Slashdot Mirror


The US Navy's Warfare Systems Command Just Paid Millions To Stay On Windows XP

itwbennett writes: The Navy relies on a number of legacy applications and programs that are reliant on legacy Windows products,' said Steven Davis, a spokesman for the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command in San Diego. And that reliance on obsolete technology is costing taxpayers a pretty penny. The Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, which runs the Navy's communications and information networks, signed a $9.1 million contract earlier this month for continued access to security patches for Windows XP, Office 2003, Exchange 2003 and Windows Server 2003.

43 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. Not a bad price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it just me, or does that not seem like that bad of a price?

    1. Re:Not a bad price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wasn't the military complex all about POSIX standards? Why are they so suck on a *particular version* of Windows??? ALL of their programs should just recompile and work---and if not, they should charge back the contractors who created those programs!

    2. Re:Not a bad price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Different branches and divisions probably have different needs. The programs are probably purchased as binaries. Staff would need to be changed, software repurchased, data migrated, etc. This isn't unusual, and happens in most large and small companies, not just the military. For the longest time Law practices were stuck in DOS because of the Word Perfect software addons they used, for example. They worked extremely well, so there was no reason to change. 9 million is probably a lot cheaper than retraining all the employees, all the data migrations, hardware upgrades, windows upgrades, etc, etc. They can work on it slowly one department at a time.

    3. Re:Not a bad price by spongman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      it'll buy you nearly 1 hour of launches from an aircraft carrier.

    4. Re:Not a bad price by Bert64 · · Score: 2

      Only, they should have started working on it slowly one department at a time a few years ago...
      They will probably end up finishing the migration to something else just before that too becomes unsupported and they're back in the same boat.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    5. Re:Not a bad price by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In the 00's you needed Windows for a lot of stuff...not so much anymore. IMO they ought to just move to xen or vsphere, and try to code a lot of that shit for minimal OSes (CoreOS is looking good) that way when shit needs to be replaced:

      - Very little concern for long-term hardware obsolescence
      - Can continue using all of the same software
      - Only minimal changes will need to be made should your hypervisor stop being supported (mainly just drivers in the guest OS.)
      - Sandboxing for better security (which it seems the US government has been lacking lately) even if they fail to patch something.

      Hyper-V works as well, however personally I don't like it because it's not only bloated, but it's known to BSOD during e.g. VM migration even with a Windows guest, (this is widely blamed on Microsoft attempting to use better hardware compatibility as a selling point, because they frequently rely on drivers that are often meant for consumer type uses and aren't tested for this kind of thing by their vendors) and it always seems to be several steps behind the competition.

    6. Re:Not a bad price by cbhacking · · Score: 4, Informative

      XP, being NT, still has the POSIX subsystem. It probably still works with NetBSD's pkgsrc, too.

      Also, it's not so useless as you claim; Microsoft themselves used it internally for years to host Hotmail, and right up until Win8.1 it was a viable alternative to Cygwin for anybody with a compatible version of Windows (or who wanted to force it to run anyhow). It handles/handled some things, such as SetUID/SetGID, which Cygwin couldn't (and I believe still can't) emulate, supported case-sensitivity on NTFS (though this could be used to confuse the hell out of Win32 programs), had a couple of different choices of package managers available, and could compile and run most source code intended for *nix systems (third-party compatibility layers added support for some of Linux's extensions to POSIX).

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    7. Re:Not a bad price by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      Nope, if the contract runs it's full length it works out to $270/machine over the next two years.

    8. Re:Not a bad price by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Hmm, wikipedia claims it's been removed. It was replaced with what you said, but it uses the "Interix" subsystem. These are not the same thing except for being superficially "POSIX".

      The NT POSIX subsystem sat parallel to WIN32 and OS/2 subsystems but had no access to anything inside WIN32. So you could only do basic text based programs, with no networking, no graphics, etc. No one used it because it was useless. It didn't even have useful tools provided. So useless that no wonder Microsoft dumped it and purchased a third party replacement for it.

    9. Re:Not a bad price by Jakune · · Score: 2

      It doesn't help that you have people in the government that are used to purchasing Ships... They don't seem to comprehend software, the speed at which it changes, the technology changes, etc... They want to buy a unit of something and then just perform maintenance (if your software breaks you should just be able to add a coat of paint right?).

