Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

Linux Journal On Linux's Adoption In U.S. Courts 217

Posted by simoniker from the guilty-of-being-a-penguin dept.
Sam Hiser writes "Tom Adelstein writes in Linux Journal that, technically, one-third of the U.S. Government has moved to Linux: its Third Branch, the Judiciary. That's 30,000 users across 800 locations, comprising the nation's Federal court system. Given our information overload, it's easy to miss the most significant kernels of news."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux Journal On Linux's Adoption In U.S. Courts More

Linux Journal On Linux's Adoption In U.S. Courts

Comments Filter:

  • Wow! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by neiras ( 723124 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @07:44AM (#9516901)
    Now let's see the US government follow in Germany's footsteps and directly sponsor the development of some critical piece of open-source software.

    • Re:Wow! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 24, 2004 @07:45AM (#9516907)
      Why do you want open source to die?

      • Re:Wow! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by presarioD ( 771260 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @09:34AM (#9517986)
        Why do you want open source to die?

        Seriously now, this is kind of scary. If Open Source ever "dominates" in the governmental sector, the impact it will have on the Open Source community will not be a trivial matter to consider.

        The worst thing that happend to socialism for example is that they actually got elected for government.

        New forces will be created in the Open Source community once it becomes mainstream and the temptation to "bend" GPL for more and more profit might be there. Of course you might argue that this will automatically exclude anybody that does it from the Open Source community but I am just wondering how the future might look 40 years from now...

    • Re:Wow! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by orthogonal ( 588627 )
      Now let's see the US government follow in Germany's footsteps and directly sponsor the development of some critical piece of open-source software.

      What, Total, er, now, Terrorism Information Awareness [epic.org], CAPPS II [eff.org], and Echelon [hiwaay.net] aren't enough for you?

      Following in Germany's footsteps indeed.

      Although I think Reichminister Ashcroft isn't so much following the footsteps of the current Bundesrepublik Deutschland [wikipedia.org] as those of Das Dritte Reich [wikipedia.org] -- that is Himmmler's [wikipedia.org] and Heydrich's [wikipedia.org] footsteps.

    • Re:Wow! (Score:5, Informative)

      by JimDabell ( 42870 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @08:10AM (#9517081) Homepage

      DARPA is the primary sponsor of ReiserFS 4 [namesys.com]. There's this other little thing called "the Internet" as well...

    • NSA/SE Linux (Score:3, Informative)

      by Vengeful weenie ( 627760 )
      NSA has supported and activly developed SE linux [nsa.gov].

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @07:44AM (#9516903)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • No, the Senate is already owned by lobbyists for various corporations and interest groups.

    • Re:Yay! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 24, 2004 @08:12AM (#9517088)
      > Now SCO owns the Judicial System..... what next, the Senate? ;)

      I know you're being funny, but let me draw attentions to a significant detail: if courts grok Linux it will be far more difficult for "people" like Dearl to initiate such "operations" like the one we witness.

    • Re:Yay! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kfg ( 145172 )
      Now SCO owns the Judicial System..... what next, the Senate? ;)

      Nah! Lockheed Martin's got "dibs."

      KFG

  • Now that Linux is in the Courts... (Score:5, Funny)

    by spoonani ( 786547 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @07:46AM (#9516910)
    You can find Linux as the court stenographer. But he's just not transcripting dictated litigation. He's learning. He's adapting. Soon Linux will become the bailiff, judge, jury, court illustrator, public defender, janitor, and CourTV anchor.

  • One can only hope... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by drooling-dog ( 189103 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @07:46AM (#9516911)
    ...that the wide use of Linux in the court system will make judges just a little more skeptical of the legal antics that Microsoft will undoubtedly be throwing against it in the years ahead.
    • I doubt most judges will be familiar with the software underlying the filing process.

      However, it would make for an excellent argument on behalf of whatever pro-Linux guy is in the court.

    • Re:One can only hope... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Or a little less skeptical of Microsoft's claims that it is not an unchallenged monopoly.

    • One can only hope not (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ScouseMouse ( 690083 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @08:04AM (#9517040) Homepage
      From a purely impartial point of view, I certainly hope they dont let the use of underlying systems influence their decisions.

      The judicirary is supposed to be impartial. I think for the most part it is. I would like it to stay like that no matter whatever happens.

