Posted on 11/06/2003 11:28:52 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
The mainstream doesn't lobby for government contribution to Linux. They do lobby for a fair shot on an even playing field against closed source software. The NSA example was the preeminent security agency toying around with Linux to see what they could do to harden it, both as a theoretical and practical exercise. Wouldn't the NSA have an interest in using a good base to create a highly secure operating system for it to use? Microsoft didn't like the implications of a Linux even farther surpassing Windows that it currently does, so had it stopped. BTW, the NSA had no legal obligation to return any added source code to the general Linux population.
If the need were really so pressing, then private enterprise is more than capable of creating a highly secure operating system to be marketed to the NSA. And in practice, I'm sure this happens -- although I doubt that linux is the core... It's more likely some proprietary flavor of unix.
Government funded forays into the commercial software marketplace aren't the answer. And in those rare instances where the govt has a legitimate need to develop code, it should focus on producing code which EVERYONE can use -- public domain code (such as LINPACK, LAPACK, EISPACK,...), rather than GPL code (such as SE-Linux).
If that's what you're in to. Thats super.
But they often have a point. In this case, it is worrying that a large portion of the income of the software industry is the government. That is our money being spent to prop up an industry. OSS fits my belief in small government and the complete absence of corporate welfare. If the government were to take Linux, OpenOffice and other OSS/free software and expend the resources to modify it to their exact needs, it would be better for us. On one hand the government would get exactly what it needs rather than making off the shelf software fit those needs, and on the other hand they would give back to the public something for the tax money spent, rather than that money going directly to corporations.
In simpler terms, I'd rather hear that the NSA spent $50 million on Linux or BSD development to advance it far beyond any current OS, than to hear they just spent $50 million on software licenses. At least then I know I could download it and get something back for my tax dollars.
I suppose you work on one of those old 1940s Army desks with an old steel desklamp too. Or did you go out and buy something nicer that fits in with the office? If so, why did you decide to turn off any semblance of taste when you bought the computer that goes in that office?
Ridiculous. My computers aren't loud. More BS complaints from the masculinity-challenged
You don't run the big ones. Believe me, dual 3 GHz requires a few fans running at high speed to dissipate that heat. Dell goes partway in controlling thermal flow by encapsulating their processors with their own separate airflow. But as usual, the PC manufacturers thought things out half-assed. The new Macs have several computer-controlled fans with distinct thermal zones to both maintain optimum temperature for all parts with the added result of it being whisper quiet. How can you tell me that is not a good thing?
Don't worry though, that and other features will show up at Dell in a few years. Then you'll be oooh-ing and awwww-ing at the cool new stuff that you think Dell and Microsoft thought up. It's always been that way.
The specific case I'm talking about was the NSA doing some computer research by hardening Linux. MS used its lobbying to stop that. Otherwise, yes, MS tries very hard to stop adoption of Linux. Read what happened in Munich when it looked like Linux would win the bid on price and merits. Look what happened when India decided they could save money by going OSS. You would not believe the pressure they put on Largo, Florida after they switched to Linux. The IT managers were being grilled by the MS reps as to why they switched (they stopped when they had to admit they couldn't provide that capability for that low a budget).
Rather, what they're doing is addressing the morons in our wonderful government who want to mandate that only open source solutions be considered
That's not a bad idea, within reason. Every good organization has a program in place to ensure that everything is purchased from the lowest-cost vendor, providing that it meets certain objective requirements ("can it do the job"). This should be law for government purchases, and it actually already is, but it seems to be ignored where software is concerned.
Obviously, OSS isn't for all things. If I want to set up a video editing or print graphics shop, there's pretty much no way that OSS will meet any objective requirements since the software just isn't there. But if I'm setting up an office of a thousand workers who will be using word processors, web browsers and spread sheets, how can I justify spending millions of dollars on licenses and support when I can get the whole thing for just the cost of the support? To go proprietary would be a waste of our tax dollars.
That was an issue you created. I was talking computers in general, but you wanted to narrow it down when you realized that a PC can't compete with a Mac in the high-end on any level. You had to find some retreat where the Mac doesn't go -- the low-end -- so you could keep up your self-delusion that the PC is all-great in all areas.
But for features and performance, everyone does his own balancing act. On the lower end, if you want lots of high-quality included software and excellent ease-of-use, you go Mac. If you want just a box where you have to buy software to do anything, go PC. Personally, I've built lots of PCs myself to do just the latter, and I definitely won't be getting a Mac when I make myself a RAID file server next year. But it'll be running Linux since I'm not going to blow several hundred dollars on a Windows license that won't do anything more for me than the Linux box will.