  2. Yeah by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They did that with OS/2 back in the day, too. They stayed on OS/2 1.2 a couple years past when the OS expired for everyone else. I guarantee you what they paid for this one was less expensive than changing all the documentation to reflect a later version of windows.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  3. XP? OK. But, Office? by Duckman5 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Someone help me out here. I can understand why they would be running XP. It was a stable OS and it was used in a lot of embedded systems. They probably don't want to just replace the underlying operating system on a computer running a nuclear submarine or something.

    Office, though? What are they doing? Using a mail merge macro to address the nuclear missiles on said submarine? Why the heck can't they just replace that with minimal issues?

    At the end of the day, though, I'm not that worried. $9.1 million is a drop in the bucket compared to the nearly $700 billion DoD budget. There's a whole lot more pork in that barrel to be worried about.

    1. Re:XP? OK. But, Office? by Goetterdaemmerung · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Office 2003 is arguably still the best version of Office. I have co-workers who still use it and I've used pretty much every version since 4. I don't disagree with them, although I have personally transitioned to 2010 for compatibility. Newer versions don't provide much additional usability and make certain things more difficult such as removing the ability to select chart curves directly from the legend. Why??

    2. Re:XP? OK. But, Office? by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 2

      Newer versions don't provide much additional usability and make certain things more difficult such as removing the ability to select chart curves directly from the legend. Why??

      Because for those people that need those new features, they are invaluable (note I don't use any of those features myself, but having been a part of a few migrations, with proper training courses for users, the end result was always positive). The people who complain tend to be the ones forced to figure it out themselves and so are frustrated with that, rather than the actual product.

    3. Re:XP? OK. But, Office? by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 2

      Ribbon hate?

    4. Re:XP? OK. But, Office? by rikkards · · Score: 2

      We spent the last year doing the same thing and are down to about 400 XP machines out of 110,000. Why 2003? Here is why we didn't
      1. Too much inhouse custom crap on user machines to go through the testing cycle to make sure it worked with 2010. Which equals more money spent
      2. We are moving users to Windows 7 in a short time why go through Step 1 for practically no gain
      3. We have enough protection on the desktop and procedures to not worry about an infection spreading if a machine was hit. Essentially things are locked down enough and monitored enough not to worry too much.
      4. Great motivator to get local admins to start moving their users when they are bitching that they want Office 2010.

      Organization that big, stability is key and changes are a big deal. We had to pay for support last year for nearly 60,000, now it is a handful of critical machines that can't be migrated due to software yet.

    5. Re:XP? OK. But, Office? by sensei+moreh · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not quite my thought exactly, but close enough for government work.

      --
      Geology - it's not rocket science; it's rock science
    6. Re:XP? OK. But, Office? by goarilla · · Score: 2

      Can't you just disable Aero (choose "basic theme") instead of killing your graphical shell.
      You can also try to disable composition on a per application base, see compatibility tab.

    7. Re:XP? OK. But, Office? by tehcyder · · Score: 4, Funny

      What are they doing? Using a mail merge macro to address the nuclear missiles on said submarine?

      Jesus, Duckman, what part of "Top Secret" don't you understand?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  4. More stupid reporting on SlashDot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "That reliance on obsolete technology is costing the tax payers". Do you have any idea how much it would cost the tax payers to try to *replace* all that embedded technology? Far, far more than $9.1M. I really wish that people wouldn't post articles with such blatant biases and so little background research.

    The best thing that Microsoft could do for the world is put Windows 7 into perpetual maintenance and charge $50/year for the product. No more churn to replace hardware and software when they obsolete an old O/S. No more retraining costs to get IT personal who can manage the new O/S which does things just differently enough to trip people up.

    At least MS isn't as bad as Apple where the literally force you to buy new hardware along with the new O/S (Ipad 1 anyone?)

    1. Re:More stupid reporting on SlashDot by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe we shouldn't have bought the technology in the first place if we had no plan on how to effectively upgrade it.

      (I'm an embedded SW engineer)

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    2. Re:More stupid reporting on SlashDot by mlts · · Score: 2

      MS would make money hand over fist by doing that. Look at OS/2. There is a company, EComStation still cranking out support and updates for Warp.

      The problem is that XPe and other embedded versions can't be upgraded. Try that, and millions of dollars worth of equipment will be rendered into scrap. One can treat XPe like a broken SCADA system and firewall/airgap the living hell out of it, but the best of all worlds is to have MS continue supporting it (for a decent fee) which is a win/win for all parties involved.

