| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Open-Source Fight Flares At Pentagon | |
|
||
| Time: 12:25 EST/17:25 GMT | News Source: Washington Post | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Microsoft Corp. is aggressively lobbying the Pentagon to squelch its growing use of freely distributed computer software and switch to proprietary systems such as those sold by the software giant, according to officials familiar with the campaign. In what one military source called a "barrage" of contacts with officials at the Defense Information Systems Agency and the office of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld over the past few months, the company said "open source" software threatens security and its intellectual property. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 316 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:00:04 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1896 (66.20.203.205) at 5/23/2002 12:42:02 PM |
| I am wondering how much IBM Global will charge them. |
| #2 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 5/23/2002 1:58:49 PM |
|
I think the Government is right. In this case they have unlimited supplies of Admins and coders who can tackle any issue that pops up with the systems. So they can afford to take care that kind of stuff and take advantage of those possiblities.
For businesses, small and large, this isn't the case. For a company to have on staff programmers and admins of that nature would cost them more money then shareholders/owners would allow be spent in many cases. MS was stupid to go in after this. |
| #3 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 5/23/2002 2:03:25 PM |
|
#1 It is interesting... they are saving $200 - $300 per computer but will easily spend that with IBM maintaining the systems over a year. IBM is great at selling themselves and their ideas and I have first hand knowledge that they are in it for the support aspect, not the initial sales. And they beat you to death for anything you call them about with extra costs... even if you have a support contract with them.
"Sherwin-Williams is taking a bit of a risk, he said." -- You can say that again. In fact they could use XP Embedded for "starting price of $70 per license" Hmm... which would be cheaper? Price found from http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20011128S0011 This post was edited by Mr.Humpty on Thursday, May 23, 2002 at 14:07. |
| #4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/23/2002 2:04:43 PM |
|
I don't know. There's arguments on both sides.
Do you think the government would be happy if Lockheed open sourced the designs of the stealth fighter such that Iraq could build their own planes? |
| #5 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/23/2002 2:06:57 PM |
|
As far as cash registers go... Fairly simple devices, no need for a complicated UI. Sounds like Linux might make a good solution. Don't know, don't care. The computer market is really quite large and Linux taking over the cash register industry isn't much of a threat to anybody.
|
| #6 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 5/23/2002 3:18:54 PM |
|
Damn Microsoft and all these other so called "companies" that want to "sell" things.
DAMN THEM! |
| #7 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/23/2002 3:46:32 PM |
|
Having worked for federal government, what RANT does not seem to understand is that the government never considers the cost of people time when creating something.
Sure it probably cost $47,000 to buy the hardware, but it took 10 people six months to set it up. At $100k/year that's a good $.5 Million project. Perhaps with commercial software it would have only taken 2 people to set it up. You see, one of the primary goals of government employees is to perpetuate their existence, and their jobs. #12 - True, but the government does not have the right to use tax payer dollars to supplant private industry. If the government wants to use open source, fine, but they should not be hiring programmers to develop and maintain it. Thus ends my Republican Service Announcement for the day. This post was edited by sodablue on Thursday, May 23, 2002 at 15:48. |
| #8 By 2960 (156.80.64.135) at 5/23/2002 4:46:47 PM |
|
"You see, one of the primary goals of government employees is to perpetuate their existence, and their jobs. "
Well, ain't that pretty much what every working person needs ? |
| #9 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/23/2002 4:54:51 PM |
|
"That would be true if the organization (gov't) did not already have the infrastructure in place to support the *nix framework. The gov't has some very well trained nix admins and programmers already in place so whether you go with open source or MS manhours should be more or less equal. "
As I said, the purpose of federal government employment is job security. So they realize if they could do the same job with 2 people, it is better to recommend the product which requires 10. Plus it is easier to sell because you say "We only spent $47,000, whereas if we used commercial software it would have cost $358,000." In private industry where people are rewarded for real efficiency the manager would say "Yes, it will cost us $358,000, but we save $1.6 million over the last 2 years in staff reductions." "Just because the some gov't agencies are considering using open source does not mean that they are supplanting private industry. " Did I say that I had a problem with the gov't agencies using open source? No, I did not. "Should they not hire programmers and administrators to maintain MS products? " Did I say administrators? Again, No I did not. "Why not open source. Nix admins and programmers like to get paid to, would you deny them that? " The jobs are better positioned in the free market, because such employment generates wealth. Federal government work only extracts wealth because it relies upon the tax revenues to fund it. The point is, using software = fine. creating software = not fine because this role is better performed within private industry. Unless the software is specific to government needs, like what the IRS uses to process tax forms. However OS, web server, email clients and so forth are not government specific and should be outsourced to the private industry. If open source can survive in the free market I think that's exciting. But if the only way for open source to survive is through continued government funding, then it is a misappropriation of tax resources and yes, I believe it should be banned. |
| #10 By 6859 (204.71.100.215) at 5/23/2002 5:22:01 PM |
|
The Gov't designates contractural work by the lowest bidder; why not, then, do the same thing for software? Clearly, it's only "fair." (shudders at own use of the word)
I agree with Poster #12, freedom is "a good thing". |
| #11 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/23/2002 7:00:12 PM |
|
RANT - "But your analogy does not apply simply because they are considering open source."
But really it is appropriate. As I said in private industry every project is reported with it's real cost. This is done because you can then show it as a investment into your company which has certain tax advantages. What's the real cost? How much the software cost, how much the hardware cost, and how much the people resources cost. It doesn't matter whether you had the staff on hand or not, if it took someone 400 hours over a 3 month period to set up the project then that is how much it cost. That sort of accounting is not done at the government level because they make the implicit assumption that the staff is a sunk cost. You're already paying for them, so they are essentially free to the project. "Again, the nix staff is in place..as is the MS staff. And since this the gov't we are talking about, there will be no staff reduction just retraining. " See, you have spent too much time working in government. "I'm not real sure what you mean. Are you inferring that Nix administrators have no place in the federal gov't? " This is an intellectually vacuous question considering I already stated quite clearly I was not talking about administration, but rather development. "Or do you mean that we pull the plug on the internet and force tech companies to refund money because the internet was gov't funded?" Ahh, perhaps I should clarify because you obviously don't grasp the import of my statements. I am not referring to R&D costs, but rather ongoing costs. In the 1950's the US Government decided that it would be beneficial to our country to build a network of interstate highways. Obviously as this had not been done before a great deal of money was likely spent on R&D for road construction. Creating new machines, new materials and so forth. But in the end the Government is not in the business of building road construction machinery. They took the research that had been done into road construction and turned it over to the public. The job of creating equipment is now performed by Caterpillar and other private firms. The job of building roads is now subcontracted out to other private firms that specialize in that type of construction. The creation of the web server and browser at NCSA was an appropriate role of government as it was research. The ongoing maintenance of such software is not. "You don't think software used by the Pentigon, DoD, NSA, etc would be specific? OS, web server..etc. plenty of those already in use by open source. " The DoD and NSA do have some specific requirements for secure operating systems. But by and large the bulk of the computers and software they use is not unique to the government but are general purpose. "But I don't think that the *only* way open source can survive is through gov't funding. " Well I hope that is the case, but from the rhetoric I keep seeing from the open source community they don't have much confidence in it as they keep advocating for government funding. Open Source needs to find a way to make itself commercially viable. If people can do that while still giving it all away for free, then more power to them. But while I am a liberal at heart and in favor of many Government programs which perform functions that would not or could not otherwise be performed by private companies... I do not believe that the creation of software is a life necessity. It is a luxury that exists in this country because of the very strong nature of our economy. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 316 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:00:04 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
