets more financial aid from the US Government than they pay in taxes, the average Democrat gets less in financial aid from the US Government than they pay in taxes."

I really, really need a cite for these assertions. Do the figures include benefits/service to illegal immigrants? Do they include people who pay NO taxes? I'm not saying your assertions aren't true; just that I need to see the source before I unquestioningly accept them.

      - AJ

Re:Not a good sign...

[Jonner]

It's not a good sign for the rest of us. However, many companies seem to be doing quite well with litigation as a core business stratagem.

Re:Not a good sign...

[bigtrike]

Does your state allow illegal immigrants to register with a political party?

Re:Not a good sign...

[Anonymous Coward]

So I can't spec out a server with Intel processors to grow my VMWare farm? If I went with AMD certain features in the software aren't compatible with my existing Intel-based platform causing my infrastructure to break. Replacing all servers with an AMD solution would be exorbitantly expensive and, frankly, would be considered waste.

In this example I have to specify a vendor's product. AMD is more than welcome to bid on supplying Intel chips if they so choose just as Google was more than welcome to provide a MS Office-based solution.

Again, whether or not you agree with the spec is up for interpretation and why we have the courts to sort through the issues but the people making these decisions were fully aware of the repercussions and I assure you they have ample justification for naming MS Office Suite in the RFP. As long as their justifications are remotely reasonable a court is unlikely to intervene. The injunction is prudent in order to give the court time to further hear and understand the complaints.

Even if Google is successful it just means the RFP gets re-written in language that satisfy the courts. If Google wins it will only be on a technicality.

Re:Not a good sign...

[Anonymous Coward]

The average Democrat is on Welfare, how are they getting less?

Re:Not a good sign...

[hawks5999]

If you read the replies in this thread, especially from those familiar with the Department, you will see that you are just plain wrong.
1) They haven't always "gone with Microsoft". They are currently a Notes shop.
2) The did consider alternative products (again, Notes).

Re:Not a good sign...

[jc42]

When a company has to litigate to get customers/compete, it's not a good sign.

On the other hand, when the government simply decides to go with an existing vendor without considering other options, it's also not a good sign. After all, we don't want government wasting money on inferior solutions, do we?

Nah; we expect them to first do the required investigation of alternative vendors. Then we expect them to dutifully buy from the corporation that made the biggest contributions to the campaigns of whoever appointed them.

Of course, since the 2000 elections, one of the biggest campaign contributors in the US has been Microsoft. Mostly to Republicans, of course, but they also contributed to a lot of Democratic campaign funds, just in case. Despite all that, a government agency isn't supposed to simply buy from them without first making some sort of pretense of asking for bids and investigating the alternatives.

Re:Not a good sign...

[Grimbleton]

You've gotta be fucking kidding me.

Re:Not a good sign...

[Anonymous Coward]

That wasn't me, but if you do the math on gross numbers, red states are net importers of federal tax dollars, blue states are net exporters. For the most part.

So on (one kind of) average, that is true.

Suing prospective clients?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is never a good way to start a relationship with a client.

Re:Suing prospective clients?

[mykos]

I don't think they're losing much, since it seems the Department of the Interior didn't seem interested in doing business with Google anyway.

Re:Suing prospective clients?

[DCFusor]

It worked for SCO, oh, wait....

Re:Suing prospective clients?

[c0lo]

This is never a good way to start a relationship with a client.

Unless, based on the prev experience, other customers would be less inclined to ignore them. It's not like the laws allow the govt to be "pissed off for personal reasons"... or is it?

Re:Suing prospective clients?

[joeytmann]

Agreed. Considering the previous /. article http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/11/01/1942259/Google-Sues-US-Govt-For-Only-Considering-Microsoft explains that they were only considering MS solutions, not MS as the implementor of said solutions. Google just needs to stop crying when it loses and says MS is evil.

Re:Suing prospective clients?

[HaveNoMouth]

Google doesn't give a shit about some measly $56 million, 5-year contact with DOI. That's chickenfeed to them, and they know that contract will eventually go to Microsoft anyway. They're sending a message to other potential government customers that if they play fast and loose with the bidding rules, the big dog will crap on their house.

Re:Suing prospective clients?

[hairyfeet]

And lets be honest folks: There is probably a damned good reason why they were looking at MS products only, and it was most likely because they have an assload of MS Stuff that would cost a mint to convert. I mean if they require Exchange and Sharepoint, they have a metric ton of VBA stuff being used, and Windows desktops everywhere, why in the hell should they be forced to accept bids that won't work? If Google wanted to submit bids on MS products as a VAR that is one thing, but Google docs ain't no MS Word.

It would be like forcing a design house to accept bids from some guy who wanted to rip out all their Macs and replace it with Ubuntu desktops running the Gimp. Does ANYBODY think that is a useful bid? Would they ever in a million years give up all that experience and custom in house code written for Photoshop just to use the Gimp? of course not.

By the same token I bet if we walked into the DOI tomorrow and did an audit on what they are running you'd find a bazillion Windows desktops, with tons of VBA macros, everything controlled by Active directory, with Exchange and Sharepoint. What good will come of having to waste tax dollars on a bid for a solution that won't actually solve anything? Is Google gonna pay to rewrite all that code for free? Are they gonna spring for the cost of retraining everyone out of the goodness of their hearts? No in the end they'll make the DOI jump through hoops before they finally hand them a list that says "These are the MS products we require, because all our stuff is tied into that and we will NOT pay for a complete overhaul!" and then Google will say "Uhhh...sorry we don't sell MS Products" and the money will have been blown for exactly jack and squat. If the DOI had said only MSFT was allowed to bid that would be one thing, but this is just stupid. It is trying to force a product that the customer does not want because they don't want a competitor to sell them a product they DO want. And in the end it is just that more added to the debt for absolutely nothing gained.

Pitiful actions and bad form Google, and from someone that has as much marketshare as you do it just comes off as looking petty and vengeful.

Re:Suing prospective clients?

[Derekloffin]

They very well may have good reasons to go with MS and not Google, but they have to actually do the paperwork on said reasons. They are a government agency and have to show not only that they considered alternatives, but why they rejected them. In this case they did neither.

Re:Suing prospective clients?

[!eopard]

Without documenting the end requirements and analysing possible solutions, you miss opportunities.

For all we know, Google may have been able to offer a complete solution to replace all those systems - include training and migration costs - at a lower price than the MS solution.

Re:Suing prospective clients?

[Patch86]

And lets be honest folks: There is probably a damned good reason why they were looking at MS products only, and it was most likely because they have an assload of MS Stuff that would cost a mint to convert. I mean if they require Exchange and Sharepoint, they have a metric ton of VBA stuff being used, and Windows desktops everywhere, why in the hell should they be forced to accept bids that won't work? If Google wanted to submit bids on MS products as a VAR that is one thing, but Google docs ain't no MS Word.

It would be like forcing a design house to accept bids from some guy who wanted to rip out all their Macs and replace it with Ubuntu desktops running the Gimp. Does ANYBODY think that is a useful bid? Would they ever in a million years give up all that experience and custom in house code written for Photoshop just to use the Gimp? of course not.