      This problem isn't going away anytime soon even with future releases. Embedded versions of newer operating systems exist, and when Windows 7 loses support, the same thing will happen.

      Ideally, MS should see about a RLTS (really long term support) embedded platform that is intended to be supported for at least 20-50 years. In the past, this couldn't really be done, but now that technology has matured to the point where 20 years from now, we will still have RAM, storage, CPU, and other items, supporting something on a long time scale is possible.

    3. Re:More stupid reporting on SlashDot by vux984 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The thing that irks me is that once various governments and organizations have "sucked-it-up" and ponied up the "ransom" to keep XP going -- why cant the public at large benefit from this. Especially given that we are the ones literally paying for it.

      Once the patches are written, tested, and released why aren't they available on Windows update?

      Don't get me wrong, I want XP to die in a fire. Cutting over to Vista onward, embracing 64 bit*, leaving the days of "administrator by default" behind, etc were all good things. But still if my government dropped 9 million bucks to get MS to develop some more security patches for XP; it'd be nice if the lathes at work could have them too.

      * (yes, yes, i know xp 64 bit existed. shut up. :)

    4. Re:More stupid reporting on SlashDot by jaseuk · · Score: 2

      I'm sure Microsoft would be happy to negotiate that deal too. It'd probably cost more like $9 billion though.

      Jason.

  5. Windows XP? by dunkindave · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Honestly, with the speed they develop and certify critical software in the military, I'm surprised some of these systems are up to Windows XP.

    1. Re:Windows XP? by funwithBSD · · Score: 2

      2008 IBM was banned from bidding on government contracts with the EPA, and it took until last year before we started seeing significant contracts come back in.

      One of which was to do Application Rationalization for SPAWAR, funny enough.

      http://www.federalnewsradio.co...

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
  6. To be fair, $5M of it was to restore by jpellino · · Score: 4, Funny

    the XP version of Minesweeper. Apparently they get a lot of use out of that one.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  7. A more accurate summary might be: by lytlebill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'The US Navy paid $9.1M to insure that critical systems running an older OS are still supported while they continue to transition away from said older OS, a process that anyone with IT experience knows cannot happen overnight, and sometimes can take years, particularly when it comes to systems with potentially disastrous consequences at risk should you just slap updates on them willy-nilly.'

    I do realize that we're talking about post-Dice Slashdot here, but this is one of the lamer website shillings I've seen in a while. Honestly, the article itself isn't nearly as sensational as this clickbait summary would have you believe.

    1. Re:A more accurate summary might be: by captnjohnny1618 · · Score: 2

      I'm out of mod points, but...

      <3

    2. Re:A more accurate summary might be: by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 5, Funny

      You'll never believe what this Government did next!
      10 secrets the Military don't want you to know!
      This one simple trick made $9 Million!

      It's not funny, it's sad.

    3. Re:A more accurate summary might be: by funwithBSD · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I could say a lot about what happened at SPAWAR and why it is going the way it is going but I can't.

      I might say that there was no technical reason and it was all just internal politics, but I could not say that either.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    4. Re:A more accurate summary might be: by cfalcon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Eh, my experience is that a lot of things in the military are sold as systems, and that includes the OS that goes along with it. You'd be bitching more if they had to rebuy all their systems, and pay contractors and subcontractors to develop for and test on, the latest windows OS. Since some components still use XP, they will need XP to stay up to date. That's not really a shock.

      Again, I want to EMPHASIZE, these aren't just a bunch of desktops with people clicking on shit, or an OS that does a generic job. The whole damned piece is certified for a specific purpose, in many many cases.

      This is not government waste, this is the opposite. I mean, everything else in the military is expected to function for more than the fart of a silicon valley billionaire, and paying for maintenance is far cheaper than buying a whole new All The Things.

    5. Re:A more accurate summary might be: by drkim · · Score: 2

      Eh, my experience is that a lot of things in the military are sold as systems, and that includes the OS that goes along with it.

      So fire, or demote, the idiots who did not plan for a known future event (EOL of XP) when purchasing these systems. That includes the Generals, Admirals, etc..

      It's not that easy. If they were migrating the OS and OTC software, it wouldn't be so problematic.
      But they run millions of lines of custom code, purpose written for specific devices.
      Changing OS would also require rewriting (and testing) all those specially apps.

