Microsoft Is Working On a Cloud Operating System For the US Government

SmartAboutThings writes "It seems that Microsoft is relying even more on the opportunities provided by the cloud technology. The Redmond behemoth is preparing to come up with a cloud operating system that is specially meant for government purposes. Government agencies already use two of Microsoft's basic cloud products: Windows Azure and Windows Server. But now it seems that Microsoft is working on a modified version of its somewhat new Cloud OS that could bear the name 'Fairfax.' Compared to Windows Azure, the 'Fairfax' cloud operating system would provide enhanced security, relying on physical servers on site at government locations. Given that CEO Steve Ballmer is striving to make Microsoft much more than a powerful software giant, such a project makes sense, especially because it would help in their lobby activities."

Comments

cloud OS ?

[etash]

you mean like unix was a "cloud" OS and you could connect via dumb terminals to it?

Re:cloud OS ?

[Teresita]

SpyDrive

basically a browser..

[Allnighterking]

It will connect to 365 so that everyone can do power points and spreadsheets. Outlook. com for mail, and not much more.

Re:i keep looking for the punchline

[binarylarry]

Apparently, the new OS is going to be a monolithic Unix-alike called "Ballux" and it's going to take Google and Amazon head on in the cloud space.

Good news Pakistan

[gmuslera]

US will start to replace rones with chairs.

Re:It actually would make sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

" if they attempt to defect to another nation"

The primary concern of the US government seems to be that NSA employees will defect to the American public. Snowden has been charged with espionage for spying on our behalf, so I think we're officially the enemy.

Re:i keep looking for the punchline

[colinrichardday]

Apparently, the new OS is going to be a monolithic Unix-alike called "Bollocks" and it's going to take Google and Amazon head on in the cloud space.

FTFY

This is an advance?

[Sir Holo]

I don't get it. How do they call it "in the cloud" if the servers are located on-site? Isn't that what we started with decades ago –– a server and dumb terminals (er, excuse me, a thin client)? And storage is so cheap these days!

Yes, it's safer to have everything physically in-house (or securely co-located). But, what I can't fathom is how any of the purchasing-department types and manager-types fall for this "new" setup that offers no advantages. It's just handcuffing your company to that one vendor.


/CSB: At a former company, upper management studied options for getting off of Lotus Notes, the biggest heap of crap I've ever seen. The conclusion of their expensive study was that, "We can't afford to get off of Lotus Notes. The change-over would be too expensive."

I think IBM got wind of the study, and raised their price even more for the next renewal.

Re:This is an advance?

[game kid]

"I don't get it. How do they call it "in the cloud" if the servers are located on-site?"

Carefully. Microsoft believes any sufficiently nebulous implementation is indistinguishable from something patentworthy.

Re:This is an advance?

[msobkow]

A "cloud" is nothing more than a distributed set of clusters coordinated to perform a task or tasks. There is nothing architecturally spectacular about placing some nodes at a customer's own site vs. something like Amazon or IBM clouds where they have data centers scattered around the world.

The problem is too many people think "cloud" has a specific architectural meaning. It does not. It's more a means of managing VM and physical nodes in groups of clusters, with the capacity for shifting loads and data from node to node at the push of a button (or at the behest of automated tuning and load balancing services.)

It's not magic.

Mainframes were doing "cloud" processing in the '80s, and so was VMS. The only difference nowadays is network transport capability has grown to replace the specialized buses those older systems used, and allow for a greater physical distribution of the nodes than those old technologies did.

Kids.

They think because someone came up with a new buzzword that they've "invented" something.

in short, they want to be IBM

[AndroSyn]

It sure sounds like Microsoft wants to be like Big Blue, making their big bucks in consulting services. It seems to be working out okay for them, I'm not entirely sure Microsoft however can manage not to shoot themselves in the foot in trying it.

