Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

World Govs Choose Linux For Security & More 228

Posted by Hemos from the preaching-to-the-choir dept.
pjones writes "Government Technology reports that "For reasons of national security and national pride, government officials in countries like China, France and Germany are increasingly adopting the free, open-source computer operating system known as Linux." Noted in the article are China's Red Flag, NSA's Security-Enhanced Linux and much more."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

World Govs Choose Linux For Security & More More

World Govs Choose Linux For Security & More

Comments Filter:

  • this story is old (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    World governments choosing Linux for national security (Dec. 1, 2001)

    http://detnews.com/2001/technews/0112/01/technol og y-356385.htm

  • national pride? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by NeoTomba ( 462540 )
    Wow. I can safely say that slashdot is full of microsoft hating linux zealots. Hell, I'm probably one of them.

    And every day, you see a million and one reasons why Linux is superior, microsoft sucks, blah blah blah.

    But I can safely say, nobody has EVER mentioned "national pride" as the reason Linux is superior.

    I suppose it makes sense. If I were from China, I'd hate to use software from America's #1 conglomerate as well, I guess.

    Oh, and if anyone can dig up a link to Red Flag Linux... I definately want a copy.

    -neotomba
    • >But I can safely say, nobody has EVER mentioned
      >"national pride" as the reason Linux is superior.

      well, the article did. maybe you should have read it.
    • Getcha red hot Red Flag!

      www.redflag-linux.com/peixun/ecb.html

  • China's "Red Flag"? *chuckle* (Score:3, Troll)

    by Artifice_Eternity ( 306661 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2001 @01:41AM (#2685820) Homepage
    I love that they named their version of Linux that...

    Other possibilities:
    • Russia: Red Square (or Fur Hat)
    • France: Red Beret
    • Afghanistan: Red Turban
    OK, that's enough cheap humor based on national stereotypes for today. :)
  • But it makes sense for governments not to use software developed by US companies. I don't expect all of the customizations made by the Chinese to be released publically, but at least they are using Linux. As the timeline goes to infinity, free OSes, like Linux and BSD must prevail.
    • I don't expect all of the customizations made by the Chinese to be released publically, but at least they are using Linux.

      What? So it's alright for an oppressive communist government to take Linux and modify it without releasing the source code and yet if somebody in the US does it then suddenly every geek on slashdot is up in arms demanding the code? Isn't that a bit hypocritical? If China wants to code in human rights violating bits into the kernel then so be it, but the point of free software is that so all of us can share! Don't you think Iraq, Cuba, and John Ashcroft could use those customizations? Quit being so greedy China!

  • Bitchslapped? (Score:2, Funny)

    by havardi ( 122062 )
    "Our desire is simply to use software products other than Microsoft's."

    Doesn't Bill have feelings too?
    • I thought Borg didn't have feelings?

    • Re:Bitchslapped? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ScumBiker ( 64143 )
      The following is the result of research into various OS and office suites. THIS IS NOT MY OPINION! It's the opinion of a commitee I work with. I deleted the agencies name to protect my ass. This is what we deal with if we want to try and convert the Gov to an OSS solution.

      Technical Evaluation of Alternatives for Upgrading and Migrating the 's Desktop Operating System and Office Suite and Network Server Operating System

      The Issues: Since the deployment of Windows NT approximately 6 years ago and Office 97 approximately 3 years ago, Microsoft has released two new versions of the desktop operating system and the office suite. It is anticipated that Microsoft will terminate support for our existing environment in the near future. It has also been announced that our desktop hardware vendor will discontinue support for Windows NT on laptops beginning in June of 2002 and for desktops most likely by June of 2002. It is expected that other vendors will follow suit, after Microsoft makes its announcement. Vendor support of our tools is an important part of being able to maintain our environment in its best form. It allows us to resolve issues more quickly, and when there isn't a ready solution, it is a means by which we can get the vendor to assist us in resolving our issues.

      We face a similar issue for the current version of our network operating system, which is Windows NT Server. There currently is one newer version of this operating system on the market, which is called Windows 2000 Server and technically there are three flavors of this product. Microsoft has announced that it is currently beta testing another version called Windows .NET Server. We can anticipate similar desupport notices and issues for Windows NT Server in the next six months to one year.

      In addition to the normal cycle of product upgrades and desupport notices, we will be faced with making licensing choices in how we choose to license Microsoft products in the future. The focus of this paper is on the technical aspects of these announcements and their impacts. Issues of licensing and funding are items, which are to be explored by , however this team is acutely aware of the current fiscal situation facing this agency and has made recommendations with this situation in mind.

      The Scope of This Document: The purpose of this document is to outline the technical criteria on which decisions for migration to a new version of the desktop operating system, desktop office suite, and network operating system can be made. In addition, this document will provide a recommendation on what BEITA believes is/are the best alternative(s) for migration.

      The options, which are specifically focused on in this document include:

      Migration to Windows 2000 on the Desktop and Laptop
      Migration to Windows XP on the Desktop and Laptop
      Migration to Office 2000 on the desktop and laptop
      Migration to Office XP on the desktop and laptop
      Migration to another vendor's operating system on the desktop and laptop
      Migration to another vendor's office suite on the desktop and laptop
      Migration to Windows 2000 Server as the Network Operating System
      Migration to Windows .NET Server as the Network Operating System
      Migration to another vendor's Network Operating System
      Migration of all or part of our environment to Thin Client environment
      Do Nothing

      Factors, which must be weighed in making a determination include:

      The Business needs of the agency
      The cost to develop effective training for staff
      The cost in time to actually train both technical staff and users
      The cost to replace desktops/laptops/servers that will not function under new product releases
      The cost in staff time to perform the physical migration
      The cost effectiveness of rebuilding a device versus upgrading the device
      The cost to migrate other related software to supported versions
      The cost to migrate applications to the new environment
      The cost to rebuild applications or purchase new software where existing cannot be migrated
      Availability of support for each of the environments impacted by the proposed change
      The cost to migrate information
      The impacts of phased migrations
      Risks of undertaking such a project
      Benefits of undertaking such a project
      Features gained
      Features lost
      The risks and cost of failing to act
      Time

      While all of these factors could not be assessed in the time given to complete this document, the information is an honest assessment of the factors that could be measured at this time.