By the same token I bet if we walked into the DOI tomorrow and did an audit on what they are running you'd find a bazillion Windows desktops, with tons of VBA macros, everything controlled by Active directory, with Exchange and Sharepoint. What good will come of having to waste tax dollars on a bid for a solution that won't actually solve anything? Is Google gonna pay to rewrite all that code for free? Are they gonna spring for the cost of retraining everyone out of the goodness of their hearts? No in the end they'll make the DOI jump through hoops before they finally hand them a list that says "These are the MS products we require, because all our stuff is tied into that and we will NOT pay for a complete overhaul!" and then Google will say "Uhhh...sorry we don't sell MS Products" and the money will have been blown for exactly jack and squat. If the DOI had said only MSFT was allowed to bid that would be one thing, but this is just stupid. It is trying to force a product that the customer does not want because they don't want a competitor to sell them a product they DO want. And in the end it is just that more added to the debt for absolutely nothing gained.

  Pitiful actions and bad form Google, and from someone that has as much marketshare as you do it just comes off as looking petty and vengeful.

You clearly don't work in procurement.

The point of "considering a bid" is to establish all of those things you just said; a company can't be considered to just intrinsically know a bid from Google won't be any good, they need to actually see the bid so they can establish the facts.

A bid consists of a all sorts of things- firstly the price, but also consideration of the complete package, including costs to make everything compatible, converting archives, staff capacities for implementation, etc. If Google could offer to do absolutely everything required to make their solution work for considerably less than MS could offer the same (even if this entailed far less work for the MS engineers) then Google should win it. If they can't, they shouldn't.

That's the whole point of a fair tendering system. Ignoring that process is wrong, and a state agency deserves to be called out on it.

Re:Suing prospective clients?

[Nerdfest]

I see your point, but it would reward companies for 'vendor lock-in', which is far too prevalent already.

Re:Suing prospective clients?

[Dr_Barnowl]

As I recall, the reason they were only considering MS products was because the spec says "Use MS products".

The spec SHOULD detail all the requirements, and products that meet them should be considered. The system of bidding is supposed to reduce the cost to the public by introducing competition, but clearly if part of your spec can state "MUST use the product of this particular supplier" then there is no hope of competition in the first place, which defeats the purpose of having a bidding process.

If you can choose a product on arbitrary criteria then the process becomes that much more open to corruption. I'm not saying it happened, but you must at least concede that someone could have received a fat wad of cash for writing that particular clause into the spec from Microsoft.

It's likely that you could very easily write a spec that favoured the MS solution on functional grounds, but coming in a box with the MS logo on it is not one of them.

Re:Suing prospective clients?

[gander666]

Not always true. I used to be in the instrumentation business, and in Europe, all deals for equipment sold to government facilities and universites had to go through a bid process. It is very common that the losing party in the bid automatically appealed the selection, and that dragged the actual procurement process usually for 3 - 6 months. It was frustrating, but it was how to do business, so we dealt with it.

At least in Europe, it didn't strain relationships, as it was expected.

Re:Suing prospective clients?

[dwandy]

There is probably a damned good reason why they were looking at MS products only, and it was most likely because they have an assload of MS Stuff that would cost a mint to convert.

Vendor lock in is really a reason to re-evaluate your IT, not bury your head in the sand and keep cutting checks. If you wake up one day and realize that you absolutely can not switch despite the existence of competitors you have a problem. Open standards and open source software keep the vendor honest.

I mean if they require Exchange and Sharepoint...

They don't require Exchange and Sharepoint, they require e-mail and collaboration suites respectively. By defining the need as a product you have made it clear you have no interest in the competitive process and wish to continue to support the incumbent (in this case making their position all the more entrenched, making this an even stronger argument on the next go-round... nice)

they have a metric ton of VBA stuff being used

[see vendor lock-in]

and Windows desktops everywhere

Windows desktops aren't the limiting factor they maybe once were -- much open software runs on windows (some argue there's already more open source on windows than on linux these days) and much corporate software is going web-based rendering the operating system moot.

why in the hell should they be forced to accept bids that won't work?

Again your requirement definition shows the real problem. And you haven't even decided if the product will "work" just that...

Google docs ain't no MS Word.

Let's face it: 90% of the users use the same 10% of the functionality of The Office Suite (whatever suite that is) and other suites like LibreOffice and in large parts even Google Docs already meets those needs. And not having some of these "advanced" features might actually be a good thing: That the spreadsheet is most commonly used as a database (and not for numerical calculations) should be an indication that all is not right in IT Userland.

What good will come of having to waste tax dollars on a bid for a solution that won't actually solve anything?

Long term vs. Short term.
If you can move to open standards (and if not open source, then sticking purely with the open standard and not the vendors proprietary extensions!!) then you should be able to achieve savings over time. Even if you decide to stick with a licensed/vendor-supported option you will then have an easier time migrating to a competitor. This keeps them all honest. Competition is good for the consumer -- there is no competition in this fixed/directed bid to Microsoft.

Pitiful actions and bad form Google, and from someone that has as much marketshare as you do it just comes off as looking petty and vengeful.

aww shucks, just saw this... don't know why I missed it before I wrote all the rest, so I gotta ask: did I just waste my time answering a troll or a shill?

Re:Suing prospective clients?

[Anonymous Coward]

Another interesting point came up the last time this was discussed. DOI's requirements stated 'solution must be FISMA certified' 'BPOS is not FISMA certified' 'that's okay, we choose BPOS (we'll pay to get it certified after it's running)'. And Google's complaint alleged that DOI told Google 'your solution may not be considered because it is not FISMA certified' (although Google's solution has passed FISMA certification already).

Re:Suing prospective clients?

[Jim_Maryland]

They don't require Exchange and Sharepoint, they require e-mail and collaboration suites respectively.

Why can't they list these as a requirement? If the customer already has a significant investment in these products, requiring new contracts to use existing technology, infrastructure, etc... is reasonable. Those responding to the proposal can certainly recommend alternatives but they'll need to justify the additional cost of migrating.

As an example, I'm working on a project that is using a fairly old content management solution. The customer needs some new functionality and a limited budget. As developers, we've been trying to convince the customer to get off the old software (even the vendor of that software doesn't have a copy that old) that has been "end of life" for a few years now. Unfortunately the customer has a very limited budget. Rather than covering the cost of upgrading the content management software version, all the customization updates to make it work with the new version, all the testing, all the documentation changes, etc..., the customer requires that any new work be built on the existing solution. In the case of DOI, maybe they are fairly limited with their budget (at least I hope they are) and want to make low cost changes where they can get the most impact.

Re:Suing prospective clients?

[oh_my_080980980]

"I mean if they require Exchange and Sharepoint, they have a metric ton of VBA stuff being used, and Windows desktops everywhere, why in the hell should they be forced to accept bids that won't work?"

The same reasons Microsoft wants people to dump Lotus Notes for Sharepoint.

