Oh, boy, here we go...the dangerous conservative businessman must have bribed Republicans somewhere to get this deal killed.
First of all, the concept of two services in a competitive economy works. Where I live, the majority of people have to suffer with the horrible service and support from the monopoly cableco, AT&T, if they want local service and don't want to mount an antenna.
In September, DirecTV announced local service here coming this month. I've had DirecTV for over four years, and I'll have to install a new dish to get locals, but I can now pull the YAGI antenna off my roof. (It's nothing but a lightning rod here in Florida, anyway). The surge in sales of new DirecTV installs since the announcement has been remarkable.
(I can tell when interest is piqued when a lot of people I know start asking my opinions about my service).
A few weeks ago, Dish Network announced local availabilty on their systems beginning next week. Now, there's even more of a choice. Since DirecTV provides more subscription sports services, you can choose that one if that's a big deal for you. If not, the cable/movie channel packages from Dish are nearly identical in their offerings. And now locals can be had on both.
Now that three providers offer services in the area, the pressure on AT&T to improve service and quality (and price) increases, and eventually, everyone benefits.
But, what do Murdoch's politics have to do with him buying DirecTV? (His bid was rejected initially becuase Hughes apparently wanted to merge rather than sell the service and keep two systems in place). His holdings include satellite systems in Europe, and him owning DTV might mean a future of sharing those resources and allowing more foreign and global services to each side of the pond. I see that as a potential benefit.
With Charlie Ergen and Echostar pulling the strings, all I might be able to count on is being forced to change all my equipment, or potentially losing the sports subscriptions I enjoy so much. I want choice, and I have it.
And, by the way Fox News is not a "conservative news network." They have conservative folks on opinion shows (i.e., Sean Hannity), but that have a stable of liberals as well (Alan Combs, same show) to provide both sides. Their hard news shows also provide a more balanced view, which is something that doesn't exist on network or network-owned cable outlets. Which is why people aren't used to it, causing such confusion.
Perhaps you need some re-education in economics. Smple because a handful of gigantic corporations are going under doesn't necessarily spell dread for economic conditions.
Most of the nonsense reported about the Enrons, Clobal Crossings and IMClones is due to coroprate malfeasance and raiding the till. That these companies are balanced on corruption and straw houses doesn't help as they collapse.
If you look hard at currrent economic statistics and conditions, the US economy is fundamentally sound.
The main reason for this is the existence of exactly what the contributor/questioner wants to start...a small business. Small businesses are the foundation of a strong economy, and the responses from others here simple drives that fact home. If you look past the big boys and probe down into the "common" economy, you'll probably find a strength in small to medium-sized business activity that belies what you read about the Wall Street giants.
Quoting from the CNN story: Consider a privacy law recently passed by the European Parliament requiring companies anywhere in the world to obtain permission before sending marketing e-mail to Europeans. Jim Conway of the New York-based Direct Marketing Association worries that U.S. companies may have to scale back U.S. campaigns if they cannot assure that their mailing lists contain no European addresses. (Emphasis mine...)
Yeah, but you hit a salary cap at GS-12. That's it, you've reached the top, nowhere else to go, no more promotions, no more next level left to work towards. The salary of a GS-12 is the entry level salary of some private sector jobs.
Where? At step 10? What about the GS-13 level? Unless my position explicitly states that there's no promotion potential, and my agency agrees to promote me based on my performance and budget abilities, there's really nothing that says I can't get to that level.
Look here. Based on the argument I made in my earlier post, adding in the additional benefits, those salaries aren't too shabby, even if I only get to GS-12.
Oh, yeah, there's one other thing I forgot in the first post. I'm eligible for retirement in about eight years. That's age 55. So, I take my retirement and my TSP and I go work somewhere else. Sure, it might be hard breaking into some IT job at age 55. But, the beauty of htis business it that you can work for yourself as a consultant and do just fine. Since I also have a teaching degree, I can do that if I like. Or, I can stick with the DOD until I just get tired of working.
Another thing not mentioned in this discussion is the merit promotion system (which is how I got my last two assignments). The government hires from within all the time. The rules are different then for people coming from the outside, but there are a lot of job opportunities outsiders never see. And GS-13 isn't the top of the scale. (The GM series for management positions goes higher with a lot more compensation).
Add in the security of the positions (in most cases) and I think it's a sweet deal, at least for me.
Lousy pay, some benefits, but completely unsatisfying work.
Really?
I work for the DOD in a division of one of the military services. Our main business is weather. I've been a federal civilian employee since 1988. My computation date goes back to 1985 to include my military service.
I've been in the IT field since 1993. I have a BS in Information Science, which I worked towards and completed while I was employed by DOD.
When I started by current position in 1998, as a promotion to a GS-11 position, my gross annual pay (which includes the locality pay, an additional amount added to one's basic pay for cost-of-living expenses) was $38,593.