      • Re:One can only hope not (Score:3, Insightful)

        by kfg ( 145172 )
        I certainly hope they dont let the use of underlying systems influence their decisions.

        I agree, but I believe the point was that judges are essentially ignorant of Linux and free software in generally, and some greater familiarity will actually allow them to be more impartial.

        So far they really only know one side of the "story."

        KFG
      • I certainly hope they dont let the use of underlying systems influence their decisions.

        Please .. give the courts a little credit..

        "This legal pad is yellow with horizontal lines - so I sentence you to death!" ;)

      • The law firm I work for just recently started using linux servers to store our documents to keep up with the new electronic filing rules. And the boss (the lawyer) still thinks the best way to view a website is to print it out and read it (not kidding, and among lawyers this type of thing is not rare).

        Since all judges were once lawyers, and lawyers must be forced to even acknowlege the tech tools around them (on their desk even), I think it's a good bet to say that the Justice's would be shoked to hear t

      • All this seems morally perilous. If Linux is in the backoffice of some court, it would be particularly hazardous for it to officially judge against Linux in some broad way that illegalizes their usage of it. In this fashion, I'm sure many judges arrive home to find their brood up/downloading MP3s at record paces.

        My point is that the whole thing should mean something to the judiciary. The MP3 downloading thing has ramifications on fair use. Hence, the use of OSS should strike them similarly.

        But in

  • Nothing but good news (Score:4, Interesting)

    by PhysicsGenius ( 565228 ) <physics_seeker.yahoo@com> on Thursday June 24, 2004 @07:47AM (#9516920)
    I think it is especially significant that Linux has been adopted by the Judicial branch which is both the most savvy branch (people hate Congress and the White House, but few hate the SCOTUS) and, constitutionally, the one given the most power over the other two. I look forward to an activist judge mandating that all branches must use Linux to adopt and maintain transparent government.
    • Mandating that all branches use one thing - ie: taking away all their choice - would be using the same sort of pressure techniques that people complain about MS for.

      I would hope that if the other branches were to move to Linux they would do it because it is the best option, not because it was the mandated option.

      How would you feel if they all moved to FreeBSD?
      • Mandating Linux would be a big mistake, mandating a specific technology is almost as bad as mandating a specific vendor.

        However making requirements to the license is a completely different matter. There are many good reasons to require all government software to be released under a license that meet the open source specification, or something close. This would not prevent any vendor from submitting any product using any technology. It would prevent them from keeping that part of the working of the gover
      • Look at police cars, for example. Here in the UK, the policy was that you could only specify British-made vehicles for government use, until about 10 years ago. Now they simply specify that a car for a particular role must meet certain specifications, among which are availability (can we just go and buy another from the dealer down the road, off-the-shelf, and fit it out ourselves?), spares, tools and manuals availability (can we fix it ourselves?), as well as the more obvious size, performance, economy a

    • Gov't adoption is the good news (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TheLoneCabbage ( 323135 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @08:02AM (#9517027) Homepage
      It doesn't much matter what branch of the govt uses it. At the end of the day the Gov't controls around 1/4 of the nation GDP. It controls how and where that's spent.

      ALLOT of money flows out of the gov't and stirs allot of industry. Especially durring recessions, that have been a classic time for gov't over spending, since FDR, to restimulate the economy.

      If you want that money, you will run what ever software the gov't tells you too. Ideologies aside you have a buisness to run. To be compatible with the gov't agencies is essentials.

      And as that money spreads out, to subcontractors, and support industries the chain of compatibilty does as well.

      I worked for 2 years for a company that did court document back up. They declared what their standards were. If we wanted the contract we did as we were told. And we chose the servers that meant the absolute least friction between start and support.

      This is a much bigger deal than just public relations.

      • Re:Gov't adoption is the good news (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Vengeance ( 46019 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @08:15AM (#9517111)
        Unfortunately, the only reason that a lot of money flows from government coffers into industry, is that these very same dollars have been extracted from some other industry, or directly from our pockets.

        Never make the mistake of believing that our government has any money to spend. It has only your money and mine, and it's not asking for permission nearly often enough.

        • I agree. But If the money's there, and it's offered... what a fool I would be not to take it.

          And to an *extent* redistribution of wealth into emerging industries is a GOOD thing. Think Arpanet. (tons of gov't expenditures into private internet companies)


          Rule #35) You could afford your ship without your government--if it weren't for your government.