Microsoft markets Sharepoint as some Lotus Notes killer but fails to explain the cost of migrating and rewriting all your Lotus Notes applications and fails to point out the limitations of Sharepoint and the fact that functionality that you had in Lotus Notes does not exists in Sharepoint.

Moron.

Re:Suing prospective clients?

[dwandy]

Why can't they list these as a requirement? If the customer already has a significant investment in these products, requiring new contracts to use existing technology, infrastructure,

In the context we are talking about a bid to provide these software solutions. In other words we are not talking about a contract to add (for example) an encryption layer to the e-mail system, we're talking about contracting an e-mail system.
Yes, once you have an e-mail system it's not unreasonable to require that the encryption system works with your existing e-mail system or that the proposed bid can cover all the costs of replacing the e-mail system as well as provide the encryption.
Hopefully at this point the solution you buy is based on open standards or better yet open source software such that if you do change e-mail systems you can continue to use the same encryption solution, or (pay to) update the encryption to work with the new solution, or (due to the open-ness) migrate to a new encryption system with little headache. I note that one of the first and most common tools for git is a conversion-from-svn tool. The openness of svn means that they can't hold your data hostage; and for customers this is a pure win. Your goal (to decrease costs) is to limit the amount the vendor can lock you in. So just because you are running Windows due to some legacy app that only works on Windows, you are not constrained to run MS Exchange/Outlook as there are open mail servers and clients to choose from. This means that the key isn't to specify just where it must run (in order to work today) but you must also specify the open nature so that you aren't subjecting yourself to additional lock-in.
The bottom line is that it's never convenient to migrate away from the vendor who has you locked-in: that's the point of vendor lock in. At some point you need to look at the long-term vs. short-term cost of staying locked into this vendor. By migrating to open standards and open source products on an as-can basis, and by meeting all new needs with open products you begin to decrease your long-term costs.
It took years to get this locked-in, and unless you're really pissed off, it may take you years to get back out, but in the interim getting more locked-in doesn't help.

Re:Suing prospective clients?

[reg]

Also, if they list the reasons for not choosing Google, and Google fixes those, then it is very difficult to list new reasons when rejecting them on another bid, or when this contact comes up for re-evaluation.

Re:Suing prospective clients?

[AK Marc]

Why can't they list these as a requirement?

Because they aren't requirements, they are means to meet a requirement. The cost of replacement/integration should be considered, but there's never a reason to ignore options "because change is hard" unless "hard" has some monetary value and you accept and consider all bids and then reject them for that cost.

The issue here is that bids were accepted based on maker of the product, not features of that or any other product. If someone else came up with something that integrated 100% with the incumbent tech, why should they not be considered?

Re:Suing prospective clients?

[mcgrew]

That the spreadsheet is most commonly used as a database (and not for numerical calculations) should be an indication that all is not right in IT Userland.

If you don't know how to use a screwdriver you're going to hammer the screws in.

My mom used to use Lotus 123 as a word processor! If all you need is a small flat file and don't know any databases, a spreadsheet will serve the purpose. The problem comes when your table becomes too unwieldy, or has dependancies with other tables.

I inhereted a project like that at work a few years ago. The guy started with a one-off report and used Word Perfect, and eventually turned to Quattro when number crunching was needed (figuring percentages) and wound up with dozens of spreadsheets, one for each month.

It took him two weeks to compile, enter, and format the data. When he retired and the project was handed to me, I imported the whole mess into Access (and I fucking HATE Access, but it's the only RDBMS available here), the process takes less than five minutes now, and serves up more than the one report.

Re:Suing prospective clients?

[KarmaMB84]

Another interesting point came up the last time this was discussed. DOI's requirements stated 'solution must be FISMA certified' 'BPOS is not FISMA certified' 'that's okay, we choose BPOS (we'll pay to get it certified after it's running)'. And Google's complaint alleged that DOI told Google 'your solution may not be considered because it is not FISMA certified' (although Google's solution has passed FISMA certification already).

From Google’s original filing the DOI could apparently certify BPOS-F themselves. They refused to review Google’s certification package before Google got their certification elsewhere.

Re:Suing prospective clients?

[hairyfeet]

Oh Please, the only troll or shill here is YOU! You say they need "email and collaboration"? Okay sparky show me a single solution that does EVERYTHING that Exchange+Sharepoint does. Not some half baked bullshit from a dozen companies but ONE solution from ONE vendor that DOES IT ALL.

But you can't do that, and you know why? Because despite what FOSSies think Linux IS, WAS, and ALWAYS WILL BE a server OS no matter how much crap you try to duct tape on top. why do you think the big boys like Red Hat and IBM don't screw around with desktop in any meaningful way? Because it isn't worth the effort to try to shoehorn Linux in a job it wasn't built for.

Web servers, DB servers? Linux is top notch. I would have NO PROBLEM recommending Linux in those roles. Trying to control email, collaboration, group policy, and make it all play nice with Windows? Bullshit, it ain't gonna happen. Oh sure you can pile a bunch of half assed solutions all duct taped together, but it will NEVER equal the ease of use and fine grained control you have with Windows desktop + Exchange + AD. Hell I can teach my 15 year old everything he needs to control a Windows AD setup in less than a month.

And as for your "Google does 90%"? Bullshit. Have you ever used Google Docs? It is crap. It is fine for making simple docs online, that's it. Hell I'd take AbiWord over Google Docs,and I sure as hell wouldn't want to try to run an enterprise on AbiWord. And just like the way FOSSies never accept it is never Windows that locks in the user it is the bazillion custom apps that have ZERO equivalent on Linux, it is NEVER the "mythical 90%" that everyone supposedly has that is the problem, it is the last 10% that often ties into something critical like those dozen VBA apps that are required for day to day operations.

So before you start sling words like troll and shill, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and try doing a massive conversion from one OS to another completely different OS and get back to me. Because I have, and believe me the bullshit and pain and costs and training and the million other issues that come and take a bite out of you ass often make it about 1000% MORE expensive than just going with what works with what they have. You want to call it lock in, or inertia, fine and dandy. Why don't YOU call them up and explain how blowing those extra millions of $$$ is "worth it" to be "free as in freedom!".

Re:Suing prospective clients?

[KarmaMB84]

It’s really nice how much taxpayer money Google is wasting here. They tried to convince the DOI they could meet their requirements and failed. The DOI wanted their stuff on a separate system and Google said it would be “logically separate”. Google shot themselves in the foot and are now suing and will probably cost the taxpayer more money in court costs than the entire contract would’ve been worth. If they were suing over a large contract where they didn’t legitimately fail at meeting the requirements it would be different. At this point Google is just being malicious.

Re:Suing prospective clients?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the government should follow their rules on open standards that they paid to have invented. The government put themselves into "vendor lock in". So its their fault their network is not set to IEEE standards. Sorry MS stuff doesn't fit on the Internet but it is MS fault by design. MS has always broken these standards now the government will pay for using broken standards.

BTW do you work for MS?