I received to step increases over the next two years, along with the normal 2-4% annual increases most federal employees get annually. In '99, my salary rose to $41,291. In '00, it went to $44,623.
Last year, the government realized that they were losing IT employees at too rapid a rate to the private sector and knew the only way to keep people employed in the service was to raise their pay to something comparable to the private sector.
In '01, my salary jumped to $52,226, about a 15% increase. This year, it moved up to $54.104.
In addition to my pay, I receive pretty decent medical benefits for with I pay about 25% of the annual cost (the Fed picks up up the rest). Also, my medical benefits expense comes off the top of my pay pre-tax.
I get cheap life insurance, and a pretty good retirement package, and I can contribute to a 401K-type plan that's done pretty well, with a government match of a percentage of my contribution. I get a generous annual leave and sick leave benefit.
If I took cash for the benfits, I'd say my annual salary would be close to $100K per year.
My bosses are appreciative of my work, and the job itself is challenging and satisfying. I have the freedom to try new ideas, including the use of open source concepts. We've had budget problems, and I've had to put some pet projects on the back burner...but mostly because I'm a one-man show. There's plenty for me to do, and they never hesitate to listen when I find new ways to solve old problems.
So, it looks like I work for a "small-medium sized company" (part of a larger organization) where I see "tangible results." Oh, yeah, I really feel like I'm doing something with my life.
As a IT director for a federal agency's site, I'm happy when someone takes the time to research and assemble a paper like this.
That the federal government has been married to Microsoft's technology in a big way, for a long time, is no secret. In fact, my agency is in the midst of a huge services rollout in which Windows and it's apps will be the centerpiece of all userspace activity.
In recent months, however, I've begun to convince people up the chain, in a small way, that the use of OSS provides better performance and a more secure environment than anything Microsoft provides. My location's small but important conversion has been to replace IIS servers with Apache/Linux boxes and a flaky, expensive NT-based commercial firewall product with iptables on Linux. All using existing hadrware and downloaded distributions and source, making the initial cost zero (thay have to pay me, no matter what).
Even people in a more visible portion of my organizational community are now praising OSS in print and in public for my community's evaluation. The use of OSS in some scientific endeavors gives it a legitimacy that I can only hope to provide.
Yet, there are still segments of the group who either aren't sold or aren't aware. A recent project installed at my site is a perfect example.
The project was a database system providing critical data for military pilots. Originally, it required SQLServer and a proprietary app built in VB, and required security holes in my firewall for access. When the project was taken over by another branch of my organization, they decided (after a lot of prodding from people like me) that the whole thing needed to be web-based. Use standards, we urged them. So what do they do: they stick with SQLServer, upgrade to W2K/IIS5, and build the whole backend in SOAP and ASP. They then insist that we make the server SSL capable (now a requirement for all web servers in our agency). Yet, the organization that issues certificates hasn't figured out how to accept requests from IIS5 yet.
Stubborness like this (or perhaps a lack of understanding) just makes my quest that much more difficult. Which is why I appreciate the paper, warts and all. I can overlook the minor flaws and the accusations of an OSS bias, since the quality of the arguments is too strong to ignore.
The interesting paradox regarding this issue (the conservative opinion in the marketplace of ideas) is that the leftist concepts apparently endorsed by many (here and in China) will do more to reduce and eliminate freedoms than anything the "government" can do.
Have a conversation with any intelligent, thinking person on the conservative side of the culture. To a person, they'll tell you they value freedom and liberty, in all forms, more highly then any of the rights and responsibilities we have as Americans.
As someone who is conservative, I don't know anyone who believes the things I do who also believes government censorship, spying, or unwarranted searches of our persons, homes or papers is a good thing, under any condition. Liberty is not something given to us; it can only be taken away. Look at China, Cuba, North Korea, Afghanistan (for heavens' sake, it's on the news every night...do you want to live like that?). Only a body of people who make the conscious decision to oppress and remove liberty and freedom, then back it up with the gun (while prohibiting the people from having a gun) can take that right away.
In the right vs. left argument, the most vocal on the left use an interesting method to denounce the right as "the enemy":
First, you find an opponent. Make sure it's someone whose ideals threaten your grip on whatever power you hold.
Then you pick a fight. State that the enemy is attacking your idea with theirs, and that if their idea wins, everyone loses something.
Then you paint everyone related to, close to, friends of, employees of, advisors of, or anything of relation to the enemy as...the enemy. You repeat this over and over.
You make sure that the people repeating your accusations (i.e., newspapers, TV, the media in general) lean toward your side, which now means they must be against the enemy as well. Make sure your accusers far outnumber their apologists and supporters. When one of the enemy's spokespersons appears on a TV panel to "debate" the issues, make sure those who think like you outnumber them, so you can shout them down.