Better for "us"??? -- as in "we govt programmers"???
Regardless, this sounds like an admission that the open source providers cannot provide a finished product capable of satisfying the govt's "exact needs". And you're right, since much of the open source software, such as OpenOffice, is a crappy substitute for more polished closed-source offerings such as MS Office.
OSS fits my belief in small government and the complete absence of corporate welfare.
ROFLMAO! I'd rather see the govt buy software licenses than hire an army of programmers in a "ministry of open source software development". Those govt salaries/benefits/retirements add up a lot quicker than software licenses. And you can get rid of software licenses a lot easier than govt employees.
SE Linux was about research. You have a problem with our security agency doing research into computer security? Or do you have a problem that the research resulted in something coming directly back to the people rather than into the pockets of a corporation?
it should focus on producing code which EVERYONE can use -- public domain code (such as LINPACK, LAPACK, EISPACK,...), rather than GPL code (such as SE-Linux).
Whatever license or conditions they want to use, as long as the public reaps the benefits free of end costs.
I'm somewhat familiar with these cases. Microsoft tried their best to win these contracts. What's wrong/unexpected about that? And in no case did I see Microsoft attempt to have closed-source software mandated as a matter of blanket policy/legislation, as open source proponents are attempting.
Better for the taxpayers.
Regardless, this sounds like an admission that the open source providers cannot provide a finished product capable of satisfying the govt's "exact needs".
I've worked on several government intranet projects as a military contractor. In those projects, the immediate assumption by the government is that it will run on Windows/IIS. That is often put out in the RFP. For the most part, all these people know is Windows, so that is all that is used. No other software platform even had a chance to show merits. When writing criteria for desktops, they will, for example, find some useless feature that only exists in Excel and state that as a requirement. I've both written and responded to these things, I know how they work. You can effectively eliminate open competition by carefully wording the purchase order or RFP.
I'd rather see the govt buy software licenses than hire an army of programmers in a "ministry of open source software development".
In that context I was speaking as government as customer, not as developer. When it comes time to pay $50 million for the next batch of Windows licenses for a government agency, they WILL NOT be looking to an alternative that could save them money. They will simply renew the licenses using our money.
So GPL companies are "people", and closed-source companies are "corporations"? OK, I think I've got the jist of your new vocabulary.
The problem with your theory is that only companies/individuals with a GPL software license can incorporate the NSA code into their code. Therefore, it amounts to nothing more than "welfare" for open source companies.
Unfortunately, though, you're not alone in your opinion. I've seen plenty of conservatives drop their limited-govt principles at the thought of some pork heading in their favorite direction.
In the Munich case, they used their position as a rich company with deep pockets to offer what was possibly a contract at a loss just to keep competition out. This is what the big trucking companies used to do to independent truckers to drive them out of business. That's wrong. When India decided they might want to save money by going with free software where possible, Bill Gates showed up and donated lots of money, software and computers. The inability to lobby and throw money around may be the achilles heel of free software.
And in no case did I see Microsoft attempt to have closed-source software mandated as a matter of blanket policy/legislation, as open source proponents are attempting.
I haven't seen the bill you refer to, but most of the ones I see are in the form of reminding government agencies that there is a cheaper alternative, and that they have a current statutory requirement to go with the cheaper alternative. Just a habit-breaking wake-up, no more.
And thus, since SCO has an incentive to make things look as bad as possible for Linux, yet they have shown nothing, it is safe to conclude they have nothing . . . at least until SCO proves otherwise.
I've been both the beneficiary and non-beneficiary of, [ahem], "targeted" specifications... So I know what you're talking about. :-)
But the solution isn't to legislate a preference for open source software. That's no better than the very thing you're complaining about.
Closed-source companies are often corporations. Open-source software isn't a corporation. You could go as a private individual and download and use SE Linux, getting a direct benefit from your tax dollars. Or that money could go to a company with a big lobby and a private jet for the CEO. If the same amount of money is going to be spent, I know which way I'd want it to be spent.
If you don't like people on direct government payroll, then the government can simply stipulate in the contract RFP that all software developed would be licensed GPL, GNU or whatever. They still paid about what they would have paid for closed-source, but the people get to have the results without paying for it again.
I've seen plenty of conservatives drop their limited-govt principles at the thought of some pork heading in their favorite direction.
Not in this case. I don't care if it's the GPL license or other licenses that allow the code to be resold, as long as the people get what they paid for directly. I would like some kind of a license rather than public domain, because then you can say "free for use and resale by Americans" or something to that end.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.