Re:Suing prospective clients?

[minstrelmike]

There is a cost of converting from MS stuff, but the cost of staying with MS is prohibitive, especially when Google is willing to provide the services for $50/user/year.

I think another factor besides the cost of converting (how many of the 'systems' are actually needed?) is that they won't need all the folks in the IT department. And guess who's making the decision about the vendor and talking about the high cost of conversion? It ain't the Program or Agency leaders, it is the IT department leaders.

Re:I already see the /. comments..

[supertrinko]

The point of this is that the department did not consider all the available options. Google has made sure that they do so, and it's good for google if they choose anyone other than microsoft. The worst thing for google, is microsoft getting bigger.

Once you've made up your mind...

[DCFusor]

Justification is easy to invent, it writes itself. Everyone already knows how to use XXX! No, they don't really, and if taking 10 minutes or even a whole day to lean something new is that expensive or difficult, should we not question why they have jobs at all then? We never do, though.

For medium skill sets, I've had the interesting experience of recently hiring a new secretary to do some work here, and set her up with (of course) a linux box, OO, all that. Taught her how to use even a PCB layout software in a couple days, amazing. But what really kicked my butt, was after a day or two, she comes up with "I like this, what version of windows is it, I've never seen anything work so smoothly before".

Yeah, big learning curve. Now, she's smart, to be sure. Shouldn't everyone commanding a really good paycheck be? If you're too dumb to move from one thing to another, why can't 5 of you be replaced by one smart person. As a small businessman, I think like that, because if I don't make money, none of us eat - I don't have the bernake's printing presses, you know. But in the long run, neither will they, you can only take that game so far. Gotta dump these folks who think they are entitled to getting paid for not having to think and learn. Hiring is tough right now. It's not that you don't get applications (gawd, you get buried). It's that no on worth hiring applies, and it just costs money to sort all the junk CVs and figure out why this or that loser got laid off their last job -- because as a business owner (and we all know this) -- your business is your people, you take care of the best or you fail. If you are forced to cut, you never cut the good people.....

If that offends some currently out of jobs, I'm sorry, but not that sorry. Too many of you have shown up here looking for work, and turning out to know only a tiny fraction of what they claimed, and when tried, unable to do as they claim, and/or do it so slowly I may as well do it myself. You may think you're entitled, but no, you just got a good ride for awhile -- doesn't mean you deserve it in return for nothing out of you forever, the times don't permit that for any business that's going to STAY in business.

Re:Once you've made up your mind...

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting AC so I don't loose my job. Don't worry, this isn't flaming.

I find it troubling that you have more or less painted everyone who is unemployed with such a broad brush, that all of the unemployed here are low-skilled tech workers. The fact is, one out of ten -- and closer to one out of eight -- people who are capable of working are unemployed through no fault of their own. You may contend that with leaner times, the 'fat' is being trimmed and therefore they are, in fact, unemployed through their own fault. Are you seriously suggesting that this country has always been able to get along with a roughly 10% unemployment rate, because those who remain can do more and better work? No; the unemployment rate is high because the economy sucks; large and solvent corporations are putting away money for rainy days and executive golden parachutes, and smaller and struggling companies are trying to make ends meet when their vendors are folding and their clients are becoming reluctant or unable to purchase their goods or services. This is why you are firing people; the perceived low performance is the excuse.

Now, I grok the need for smaller companies to cut corners and stay afloat financially. It's a bad situation all around and I'm not one to think holding a gun to a small-business-owner's head is going to make jobs magically appear. But I think you need to recognize that your views of the unemployed pool are, really, wrong. While I am sure you have seen low-skilled tech workers in whatever hiring you've done, and come to this conclusion, I would contend that your data set is an extremely small part of an extremely large population. In other words, you haven't been exposed enough. It is also possible that you are not being specific enough in your job requirements. I have seen this countless times: An employer who wants a rockstar in Field X but what they really need is someone capable of doing a good chunk of Field X with some Field Y on the side, and some experience in Field Z. Or they want a total guru in Fields A B and C, but what they really need is one person who is awesome at A, and another who is awesome at C, and both of whom can speak enough B to do the job. You're quite quick to smack down applicants for not having enough skills; it is quite possible you are asking for the wrong skillsets for the positions you're looking to fill.

Or you could just be backhanding anyone who ever put a resume in front of you, and I'm sure you're getting a lot since, see above, one out of eight people are unemployed. That may be an unkind assessment since I don't really know you from Adam, but when someone says 'I'm sorry, but not that sorry,' it usually means 'I'm not sorry at all,' followed by cackling.

Finally, I feel the need to enlighten you about your employees: Firing even the lowest performer and telling those who remain to do the work of the person who was fired, including their own, will not lead to {more money in your pockets|increased capital for reinvestment]. It will lead to burned out employees. Whom you will then judge to be 'low performers' and then fire. I very strongly suggest you rethink your position on this. Of course, you will come back and say 'Don't tell me how to run your company.' I'm not; I'm very strongly suggesting you not run your people -- who are your company -- into the ground. You may not have been on /. for terribly long but I am sure you have read many stories from the trenches of how some bosses run their people ragged and simply fire them when they get worn out. In this economy, for some people that really is tantamount to murder (a slight -- but only a slight -- exaggeration. C.f. health insurance, disability coverage, and all the other things that the state does not provide that you have to, and which your former employees do not have access to anymore.) So I am asking you to not be That Boss.

Make of this what you will. I'm sure an AC is not going to help you to change your mind.

Re:Once you've made up your mind...

[yuhong]

Posting AC so I don't loose my job. Don't worry, this isn't flaming.

Do you work at such a broken company?

Re:Once you've made up your mind...

[cinderellamanson]

I dont know what you just read, but all I can see is a brace closed with a bracket.

Re:Once you've made up your mind...

[Anonymous Coward]

So what are all the dumb people supposed to do? There are prisons. There are work houses. You sir, are a shortsighted ass.

Re:Once you've made up your mind...

[Ash-Fox]

If you're too dumb to move from one thing to another, why can't 5 of you be replaced by one smart person.

Your homepage is an example of why.

Re:Once you've made up your mind...

[PeterBrett]

Taught her how to use even a PCB layout software in a couple days, amazing.

Which PCB layout package was it, if you don't mind me asking?

Re:Once you've made up your mind...

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously have never worked for the government, or even for a company of a substantial size. Everything in your post is full of naivety. The simple fact that you have a secretary using PCB layout software is fucking baffling.

Re:Once you've made up your mind...

[joebagodonuts]

Oh Whaaaa. Haven't you just invented justification for maintaining a sense of superiority? Business is hard. Life is hard. Get over it, or get out of business. Sounds like you are failing to hire people who believe it's their job to make your life easier. But that isn't their fault, that is yours. You're the boss, the owner. Buck stops with you. Blaming others and their perceived failings doesn't mean it's reality.

You have an opinion, and a world-view. Just like everyone else - including "these folks who think they are entitled to getting paid for not having to think and learn." Yours seems to be: You're entitled to have smart, talented, hardworking, motivated people without having to do what it takes to either hire efficiently or develop them.