      Evaluating the Options:

      Migration to Windows 2000 on the Desktop and Laptop

      Windows 2000 is a desktop operating system. We would be replacing the existing Windows NT desktop operating system with this product.

      50 - 55% of existing desktops are not capable of running Windows 2000.
      Our hardware vendor (Dell) will not guarantee availability of devices able to run Windows NT beyond June 2002.
      Industry indicates more cost effective to replace devices than to upgrade existing
      standard software should run in this environment, some upgrades and testing should be conducted
      Some applications may require modifications
      Software/Hardware exceptions run a high risk of failing in this environment, particularly DOS based products.
      Exception process warns of possibility and that BEITA is not obligated to make them work.
      Training will be required for both technical staff and users.
      Images for the new desktop OS would need to be created.
      Development and testing for optimal configurations is a requirement.
      Windows 2000 has been superseded by the new release of the desktop operating system called Windows XP.
      More granular administration would allow for granting of some administrative functions to ITC's. This would require a project to develop a standard list of functions all ITC's would support.
      Gartner is projecting support for Windows 2000 on the desktop into 2004. This is not a guarantee as Microsoft can change its support structure at will.
      Windows 2000 has been shown to be a more stable operating system than Windows NT.
      Windows 2000 will allow us to continue to run the existing office suite.
      Windows 2000 provides for improved power management and plug-n-play features for laptop devices. This would allow us to reduce the number images to be supported.
      Windows CE 3.5 requires Windows 2000/XP in order to function correctly. Implementation would reduce costs to customers using Windows CE PDAs.
      Windows 2000 eliminates 7.8 Gigabyte partition limitation on hard disks which has caused difficulties and additional work related to SMS pushes.
      Windows 2000 provides for self healing applications in conjunction with Office 2000.

      Migration to Windows XP on the Desktop and Laptop

      Windows XP is Microsoft's most current desktop operating system. We would be replacing the existing Windows NT desktop operating system with this product.

      50 - 55% of existing desktops are not capable of running Windows 2000.
      Our hardware vendor (Dell) will not guarantee availability of devices able to run Windows NT beyond June 2002.
      Industry indicates more cost effective to replace devices than to upgrade existing.
      Software /Hardware exceptions run a high risk of failing in this environment, particularly DOS based products.
      Exception process warns of possibility and that BEITA is not obligated to make it work.
      Training will be required for both technical staff and users.
      Images for the new desktop OS would need to be created.
      Development and testing for optimal configurations is a requirement.
      Windows XP is the most current version of Microsoft's desktop operating system. By going directly to it, we reduce costs by avoiding an extra migration.
      More granular administration would allow for granting of some administrative functions to ITC's. This would require a project to develop a standard list of functions all ITC's would support.
      Gartner currently is projecting support for Windows XP beyond 2004. This is not a guarantee as Microsoft can change its support structure at will.
      Windows XP has been shown to be a more stable operating system than Windows NT.
      It is uncertain if Windows XP will allow us to continue to run the existing desktop office suite. There are reports of successes and failures on Microsoft Technet.
      Windows XP provides for improved power management and plug-n-play features for laptop devices. This would allow the to reduce the number of desktop images that must be maintained.
      Windows CE 3.5 requires Windows 2000/XP in order to function correctly. Implementation would reduce costs to customers using Windows CE PDA's.
      Windows XP eliminates the 7.8 Gigabyte partition limitation on hard disks which has caused difficulties and additional work related to SMS pushes.
      Windows XP provides for self healing applications in conjuntion with Office 2000/XP.
      As a brand new release, we would want to wait a period of time for patches before deploying across the agency.
      Giga, Gartner and other industry analysts highly recommend the Windows XP product.
      According to Giga, Gartner and others Windows XP will lower the cost of supporting the desktop.
      Windows XP supports the concept of mobile profiles, making it easier for a user to move from device to device.
      Windows XP allows switching of users, even if another user is currently logged on.
      Vendors may begin to require this product as the lowest common denominator.
      While other vendors have indicated that they intend to support Windows XP, some testing of software and applications will be required, and some additional software upgrades may be required.
      We will need to explore security issues with this product.
      We will need to examine how product activation impacts development of images. Product Activation is a means of preventing software piracy.
      We will need to explore the auto update feature of this product.

      Migration to Office 2000 on the Desktop and Laptop

      Office 2000 is a desktop office suite comprised of Microsoft Word, Excel and Access. We would be replacing the existing Office 97 office suite with this product.