thin client initiative

[Gogo0]

there was a document that went out from DoD about two months ago; a thin-client/zero-disk initiative architectural overview. DoD's (public) plan is to transition to a majority thin client IS (information system) inventory by 2020. the servers will be Enterprise assets (meaning, theatre-level) so those at different installations (on-the-ground administrators) will not have a choice. case in point, there are authorized security baselne configurations for redhat, centOS, and other *nixes. there used to be one for Mac, but it was discontinued (dunno why). even when Mac was legally usable on the DoD network, it and *nixes needed waivers and by-hand security configuration out the ass to be usable for any normal work. you dont have your email classification application (ones ive seen were windows-only outlook plugins), no group policy, no HBSS (at the time), etc. you had your choice of operating systems, but everyone used Windows.

i was very excited to read the DoD overview, we spend way too much money on what are basically the same computers over and over (no functional need to upgrade from the first 64bit core 2 duos we bought years ago aside from product end of life, but that can be worked out with the vendor if the DoD put some effort into it) except for the fact that we keep upgrading to the latest and greatest Windows and then shitting on it with banners, some inane (and some not) security crap, and local clients (HBSS, remote desktop, AV, SCCM, etc...). put a thin client on everyone's desk and instead of a team of soldiers endlessly patching windows vulns that SCCM didnt hit (likely the client shitting itself for no reason), you patch the master image and everyone is GTG. save money, save time (more money).

god i hope this isnt what theyre settling on for their "thin client"

Re:thin client initiative

[Gogo0]

as a DoD civilian, i manage teams of soldiers and am responsible for their work. this is my problem to deal with when it arrives =\ would prefer to make our network more secure, more sustainable, for less cost (in products and man hours -it is very possible), but from working for the US Govt the past five years and seeing the inner workings, i know that very few people give a shit about saving money or improving processes.

Re:Super8

[aztracker1]

Considering no foreign government, or business should trust Azure hosting, they need this service so the U.S. Government can pay for their damage to Microsoft.

"Cloud Technology"

[FuzzNugget]

For fuck's sake, "cloud" is not a technology, it's the latest marketing scam to get everyone relinquish control of their devices and data to the modern equivalent of the mainframe.

Re:"Cloud Technology"

[Dcnjoe60]

For fuck's sake, "cloud" is not a technology, it's the latest marketing scam to get everyone relinquish control of their devices and data to the modern equivalent of the mainframe.

Well of course. How else do vendors expect to monetize your data if it is sitting on your local machine in your posession? Now that computers are a commodity and there isn't any money to be made from selling hardware and software, they need to find something to charge for. In the past they charged you to use their program to create your data. Now they want to charge you to actually store and access your data.

It has nothing to do with the technology it is all about the money. Well that and the marketing to convince everbody that this is somehow new and better.

Re:i keep looking for the punchline

[binarylarry]

no, ballux was correct, my mistake was:

Apparently, the new OS is going to be a monolithic Unix-alike called "Bollocks" and it's going to take Google and Amazon chair on in the cloud space.

MS and the US Government together?

[korbulon]

Ron Swanson said it best: "Never half-ass two things:. Whole-ass one thing."

Re:i keep looking for the punchline

[Nerdfest]

Yep. All the security of Windows, with the availability of Office 365.

Re:Amazon AWS and EC2 already do this

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

MS Recycle Bin 95 was Apple Lisa Wastebasket 82.

Well, at least Microsoft was good enough to recycle it, rather than simply bury it in a landfill.

Working for the government indeed

[Camael]

As QWest found out the hard way, if you don't cooperate with NSA, you don't get government contracts.

Here is the background to the story.

Among the big telecommunications companies, only Qwest has refused to help the NSA, the sources said. According to multiple sources, Qwest declined to participate because it was uneasy about the legal implications of handing over customer information to the government without warrants.

Qwest's refusal to participate has left the NSA with a hole in its database.

The NSA, which needed Qwest's participation to completely cover the country, pushed back hard.

Trying to put pressure on Qwest, NSA representatives pointedly told Qwest that it was the lone holdout among the big telecommunications companies. It also tried appealing to Qwest's patriotic side: In one meeting, an NSA representative suggested that Qwest's refusal to contribute to the database could compromise national security, one person recalled.

In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest's foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more.

So, MS gets lucrative government contracts. What does that say?

Skynet

[sycodon]

How is it possible that the First Post didn't reference Skynet?

Slashdot is not what it used to be.