Finally, propose some kind of legislation that will prohibit anyone from making any disparaging comments, in any form, against those on your side, no matter how far out and ridiculous (especially if they are members of some victim class). This way, if the enemy says even one small thing against that victim, you can accuse him of crimes against the state.
Repeat this method over and over, until the freedoms to do or say anything against those who disagree with you have been eradicated. Now, you're in control.
This is visible daily in the concepts of political correctness. It happens daily on sites that (as the above poster claims) stifle or even denegrate the ideas of those who take a different tack. And it's much more insidious, because it happens slowly. And it's pro forma for the left in this country.
The oft-repeated analogy of eroding freedoms is the one about cooking a frog. To cook the frog, you don't boil the water and throw him in, because he'll just jump out. You put the frog in comfortable water, then slowly heat the pot. Before he realizes it and can jump out, he's already cooked.
Just like our freedoms and liberties. Take them away incrementally, and when you realize they're gone, it's too late.
As far as being modded down because I'm a conservative, fine if it happens (and I'm not accusing this site of doing that by any stretch). Life's too precious...
This reminds me of what the military (specifically in my case, the Navy) does after some horrible accident or plane crash. They call a "safety standown" for a day.
Everyone in the fleet (including us civilians) would stop work for a day, discuss what happened, and listen to boring lectures and filmstrips on how not to spill fuel and hydraulic fluid, and how not to get sucked into the engine's intake, and how not to crack your melon against the wing's trailing edge flaps (which really hurts).
You know, all the stuff you're supposed to know before you walk out to the filght deck.
Like the way the code is supposed to work before it becomes Release Candidate 1.
I put 2.4.7 on our site's production (ok, productive) web server last August. I did one recompile to add in supposr for a new SCSI CDRW. That server (a rack system we designed and built) has been humming along very nicely...
Now, I won't ever get to sleep again after reading that article...dammit!
Who says they aren't? Maybe they'd be tumbling even lower by now. It's not all in the hands of the White House anyway, but they sure do try to do their part to help out the oil biz.
The idea that's it inherently wrong to support fuel energy producers/distributors is insane on it's face, no matter who the president might be. The fact that GWB's family was in the oil business just makes it seem...errr...suspicious.
We all need to face one fact: until the energy needs of this nation are met in some other way, consistently and inexpensively, we will need oil to keep our economy moving at any pace.
All one has to do is consider, just for a mmoment, the inability of this nations's infrastructure to obtain the fuel necessary to transport goods and people (planes, traines and automobiles) and provide the electrical power to just survive in some basic fashion. That includes keeping food cold and fresh, keeping people on life-support systems alive, keeping our schools and job sites lit and, and allowing all of us here to sit on our arses and submit this stuff.
One can blindly blame the support of some politician towards oil companies for the lack of movement in developing new fuel sources. What I don't hear in this space is how the pressure from envionmental groups have nearly forced us into the dark ages, destroying our ability to build and operate nuclear power plants in this nation, the use of which would have gone a long way to reduce our need for fossil fuel.
Yes, I know the down side to that concept, especially in regards to disposal. But, we've come a long way technologically since the early days of nuke power, and there are other civilized nations (France, for example) who have been using it safely for nearly 40 years. Politicians in this nation are so frightened of the envionmental groups that they dare not breathe a word of support, lest they be accused of creating another China Syndrome or Chernoybl. Which is what 90% of this country views as the reality of nuke power, anyway.
No, I haven't seen Star Office 6 yet, but I have heard good things about it. Again, as I argued before, the case can't be made for making a major switch from one to the other. Personally, I may set up Star Office on an operational network that won't connect to the NMCI resources. But, that will be the exception, not the rule.
As for getting rid of Outlook/Exchange, that isn't going to happen either. The military's Defense Messaging System is based in Exchange and Outlook, and NMCI will eventually integrate it's Exchange/Outlook-based e-mail services into DMS.
The military version of the Internet is referred to as the NIPRNET. There are routes between the nets controlled by DISA. Recent improvements in switches make the links between the two very fast. I can connect to literally any Internet site, but the DISA network I use can be isolated from the public net pretty easily.
I work for the Navy. I'm the IT department head for a medium sized command in one of the Navy's smaller operational claimancies.
There's a bit of misinformation or mistakenly-eliminated information in some of the posts here. NMCI is not replacing all desktops, laptops, and servers in the Navy with Windows. The majority of administrative systems, networks and servers will be replaced or managed by the EDS contract.
Many Navy commands have multiple systems and networks (other than their standard administrative systems), many of which are operational or tactical in nature. Those machines often run very specialized software developed both in-house and by contractors. This software runs on a variety of OSs and hardware, and little of it will ever be ported from one system to another. In the nearly ten years I've worked for the DOD, I've managed/configured/supported dozens of different applications running on a variety of off-the-shelf and customized systems.