      50 - 55% of existing desktops are not capable of running Office 2000.
      Industry indicates more cost effective to replace devices than to upgrade existing.
      Most existing software will function with Office 2000. There are some exceptions.
      At least one application developed (SWAMP) will need modifications related to the implementation of this product.
      Existing Microsoft Access applications may have difficulty migrating due to a new file structure in this version of the product.
      Training will need to be provided to both Technical staff and users, to ensure quality installation and the ability to take advantage of new features.
      Time will need to be allocated to ensure proper functioning of existing applications.
      Time will need to be allocated for development of optimal configuration of product and images.
      This version of the product has been superseded by the release of Office XP.
      Implementation of this version will result in an extra migration needing to be completed.
      There are no current projections for how long this version of the product will be supported.
      This product should be reviewed and compared to agency business needs to see if there is value to the agency in adding them.
      Basic functionality remains essentially the same and should minimize training in these areas.
      Office 2000 allows for output in both HTML and XML formats, as well as traditional formats.
      Office 2000 supports the concept of self healing applications.

      Migration to Office XP on the Desktop and Laptop

      Office XP is a desktop office suite comprised of Microsoft Word, Excel and Access. We would be replacing the existing Office 97 office suite with this product.

      50 - 55% of existing desktops are not capable of running Office XP.
      Industry indicates more cost effective to replace devices than to upgrade existing.
      Most existing software will function with Office XP. There are some exceptions.
      At least one application developed (SWAMP) will need modifications related to the implementation of this product and others that integrate with the office suite should be checked.
      Existing Microsoft Access applications may have difficulty migrating due to a new file structure in this version of the product.
      Training will need to be provided to both Technical staff and users, to ensure quality installation and the ability to take advantage of new features.
      Time will need to be allocated to ensure proper functioning of existing applications.
      Time will need to be allocated for development of optimal configuration of product and images.
      Implementation of this version avoids an extra migration step.
      There are no current projections for how long this version of the product will be supported.
      This product should be reviewed and compared to agency business needs to see if there is value to the agency in adding them.
      Basic functionality remains essentially the same and should minimize training in these areas.
      Office XP allows for output in both HTML and XML formats, as well as traditional formats.
      Office XP supports the concept of self healing applications.
      Office XP provides more extensive collaboration tools.
      Office XP provides for strong programmable capabilities that we would need to examine and develop standards for.
      Beginning with this version of the product, we will incur annual licensing fees.
      We will need to examine how product activation impacts development of images. Product Activation is a means of preventing software piracy.
      We will need to explore security issues with this product.
      As a brand new release, we would want to wait a period of time for patches before deploying across the agency.

      Migration to an Alternate Operating System on the Desktop and Laptop

      With the advent of open source software development, have come a number of seemingly low cost alternatives to the Microsoft products which are currently prevalent in Wisconsin State Government. Probably the most well know of these is Linux in its various flavors. Linux is a desktop operating system. There are a number of vendors who produce Linux versions because of the rules related to Open Source software development.

      Open source software tends to have fairly low initial software costs.
      Product support for our standard software and hardware is uneven. Some vendors support some flavors, others another.
      Need to closely examine how viable the vendor of this operating system is.
      ESRI does not develop products for Linux and to date will not commit to doing so.
      Oracle provides some support for Linux, but it is unclear how well.
      A number of applications developed at the will not function in this environment, which would mean redesign and redevelopment in a tool that would function.
      We would be forced to migrate to a whole new Office Suite, if we were to adopt this operating system.
      We may need to redesign things like letter head and forms to run in a product on this perating system.
      We would need to create whole new training programs for staff and require them to take this training, in order for them to attain proficiency in the new operating system.
      We would need to allocate time for technical staff to become proficient in managing this operating system.
      We would need to take time to determine optimal configurations and develop images for this environment.
      We would need to find a replacement for Site Server and a number of our web development tools, which are Microsoft centric at this time.
      It is almost a guarantee that most of the Software Exception requests will not function in this environment and most certainly not the DOS applications.
      Cost estimates for conversion work, training, deployment and lost hours would most likely be in the Millions of dollars. We would need to balance this against the savings in licensing fees and the long term viability of the vendor.

      Migration to an Alternate Office Suite on the Desktop and Laptop

      Today there are a number of alternatives to the Microsoft products which are currently prevalent in Wisconsin State Government. In the realm of alternate office suites, we have more choices in general terms, many of them even capable of running in a Microsoft Operating System.

      Open source software tends to have fairly low initial software costs.
      Need to closely examine how viable the software and the vendor of the product are. For example: Sun produces Star Office. Sun is a very viable company in and of itself, however they earn no revenue on Star Office. If push comes to shove, this most likely would be one of the first things they drop.
      A number of our applications are integrated with the Microsoft Office Suite. Moving to Star Office or Word Perfect would require us to redevelop those portions of our applications integrated with the Office Suite.
      It is unknown at this time, what support there may be for integrating alternate Office Suites with our existing tools, such as Oracle, PowerBuilder and Visual Interdev.
      We would need to examine conversion of existing documents, forms, spread sheets and single user databases from the Microsoft Office Suite to the new Office Suite.
      We would need to create whole new training programs for staff and require them to take this training, in order for them to attain proficiency in the new office suite.
      We would need to allocate time for technical staff to become proficient in managing this office suite.
      We would need to take time to determine optimal configurations and develop images for this environment.
      We would need to examine the impacts of making such a decision on our business partners. While selecting WordPerfect would simplify communicating with EPA, selecting Star Office could potentially alienate us from every business partner in terms of our ability to share documents.
      Making this change to our desktop office suite will cost large sums of money in converting existing documents and applications, training, and set up. It will require an extended period of time to accomplish. We would need to balance these costs against any potential savings in licensing fees and the long term viability of the vendor.

      Migration to Windows 2000 Server as the Network Operating System

      Windows 2000 Server is the most current "production" operating system produced by Microsoft. If implemented, it would replace Windows NT Server within the .