  8. Commander Adama by goombah99 · · Score: 2

    Uses DOS just to be safe.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  9. Well to be fair, this really is taking too long by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    Windows EOL dates are known way in advance. 10 years from the date of release. Sometimes they do extend it (they did with XP) but you can plan on a decade. That really is a good amount of time to plan on the lifecycle for your products. It is not too much to say "about once a decade we are going to make sure that our code is up to date and compatible with the current version of windows, and then transition to that". Were you to transition to 8.1, you'd have support until 2023.

    While critical systems certainly aren't something to move to a new platform right away, you have plenty of time to do it in. This is just a case of feet dragging.

  10. Danger Will Robinson .. by nickweller · · Score: 2

    'Davis wouldn’t provide more details about the systems or their use, citing cybersecurity policy, but an unclassified Navy document says the Microsoft applications affect “critical command and control systems” on ships and land-based legacy systems. Affected systems are connected to NIPRnet, the U.S. government’s IP network for non-classified information, and SIPRnet, the network for classified information.'

  11. Re:Medical testing devices worth tens of billions by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 2

    WSUSOffline will do what you want:
    http://download.wsusoffline.ne...

    You need an old version (9.2.1) to get XP support. Basically pick what updates you want, then it will download it, and build it in a form that basically you can double click the installer and it will run the updates.

  12. It's not a hammer by Overzeetop · · Score: 5, Funny

    it's not a hammer, it's a manual nail insertion device designed to provide application of no less than 5000 ft-lb of energy to a drawn steel fasteneing device of up to 0.162" in diameter and 3.5" long with swaged or pressed impact points. The design must be such that operation is possible by users which fall within the 20th and 98th percentile for size based on standard American male growth charts for all races. The device shall require low skill level for operation. Item must be maintenance free with no adjustment required for initial or long term operation. All materials shall be sourced in accordance with OPM regulations and include a certificate of authenticity for all natural materials and a certification of chemical composition for all non-natural materials. Chemical composition may be provided by certificates of origin and testing by third parties at the source of material, or through destructive testing and analysis of the 0.1% of the fabricated product quantity per lot. Each lot shall be identified using ONLY the military item number (no commercial numbers or identification shall be allowed), be marked "U.S. Military Use Only", and carry the lot number. Identification shall be integrally cast, impressed, and/or indelibly marked on the item, or on each part of the item if the assembly is separable.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  13. Re:Where's my $9mil? by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

    Good point. That does, however, qualify him for being the contract manager on the government side.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  14. In other news... by Kythe · · Score: 2

    The U.S. Office of Personnel Management continues its contract for Windows 3.1 support.

    --

    Kythe
  15. And I'd be willing to bet by kilodelta · · Score: 2

    It isn't just the U.S. Navy, but the IRS and a bunch of other government offices that are still on XP for legacy reasons. Let's face it, Vista was an abortion from the get go, and Windows 8 wasn't much better. In fact every even numbered OS from Microsoft is horrid. Hence why business uses Windows 7 now.

  16. Re:WordPerfect 5.1 by rvw · · Score: 2

    Office 2003 is arguably still the best version of Office. I have co-workers who still use it and I've used pretty much every version since 4. I don't disagree with them, although I have personally transitioned to 2010 for compatibility. Newer versions don't provide much additional usability and make certain things more difficult such as removing the ability to select chart curves directly from the legend. Why??

    WordPerfect 5.1 baby, WordPerfect 5.1. "Reveal codes" is/was the most useful feature ever.

    I agree - it was really cool to cleanup the mess it sometimes created. You can do this in Office as well. Unzip the docx, and with a proper XML editor you can do anything. Except.... the mess MS has made of that XML is unbelievable. The logic behind it seems to be to make it as difficult as possible to edit this manually.

  17. Computers are just components to Navy by laughingskeptic · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Navy purchases computers as parts of much larger systems, often ships. These things get assembled and their expected lifetime is much longer that the technology cycles we enjoy outside of their domain. Refit schedules are not driven by the computers on board but rather by much larger, more expensive and longer lived components like diesel motors. The Navy is just in the last couple of years starting to move some of their onboard computer systems to what they refer to as "Carry On" components. There are probably ships in the fleet that have 25 year old electronics on them because these components weren't ever expected to be replaced.