Any possibility their perceived failings are a direct result of your failure as an employer? Do you pay to have people trained? Or just hope/pray you can hire someone willing to self-teach? Why can't you motivate to positively affect their behavior? Do you clearly reward and promote thinking and learning? Or just sit and bitch that "people are lazy".

Pull your head out and focus on what you can do.

Re:Once you've made up your mind...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're too dumb to move from one thing to another, why can't 5 of you be replaced by one smart person.

So let me get this straight ... you expect one person to do the work of five, and person who agrees to that is smart in your world? And you bitch about the applicants having a sense of entitlement.

Maybe the quality people aren't applying to your company because they've asked around, and word on the street is you're an asshole.

Re:Once you've made up your mind...

[zero0ne]

I am pretty sure he is saying that those 5 people are doing jack shit all day, so someone that that actually performs their job duties well could easily replace 5 of those lazy jack asses.

Regarding Training, he is taking time out of his busy day (we are assuming he is a small business owner here) to train his new hire.... sounds like he "Hired" someone to train her doesn't it? If he has to spend 4 hours a day for 3 days training, that is 12 hours he cannot be billing clients for or not catching up on work.

Maybe he needs the secretary using PCB layout software to simply take the layout, and output it to a PDF / JPG to print it? Or maybe his clients send him some notes about renaming devices in the layout, so he has trained his secretary how to do this? I see our secretaries doing something like this in Excel ALL THE FUCKING TIME. Their boss will tell them that these numbers in XcelDco123 needs to be updated with this months numbers, and the secretary has to go find those new numbers and update the sheet. Doesn't sound like he is asking that much of his secretary.

Re:Once you've made up your mind...

[Anonymous Coward]

You never cut the good people in tough times... unless you were Mobil Oil Corporation in 1959-60. Then you laid off EVERYONE with less than 10 years of service. Brilliant. Exxon on the other hand went through and cut out the deadwood whether you had 1 year or 30 years with the company. The best and the brightest stayed the others left. That is why 50 years later is called EXXONmobil.
James Douglass
Mobil Oil Company
1986-1993
p.s. left on my mine to make more money elsewhere

Re:Once you've made up your mind...

[minstrelmike]

I agree with hiring employees who are smart enough to embrace change. But I work for a Federal Agency and even after we have moved to IBM's Applixware and then to Microsoft's Word and approved OpenOffice for use as needed, we still have to purchase copies of WordPerfect in order to send and receive documents from Congress.

We can't force them to change. They get to add to our costs.

Re:I already see the /. comments..

[Dayofswords]

True, they may have brought up the injunction cause they wanted the money, any company would.

BUT the point is they won, thus the Dept did not consider options (or enough consideration) for other companys' services.

Maybe if this was like the 4th appeal, I'd say Google is being an ass, but winning the first round means they were in the right and doing as any company who offer similar services that were not taken into enough consideration, would do.

Thats no cloud

[gmuslera]

If is done by Microsoft, is probably vapor or smoke (and mirrors).

Re:Thats no cloud

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't fool yourself, most government data centers have colossal Windows infrastructure. I myself work in the colossal UNIX (linux these days) department. We also have a colossal mainframe department.

The Windows department is probably about 10,000 Midrange size servers of which many are liquid cooled. Think the highest end HP servers, like DL785's, etc. In UNIX we are migrating from SPARC to x64 now, but it used to be you could tell if you were walking down a row of Windows servers because the x86 was always hotter, so I always try and navigate down SPARC rows (or through SPARC rooms) in the data center because they are usually a nice 74 degrees instead of about 82-85. Frankly I don't even know what all these Windows servers do, but I do know a large part is serving "customers", which happens to be the average Joe who works here with a Windows machine on their desk, which is pretty much everyone. So a large part perform Microsoft OS related things, many are functioning as some kind of Middleware application server, etc.

This is really big news because Obama'a US CIO announced a few weeks ago that he wants to shut down about 500 data centers like this and move to "cloud computing". It was kind of sketchy if he was thinking of using Amazon, building their own, etc. But now we know that Microsoft has some kind of agreement with the US to provide cloud computing services. The thing to find out is what kind of infrastructure does Microsoft have - I bet it is HP. The shitloads of money that is going to be made off this is hard to comprehend. Microsoft is a major player in the cloud computing arena.

The above statement makes it look like the US is going to give Microsoft a few trillion to provide cloud computing services. A few google searches illuminates what is going on - the government has thrown "cloud computing" contracts into the air, and corporations will grab them, hopefully for them the biggest ones. For example the GSA just went with Unisys. We know from this article the Dept of the Interior went Microsoft. I would suspect Amazon, HP, and Google are going to be major players.

The subject of what should new/young people think about in IT comes up often, like "should I learn basic/java" or "should I mainly learn Punjabi", etc. A new person should definately look into cloud computing - there are going to be many, many careers on many levels coming out of this, it is a huge industry and is also new and exciting (even though it is kind of a buzzword for craploads of machines running something like Xen behind load balancers, which is what we have anyway).

Re:Thats no cloud

[RobertM1968]

If is done by Microsoft, is probably vapor or smoke (and mirrors).

Are you saying that a company that has specialized in vapor for decades would know nothing about a cloud?

Hmmm... ironically, I guess that's true. ;-)

Re:Thats no cloud

[Anonymous Coward]

Never mind that that have a functioning product with a multimillion subscriber-base already.

To paraphrase Tool: "Fuck all these meme-toting dicks with low UIDs."

(Learn to swim.)
 

Re:Thats no cloud

[laederkeps]

The day Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck is the day they make a vacuum cleaner.

--Lunchbox

Re:Thats no cloud

[GameboyRMH]

The joke's much older than that, it goes back to making fun of Lucas electrical equipment in British cars at least.

Re:Nice precident...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong.

If Apple decided they want to be part of the bid. They should be allowed in the bidding process. If they were excluded by IBM outright without consideration, then yes Apple would complain.

Google wanted to be part of the process, Microsoft excluded them.

Re:I already see the /. comments..

[Derekloffin]

Yeah, and in this case they didn't cover it at all well. Usually, you just add a bunch of useless hyper specific conditions that essentially forces X company. Here they bluntly said it had to be a MS solution to even apply.

Re:Nice precident...

[worx101]

The fact that they won says there was evidence to suggest otherwise.

Re:I already see the /. comments..

[codepunk]

They did drop the ball, I don't want my hard earned dollars being spent on crap.

Mistaken identity?

[drcoopster]

I'm surprised. This is something that I would have expected from someone like Microsoft rather than Google.

Re:Mistaken identity?

[hedwards]

It's not a surprise and it's really necessary. The contract itself is chump change for both MS and Google, but what's really at stake is whether or not the federal government needs to offer Google a chance to compete on contracts. As well as a chance to further its strides into the enterprise market for office software.

There is some argument over whether or not Google can provide what the agency needs in terms of security, but I don't think that the agency will be allowed to dismiss Google outright without giving them at least a chance to submit a bid and proposal.