      Windows 2000 Server is a substantially more stable product than Windows NT Server.
      Windows 2000 Server provides all the functionality of Windows NT Server and expands upon it.
      Microsoft has announced a new Network Operating System release is currently in beta testing. No release date has been announced.
      Moving to Windows 2000 Server will require implementation of Active Directory.
      The Enterprise desires to role out Active Directory in a uniform manner throughout state government. This project is not currently funded.
      Several agencies are proceeding with implementation of Active Directory in advance of the Enterprise.
      Servers should be migrated to Windows 2000 before the desktop Operating System is upgraded to avoid additional stops/modifications to the desktop at a later date.
      Four technical staff are already trained in Windows 2000 Server.
      Existing servers should only require minimal upgrades in the area of memory in order to be migrated to Windows 2000 Server.
      This product allows for improved file and print services as compared to Windows NT.
      Our existing (Domain Name Services) translates directly to Windows 2000 Server. In addition, Windows 2000 Server provides more robust support for DNS and DHCP while are integral parts of the 's existing network.
      This product continues to support Outlook Web Access and improves the interface for this tool.
      This product continues to support both IIS and Site Server which are part of our Internet and Intranet environments.
      We know that our side Oracle and ESRI tools will operate within this environment.

      Migration to Another Vendor's Network Operating System

      There are several other Network Operating Systems that could be chosen, including various Unix and Linux flavors. Each of them carries their own licensing requirements and each would need to be examined against our other existing Network Services for viability. Following is a brief over view.



      Migration of All or Part of Our Environment to Thin Client Services

      A thin client environment is focused on maintaining less software and data at the client. This reduces the investment required in desktop software. Obviously, we would need to compensate on the server side.



      Do Nothing

      Chosing to do nothing at this time appears to save the agency money, and it potentially does in the short term. Eventually, due to software or hardware failure we would be forced into doing something. The following points help to evaluate the concerns of doing nothing.



      The Hidden Costs of Phased Migrations



      Recommendation:

      We believe that the first step in migrating our existing Server and Desktop Operating System and Desktop Office Suite is to focus on the environment that we felt most needed to have vendor support available on a continuing basis. As our Network Servers provide connectivity, email and data services to the agency, we felt that they must receive first priority in any upgrade scenario. As such we recommend that first priority be given to migrate all Windows NT Servers to Windows 2000. This will require implementation of Active Directory as well. Most of these servers only need the Windows 2000 server version, although a few would need to be set up for Windows 2000 Advanced Server because of the number of processors they contain. As part of this we are recommending that we select Upgrade Advantage for these servers.

      We also recommend that this agency pursue the development of a new PBB for purchase of several devices with Windows XP, set up and testing of applications and standard software in the new Operating System and with the proposed office suite. We believe that it is important that this testing be undertaken yet this fiscal year, if at all possible. This information will serve us well in determining what actual work would need to be completed in order to migrate to this operating system. The information gathered will be valuable in further assessing how we will deal with the impending lack of support for Windows NT on newly purchased desktop and laptop devices. We do not believe there is any gain to implementing Windows 2000, and experts including Giga and Gartner both recommend bypassing 2000 if you have not already begun implementation on the desktop.

      Our third recommendation is that a mandatory PBB be created and executed in the new Fiscal Year to Research Windows Terminal Servers, and in particular Citrix. Along with assessing the technical viability of the product within the , this project will develop a detailed cost benefit analysis of Citrix and Windows Terminal Server. The project would need to test existing applications and software. It has been suggested that we may want to require software exceptions be run from a Citrix server as well, to minimize costs to the desktop. It would also have to look at the makeup of staff and their requirements for a desktop. While Citrix would require investment in servers and disk space, we could reduce costs for the desktop in terms of needing less powerful machines and lengthening the life of a device.

      Our fourth recommendation is to place a moratorium on purchase of new devices, once our vendor (Dell) can no longer provide devices capable of running NT, until such time as we have completed the work in our second recommendation. We would encourage those who have a need to replace defective equipment look to the devices being surplused by other programs as a means of maintaining basic functionality until such time as the evaluation of the second recommendation and possibly the third recommendation.

  • Great story!

    Go Linux!

    Someday the average computer user will have a real operating system.

    Needed for Linux: 1) Easier installation and configuration. 2) Better documentation.

    • Needed for Linux: 1) Easier installation and configuration. 2) Better documentation

      3. Nice deployment tools, like Microsoft's Remote Installation Services, where a brand new computer with a bootable network card (or boot disk) can be booted up, press F12 and an entire pre-configured workstation image is downloaded and installed on the workstation. Complete with Office, etc, etc. Workstation hardware independent as well. (the image can be for a SMP machine and the workstation a non SMP machine).

      Or group policy with inteliMirror, where workstations upon bootup can download and apply the latest office service pack (bug fixes, whatever) from a centeral server.

      We are deploying this technology at the moment and it is VERY cool.

      • Re:Someday EVERYONE will have a real operating sys (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        boot - net install

        been doing it for years. sorry, yet another pathetic attempt at catch-up for m$

      • I am very pro-Microsoft. I am more pro-Microsoft than Bill Gates. In my opinion, correcting the problems below would be very healthy for Microsoft.

        The registry is a single point of failure. If I install a program, and something goes wrong, the registry may become corrupted. There are many kinds of registry corruption that cannot be fixed for a practical price.

        Microsoft operating systems cannot be trusted. Microsoft often builds attempts at making money and crushing competitors into its operating systems. For example, if I make a mistake in typing an address into the Internet Explorer address bar, I am connected instead to MSN.com, a commercial activity of Microsoft.