What the Navy is trying to get their arms around is the cost and management of their administrative systems, which make up a majority of their ashore and afloat computers. The posters here who are griping about the fact that EDS is standardizing on Win32 platforms and apps fail to understand that within the Navy's administrative world, there needs to be standardization. There are hundreds of thousands of users stationed all over the world who have the need to share data, documents, and other information. For their needs, standardizing on something like Office 2000 on a relatively secure Windows 2000 platform simply makes the most sense, from a management point of view.
We have a small network here, and the admin systems here are standardized on Windows 2000, with Office 2000 as the suite. We also run a variety of other Windows-based apps. Our network is well-secured, and I have very few problems with Windows 2000 server and client systems. Naturally, I work very hard to manage and maintain them in the most efficient way possibe, which includes constant security monitoring. If someone cracks my system, it's not always the fault of the systems...I have to keep up with the security requirements to keep the bad guys out...just as I do with my non-Windows systems. Could Windows be more secure? Sure. But for my admin users' requirements, and for the size of my LAN, it works great.
My other non-admin systems run everything from Linux to Solairs to HP-UX to Windows, with off-the-shelf and customized applications that are, very often, the only things running on their host systems. I have to maintain security monitoring on those systems, too. However, I'm looking forward to NMCI's arrival, not because I'm necessarily crazy about thier deployment concepts, but because I can now hand the mundane management of admin systems (file servers, mail servers, net connections, backups, help desk, installations, griping and moaning, etc.) off to someone else. There's an upside to everything...
Then, I can concentrate on managing my (non-Windows) web servers and operational systems, developing content and tactical products, and doing the kind of creative stuff I don't get to do on the admin side.
Those who believe that the Navy is taking the wrong tack in moving to a Windows-based admin network aren't looking at the big picture. To try to move, for example, to an entire Linux-based network system, with the necessary design, configuration, training, and installation changes necessary would require manpower, expertise, and cost far beyond the $4-6 billion the NMCI contract will cost. Free operating systems require management as much as the commercial ones do, and that management and support isn't free.
Even more important is the massive cultural changes that would be necessary to move in that direction. The people using these systems use them in their jobs. They don't care, in most cases, what the OS is. They have no concern about open source vs. commercial. They use Office. They use Outlook. They expect the computer to work a certain way when they log in, and they expect the same applications to be there every day, they expect them to work a certain way, and they need to be able to share information without worrying about whether or not their StarOffice presentation is going to work on the system of some guy on a ship somewhere.
People like me are trying very hard to make sure open source is being implemented in the operational and tactical areas of the fleet. We know how good these things are, and we push them hard, despite the ignorant restrictions placed on us from using these tools. My webserver wasn't shut down by nimda and code red, because I decided a long time ago to buck the trend by going to Linux and Apache. I watched hundreds of Navy-based web servers fall to bits during those events, even to the point where entire military networks had to block port 80 requests to stem the tide. My SSL-enabled server chugged along with no problems.
Open source has it's place, and Win32 does as well. Where they belong depends on your point of view, and what you're trying to accomplish. Perhaps, someday, when a stable set of productivity apps for open source *nix systems exists, you might see some changes. But, they don't right now, and that's why the Navy is moving in the direction it is.
That's not true. At least, not in the way that most BellSouth users would think when they hear the term "bridged". All new BellSouth DSL installs are PPPoE. You can no longer get DHCP service. It is, however, a bridged connection insofar as your modem serves as a bridge from your Ethernet to BellSouth's ATM network.
You may be right. (I have no complaints with my setup, so I keep my mouth shut and my head low.[grin]).
My source is a guy closely connected to the bellsouth ISP, who hangs out on the support newsgroups a lot. I haven't been out there for months now, but he was saying at the time that is you specifically requested ethernet/DHCP service with the Alcatel external modem setup, you'd get it, but you'd pay the installation fees (no "free" installs or self-install kits).
This is the kind of install I had last year. Oddly, the only thing the installer did that I couldn't do was get the provisioning up and the circuit connected. I manage a small network at my job, so the DSL setup was really simple, except for that connection part.
I've been a residential DSL user in Florida since April 2000 (Bellsouth). At installation, the company offered me what was available then: a bridged DSL connection using ethernet and dhcp. With a couple of minor exceptions, the link has been rock solid since the day they turned it on. (My downlink speeds hang in the 1.2Mb range...very fast)
This is in contrast to a large number of subscribers added to the system since, who have had to use PPPoE and USB-based DSL modems. Combined with sometimes abysmal on-site installations and questionable technical support, it's been less than fun for those people. Add on this the lack of support for Linux/FreeBSD/OpenBSD/similar systems (and even problems with Windows 2000 as well). It ain't been easy, esepcially for the less technically adept. Things are supposed to be improving, however...
