Slashdot Mirror
New Federal CIO Is Former Microsoft, FCC Exec
msmoriarty writes "The second-ever federal CIO (the first, Vivek Kundra, resigned in June) will be Steven VanRoekel, who worked with Microsoft for 15 years, running the company's Web Services and Platform Strategy and Windows Server Solutions groups. He went to the FCC in 2009, where he then advocated for open government and open platforms. VanRoekel's title on his twitter feed has already been changed to 'United States Chief Information Officer.'" According to reader dcblogs, VanRoekel is also a hefty political donor, having given $50,000 toward Obama's inauguration festivities.
A man who actually has a good history and knowledge in information technologies is taken as government CIO. I'd say that's a good thing, especially as he is promoting open government and open platforms. Really freshening actually. But true slashdot style let's get the Microsoft bashing going, not even thinking MS was probably the hottest company to work for 15 years ago. 3.. 2.. 1.. GO!
Google+ vs. Facebook, and why Google+ will fail
Federal government and Microsoft. Somehow, they both bring up the same not-so-positive images in my mind...
There are several former Google employees working in the administration as well. Eric Schmidt even serves as one of Obama's technology advisers.
I'd like to stay positive and believe this man will bring us the transparency that was touted during the election, but precedent shows this will probably not happen. Current admin is just as bad about denying FOIA request, holding secret meetings, passing bills and resolutions (house and senate responsible too) without giving anybody time to read them, keeping things secret as a matter of 'national security', sending national security letters to keep people from discussing their interactions with the gov't, etc. The demicans and republicrats never cease to let me down. We get the worst politicians the largest donors can buy!
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
This guy giving 50,000 to Obama, Gates giving most of his contributions to Democrats, and Al Gore sitting on Apple's board. When you use closed source, you are helping the Democrats. When you use Linux, you are depriving money from the Democrats and therefore are helping the Republicans.
12-year-old girls can program and hack anything. The CIO should be a 12-year-old girl.
Is that "Microsoft Open", "FOSS Open", or does he use some other definition?
Does he consider IIS to be "open", for example?
I clicked around in an attempt to resolve all this, but what info I was able to find was all politician-level vague.
#DeleteChrome
So what?
did you forget to take your meds?
It's called being a Democrat from Chicago.
It will be a two-sided coin for the foreseeable future.
The only hope is in changing the existing parties. At the very least I would suggest supporting those within their own parties with a strong penchant for fighting against those parties. Not that I like these people, but here are two good examples of the concept.
Dennis Kucinich, someone liberals adore. He is single-minded in his pursuit of his issues even when it doesn't agree with his party. He has no problem speaking out about the hypocrisy in his party.
Sarah Palin, a Republican who built her career on knocking corrupt encumbent Republicans out of office.
Ron Paul: A good disruptor, a thorn in everybody's side.
Obama was not a good example, having voted party line almost every single time. Despite the "maverick" hype, so does McCain (less than Obama, but still 90+%)
I've seen a lot of government server rooms. Except for older legacy systems, it's mainly Microsoft, with a bit of Sun to run Oracle or the few thin client installations. Mainframes and others make up maybe a percent if that much.
Look at government job listings, or contractor jobs working with government. It's Microsoft and Oracle for the most part, and Cisco if you're doing networking.
This kind of payoff is SOP for the Messiah.
Nearly 80 per cent of President Barack Obama's top campaign donors have been rewarded with senior United States government jobs, according to a new study.
I'm disappointed it's not yet another Indian, coz we all know Indians are the world's best at IT.
I wish the United States were more like India.
We have the concept of "third parties". Or, indeed, fourth, fifth and sixth parties. Rather than the practicalities of the political system forcing everyone into the R/D camps, why not splinter out these people/groups who represent a difference of opinion? It's not like the US hasn't had multiple/different parties in the past, so why is it that the "Tea Party" operates within the Republican party? Why not go out and say that they're an entirely separate party that represent a different-yet-still-conservative point of view?
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
Replace the '70s mantra "no-one ever got fired for buying IBM" with "no-one ever got criticised for recommending Microsoft".
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
See subject line above, & this -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Hilf
* Please, do us all a HUGE favor: LEARN a little about what you speak of, before you open your mouth, noob.
APK
P.S.=> You "Open SORES" zealots aren't even GOOD @ THAT most of the time for Pete's sake, & this is just another example of your UTTER "FUD" b.s., & uninformed noobish b.s. @ that!
... apk
If the 'tea party' went out and formed a conservative third party, it would split the conservative vote, giving the seat to a Democrat, which in the Tea Party's eye, would be worse. Thus, there are caucuses, and bitter struggles within the respective Conservative and Liberal parties.
I am inclined to think of the 'Tea Party' as a backlash against "compassionate conservatives" like George W Bush and John McCain. The Tea Party candidates, and supporters, lacking much political experience, will be less refined, and a significant percentage of their candidates will be eliminated.
The only one who has ever done that is Stephen Elop when he had to choose a new platform for Nokia, noob.
... apk
APK
P.S.=> How about using some FACTS rather than just spreading "FUD" for your anti-Microsoft agenda!
haven't they learnt anything from the Nokia fiasco?
They came down on her as an idiot even when she was right and they were wrong. Half the people still probably think she said she can see Russia from her house.
Another party just isn't viable with our system. The federal system and the system in all of the states is set up to favor the two parties. You can even check a box for "straight ticket" voting in many states.
The electoral system with "winner takes all" in most states ensures two-party in presidential elections. Money won't necessarily do it. Ross Perot threw millions into his campaign, got a good chunk of the popular vote, and not one single electoral vote.
The system of the federal and state governments would have to be seriously altered to allow a successful third party.
The tea party doesn't operate in the Republican party. The Republican party aligns more closely with tea party thinking, although not by too much. A tea party activist running as a separate party, independent, Libertarian, or as a new party, wouldn't likely get voted in. The manufactured Democrat message is that tea partiers are evil racists (it's amazing that "racist" label stuck, but their spinners are that good, with the help of a complicit media). So tea partiers tend to run as Republicans.
And this is what I was talking about: changing the party from the inside. The tea party struck a chord among a significant number of Americans, and if the Republicans want their vote they'll have to go in their direction. Right now I bet the Republican leadership is thinking "We made a show of standing up for fiscal responsibility, now maybe we'll get the tea party vote in 2012."
The Democrats can do the same on the other side. Their party pays lip service to supporting the little guy, and somehow they believe them while the party completely panders to corporate interests, especially the MAFIAA. Get a platform, change the party. Kucinich is pretty much going it alone right now. I disagree with almost everything he does, but I'm talking about the principle here.
For the current crop,
.
Clinton had no diplomatic experience (no, First Lady doesn't count)
Panetta had no defense experience
LaHood's transportation experience was very thin
Napolitano was (and is) pretty clueless on security issues
Obama himself had never held an executive position (the thinnest experience for an elected president in scores of years)
But he does have a few people who I must admit had the background, such as Holder, Rice and Geithner.
Then experience or lack thereof is not necessarily an indicator. Holder is royally screwing everything up, while Panetta has been doing a pretty good job.