        A recent service pack upgrade to Microsoft operating system software disabled a competitor's software (Apple's QuickTime) [slashdot.org]. There was no notice. The fact that there was no notice means that users may spend time troubleshooting why QuickTime would not start.

        Microsoft cannot be trusted to try to make a good operating system. The registry problems are, apparently, caused by trying to mix all programs together so that the mixture will act as copy protection. This is putting interest in making money before interest in trying to make a good operating system.

        Microsoft Windows 95, 98, and ME contain deliberate limitations. They crash even when there is plenty of memory, because of deliberate limitations in operating sytem resources. This was done apparently because of the desire to sell everyone a better operating system later.


        I estimate that this message could go on for 1,000 more pages. Just the very limited U.S. Justice Department complaints against Microsoft [usdoj.gov], in which Microsoft was found guilty of breaking the law, were more than 200 pages.

        Part of the complete definition of an operating system is that it is software you can trust completely. By that definition, in my opinion it cannot be said that Microsoft has ever made an operating system.

  • Too bad the US doesn't follow suit.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by FKell ( 253556 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2001 @01:50AM (#2685848)
    And the reason why they don't is beyond me. Truthfully, if the reason is to support "our" software industry, its just pathetic. They even charged MS with being a monopoly.

    The real problem is that no one in the government knows any better. Why the hell do you think we get all these crap laws like DMCA in the first place? Its cause the very loud kaa-ching sound of coins in big business's pocket drown out the yells of the under-funded consumer group lobiests. And the fact that there is only maybe 10 people in congress who had a person computer before the age of 20.
    • What a troll! Did you even bother to read the story description, not to mention the story?? Hello, NSA Linux right here!!

      Scott
    • Basically, it all comes down to the fact that those in government gets to spend other people's money, and if, in doing so, they can befriend a powerful corporation (who could fund their next election campaign) then all the better!
    • While I don't doubt that supporting a US corporation could be a factor, there are also other forces at play. When the U.S. Department of State was planning a world-wide network, the original specs were software independent. However, once those specs were passed to consultants, the MS suite of software was specified. The result is a system that is a nightmare to manage and difficult intergration between Windows NT/2000 systems and existing Unix systems. They have invested millions of dollars in training and supporting this network and it is unlikely that they will change now even though Linux would be a MUCH better solution.
    • Wouldn't it be so easy for M$ to line the pockets of those who sit on DoD and Intelligence oversight committees?
      Not that your average politico knows jack about OS's in general, but that just makes it easier to go with the default.

      -N

  • hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ArcSecond ( 534786 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2001 @01:51AM (#2685850)
    The only question that comes to mind: "Will the U.S. Government now take this as a reason to rally around Microsoft, as a matter of national pride?"

    I mean, I'm glad to see the rest of the world smartening up and kicking the MS habit, but unless the U.S. gives up it's vision of a global industry dominated by "their" companies (heh), I don't think they will push alternatives very hard.

    Also, how deep are the ties between MS and the present Administration? That will make a big difference in how the Gov't treats MS.

    • Lots of US government agencies use Linux for various purposed. NASA uses it. NSA is developing their own hardened distrobution. Etc.

      What's important is that we continue to provide them with a good Linux experience. Treat US government employees like royalty in newsgroups etc(when they ask about linux), and we just might increase our brainshare and marketshare.
    • I mean, I'm glad to see the rest of the world smartening up and kicking the MS habit, but unless the U.S. gives up it's vision of a global industry dominated by "their" companies (heh), I don't think they will push alternatives very hard.

      From recent laws, outrageous patents and what not, it's more like when M$ is going to push "their" government to bully the world?

      M$ delendo est.

  • Nice to see a niche forming up there...
  • Could a non-Finish European please confirm or deny that the fact that Linus Torvalds is a native of Finland is a 'rallying point' for Europeans?

    "Another rallying point for Europeans is the fact that Linus Torvalds, the programmer known as the father of Linux, is a native of Finland."

    That really does sound like a load of rubbish to me!
    • I suppose you mean Finnish.
    • a far as I am aware, yes.
      But feel free to corect me if I am wrong.
    • In Germany, forget Linus, it is Suse [www.suse.de] that matters. They are big enough and successful enough that the government feels that they could do with an extra bit of help. I doubt, for example, that the Bundestag will use RedHat!

      Also, slowly, people realise that when you have source, you are not dependent upon that corporation , wherever they are.

      Many people are amused by the Finnish link but it doesn't necessarily sell the product as 'european'.

      • In France, all the same. Mandrake [mandrake.com] for most companies and administration (yes, it's French), along with SuSE (especially in eastern parts of France) and RedHat (especially for servers), and PingOO [pingoo.org] in education [linuxedu.org].

        But still, i think the fact that Linus is Finnish and not American counts a bit... but only a very bit. About the same on that side of the Rhein :-))
        • Is source code availability a major issue though in France?

          In Germany, I have worked at a financial institution that had client software installed throughout Germany. You know, big time problems and adverse newspaper coverage when we went down.

          Typically we had software that was purchased locally and to a degree even supported. However, the help they got from the US end was extremely variable as on the mother corp's radar, we were invisible. In the end, what seemed to be important was getting the source code where we could influence maintenance.

    • Yeah for sure, most of us are developing sickening feelings whenever we see how our culture is being overridden by americanization. Not just with computer software, but with music and movies etc too. The backlash against this is slowly building up steam, but a lot of the young'uns still see america as the coolest place in the world. Once they get to high school though, cynicism plays its part, and people start to question americas dominance of everything.

