FAA May Ditch Vista For Linux

An anonymous reader writes "Another straw in the wind: following last week's news that the US Department of Transportation is putting a halt on upgrades to Windows Vista, Office 2007, and Internet Explorer 7, today comes word that the Federal Aviation Administration may ditch Vista and Office in favor of Google's new online business applications running on Linux-based hardware. (The FAA is part of the DOT.) The FAA's CIO David Bowen told InformationWeek he's taking a close look at the Premier Edition of Google Apps as he mulls replacements for the agency's Windows XP-based desktop computers. Bowen cited several reasons why he finds Google Apps attractive. 'From a security and management standpoint that would have some advantages,' he said."

training

this isnt going to happen tomorrow, or next week, or next month. training staff to use an entirly new system takes a lot of time and money. i will be supprised if we see this take effect before this time next year

Re:training

That's exactly right. When a business changes to a new application it's not as if the business tells employees that they can get by completing 80% as much for the next few weeks. It's basically "Yes it's new and we expect you to be at 100% speed immediately, deal with it." And it sucks for the employee for a week or two while they have to semi-rush or work a few extra hours but it's not the end of the world. Typically the same salary IT person that has always been there gets stuck answering all the questions. The only additional cost is anyone involved who might be paid hourly, they might have to work a few extra hours. In my mind, it's not the end of the world.

Re:training

Can't they just employ immigrants who learned to use computers in order to get a job? We're not talking complex applications here like 3D or compositing apps, those who can't use generic email, word processor or spreadsheet don't deserve to have a desk job.

Re:training

What's interesting though is that the FAA seems to think that the costs associated with training will in the end be cheaper than an upgrade to Vista.

Re:training

"What's interesting though is that the FAA seems to think that the costs associated with training will in the end be cheaper than an upgrade to Vista."

Don't forget that they'll need to retrain people for Vista and Office-whatever anyway. So it's not like one option is free and the other costs money.

Re:training

Exactly, it isn't just the costs of upgrading to Vista, its the cost of upgrading to Vista + Deployment + Retraining. I would also suspect that the FAA probably pays for some kind of actual support contract. They will still want to pay somebody like Redhat for a support contract (and probably Google as well), and they will still incur Deployment and Retraining Costs no matter what. The question really starts to become, who do they believe provides a product with the best productivity/TCO ratio.

Everybody's been through the Microsoft cycle multiple times now. Microsoft promises the world during development, but by the time a product actually ships, its years late, hugely over budget, and still has only 10% of the features originally promised (Remember Microsoft's database file system? The one that would revolutionize searches and data management and do away with folders? They've been promising that one since 1994 at least. It was supposed to be part of Windows 95!) And Microsoft's products End up having severe support issues during their lifetime (Business Crippling Worms anyone?) It heartens me that Organizations are really starting to think about going with other options.

Only minor training required

Probably most FAA systems run with a few forms-based applications sitting on top of some data base. They are not installing printers etc, the IT folk do that. Most likely very few people ever interact with the OS (except to reboot).From a user's perspective, it is not very hard to switch from one OS to another since the OS is hardly visible.

There would, however, be traing for IT and support people.

Re:training

Maybe I'm just a quick learner, but I can't see how Google Apps would require all that much training. Like everything of Google's that I've tried (with the exception of Google Ads, whose pricing structure remains mysterious), I found it had almost no learning curve whatsoever.

Am I really that much smarter than the people who work at the FAA?

Re:training

The FAA keeps what is by far the world's busiest civil air transportation system running with a remarkably good safety record. Every time you go to the airport, get on your plane, fly to your destination, get off your plane, and nothing else happens, you have the FAA to thank for it.

Re:training

Shh, don't question the mindless libertarian bullshit. If everyone realized that government employees as just as human as private employees, it would cause CHAOS around here.

Re:Every time I go outside...

The inevitable result would be more casualties, and market forces would only show up after the fact.

To say nothing of the difficulties in relying on market forces when consumers lack any clear way of judging the safety of a flight they are planning to buy a ticket on.

This is made even worse by most people's completely incompetence when judging danger. For example, travelling by train in Britain is MUCH safer than travelling by car, but whenever there is a railway accident hordes of idiots switch to cars because they think trains are dangerous. Yes, I do know about people preferring dangers they have a feeling of control over, but it only makes me think them even more idiotic.

If we ever relied on market forces to promote safety, it would merely lead to a lot of resources being spent on marketing (rather than achieving) safety, and even more misinformation being spread.