        • This is coming from the philosophy that you don't want to pay for anything that does not directly benefit yourself, such as people who don't have children not paying for public schools. I kind of understand this belief and it comes from people not seeing indirect benefits. As I learned in an economics class you gain overall by giving money to the education system in straight $, it's just not direct.

          While a minority of the government's money comes from personal income tax, I think it would be advantageou
          • I disagree, this has nothing to do with such a philosophy at all.

            It is simple economic fact: The government, as an entity, is purely parasitic. Ideally, a symbiotic (symeconomic?) relationship develops where the burden of maintaining the parasite is seen as worthwhile, due to benefits that it's presence brings.

            For instance, I would never advocate attempting to have this country operate without a military, without policing, etc. etc.

            But NOONE should make the mistake of thinking that 'the government is r
      • It doesn't much matter what branch of the govt uses it. At the end of the day the Gov't controls around 1/4 of the nation GDP. It controls how and where that's spent.

        Close, but not quite. In 2001 government spending accounted for 18% of the GDP. It is true that by choices of fiscal policy it can affect a significantly greater portion of that but just as direct spending it really is less than a fifth. But maybe the recent increases in offense^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H defense spending have increased this portion and

    • Constitutionally the most power? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Millennium ( 2451 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @08:10AM (#9517082)
      I'm not so sure about that. The whole point of checks and balances is that each branch has some powers over the other two, but the other branches have powers over it as well.

      Let's take the Supreme Court, for example. You're probably referring to the power of judicial review: the ability to declare laws unconstitutional (this was actually never codified in the Constitution; it's an important legal tradition and perhaps ought to be codfied, but it is not). This is, in fact, a very important power. However, it is not unbalanced:

      1) Congress can override SCOTUS decisions. It takes a Constitutional amendment to do so (making the law constitutional by changing the Constitution to suit), and so it is very difficult, but it can be done.

      2) The executive branch appoints justices. It's a little-known fact that even SCOTUS justices can be impeached and removed from office, even though they otherwise hold life terms; this has never been done, but it is possible.

      3) The SCOTUS cannot act of its own volition; it must be called upon before it can do anything. The Executive and legislative branches have limited power, but they can use (most of) those powers at will; the SCOTUS is powerless unless actually called on by one of the other branches, or by the people.

      This is the whole point of checks and balances: no one branch is self-policing, no one branch has unlimited power, and most of the actions of one branch can be undone (though not easily) by at least one of the other branches. The idea is to fight corruption on two fronts: one, by reducing its ability to form, and two, limiting its ability to do damage even when it does form. It's actually a pretty well-designed system, at least on that score.

      • Re:Constitutionally the most power? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Halo- ( 175936 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @08:31AM (#9517235)
        I completely agree with you in principle. Without getting overly political, I still feel it's appropriate to point out that lately the SCOTUS (and the judicial branch as a whole) has had a lot of its powers reduced. The PATRIOT act is just on of the ways the legislative branch has given the executative branch the ability to bypass the courts. The requirements for trials, warrants, and openness have been greatly reduced post 9/11. There was recently even a bill introduced to allow Congress to overrule the courts if they wanted. (Fortunately this got voted /laughed down).

        This is to say nothing about the current "the president's executive priviledge overrides any other law" memos that are making news lately...

        Finally, it's important to remember that the judicial system as a whole, especially the SCOTUS, is the slowest branch. As you pointed out, they mut wait to be called, and they almost always act after the fact. If legislators pass an unconsitutional law, or the executive branch steps on someone's rights, there is a considerable window in which the law is in effect, and those people rights are trampled before the SCOTUS can put a stop to it.

        Checks and balances are the cornerstone of the US system, and branches fighting for power is in the design. Unfortunately there have been some fairly substantial swings lately which will hopefully right themselves soon.

      • Neustedt called this arrangement "seperated institutions sharing powers."

        The other big phrases are "neither purse nor sword" and "neither force nor will." Meaning, respectively, it can't appropriate, it doesn't control the military, it has no forceful power, and it must be called into action by a third party.

        For these reasons the judiciary is called the "least dangerous branch."

      • Let me just clarify a couple of things...

        1) Congress can override SCOTUS decisions. It takes a Constitutional amendment to do so (making the law constitutional by changing the Constitution to suit), and so it is very difficult, but it can be done.