I've heard rumors about a switch from bridged to PPPoE service throughout the area, but it hasn't materialized yet. In fact, you can still get a bridged setup if you're willing to pay for the external modem (or buy one) and the extra fee for a truck roll and installation on site.
The address assignment systems seems pretty fair: the dhcp server on their network does a renewal about every 12 hours. IPs don't change often, but it's not an issue for me.
I don't know if this will become an issue here (yet) as many of the independent DSL providers have gone the way of all flesh since the dotcom purges last year.
But, I still get nervous when another big bell does this kind of thing, as I fear it will give mine evil ideas.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, boy, here we go...the dangerous conservative businessman must have bribed Republicans somewhere to get this deal killed.
First of all, the concept of two services in a competitive economy works. Where I live, the majority of people have to suffer with the horrible service and support from the monopoly cableco, AT&T, if they want local service and don't want to mount an antenna.
In September, DirecTV announced local service here coming this month. I've had DirecTV for over four years, and I'll have to install a new dish to get locals, but I can now pull the YAGI antenna off my roof. (It's nothing but a lightning rod here in Florida, anyway). The surge in sales of new DirecTV installs since the announcement has been remarkable.
(I can tell when interest is piqued when a lot of people I know start asking my opinions about my service).
A few weeks ago, Dish Network announced local availabilty on their systems beginning next week. Now, there's even more of a choice. Since DirecTV provides more subscription sports services, you can choose that one if that's a big deal for you. If not, the cable/movie channel packages from Dish are nearly identical in their offerings. And now locals can be had on both.
Now that three providers offer services in the area, the pressure on AT&T to improve service and quality (and price) increases, and eventually, everyone benefits.
But, what do Murdoch's politics have to do with him buying DirecTV? (His bid was rejected initially becuase Hughes apparently wanted to merge rather than sell the service and keep two systems in place). His holdings include satellite systems in Europe, and him owning DTV might mean a future of sharing those resources and allowing more foreign and global services to each side of the pond. I see that as a potential benefit.
With Charlie Ergen and Echostar pulling the strings, all I might be able to count on is being forced to change all my equipment, or potentially losing the sports subscriptions I enjoy so much. I want choice, and I have it.
And, by the way Fox News is not a "conservative news network." They have conservative folks on opinion shows (i.e., Sean Hannity), but that have a stable of liberals as well (Alan Combs, same show) to provide both sides. Their hard news shows also provide a more balanced view, which is something that doesn't exist on network or network-owned cable outlets. Which is why people aren't used to it, causing such confusion.
Perhaps you need some re-education in economics. Smple because a handful of gigantic corporations are going under doesn't necessarily spell dread for economic conditions.
Most of the nonsense reported about the Enrons, Clobal Crossings and IMClones is due to coroprate malfeasance and raiding the till. That these companies are balanced on corruption and straw houses doesn't help as they collapse.
If you look hard at currrent economic statistics and conditions, the US economy is fundamentally sound.
The main reason for this is the existence of exactly what the contributor/questioner wants to start...a small business. Small businesses are the foundation of a strong economy, and the responses from others here simple drives that fact home. If you look past the big boys and probe down into the "common" economy, you'll probably find a strength in small to medium-sized business activity that belies what you read about the Wall Street giants.
Quoting from the CNN story:
Consider a privacy law recently passed by the European Parliament requiring companies anywhere in the world to obtain permission before sending marketing e-mail to Europeans.
Jim Conway of the New York-based Direct Marketing Association worries that U.S. companies may have to scale back U.S. campaigns if they cannot assure that their mailing lists contain no European addresses. (Emphasis mine...)
Er...this is a bad thing?
Where? At step 10? What about the GS-13 level? Unless my position explicitly states that there's no promotion potential, and my agency agrees to promote me based on my performance and budget abilities, there's really nothing that says I can't get to that level.
Look here. Based on the argument I made in my earlier post, adding in the additional benefits, those salaries aren't too shabby, even if I only get to GS-12.
Oh, yeah, there's one other thing I forgot in the first post. I'm eligible for retirement in about eight years. That's age 55. So, I take my retirement and my TSP and I go work somewhere else. Sure, it might be hard breaking into some IT job at age 55. But, the beauty of htis business it that you can work for yourself as a consultant and do just fine. Since I also have a teaching degree, I can do that if I like. Or, I can stick with the DOD until I just get tired of working.
Another thing not mentioned in this discussion is the merit promotion system (which is how I got my last two assignments). The government hires from within all the time. The rules are different then for people coming from the outside, but there are a lot of job opportunities outsiders never see. And GS-13 isn't the top of the scale. (The GM series for management positions goes higher with a lot more compensation).