Had, Google been allowed to bid and been turned down, it's unlikely that they would be filing suit.

Re:Mistaken identity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google were welcome to bid, they just couldn't meet the tender's requirement of integration with MS BPOS.

Re:Nice precident...

[hedwards]

No it doesn't. It means that they were able to successfully argue to the judge that the injunction was necessary. It may be dismissed before a court case takes case, but the injunction was granted so that there would be something to sue over later on.

Re:I already see the /. comments..

[RobertM1968]

..and find it amusing that people are making cracks about how the govt dropped the ball, instead of the obvious fact that the govt. chose MS after considering options and google is just jilted. Because that would be evil.

And I find it amusing that you spout off random nonsense, which happens to be the exact opposite of the article, Google's initial complaint, and what the court found, which was that the government did NOT provide proper justification or approvals, or considered any alternatives.

Let me quote the relevant part for you to save you from having to read the article (which you obviously (a) did not and/or (b) are simply trolling):

Judge Susan Braden of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims wrote, in an order made public late Tuesday, that a July determination by an assistant secretary naming Microsoft's Business Productivity Online Suite-Federal (BPOS) as the agency's standard for messaging and collaboration did not include "proper justification or appropriate approvals."

and...

The agency's determination that BPOS was its standard included "no estimate of internal agency cost" of other options, Braden wrote. The determination also failed to list any potential alternatives, including Google's attempts to sell the agency on its products, she (the judge) wrote.

Re:I already see the /. comments..

[jamesh]

But the government _did_ drop the ball. Not by picking Microsoft, but by not following the proper procedures in feigning whatever 'consider other options' requirements there were. If they haven't even bothered making up reasons why Microsoft won and Google didn't, then they have dropped the ball.

Google picks an easy target

[jsse]

While many people here thought it's a fair judgement, are skipping the fact that it was the Department of Interior who explicitly told bidders to deploy BPOS (Microsoft's Business Productivity Online Suite) to deliver cloud-based e-mail and messaging services. The bidders must comply as a bidding requirements.

Taking the prejustice out of the case, I personally don't think it's fair to penalize agency for being complied to bidding requirements. However, may be it's the only way to stop Department of Interior from issuing such bid again.

Re:I already see the /. comments..

[timeOday]

And after the government spends $100K proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that google really and truly does not offer anything equivalent to Outlook after all, then we can all have yet another good whinge at the government for wasting $100K to prove what we already knew.

Fanboy Battle!!!

[joocemann]

Round One....

FIGHT!

Re:Nice precident...

[Anonymous Coward]

Either the MS shills are out in full force tonight or nobody is reading the article.

They didn't specify a list of reasonable requirements that Google didn't happen to meet. They specified a list of requirements that specifically said Microsoft needed to be the vendor. They weren't even considering other solutions which may have been equivalent or better.

Everyone would be angry if the government drew up defense contracts that specified they HAD to go to a certain company. Why should IT contracts be any different?

Re:Nice precident...

[EmperorOuk]

But to get the injunction you need to show you have a case, and that you're not just harassing the other party.

Contracts should be awarded upon suitabilty....

[QuietLagoon]

.... and not tendency to monopolize.

.
Microsoft blew it big time here. In their efforts to lock up the U.S. Government, Microsoft stepped way beyond the realm of common sense dignity and fairness.

This only illustrates that Microsoft is still unable to compete on a fair playing field, and that Microsoft continues to require a bias towards them in order to win comparisons of value, functionality and/or worth to the project.

Re:OMG

[Anonymous Coward]

somebody is jealous!!!!!!!!!4

Yeah, Google.

Re:I already see the /. comments..

[Anonymous Coward]

and you're the one who only posts on Slashdot whenever Google somehow comes up. you never make adjustments to your erroneous arguments even after you cede the point in another thread -- you simply pretend it never happened. either you enjoy being a contrarian or you work for some competitor of Google's.

You don't understand MIL-spec testing

[Anonymous Coward]

MIL spec tests are very stringent. In the case of lubricants (solid film) tests such as Falex pressure loads and minimum run times are critical. Different batches made with the same ingredients often yield quite different test results. The QC of mil spec lubricants cost more than the raw materials where I worked for 22 years. If the military wants to make certain its planes, and missiles, fly without critical parts seizing up or smart missiles landing a mile away because the solid film lubricant wasn't quite as durable as expected, then testing and certification is critical. Every test fluid, machine, etc all must be certified to high quality standards. You think the cheap crap at the store is the same as MIL spec materials, simply because the have the same ingredients? You are very wrong.

Re:You don't understand MIL-spec testing

[drinkypoo]

You think the cheap crap at the store is the same as MIL spec materials, simply because the have the same ingredients?

I think in many cases the product at the store is superior in every way except variability, and further that in most of those cases the minimum results are in excess of the mil-spec. Of course, there are plenty of exceptions; when you get a single nut out of its own cardboard box with bubble wrap, that's because that's what it takes to be able to ship that nut anywhere in the world and still have it arrive in spec so that it can be installed into a multi-million dollar aircraft's engine. I don't know if the military is still using the same old lubriplate grease for firearms that it's been using for eternity, but if so it's being used because it's part of a working system that's well-understood, not because it's the best grease available.

Re:You don't understand MIL-spec testing

[Anonymous Coward]

As a machinist, the way it was always explained to me was that in most cases the military specs are not anymore exacting about the parts we made than any industrial standard. The specs are extremely specific and demanding of the testing procedures and equipment to verify meeting the spec, though.

As an example, my boss had been making parts for gas masks for almost 40 years. I don't believe this is still the case, but at one time a 50% failure rate was acceptable to the military. You should have seen all the odd crap we had to keep around the shop to guarantee that 50% failure rate, though.

Re:You don't understand MIL-spec testing

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said my friend..... Many of us should pause take a breath and think prior to getting out our flamethrowers.

James Douglass
Garden City, Kansas

Only Google is Allowed to Cheat for Govt Contracts

[techSage]

So, Google (via Unisys) was allowed to cheat government rules to get a contract (http://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2010/12/03/gsa-cloud-microsoft.aspx), but they're going to talk about how Microsoft is breaking rules with this DoI deal? Hypocrites!

Re:I already see the /. comments..

[RazorSharp]

"Look at me, I'm insightful b/c I don't subscribe to the status quo!"

Corporate collusion with the government. . .why don't you Google, oops, I'm sorry, Bing! "OOXML" Yeah, it's not a tin-foil hat theory.

This cynical, apathetic attitude of yours seems to imply that all corporations are evil at some point, so why does it matter? I'll tell you why it matters: b/c one corporation has a corporate culture of corruption whereas the other has a corporate motto to do no evil. The average Slashdot user doesn't hate Microsoft b/c it's popular. When did a bunch of nerds ever prioritize conformity? The average Slashdot user hates Microsoft b/c of the company's unethical corporate culture and business practices. Knowing the history of Google and Microsoft, how is it possible to act like they're comparatively corrupt? Google may not always do everything perfect, but corporations are run by many people who have the power to make decisions. More often than not the decisions made by Google employees live up to their motto. More often than not the decisions made by Microsoft employees are in line with their culture of corruption fostered by Gates, Allen, and Balmer.