        Partially true. If SCOTUS interprets something as unconstitutional, Congress and the states must past a constitutional amendment. If the law is unclear and SCOTUS makes a ruling, all Congress needs to do is pass new legislation. There is nothing to prevent Con

      • 1) Congress can override SCOTUS decisions. It takes a Constitutional amendment to do so (making the law constitutional by changing the Constitution to suit), and so it is very difficult, but it can be done.

        Not exactly, after passing the amendment by 2/3 majority, they send it to the states and 2/3 of them have to ratify it.

    • Sorry, but you're wrong.

      The Supreme Court, constitutionally, actually has the least power delegated to it. It was fairly weak until the concept of "judicial review" was established in Marbury v. Madison in 1803. In that case, the court found that a writ of mandamus, established by the Judiciary Act of 1789, was unconstitutional under Article III of the constitution. Since nobody challenged the court's declaring of a legislative act unconstitutional, it was held that they were allowed to do so, thus es
    • Just wait until SCOTUS renders an unpopular decision. Oh wait, they already have. Half the country hates them for Roe v Wade and the other half for Bush v Gore.

      Seriously though, SCOTUS has two qualities that shields them from public opinion. First, they don't make speeches in front of CNN microphones. Second, they don't run for office. In short, the lack of politicking leads to a lack of public division.

  • Liability (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hawkeyeMI ( 412577 ) <brock@@@brocktice...com> on Thursday June 24, 2004 @07:49AM (#9516932) Homepage
    They must not be too worried about the SCO case, eh?
    • No. They have enough experience with the law to know that even if SCO do win, they can legally only pursue distributors of Linux, not end users.

      • Re:Liability (Score:3, Informative)

        by Hungus ( 585181 )
        No, what they know that the federal gov can;t be hit with IP and licensing breaches. That is of course unless the federal courts give the entity trying to sue the right to do so, and its on a case by case basis.

  • Misleading (Score:5, Informative)

    by moehoward ( 668736 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @07:51AM (#9516945)
    The slashdot writeup makes it sound like 30,000 desktops. Rather, this is just the servers , not their desktop machines. No big deal here, as we already know that Linux is often a preferred back end. Call me when a US corporation or government agency moves 30,000 desktop users to Linux.

    But my main point is that the slashdot writeup gives a false impression.

    • Re:Misleading (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Short Circuit ( 52384 )
      Actually, I think that the fact that their servers run Linux is a key point. With client-server models currently dominant, servers are your muscle and bone. They hold up everything else.

      • Re:Misleading (Score:3, Informative)

        by Timesprout ( 579035 )
        Actually its not a key point, it looks more like a matter of convenience since intel is the cheapest hardware option and RedHat are probably the cheapest OS option on intel. In the case of Momentum anyway it would not be a major issue (cost aside) to drop Linux and move back to Solaris or even to Windows if they wanted. Linux is not really important here, its the apps that run on it (Tuxedo, J2EE stuff, etc.). They even point out the cross platform aspect on their website.
    • Call you... http://www.novell.com

      Novell is a majour US corporation, also, how about www.apple.com?

    • Re:Misleading (Score:3, Informative)

      by StarCat76 ( 644079 )
      Call me when a US corporation or government agency moves 30,000 desktop users to Linux.

      Isn't IBM doing just that?

  • Woo hoo (Score:5, Insightful)

    by adam.skinner ( 721432 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @07:52AM (#9516951) Journal
    So our judicial system is moving from Solaris to Linux for their servers. This would have been a story of note had they put Linux on the desktop, but as it stands it hardly seems newsworthy. I mean, the multinational company I work for uses Linux on many of it's servers as well.

    Adoption of Linux as a server is one thing; adoption of Linux on the desktop for 30K is quite another...

  • Have to be careful (Score:4, Funny)

    by L. VeGas ( 580015 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @07:53AM (#9516957) Homepage Journal
    Maybe this is all part of a secret Finnish plan for world domination.

    • Re:Have to be careful (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I for one, welcome our new santa claus and easter bunny overlords

  • Best. Quote. Ever. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Noryungi ( 70322 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @07:54AM (#9516964) Homepage Journal
    From the article:

    Finally, consider that while an allegation of copyright infringement exists in the Federal Courts today, those same courts have decided to migrate to the alleged perpetrator in that case. It's something to consider. As Søren Kierkegaard once said, "Irony is a disciplinarian feared only by those who do not know it, but cherished by those who do."