Well, Compare it to Vista

this isnt going to happen tomorrow, or next week, or next month. training staff to use an entirly new system takes a lot of time and money. i will be supprised if we see this take effect before this time next year

Well, I'm not a systems integrator in real life but I've taken classes. One of the big things to consider here is the potential for an intermediary stage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Google's Apps are largely platform independent. What this means is that I can think of an instantly perfect intermediary stage--instruct the employees to use Google Apps while they still have XP and old Office applications on their machines. But, you know, give them a hard date by which everyone should be using Google Apps (oh, there's always problem workers but leave that to middle management). I assume the large thing these people rely on their computers for is simply these editing suites so once that barrier is broken, install Linux and give them quick 8 hour orientation classes in how to do the same things in Linux that you used to do in Windows (pretty minimal, I assume).

Other option is just Vista & the new Office. Where at some point you just have to install the new Office (I don't think old & new can be installed at the same time) and make them use it. Now, while I'm sure Vista is more similar to XP than Linux and the Office applications are probably similar also, you know there's going to be bumps.

That said, I don't think the transition to Google Apps on Linux would be any more painful than the transition to Vista running Office. I suppose time will tell though. Hopefully my assumptions are correct and this sparks interest on this huge cost savings?

I guess if you really wanted to promote Linux, you would write tutorials on how to take advantage of this switch to Vista/Office and how to put your workers on Linux/Google Apps. When you make cheap and extremely convenient, they will come.

Re:Well, Compare it to Vista

One of the big things to consider here is the potential for an intermediary stage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Google's Apps are largely platform independent.

As are OpenOffice, MSOffice, and the majority of Windows applications (thanx to wine). If they have a particular desktop application that does not work under linux or wine, all they have to do is ask on wine-devel and it would be fixed like flies on stank because of how high-profile the situation is.

BBH

Re:Well, Compare it to Vista

That said, I don't think the transition to Google Apps on Linux would be any more painful than the transition to Vista running Office.

I don't know about that. This is the same Google Apps that many users got locked out of a couple weeks ago. Putting your productivity apps on someone else's servers just isn't a good idea. OpenOffice would probably be a much more prudent move.

Re:training

I don't think training/timing is a big issue. Any time MS releases a major update like new versions of Vista & Office it requires a fair amount of retraining for non-technical people and even a lot of technical people. Since there's a retraining cost involved no matter what, then it's up to the company/organization to decide their best upgrade path, whether it's to the latest MS offerings or an entirely different platform.

Personally I find the big news to be the fact that more and more corporations, governments, and entire countries, are using Vista/Office2007 as justification to seriously consider non-MS products. Granted it's still a very small percentage of MS customers that have done this so far, but if the groundswell continues and a number of these groups are successful, then it could just be the start of a trend away from MS dominance.

All options require training

training staff to use an entirely new system takes a lot of time and money.

Technical similarities to XP aside, Vista basically IS an "entirely new system" as well, from an end-user and administrative perspective. The UI has been messed with. Security, right from the user prompts down to alterations in driver architecture, has been altered significantly. Applications released roughly in conjunction with Vista (IE7 and Office 2007) have significant changes (new XML file formats in office, more strict compliance with XHTML and CSS in IE7...). Compounding that the benefits to business are minimal compared to XP in its current state. The business case to upgrade vs migrate is less convincing than ever before.

It is nearly that case with my employer as well--we almost might as well move to macs or Linux vs. XP--the impact of Vista on the enterprise thereis nearly that big. Almost all of the intranet apps are designed and tested against IE6. Running them on Firefox is glitchy but it works, but using IE7 often completely BREAKS the app. Over three quarters of the products we sell will not function under Vista and never will ("next generation" replacements are being developed for release over the next couple of years). Fully half of the hardware we have is not "Vista capable". We have XP and it (mostly) works (good enough anyways). Why risk breaking what is essentially unbroken? Do we really need eye candy? We are already firewalled and antivirused to high heaven so is there any REAL benefit to Vista's largely unproven security enhancements? Which brings up the fact that our corporate antivirus stuff apparently breaks in Vista...

FAA's serious consideration of Google's apps really looks VERY compelling and makes a lot of sense, even if adoption would be over a couple of years. The architecture of Linux is more proven and more secure by far than Windows XP OR Vista. The price per client is significantly less. Google's application-server-thin-client model is much less burdensome. Open and Free systems have much better "real" support (MS makes the argument that closed software gets better support because it is backed by a big, rich vendor but I think most people in the know realise that in practice thereis WAY MORE help and support for Linux because of backing by many vendors and a huge developer community, whereas only MS can offer certain levelsof support).