Add in the security of the positions (in most cases) and I think it's a sweet deal, at least for me.
Really?
I work for the DOD in a division of one of the military services. Our main business is weather. I've been a federal civilian employee since 1988. My computation date goes back to 1985 to include my military service.
I've been in the IT field since 1993. I have a BS in Information Science, which I worked towards and completed while I was employed by DOD.
When I started by current position in 1998, as a promotion to a GS-11 position, my gross annual pay (which includes the locality pay, an additional amount added to one's basic pay for cost-of-living expenses) was $38,593.
I received to step increases over the next two years, along with the normal 2-4% annual increases most federal employees get annually. In '99, my salary rose to $41,291. In '00, it went to $44,623.
Last year, the government realized that they were losing IT employees at too rapid a rate to the private sector and knew the only way to keep people employed in the service was to raise their pay to something comparable to the private sector.
In '01, my salary jumped to $52,226, about a 15% increase. This year, it moved up to $54.104.
In addition to my pay, I receive pretty decent medical benefits for with I pay about 25% of the annual cost (the Fed picks up up the rest). Also, my medical benefits expense comes off the top of my pay pre-tax.
I get cheap life insurance, and a pretty good retirement package, and I can contribute to a 401K-type plan that's done pretty well, with a government match of a percentage of my contribution. I get a generous annual leave and sick leave benefit.
If I took cash for the benfits, I'd say my annual salary would be close to $100K per year.
My bosses are appreciative of my work, and the job itself is challenging and satisfying. I have the freedom to try new ideas, including the use of open source concepts. We've had budget problems, and I've had to put some pet projects on the back burner...but mostly because I'm a one-man show. There's plenty for me to do, and they never hesitate to listen when I find new ways to solve old problems.
So, it looks like I work for a "small-medium sized company" (part of a larger organization) where I see "tangible results." Oh, yeah, I really feel like I'm doing something with my life.
As a IT director for a federal agency's site, I'm happy when someone takes the time to research and assemble a paper like this.
That the federal government has been married to Microsoft's technology in a big way, for a long time, is no secret. In fact, my agency is in the midst of a huge services rollout in which Windows and it's apps will be the centerpiece of all userspace activity.
In recent months, however, I've begun to convince people up the chain, in a small way, that the use of OSS provides better performance and a more secure environment than anything Microsoft provides. My location's small but important conversion has been to replace IIS servers with Apache/Linux boxes and a flaky, expensive NT-based commercial firewall product with iptables on Linux. All using existing hadrware and downloaded distributions and source, making the initial cost zero (thay have to pay me, no matter what).
Even people in a more visible portion of my organizational community are now praising OSS in print and in public for my community's evaluation. The use of OSS in some scientific endeavors gives it a legitimacy that I can only hope to provide.
Yet, there are still segments of the group who either aren't sold or aren't aware. A recent project installed at my site is a perfect example.
The project was a database system providing critical data for military pilots. Originally, it required SQLServer and a proprietary app built in VB, and required security holes in my firewall for access. When the project was taken over by another branch of my organization, they decided (after a lot of prodding from people like me) that the whole thing needed to be web-based. Use standards, we urged them. So what do they do: they stick with SQLServer, upgrade to W2K/IIS5, and build the whole backend in SOAP and ASP. They then insist that we make the server SSL capable (now a requirement for all web servers in our agency). Yet, the organization that issues certificates hasn't figured out how to accept requests from IIS5 yet.
Stubborness like this (or perhaps a lack of understanding) just makes my quest that much more difficult. Which is why I appreciate the paper, warts and all. I can overlook the minor flaws and the accusations of an OSS bias, since the quality of the arguments is too strong to ignore.
The interesting paradox regarding this issue (the conservative opinion in the marketplace of ideas) is that the leftist concepts apparently endorsed by many (here and in China) will do more to reduce and eliminate freedoms than anything the "government" can do.
Have a conversation with any intelligent, thinking person on the conservative side of the culture. To a person, they'll tell you they value freedom and liberty, in all forms, more highly then any of the rights and responsibilities we have as Americans.
As someone who is conservative, I don't know anyone who believes the things I do who also believes government censorship, spying, or unwarranted searches of our persons, homes or papers is a good thing, under any condition. Liberty is not something given to us; it can only be taken away. Look at China, Cuba, North Korea, Afghanistan (for heavens' sake, it's on the news every night...do you want to live like that?). Only a body of people who make the conscious decision to oppress and remove liberty and freedom, then back it up with the gun (while prohibiting the people from having a gun) can take that right away.
In the right vs. left argument, the most vocal on the left use an interesting method to denounce the right as "the enemy":
This is visible daily in the concepts of political correctness. It happens daily on sites that (as the above poster claims) stifle or even denegrate the ideas of those who take a different tack. And it's much more insidious, because it happens slowly. And it's pro forma for the left in this country.