    Now, why on earth did I think about SCO reading this paragraph? ;-)

  • Why are they moving to Linux? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mOoZik ( 698544 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @07:54AM (#9516965) Homepage
    Because it is better? Because it is easier? Nay, because it is free. Why does everyone get so excited about this? It obviously is free, but will its users be as productive? What about support? I don't know, but only long-term studies can assess these.

    • If you would read the article then you would know that linux isn't free. The BakBone software used in this case was paid for. They didn't pay as much as a windows implementation probably would have cost, but they chose the cost effective sollution out there.

      And that solution was linux.

      I hate people who can comment but can't read.

  • Is a good start (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gmuslera ( 3436 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @07:56AM (#9516981) Homepage Journal
    Lets see what will happens with SCO even smaller chances. Now the legal system is in illegal state?

    Anyway, probably is the beginning of a good move. If something could shift the balance towards open source, open formats (hope there the court resolutions are not published in msword format, or required that format to present documents) and really wider access to information ("no, you can't show THIS for contract/base software limitations").

  • Check the math there, chester. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by chumpieboy ( 257469 ) <esojka AT spamcop DOT net> on Thursday June 24, 2004 @07:57AM (#9516984)
    One third?

    One of three branches, yes.

    Those 30,000 users are a drop in the bucket when compared to the total number of Federal employees and offices.

    Will the slashdot readers be hypocrites or will they denounce FUD when it comes from Linux Journal? If Microsoft (or a journal that is focused on MS technology) had released a statement that "two-thirds of the US government runs MS software!" then there would be a huge shitstorm.
    • Be fair and RTFA. Linux Journal didn't claim the one third number, that was the story submitter. Most of the absurdly pro-Linux/anti-MS type stuff that hits Slashdot is from the story submitter, not the source articles. Linux Journal simply notes that this is a significant deployment, which is true.

      You're very right about the total number of Federal employees, as well as desktop installations, but that doesn't eliminate this story's significance, especially when you consider, as the article's author has, t

  • I like this... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Richthofen80 ( 412488 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @07:58AM (#9516996) Homepage
    because paying ZERO dollars for software means my government isn't spending any money when it doesn't have to, which means that I can keep more of my money instead of it going to taxes, right?

    right?

    (crickets chirping....)

    • Re:I like this... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ch-chuck ( 9622 )
      What usually, for real, happens is, some department near the end of the budget period realizes they saved $120,000 - so they go on a spending spree to erase the surplus so they don't get cut next budget period. EVERY government agency is ALWAYS SHORT of funds and desperately NEEDS MORE. ALWAYS. It never fails. You can bank on it. It's an inherent property of offices that depend on begging instead of profits, there is no reward mechanism for being efficient.

      The best that can happen is they free up funds to
    • You must have read a different article. Closer inspection will show you that a lot of this software is being paid for so your taxes are not going to change much. They mentioned one 9 million dollar contract to AMS and you still see ZERO because its Linux. Talk about seeing what you want to see!

  • I can't wait... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Electric Monk ( 171640 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @08:00AM (#9517009)
    for SCO to start sueing the Courts for copyright infringement.

    SCO: "You owe us money!"
    AOUSC: "Prove it."
    SCO: "Pay up or we'll sue!"
    AOUSC: "Go on then."
    SCO: "Oh b...."

  • What a load of crap. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Keebler71 ( 520908 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @08:01AM (#9517021) Journal
    technically, one-third of the US Government has moved to Linux:

    Uh, no.... technically one of the three branches of governement has moved to Linux. That is a far cry from the misleading assertion that "one-third" of the government has moved to linux.

    Of course, I can't find this quote anywhere in the actual article, so it must have been the "analysis" of the submitter. Isn't this the type of misleading claim we continuously beride MS for?

    • Actually it's all in how you look at it. Is the glass half empty or is the glass half full.

      He did note *technically* one-third of the government has moved. The judicial branch is one of three parts of the government. 30,000 people obviously isn't one-third of the government's total mass, but it is one-third of the of the government in the technical sense.