I do thing that Vista is STILL very much on the FAA's horizon though. Government agencies as well as big corporations are coming under more scrutiny and are being more compelled to do due diligence and put as much up for competitive bid as possible--and get the best deal possible. MS' standard prices and offerings are VERY FAR from competitive since they've gone a long time without competing. Governmental agencies around the world are, as often as not, playing low cost Linux-based alternatives against Microsoft to "force Bill's hand" as it were. Even if Google's software suite falls short of requirements in the end, the FAA could very likely get a special sub-$100-per-user offer from Microsoft for Office upgrades.

I'd hate to seeit turnout that way, but anything that cuts down MS (either inmarket share or insane profit margins) is good in my book.

Re:training

90% of the training argument is pure FUD. I personally have converted many windows users to Linux who had never even touched it before and they are up and productive within a day. Your average office worker (at least in my place of work) uses a word processor, web browser, email client, and one or two propriatary apps specific for their department which are almost all web based and are browser friendly. There have been a few time in which people have some app that cannot be a web app, or will only run in IE or something and we will deploy it to them via Citrix until either a Linux version is written or it is converted to a web based app.

Funny enough, the hardest Linux converts are the Windows "Power users" because they no long know how to tweak...aka fuck up their new desktop. But for a large majority of office staff Linux either already is or could easily be working perfectly for them in almost no transition time.

I personally believe that if all the over protective MCSE's in the world woke up tomorrow with a decent level of knowledge about the Linux desktop within a couple months Linux and Windows in the corporate workplace would trade places for market share.

Google Apps Appliance

They need to bundle that up in a appliance so they can sell it to enterprises that do not wish to
store their data out of house.

Agree, with additional reason

Fast internet access for business customers is still somewhat expensive. Connecting to your own server in-house with a fast LAN will be cheaper in many cases.

Re:Google Apps Appliance

The 1960's called, they want their computing paradigms back. Future of software? More like the past, we're coming full circle...

Re:Google Apps Appliance

The 1960's called, they want their computing paradigms back. Future of software? More like the past, we're coming full circle...

It won't be the first time we're coming full circle in computer technologies (or elsewhere), it doesn't mean that he's wrong. Do you think "organic food" is a thing of the past? It's pretty modern franchise these days.

In computer software, we see interpreted languages coming in an out every few years. When I had my Apple II, the primary means of programming it was an interpreted Applesoft Basic script.

As computers advance and more performance is required, the interpreters become full-blown compilers (C, C++, later Basic compilers), but then the needs for flexibility arises and today we use lots of interpreted languages again (JavaScript, PHP, Perl, ASP, Ruby, Java).

And yet again the need for performance converted those to compiled language in the mid term (later Java runtimes /JIT/, .NET which is compiled on demand, although stored as source or bytecodes). Microsoft even has C# compiler now which compiles to machine code with no CLR dependencies now (as used in their popular research OS - Singularity).

Still the portable version of .NET interprets... as a mobile device has no enough RAM to do the compilation and store the result, which is ironically the same reason Basic was interpreted on Apple II-s to start with.

The notion that the future of software is to store absolutely everything remotely, like is the case with Google apps, is a very shortsighted one. It's a current short-term / mid-term trend.

There's already lots of talk about rich clients which support "interrupted connectivity", which is, web apps that have lots of functionality even when you have no internet (i.e. with laptop on the go etc.). These apps operate by usually having a small and simple web-server or runtime and SQL database embeded in them, along with ability for rich caching of remotely downloaded assets. Examples include the upcoming Firefox 3, Adobe's Apollo, Microsoft's WinFX (aka NET3) and so on.

Re:Google Apps Appliance

Definitely. If Google started selling application appliances. Wow. Not only do you get the ease of central management, but if Google does it like they do everything else, it'd be easily scalable. I'd imagine the answer to "We need more processing power / Disk space" would be to add another appliance or so, and make a single config change. This is really exciting stuff, if it evolves to that point.

Re:Google Apps Appliance

Hey, I know, we could put all these appliances into some kind of enclosure with common power, cooling, and even super fast backplane. We would probably need to keep these "frames" in climate-controlled rooms. The main "frame" would serve the most common apps, and if some offices needed some specialized stuff they could buy small versions, kind of like miniature computers! Hah, I kill myself.

Or are security minded...