Google isn't perfect but that doesn't mean there's no distinction between them and Microsoft. If I only used the services of companies which are pure in intention and execution then I wouldn't have a cell phone, or internet service, or use prescription drugs. I can't boycott every company that's not pure and wonderful because here in reality those companies don't exist. But I can boycott (and publicly complain about) the worst offenders. That means Microsoft.

I don't know if Google has a legitimate case here or not, but do I want them to win either way? Yup, and it has nothing to do with a collectivist Slashdot mindset. Hell, I'd be fine with Google winning the case and then some other company like IBM getting the contract. I just don't want my government running on Microsoft technology. The government should only use Linux and Unix, but that's another argument altogether.

Re:I already see the /. comments..

[mkiwi]

This is Slashdot, so Microsoft is the evil, wealthy corporation in collusion with the government, and Google is the poor, downtrodden, Linux-using upstart who didn't have a fair shot, even though they're a multi-billion dollar advertising company with controversial ties to the administration and investigations around the world over their "accidental" neighborhood data collection.

But, yeah. "Micro$oft" and all that.

You forgot to mention how evil and proprietary Apple is. That needs to get worked in there somehow :-)

Does kinda sound like it

[Sycraft-fu]

I mean I can see once reason why this was a pretty much no-bid situation: BPOS is Microsoft Exchange. Well if that is what you want, BPOS is basically the only cloud solution to get it. Yes, Google offers similar products in terms of offering online e-mail and calendaring and so on. However they are NOT the same. If what you desire is an Exchange backend for Outlook, and that is what some organizations desire, then you only have one option. This is particularly true if what you use Blackberries (and the government loves Blackberries) since BES works with Exchange.

To look at it from the opposite side, suppose you've designed a website for LAMP, Linux, Apache, MySQL, and PHP and you find a nice host for that. You then get an angry letter from a host that does WIMN, Windows, IIS, MSSQL, and .Net hosting complaining that you didn't consider them, that they are cheaper and offer the same sort of thing. Well ok, I mean technically they are right. You can do anything on IIS/.Net you can on Apache/PHP. However it is a different platform, you'd need different supports tools and knowledge to use it and have to write your site differently. While the overall function (programmable hosting) is the same the specifics are not.

Similar detail here. Google offers similar overall function to BPOS. They are both online cloud based e-mail/calendaring solutions. I've used both, they both work well. However BPOS is Microsoft Exchange, Google is G-mail. If you desire one of those for specific reasons, the other is not a drop-in substitute.

Re:Does kinda sound like it

[Attila Dimedici]

Of course the interesting thing is that one of the basic specs is that the solution needs to be FISMA certified. BPOS is not FISMA certified. The Google solution is FISMA certified.
So, the Department of the Interior chose the product that doesn't meet one of their basic requirements without even considering the product that does.

Re:I already see the /. comments..

[Anonymous Coward]

The truly sad thing is google really are a poor choice for the enterprise market. They are easy to not include in your evaluation processes as quite frankly their offerings suck donkey balls. So many people think, oh cool look how wonderful google search is and don't realise that google don't have a clue on how to make products for the enterprise.

Varability is another component

[Sycraft-fu]

As an example I've played around with DIY audio stuff and something that lots of enthusiasts like using is Vishay-Dale milspec resistors. Seems kinda silly, using milspec resistors in something like a headphone amp, until you look at their properties. You can get them with extremely tight tolerances, and with low variance over temperatures. They are very good if you want to make sure you are getting what you think you are getting over a wide range of conditions. They are also good at dealing with the unexpected. Like maybe you are worried that the power might be able to momentary exceed the resistors rating. No problem, the milspec parts deal with that, a 1/4 watt resistor can actually handle 1/2 watt with no damage, at least for a bit.

Now you may well not need to buy milspec parts to get that, however those parts DO get you that. Their milspec resistors are above and beyond normal cheap resistors in what they are willing to certify. When the idea is hand building something with very tight tolerances (in the case of an audio amp tightly matched tolerances means the amp should have a minimal impact on the sound) it is a choice that can make sense.

Then, speaking of tolerances and variability, even within the line there are differences. You may find that for a given type of 1/4 watt 1k resistor you can get it in 1%, 0.5% and 0.1% at an ever increasing price. They all seem to be made the same, it isn't like the 0.1% is a different design, like some of the really high precision ones. Well the deal is that when they make them, they come out different. So they test them and batch them. If you buy 1% parts, they are only guaranteeing the resistance to be between 1000 and 1010 ohms. Good enough for most uses, however if you need it tighter they sell ones that are tested to be closer to 1000 ohms and guaranteed, hence the tighter ratings. Costs more though, as many of them don't come out that perfect.

Re:Varability is another component

[Bing Tsher E]

The Vishay-Dale resistors might not even be the best part to use in the application. Every type of resistor has it's peculiarities, and carbon/metal film resistors have impedance characteristics that are different from plain old carbon composition resistors. They are more prone to have inductive properties that might even matter (or not) in an audio design, because they're usually based on a coil design, probably with a spiral pattern esp. if they're of such a high spec that they're laser trimmed. The plain old 'lump' resistance of a carbon comp. resistor can't be beat sometimes (but of course that type of resistor has it's 'issues' as well.)

Re:Varability is another component

[Anonymous Coward]

As an example I've played around with DIY audio stuff and something that lots of enthusiasts like using is Vishay-Dale milspec resistors. Seems kinda silly, using milspec resistors in something like a headphone amp, until you look at their properties. You can get them with extremely tight tolerances, and with low variance over temperatures. They are very good if you want to make sure you are getting what you think you are getting over a wide range of conditions. They are also good at dealing with the unexpected. Like maybe you are worried that the power might be able to momentary exceed the resistors rating. No problem, the milspec parts deal with that, a 1/4 watt resistor can actually handle 1/2 watt with no damage, at least for a bit.

Now you may well not need to buy milspec parts to get that, however those parts DO get you that. Their milspec resistors are above and beyond normal cheap resistors in what they are willing to certify. When the idea is hand building something with very tight tolerances (in the case of an audio amp tightly matched tolerances means the amp should have a minimal impact on the sound) it is a choice that can make sense.

Then, speaking of tolerances and variability, even within the line there are differences. You may find that for a given type of 1/4 watt 1k resistor you can get it in 1%, 0.5% and 0.1% at an ever increasing price. They all seem to be made the same, it isn't like the 0.1% is a different design, like some of the really high precision ones. Well the deal is that when they make them, they come out different. So they test them and batch them. If you buy 1% parts, they are only guaranteeing the resistance to be between 1000 and 1010 ohms. Good enough for most uses, however if you need it tighter they sell ones that are tested to be closer to 1000 ohms and guaranteed, hence the tighter ratings. Costs more though, as many of them don't come out that perfect.