    • Re:Could a non-Finish European please... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Woolfie ( 23509 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2001 @03:35AM (#2686062)
      as a non-finnish German I have to deny it and I guess most Finnish Linux contributors also would. As much as I love the Finnish people for their extraordinarily black humour (finnish movies rule!) and their kindness, I think this argument only reflects the view of a non-European. "National pride" and the Open Source spirit don't fit together. Linux is a truly international endavour and I love this fact. If Linux were a reason for "national pride", it would lose most of it's attractivity for me.

    • National bride, bah. Linus is somewhat known in Finland (try naming famous finns, and you get my point) but that doesn't change the fact that finnish goverment still uses M$-products.

      There's no national bride there, only things we get our bride from are ice hockey and ... well that's about it.

      Micro$oft - simple solutions for simple people

  • German Parliament and Linux / Windows... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    There have been a couple of articles on IX [www.ix.de] about the German parliament considering a migration from NT4 to either Linux or Windows, the latest news from that battle was that Microsoft promised to make the sourcecode of Windows XP available to the German government for inspection.

    One thing that keeps me curious is how they (the closed source evil-doers) could possibly guarantee that the source code they give out to selected people is the code they build the actual system from, I mean do they actually say "build your own windows"? ...

    • Re:German Parliament and Linux / Windows... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by hughk ( 248126 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2001 @02:48AM (#2685980) Journal
      I was at a presentation at Linuxworld in Frankfurt where the politician responsible for this states (I believe he also chqairs the committee for new media) that MS had offered to make the source code of Win2K (not XP) available to representatives of the Bundestag to inspect. Please note that a knowledge of C or C++ is not normally amongst the qualifications needed to be an elected federal representative.

      This guy knew enough to say that he hadn't the expertise, but he would like to accept their offer and bring some experts from the from the Bundesamt fuer Sicherheit in Informationstechnik [www.bsi.de] and, of course, the Chaos Computer Club [www.ccc.de]. Microsoft Germany did not respond after that.

      To be honest, it could have been a good advertisement for MS if these guys had passed Win2K, but oh well, obviously they had their doubts.

    • I do know they blocked disk keeper because it is supposedly backed by scientology.

      Makes sense... i guess.

  • <conspiracy theory>

    With M$ in bed [slashdot.org] with US politics, what other national government would trust the US not to embed espionageware in their OSes?

    </conspiracy theory>
  • Has anybody actually had expierence using this? I am curious if this is worth paying any attention to as I am setting up a secure linux box for online transactions and want the most secure version of linux possible.

  • Red Flag Linux (Score:4, Informative)

    by nsample ( 261457 ) <`nsample' `at' `stanford.edu'> on Tuesday December 11, 2001 @02:17AM (#2685915) Homepage
    You can get ahold of Red Flag Linux, no problemo. You should be able to read chinese, however.

    http://www.redflag-linux.com/ [redflag-linux.com]

    • Re:Red Flag Linux (Score:4, Informative)

      by Wizard of OS ( 111213 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2001 @02:31AM (#2685943)
      The english version is here [redflag-linux.com]

      Some quotes from the page:
      • "Redflag Joins Hands with EdgeMatrix of Singapore to Tap China?s Multimedia Communication Market", nice to know that the linux distro taps communication.
      • ControLinux finds application in lottery machine?s operating system, yeah, it must be coincidence that the name is 'Control-inux'
    • If you're having trouble forcing the Babelfish [altavista.com] to catch the pop-up window, you're missing a real classic! For some reason, the Babelfish doesn't parse and catch the popup.

      It's cached here: translation [stanford.edu]

      It starts with

      Respect husband / woman:

      Hello!

      If only it ended with "all your base are belong to us". =)
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Also:

        17: 10-17: 30 Luckily pulls out the prize (opportunity is rare, do not have to miss yo!)

        Yes, they meant 'Lucky draw', otherwise it'd be quite an amazing way to end a party.
      • We anticipate your positive participation!

        I've more often heard that about M$ "products" here at work. Nice to see how large orgainzations have constants, regardless of who's in charge and what they say they think. If only there were something there about "empowerment".

  • The irony kills me.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by DCowern ( 182668 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2001 @02:35AM (#2685952) Homepage
    A nation hell bent on suppressing free speech (China) embracing an operating system thats underlying belief structure is pure free speech. What next? Microsoft using the BSD TCP/IP stack? Oh... wait... ;-)
    • The underlying belief structure of all science must be free speech, and all the usefull arts rise or fall based on that freedom.

      As you noted, enemies of freedom are happy to use all the tools others develop to secure their power. They have the freedom to choose, those under them do not.

  • Competative Advantage (Score:3, Interesting)

    by darkov ( 261309 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2001 @02:41AM (#2685962)
    It's good to see people are finally realising that in using Microsoft products they are losing comptetive advatage. They're exposing themselves to the mediocrity of MS and all the dangers it entails. Improved security in Linux is just one example. As the net and IT infrastructure becomes increasingly improtant into the future, companies will realise the folly of blindly following Microsofts lead.
    • I opened a business, a couple years ago. It's a modest consultancy, specialising on big, complex data management architectures.

      When evaluating the IT infrastructure, I almost fell into the Ye know, my customers use NT and we'll have to interchange documents trap.

      For one reason or another a properly licensed OEM copy failed to install on my box (which only was Win98 taxed, so I had to buy NT in addition).