The oft-repeated analogy of eroding freedoms is the one about cooking a frog. To cook the frog, you don't boil the water and throw him in, because he'll just jump out. You put the frog in comfortable water, then slowly heat the pot. Before he realizes it and can jump out, he's already cooked.
Just like our freedoms and liberties. Take them away incrementally, and when you realize they're gone, it's too late.
As far as being modded down because I'm a conservative, fine if it happens (and I'm not accusing this site of doing that by any stretch). Life's too precious...
So, that show's going off the air, huh?
What's gonna happen to that talking dog they took on all their adventures...
Oh, wait...that was Scooby-Doo.
Sorry.
This reminds me of what the military (specifically in my case, the Navy) does after some horrible accident or plane crash. They call a "safety standown" for a day.
Everyone in the fleet (including us civilians) would stop work for a day, discuss what happened, and listen to boring lectures and filmstrips on how not to spill fuel and hydraulic fluid, and how not to get sucked into the engine's intake, and how not to crack your melon against the wing's trailing edge flaps (which really hurts).
You know, all the stuff you're supposed to know before you walk out to the filght deck.
Like the way the code is supposed to work before it becomes Release Candidate 1.
This is why I don't work with airplanes anymore.
I put 2.4.7 on our site's production (ok, productive) web server last August. I did one recompile to add in supposr for a new SCSI CDRW. That server (a rack system we designed and built) has been humming along very nicely...
Now, I won't ever get to sleep again after reading that article...dammit!
My girls got me Quicken 2002. It's not Linux, but I can always dual boot.
Now I can get rid of that DOS version...
Merry Christmas to all...
The idea that's it inherently wrong to support fuel energy producers/distributors is insane on it's face, no matter who the president might be. The fact that GWB's family was in the oil business just makes it seem...errr...suspicious.
We all need to face one fact: until the energy needs of this nation are met in some other way, consistently and inexpensively, we will need oil to keep our economy moving at any pace.
All one has to do is consider, just for a mmoment, the inability of this nations's infrastructure to obtain the fuel necessary to transport goods and people (planes, traines and automobiles) and provide the electrical power to just survive in some basic fashion. That includes keeping food cold and fresh, keeping people on life-support systems alive, keeping our schools and job sites lit and, and allowing all of us here to sit on our arses and submit this stuff.
One can blindly blame the support of some politician towards oil companies for the lack of movement in developing new fuel sources. What I don't hear in this space is how the pressure from envionmental groups have nearly forced us into the dark ages, destroying our ability to build and operate nuclear power plants in this nation, the use of which would have gone a long way to reduce our need for fossil fuel.
Yes, I know the down side to that concept, especially in regards to disposal. But, we've come a long way technologically since the early days of nuke power, and there are other civilized nations (France, for example) who have been using it safely for nearly 40 years. Politicians in this nation are so frightened of the envionmental groups that they dare not breathe a word of support, lest they be accused of creating another China Syndrome or Chernoybl. Which is what 90% of this country views as the reality of nuke power, anyway.
No, I haven't seen Star Office 6 yet, but I have heard good things about it. Again, as I argued before, the case can't be made for making a major switch from one to the other. Personally, I may set up Star Office on an operational network that won't connect to the NMCI resources. But, that will be the exception, not the rule.
As for getting rid of Outlook/Exchange, that isn't going to happen either. The military's Defense Messaging System is based in Exchange and Outlook, and NMCI will eventually integrate it's Exchange/Outlook-based e-mail services into DMS.
The military version of the Internet is referred to as the NIPRNET. There are routes between the nets controlled by DISA. Recent improvements in switches make the links between the two very fast. I can connect to literally any Internet site, but the DISA network I use can be isolated from the public net pretty easily.
I work for the Navy. I'm the IT department head for a medium sized command in one of the Navy's smaller operational claimancies.
There's a bit of misinformation or mistakenly-eliminated information in some of the posts here. NMCI is not replacing all desktops, laptops, and servers in the Navy with Windows. The majority of administrative systems, networks and servers will be replaced or managed by the EDS contract.
Many Navy commands have multiple systems and networks (other than their standard administrative systems), many of which are operational or tactical in nature. Those machines often run very specialized software developed both in-house and by contractors. This software runs on a variety of OSs and hardware, and little of it will ever be ported from one system to another. In the nearly ten years I've worked for the DOD, I've managed/configured/supported dozens of different applications running on a variety of off-the-shelf and customized systems.
What the Navy is trying to get their arms around is the cost and management of their administrative systems, which make up a majority of their ashore and afloat computers. The posters here who are griping about the fact that EDS is standardizing on Win32 platforms and apps fail to understand that within the Navy's administrative world, there needs to be standardization. There are hundreds of thousands of users stationed all over the world who have the need to share data, documents, and other information. For their needs, standardizing on something like Office 2000 on a relatively secure Windows 2000 platform simply makes the most sense, from a management point of view.