Google Apps, the way they're doing it, can't be assured to be secure. It's a nifty idea, but
unless you LIKE the idea of a potential information leak (including business critical and identity
type information...), you probably don't want to be using their service unless you've no other
choice.

An Apps appliance probably would be a way around this problem. Buy one like you buy some of their
search engine cluster as an appliance for indexing your intranet and exposed Internet presence-
that way you get the security and control you need (Though make no mistake, while it is more secure
than what the FAA is now proposing, it's not as secure as OO.org would be on a desktop...)

Hunting for a discount?

From the article: If Microsoft can satisfy his concerns over compatibility with the agency's existing applications and demonstrate why such a move would make financial sense given Google Apps's low price

Sound familiar? It seems like the tried-and-true tactic of publicly looking into Linux so Microsoft will rush in and offer support and discounts. Hopefully, they are seriously considering Linux regardless.

Already there

"Hopefully, they are seriously considering Linux regardless."
FAA is outsourcing the whole flight services infrastructure to Lockheed. A rep from Lockheed gave a presentation to our local EAA chapter on the new system and it's rather cool. Each person gets a multi-head display and all the software is running on Linux. I don't recall the distro. So when you call in for a weather report or to check if there are TFRs in your flight path, you will be talking to a guy running Linux. It makes sense for the FAA to switch because they will likely want access to the same software. The only downside is that there will be fewer of these people, so you may be talking to someone far away who doesn't know the local area and local weather.

Google apps/security?

...

Maybe I'm thinking of a different Google apps, but how is running Google software more secure? Aren't google apps accessed from google servers? Doesn't that mean this government agency would be running applications from and storing data on servers they aren't maintaining?

I'm not saying that google makes lousy software, I'm just saying that I would be nervous if I couldn't actually directly manage the servers that were responsible for creating and storing the information.

Re:Google apps/security?

They not only operate in the public eye by convention, they do so by law. Has nobody heard of the Freedom of Information Act? Virtually all data that the FAA would store on those servers would be public anyway, and promptly available on request from anyone in the general public.

I agree. This is a _HORRIBLE_ idea

We're talking about US Government documents being stored on non-government servers. First, I'd be really surprised if something like that was even legal. Second, I have real issues even if it IS legal.

If the "ditch" office/windows they're going to have to use GMail for ALL DOCUMENTS. Anything else would have to be like .txt or .pdf that's emailed around (probably using google servers again, so it's moot).

Furthermore, tell me this slashdot: Why is it better to be locked-in to Googles proprietary software instead of Microsofts?

As others have said, this would only be a good idea, IMO, as a "GApps Appliance" that can be properly audited and approved by US Government security experts.

Re:I agree. This is a _HORRIBLE_ idea

We're talking about US Government documents being stored on non-government servers. First, I'd be really surprised if something like that was even legal. Second, I have real issues even if it IS legal.

Okay, I can follow that logic. It's sort of like the way US Government agencies do not use private financial institutions to manage their money, but keep it all in Fort Knox, and use only Fort Knox Credit Cards? Huh?

Google's specialty is high volume data management and security, and they take that very seriously. If they cannot yet do a better job for less cost than any business or agency whose main purpose is something else, then I would be very much surprised.

Perhaps the government should establish a National Data Management Agency for its own information needs, at the cabinet level. But that won't happen with this administration: it lacks the foresight and considers "intelligence" to be disinformation that will permit them to invade Middle East countries.

Hmm, possibly establishing a USNDMA would make sense. The USDVA (Veterans Affairs) already has a massive data sharing network for the CPRS (Computerized Patient Record System). It wouldn't be much of a reach to build out from that for all other government data. A USNDMA that was hardened against earthquakes, hurricanes, terrorist attacks, etc, might be a good idea, and perhaps cost less than the total the individual agencies are already spending on data security and management.

Re:I agree. This is a _HORRIBLE_ idea

Yes, the VBA/Automation is a big part of what's missing.

But as others have said here, Google Documents doesn't even have Find & Replace capabilities yet. (They only have a "Replace All" option and even that is "experimental").

This is the future, I think. I really do. But not today. Not yet. It's just not ready.

Re:Google apps/security?

If I had to leave important FAA information on a server, I'd feel safer with Google than from either the lowest bidding or highest bribing IT company for the FAA.

Ditching the monopolistic...

Great to see someone thinking about ditching software made by a monopolistic behemoth in favour of the little guy!

Oh wait, Google apps? never mind.