Fortunately, however, computer software development isn't like that.

After all, any manager or executive can tell you that software development for enterprise-quality systems is so simple a child can do it. Especially if you use Development Tool X and Business Process Z.

Re:Nice precident...

[Ponyegg]

No, to get an injunction they merely need to show there _may_ be a case. The final outcome of any litigation after this will prove whether there _was_ a case to argue in the first place.

Yeah, right.

[petman]

Google applauded the decision. "As a proponent of open competition on the Internet and in the technology sector in general, we're pleased with the court's decision," the company said in a statement.

Yeah, it's all to do with 'open competition' and has nothing to do with Google's bottom line.
I don't fault Google for taking this action, but I do detest condescending remarks such as this.

Re:I already see the /. comments..

[Anonymous Coward]

Star Trek Phase II is a piece of shit Google Boy.

US Dept of State uses sharepoint

[erroneus]

I once helped someone over at the US Dept of State to build the beginnings of a page memorializing the late Ambassador Holbrooke. The HTML rendered fine in all browsers including MSIE6 until it was uploaded to sharepoint. I don't know much about sharepoint except that it breaks HTML even worse than MSIE6 by itself. The way I see it, the fact that nearly all of the US government depends exclusively on MS products needs to be enjoined. Not only is the government breaking its own rules the majority of the time by doing so, it is knowingly employing security risk.

(disclaimer: I know, when "done right" Microsoft stuff can be more secure than it typically is, but seriously? That's like saying "when prepared right beans and cabbage don't make you fart.")

Re:US Dept of State uses sharepoint

[Anonymous Coward]

You have the perfect username to describe your statement. Sharepoint is CMS. It doesn't display html pages, they are all asp.net. You can upload an html file, that you can open just like you would open an html file in your browser from any file location.

Basically, if you couldn't get a webpage to render correctly in Sharepoint, you really need to re-evaluate your skills, and I certianly wouldn't be trying to make that sound like MS doesn't know what they are doing. You're doing it wrong.

Standards please

[Kludge]

This is why no one is his right mind should go with MS products to begin with. They are a trap.
This is why standards are important. When you need to spend big lump of $ on products you should get to choose vendors. Anybody who posts to /. should be well aware of this by now. At some point even the government will have to ween itself of this MS addiction, and yes, bad decisions from previous years will cost money today.

It would be like forcing a design house to accept bids from some guy who wanted to rip out all their Macs and replace it with Ubuntu desktops running the Gimp... Would they ever in a million years give up all that experience and custom in house code written for Photoshop

Bad analogy. Most applications in govt (and elsewhere) are now network/server based, and most of those apps will run in any browser on any OS.

Re:Standards please

[Anonymous Coward]

Most applications in govt (and elsewhere) are now network/server based, and most of those apps will run in any browser on any OS.

You clearly don't actually work in the government. There are shit tons of legacy apps that only either work in Windows or only Unix, etc. To even claim that 10% of all government apps are "cloud-based" and are OS agnostic is complete bull.

At least it keeps lawyers employed

[ErnoWindt]

Well, at least it keeps lawyers employed. Rule one of big business seems to be: if you can't win in the market place, go to court. I seem to recall a bunch of schoolyard bullies (IBM, Sun, Oracle...) crying to the principal in the late 90's about how another schoolyard bully (Microsoft) was being mean to them. Instead of taking their eye off the ball (remember Novell?), Google needs to do a much better job of building relationships and selling its products. Going to court is a pointless diversion and a waste of time and money. Google's goal, as is Microsoft's, is to eliminate the competition and totally control any market they are in. Neither they (nor any of their rivals) are truly interested in fair play. Google would take the same no-bid, no-competition deal Microsoft got in a heartbeat.

Re:I already see the /. comments..

[balbus000]

Heh, I saw BPOS in an earlier comment and my mind read it as Big Piece Of Shit. Thanks for saving me from reading TFA (although my acronym might still work).

Re:I already see the /. comments..

[s73v3r]

When the spec specifically said the only solution being considered was MS Office, then no, Google did not get a fair shot.

Re:Only Google is Allowed to Cheat for Govt Contra

[Lifyre]

Could you clarify your statement? I think I understand your point but I didn't really see any cheating by Unisys much less Google (who last I checked does not own Unisys). All I saw was a government agency, likely under pressure, loosening the rules to focus on the more import aspect (information security). Information location may be relevant to the decision but if Unisys is able to provide a better secured product cheaper regardless of location not only was there no cheating the changes improved the end product.

But you know it's easier to bash a major company like Google then actually get your facts straight and look at the small guy who has been around for longer than Google by a dozen years.

ok so this is how it goes

[mjwalshe]

senior government guy "you know getting hacked by the Chinese secret service isn't exactly going to do your bid any favors, apart from giving Matt Cutts old work colleagues at the NSA a good laugh".

Google should have smiled and taken their lumps like a grown up - you don't see BP share holders or all the British pensioners whose pensions have major BP share holdings suing the US Government over the way Obama and others bullied BP when it was an American subcontractors fault.

Ya, they should have considered Amazon

[pseudorand]

Pardon me for opining on something I know little about (well, I guess this is slashdot), but last time I looked at the cloud offerings, Google's was some crappy proprietary interface which I'm sure is quite fast when you work within its limitations, but hardly useful for general purpose stuff or anything you don't want tied to a vendor. Microsoft gave you a visualized windows box, so that's a great cloud platform so long as you're working with stuff that runs well on Windows. (You're not that tied to a vendor since you can always just set up your own Windows boxes in your own datacenter and move your app there if you need to). But Amazon has the only remotely useful cloud infrastructure. You get a visualized box and you can run the OS of your choice (Windows, Linux *BSD, etc.) or anything else that compiles on x86.

So Amazon should thank Google. I can't imagine anyone in their right mind would choose the Google cloud for anything. If they reconsider, they'll end up on Amazon if they're smart.

Re:Only Google is Allowed to Cheat for Govt Contra

[techSage]

Yeah, I'm sure Google didn't offer Unisys any assistance in securing that contract. Also, GSA already had a deal with MS and backed out of it for a solution that didn't meet their requirements after forcing MS to make changes in order to get the contract in the first place. Not to mention that the Unisys deal ships yet more jobs overseas.

Re:Only Google is Allowed to Cheat for Govt Contra

[Lifyre]

Probably about as much assistance as Microsoft, IBM, and every other company that has products that are used by third parties to deliver a service. Unless you have some evidence that Google was the one putting pressure (undue or otherwise) on the Feds on behalf of Unisys. It's put up or shut up time.

As for backing out of the original contract with MS your article didn't exactly get into that or why they were forced to back out (or even that it happened). The only requorement it doesn't meet is the original locality of the information which they changed. I suspect Unisys put in a protest and won to get that requirement changed. It happens every day with federal contracting.

Yes the Unisys deal ships jobs overseas, that sucks, but how does that equate to Google cheating? Or Unisys cheating for that matter.