      To make a long story short: I was rather pissed, went to a bookstore, obtained a copy of SuSE-Linux [suse.com]and installed away (I planned Linux as a second partition anyway).

      Was it painless ? Hell, no! Wasting a day, trying to configure a modem which turns out to be defective is not much fun. The learning curve is partially steep (and that's not an install matter) and surprises clutter your path. But

      It was the best business decision that I made. Not only do I have three industry strength databases running on essentially on a PC reliaby, but I very rarely have IT problems and if I do, they can usually be solved.

      Yep, definitely a competitive advantage. And this is not a price issue.

  • Money Matters (Score:5, Informative)

    by villoks ( 27306 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2001 @02:53AM (#2685993) Homepage Journal
    Well,

    In Finland the goverment and some of the biggest cities like Turku [helsinki-hs.net] are currently spending quite serious money to find out if Linux / Open Office would offer a more sensible option than the MS-products. The reason -money. The new MS-lisence scheme has really irritated the local decicion makers. It's not easy to find 30-50% more money for software licenses at the same time as unempleyment rates have started to raise again...

    The added security of OSS-products is of course nice benefit, but it's not the main factor.

    v.

  • One telling statistic... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by StarTux ( 230379 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2001 @02:59AM (#2686008) Journal
    "Microsoft Web server software powers about 30 percent of the world's Web sites -- and 62 percent of the sites that have been hacked, according to data collected by two Internet sites, Netcraft's Web Server Survey and the Alldas Defacement Archive."

  • My company is switching Wentzville, MO schools (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mustang Matt ( 133426 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2001 @03:28AM (#2686050)
    It's not just the Government, schools are switching as well!

    We just finished switching servers to (SuSE 7.3) linux (vs Novell) for Wentzville, Missouri school district. (wentzville.k12.mo.us) The workstation machines might be next!

    Not because anyone hates Microsoft or Novell, just because it was going to cost them a minimum of $13,000 a year for Novell licenses and who knows how much for Microsoft licenses.

    They simply can't afford it and don't want to resort to piracy as so many other schools and companies have.

    On top of that their getting a lot of added functionality they didn't have previously such as in house email, dns and web hosting.

    We also got them setup with NAT, DHCP, and a firewall. None of which they had previously!

    They are very excited to see it up and running so quickly. We're going to train them with what they need to know and they've got other training in their future budget plan.
  • It seems to me like the source code of NSA Linux would pass a security inspection but if the NSA uses it's normal tactics it wouldn't suprise me if the binaries, that the majority of users download, would have a backdoor...

  • good news, but don't cheer to early ! (Score:4, Informative)

    by gismo ( 24981 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2001 @04:03AM (#2686102)
    european govs _talk_ about using linux - but they talk for a couple of years now.
    The german "bundestag" diskusses about switching from NT to linux - but the same time windows-based e-gov solutions are presented.
    ( Windows 2000 for virtual city-halls [heise.de] (e) [altavista.com])
    Meanwhile MS announces to show theire sources to european govs (XP-source for gov of austria [heise.de] (e) [altavista.com])....
    i hope, linux will make it into our govs - but i do not really believe into it.

    re china: they are not realy "anti-MS" anymore - their mayor ISPs switched to MS - most of them predicted to sitch to linux half a year ago ( breakthroug for MS in china [heise.de] (e) [altavista.com])

    sorry for all the links to german heise news - i read things like this on other (austrian/german) news-services, but heise has the better search-engine ;-)

    • Re:good news, but don't cheer to early ! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Master Of Ninja ( 521917 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2001 @04:23AM (#2686131)
      Got to agree with you. The NHS (National Health Service) in the UK just linked up with Microsoft to use their software on all their computers. This includes office as well. The article is from [bbc.co.uk] BBC News [bbc.co.uk].

      The NHS is one of the biggest (if not the biggest) employers in the UK so a deal like this means a massive increase in income for MS - £5 billion according to the article (with discount!).

      As the article says medical records need confidentiality and having MS "own" the system required to read it is potentially disasterous. The other computer projects that the NHS has undertaken have not been too great of a success e.g. the "NHSnet" (an internal network) which was buggy and used old protocols instead of using newer email protocols (i.e. they didn't use POP3).

      I think that MS one this contract cause they are in bed with president tony (blair). I can't see how it is good for the health service if every machine is ms-dependent. They really should have tried splitting the system between different contractors (ms could still be involved) so that there is redundancy in the system. The thing is everybody attack IIS systems, and for some reason I think it will be a major hassle trying to locate and patch every single server the NHS has.

      more links
      500,000 winxp licenses for Uk.gov [theregister.co.uk]
      NHS email system not working [theregister.co.uk]
      Gates talks to NHS managers about using ms products [theregister.co.uk]
      Doctors forced to use Hotmail for confidential medical records [theregister.co.uk]
    • >>Meanwhile MS announces to show theire sources to european govs (XP-source for gov of austria

      I wonder if they can compile it them selves, cause i wouldn't know if they are showing me all the sources, cause i dont know how many of you have browsed tru the sources of a major project like a complete OS, thats gonna be HELL....and finding spyware things or others is going to be HELL...now if you cant be sure if you have everything and cant compile it your self whats the deal ?
      ( anyone who can read german found something like that in the article ? )

      But nevertheless who knows if they didnt just remove the parts they didnt want you to see, your happy running MS's owned compiled versions of XP which have spyware and or other strange things in it, while you have a source code, i guess since windows XP they got smart and implented the spyware stuff seperate easy to remove from the source package, so we can show it to someone, i wouldnt trust them if you cant compile and run your own version after you audited ofcourse :)

      Just another paranoid rant..
      But just showing sources means shit in my perspective.