We have a small network here, and the admin systems here are standardized on Windows 2000, with Office 2000 as the suite. We also run a variety of other Windows-based apps. Our network is well-secured, and I have very few problems with Windows 2000 server and client systems. Naturally, I work very hard to manage and maintain them in the most efficient way possibe, which includes constant security monitoring. If someone cracks my system, it's not always the fault of the systems...I have to keep up with the security requirements to keep the bad guys out...just as I do with my non-Windows systems. Could Windows be more secure? Sure. But for my admin users' requirements, and for the size of my LAN, it works great.
My other non-admin systems run everything from Linux to Solairs to HP-UX to Windows, with off-the-shelf and customized applications that are, very often, the only things running on their host systems. I have to maintain security monitoring on those systems, too. However, I'm looking forward to NMCI's arrival, not because I'm necessarily crazy about thier deployment concepts, but because I can now hand the mundane management of admin systems (file servers, mail servers, net connections, backups, help desk, installations, griping and moaning, etc.) off to someone else. There's an upside to everything...
Then, I can concentrate on managing my (non-Windows) web servers and operational systems, developing content and tactical products, and doing the kind of creative stuff I don't get to do on the admin side.
Those who believe that the Navy is taking the wrong tack in moving to a Windows-based admin network aren't looking at the big picture. To try to move, for example, to an entire Linux-based network system, with the necessary design, configuration, training, and installation changes necessary would require manpower, expertise, and cost far beyond the $4-6 billion the NMCI contract will cost. Free operating systems require management as much as the commercial ones do, and that management and support isn't free.
Even more important is the massive cultural changes that would be necessary to move in that direction. The people using these systems use them in their jobs. They don't care, in most cases, what the OS is. They have no concern about open source vs. commercial. They use Office. They use Outlook. They expect the computer to work a certain way when they log in, and they expect the same applications to be there every day, they expect them to work a certain way, and they need to be able to share information without worrying about whether or not their StarOffice presentation is going to work on the system of some guy on a ship somewhere.
People like me are trying very hard to make sure open source is being implemented in the operational and tactical areas of the fleet. We know how good these things are, and we push them hard, despite the ignorant restrictions placed on us from using these tools. My webserver wasn't shut down by nimda and code red, because I decided a long time ago to buck the trend by going to Linux and Apache. I watched hundreds of Navy-based web servers fall to bits during those events, even to the point where entire military networks had to block port 80 requests to stem the tide. My SSL-enabled server chugged along with no problems.
Open source has it's place, and Win32 does as well. Where they belong depends on your point of view, and what you're trying to accomplish. Perhaps, someday, when a stable set of productivity apps for open source *nix systems exists, you might see some changes. But, they don't right now, and that's why the Navy is moving in the direction it is.
You may be right. (I have no complaints with my setup, so I keep my mouth shut and my head low.[grin]).
My source is a guy closely connected to the bellsouth ISP, who hangs out on the support newsgroups a lot. I haven't been out there for months now, but he was saying at the time that is you specifically requested ethernet/DHCP service with the Alcatel external modem setup, you'd get it, but you'd pay the installation fees (no "free" installs or self-install kits).
This is the kind of install I had last year. Oddly, the only thing the installer did that I couldn't do was get the provisioning up and the circuit connected. I manage a small network at my job, so the DSL setup was really simple, except for that connection part.
I've been a residential DSL user in Florida since April 2000 (Bellsouth). At installation, the company offered me what was available then: a bridged DSL connection using ethernet and dhcp. With a couple of minor exceptions, the link has been rock solid since the day they turned it on. (My downlink speeds hang in the 1.2Mb range...very fast)
This is in contrast to a large number of subscribers added to the system since, who have had to use PPPoE and USB-based DSL modems. Combined with sometimes abysmal on-site installations and questionable technical support, it's been less than fun for those people. Add on this the lack of support for Linux/FreeBSD/OpenBSD/similar systems (and even problems with Windows 2000 as well). It ain't been easy, esepcially for the less technically adept. Things are supposed to be improving, however...
I've heard rumors about a switch from bridged to PPPoE service throughout the area, but it hasn't materialized yet. In fact, you can still get a bridged setup if you're willing to pay for the external modem (or buy one) and the extra fee for a truck roll and installation on site.
The address assignment systems seems pretty fair: the dhcp server on their network does a renewal about every 12 hours. IPs don't change often, but it's not an issue for me.
I don't know if this will become an issue here (yet) as many of the independent DSL providers have gone the way of all flesh since the dotcom purges last year.
But, I still get nervous when another big bell does this kind of thing, as I fear it will give mine evil ideas.