I hate to step back a second

But the article fails to mention why the XP systems need replacement. Any organization as conservative as the FAA no doubt waited a year or two before rolling out XP, so even the earlier systems are only a few years old, and probably far from slouches. Why does the release of Vista necessitate an upgrade, especially if you aren't going to be upgrading to Vista?

Re:I hate to step back a second

But the article fails to mention why the XP systems need replacement.

Simple. MS says they won't support XP after a given date. After that date the FAA (and everybody else) would have to upgrade to Vista to continue getting support from MS.

If the DOT/FAA goes with linux they'll likely go with a vendor like RedHat or Novell who will offer full support services without arbitrary drop-dead dates for support, much easier upgrade paths, etc.

I think I've seen this movie before.

1. Some CIO flirts with the idea of migrating to a different platform in order to get a better deal on licenses.
2. Vendor with monopoly rushes in with truckloads of licenses at "discount rates" to secure their position.
3. CIO returns with whitepaper indicating a TCO in favor of monopoly.
4. ???

If the "ditch" occurs, then that would be news.

Outsourcing Responsibility

You can't outsource security [e.g. oh look google is so much better at keeping our documents secure] any more than you can outsource responsibility. Why isn't this guy simply looking at Open Office, or hell the other free tools like AbiWord, Gnumeric, etc.

Ah, to be ignorant of technology, but rife with enough buzzwords to be dangerous.

Not only are the google versions of the tools not nearly feature complete, but they're over the internet. Thus guaranteed to be sucktastically slow (especially when a lot of people use it) and very likely insecure in the end (hint: gmail has already had a few goofs). I'm all for ditching Windows, but using online office tools is just short sighted. Within a year or two of the switch they'll be climbing back into bed with MS Office [no doubt].

Also, if you're just going to use AJAX based web tools, what does it matter what OS you run?

Tom

Re:Outsourcing Responsibility

You can't outsource security [e.g. oh look google is so much better at keeping our documents secure]

Of course you can. For many organizations, handling document security is a major problem. Even basic stuff like backups is a major PITA

But even more than that, presumably one of the things he was referring to is the security implications of having people download "stuff" that may or may not be legitimate documents, and accidentally running it (and don't even try to give me shit about how there aren't any real viruses for Linux - if a major government agency starts relying on Linux boxes, you can bet someone, somewhere will start looking at ways to use it for intrusion). Yes, lots of apps have far saner policies about running things than Office has, but avoiding downloading files from mail accounts entirely in favor of processing those documents outside of your normal environment whenever possible would have the effect of limiting the potential damage further.

It's not that a webapp is required to do that, but that Google's apps present a possible way of doing it that is convenient and available.

Not only are the google versions of the tools not nearly feature complete, but they're over the internet. Thus guaranteed to be sucktastically slow (especially when a lot of people use it)

Maybe, maybe not. Google Spreadsheets handle a lot of Excel files that breaks badly in Open Office for me, and it's also FAR faster to open a document in than Open Office is on my box, and far less resource hungry to just keep open, which reduces the time to open even more. If I'd been editing lots of large spreadsheets instead of mostly viewing the occasional small one, perhaps Google Spreadsheets would be a pain, but for MY use it's actually far more efficient than Open Office. Haven't tried Gnumeric for a while, and I rarely need a word processor but when I do Abiword just haven't cut it for me (I tried it again a couple of days ago, and the printouts of the document I tested it on just came out horrendously ugly).

Also, if you're just going to use AJAX based web tools, what does it matter what OS you run?

It matters because the IT department has to manage the systems regardless what apps you run on them.

Re:Outsourcing Responsibility

You can't outsource security [e.g. oh look google is so much better at keeping our documents secure] any more than you can outsource responsibility.

Of course you can. Security is one of the oldest businesses ever outsourced (that means taken away from your own employees/slaves/servants and given to a foreign group for money/treasures/valuable gifts). What do you think the name 'soldier' comes from? It's a person working for sold (from latin solidus = a Roman gold coin), not because of loyality or proudness or legal requirements. Having foreign groups serving as your protection is one of the oldest tricks in the book because you hope that the foreign people are ignorant about your internal struggles and intrigues or don't have any local alliances, and if they aren't as independent as expected, you might replace them without fear of a local unrest.

That's the business of Pinkerton and all the other security agencies, and even outsourcing bookkeeping and document production, exchange and storage is old news. Every middle age town had its writers or calculators whose business was to work for the local traders who weren't able to write or didn't have the calculatory knowledge for bookkeeping. And even today you go to a solicitor if you really want your documents to be correct, authentic and secure.