      Quazion.

  • Indeed ... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Aceticon ( 140883 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2001 @04:27AM (#2686136)
    Reading the article made me feel warm all over ...


    Oh ... wait ...


    ... that explains it - i've spilled cofee on my shirt

  • Don't want to dip my fly in everybody else's ointment, but royal.gov.uk [royal.gov.uk] recently switched from Linux to Windows 2000 [netcraft.com].

    b.

    • This piece of FUD only resulted in a contest to see which Microsoft-owned tech website (read: ZDNet) could come up with the best funny sounding title
      Queen Banishes Linux
      Royal throne flushes out Linux

      For every server that switches back to Windows, there's gotta be at least 100 that switch over to Linux. Mr. Drake's article does a pretty decent job of pointing out why.

  • "What if the U.S. and China go to war?"


    The only system still running would be powered by the UPS generators in Cheyenne Mountain. Unfortunatly It's a P90 running kernel 1.2 that got walled in by mistake. When they do find it there wont be any doubt about the world record for uptime.

  • of the article:

    "NSA feels it has a responsibility in that area," Haigh said. "They understand better than anybody in the world the deficiencies of operating systems."

    but we knew that all along anyway ;-)
  • Presumably this is due to 1) cost, 2) backdoors inserted by Microsoft, NSA, or other source.

    I think #1 is main because of a friend who got school and goverment in a French town to convert to his linux based preinstalled machines, and also because of the Florida examples.

    Here's some questions then..

    1. What if Microsoft provides source code or even ability to make own builds to selected institutions/countries if they pay/sign enough paper? Is there a price point at which Microsoft becomes interesting again? In Japan some cell phones cost a penny up front. Paid $5 for mine, but have to pay $100 a month..

    2. How do apt-getters and up2daters really know they are getting nsa-backdoor-free binaries (besides having a server in their country rebuild all the binaries automatically..) I.e. how to make best case for linux security over M$. Doubt full answer is "duh, MD5".

    3. Same as #2 for general case where citizen of country A wants to download distros/binaries from scary country B. "Scary" could be redefined as "France or worse" (regarding government-funded economic espionage policy). Maybe we need to have local, private, secure, trusted cross compiler studios to create a positive force at purifying the net..

    4. Perhaps library/binary from non-U.S. country X might be relatively unsafe due to CIA-inserted backdoors/virii? Figure for example that China *will* make lots of attempts at doing this themselves against their own citizens now that we all and the U.S. government are giving them all these great ideas. 'Course maybe they would then promote linux to the hilt and then one democracy virus would wipe out their "Red Lantern" infrastructure.. :)

    5. (No, no need to flame) Are Microsoft ideas of subscriptions, or shared source, repugnant to government customers mainly because
    a) they are morally bankrupt (i.e. crime against humanity)
    b) would be a prior lien on a nation's prosperity (i.e. crime against your constituents)
    c) your business and/or government could fail or worse if you made Microsoft an enemy by say falling in arrears
    d) "information security"
    e) "national security"
    f) moot, we want MS (preinstalled base in our govt)
    g) moot, we want MS (old established firm)
    h) repugnant but only game in town
    i) moot (who cares)
    j) other (what?)

    6. What is an effective way for private open source developers to make money on market constituted of all world governments' organs?
    Obviously there is some kind of a barrier here regarding currency, local requirements, trust, obtaining contact information, every country being set up differently, etc.
    I'm thinking 1) education software.. ideology agnostic (woops thats not really true). and 2) a best-practices database that would tell them what to buy. Oh, and 3) make something that saves money and sell to everyone including governments.
    • 2. How do apt-getters and up2daters really know they are getting nsa-backdoor-free binaries (besides having a server in their country rebuild all the binaries automatically..) I.e. how to make best case for linux security over M$. Doubt full answer is "duh, MD5".

      While I can't speak for up2daters, I know that Debian Maintainers would scream if anyone tampered with a mirrored version of their work. It would be reported at www.debian.org and here before you could say "reinstall" from trusted source. DNS attacks are evil, but they will be reported.

  • Does anyone recall an article posted on Slashdot, about the following: A man speaks of how he walks into corporate structures to do white hat audits. - he walks off with important papers, - he pretends to talk on cellphone to get through passcode doors while others enter code, as security - he carries boxes around to have people open doors for him - he carries around a clipbook to seem like a utility guy - he wears hardhat, and an electritians type uniform - he tells us how he gets all the way to server rooms, etc.. I cannot find the article on slashdot. It seems all security articles from before a few months ago cannot be searched. Does anyone have the link? - Omnihil
  • While everyone cheers the increased used of Linux by governments, I think you're all missed the fact that BSD variants of UNIX (OpenBSD/FreeBSD) have been heavily used by many governmental agencies long before Linux became the latest hip OS to have.

    After all, BSD variants can handle very high volume transaction loads and has generally pretty good security, something that government agencies really want.
  • Ken Thompson wrote a paper a few years back that demonstrates that source code alone is insufficient to gaurantee security. Suppose that you have source code for the OS and all the various utilities and applications. You inspect the source code, then compile it, and you now feel pretty secure - yes? No, because, what about the tools used to compile the code? What Thompson demonstrated was a compiler, that a) looks for and hacks the Unix login code to add a back door and b) recognises and similarly compromises compilers that it builds! Here's a link [acm.org] to a subsequent article Thompson wrote for the ACM revisiting the issue.

Slashdot Top Deals

Sentient plasmoids are a gas.

Close