      I like the positive spin on it even though the meaning is not literal. (this one was noted that it's only technically) I just don't like unnecessary

  • The government *must* use linux? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 24, 2004 @08:15AM (#9517114)
    I recall hearing once that the government was required to go with the lowest bidder in a new contract for many of it's purchases.
    So.. isn't linux the lowest bidder?
    So, is the government required to use it then?
    Just curious if anybody knows about this..
  • I am glad the people deciding "right" from "wrong" figured out it would be "wrong" to run Microsoft Windows, and "right" to run Linux. That's cool.

  • Information (Score:2, Interesting)

    by tehcyder ( 746570 )
    Given our information overload
    E.g. the largenumber of non-news stories filled with misleading "statistics" on popular geek websites.

  • news indeed.
    Interesting how Slashdot picks up stories. There is either very elaborate process where they re-hash old stories in some kind of evil, traffic-generating agreement with other OSS and not OSS news sources or they just gave up on any process all together and it is just because.

  • WordPerfect (Score:5, Insightful)

    by justanyone ( 308934 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @08:36AM (#9517284) Homepage Journal

    It's a widely recognized fact that most of the legal community (law firms, etc.) used to use WordPerfect. I'm unsure of the current situation given WP's decline in popularity due to domination by MSOffice.

    However, if whoever owns WordPerfect now (Corel? Novell? Underpants Gnomes?) would re-issue it on Linux, and provide favorable licensing to allow it to run from the server to the desktop nicely, many legal offices and courts that currently use WordPerfect could move to Linux far easier than to MSOffice. It would be a change of OS and NOT a change of application.

    Any lawyers out there that can comment on what software (especially larger) legal firms are using, and on what platforms, and for what reasons?

    I would wager that another large tipping-point factor would be how Lexus and Nexus are used. If they operate via a web portal instead of a fat client (Lawyers? Paralegals? Anyone know?) then making sure they operate nicely on Linux is a key adoption factor. IBM, are you listening? Law firms might like a suite of applications specially tailored to their needs, and they don't mind paying for high functionality if it gets them ease of use (not being typically technofiles).

    Also, billing software, the back-office function of legal offices, might benefit from some kind of scheduling application that keeps track of which case someone's researching and thus bills time to that case in an easy manner.

    An ex-lawyer friend of mine (now works as NOC designer for Siemens) mentioned what a pain in the butt it was to itemize his timesheet (bill) for 10 minute segments of his time, espeically if he was making lots of calls. Make a better application and they will love you (again, IBM or Novell, you have options here... and not only for US court systems).

    -- Kevin J. Rice

    • Re:WordPerfect (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I am an employee of the Federal Courts and WordPerfect is still the word processing program of choice. We only have a handful of Office licenses and those are primarily for Excel. I believe the reason is that the AOUSC has a license with Corel for an unlimited number of users.

    • Re:WordPerfect (Score:3, Interesting)

      by widderslainte ( 121941 )
      It's been a couple of years, but I used to run the computer lab at a law library. WP/Word use was pretty even, but I think people would throw a fit if they tried to get rid of WordPerfect.

      Lexis/Nexis and Westlaw were both deploying web interfaces, and only training new users on them, rather than the desktop client software. At the time (Fall 2000) they worked find on Netscape 4.x.

  • Finally, Gov't Approved Applications (Score:4, Insightful)

    by James McP ( 3700 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @08:42AM (#9517349)
    Someone migrating from Solaris->Linux isn't a big deal for stuff web, ftp or email services.

    The real reason this is significant is because it means that US Government-approved application developers are making Linux software. An OS is something you run apps on; no apps, no need for the OS.

    BakBone's backup system, ehh, it's a quasi-embedded product. I'm more impressed by Momentum, the financial management package in use by 94 districts. THAT is where Linux will start to make real inroads.

  • Implications to the SCO case... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SuperChuck69 ( 702300 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @09:00AM (#9517532)
    My first reaction was "Woohoo! No way SCO can win now!"

    My second reaction was "What if they don't like it?"

    Then it dawned on me that individual judges neither have interest nor reasonable say in what their computers are running. So, for the most part, the point is moot.

    However, there is one interesting twist. How much leniency is SCO allowed to give the federal government. You know the "if sco wins, it will cost the federal government $22M" point will come out in court. While that should not have a direct effect, no judge wants to have his name attached to that. Of course, SCO will cut a deal for government use of "their" code. But big a deal are they allowed to give the government before it's considered preferential treatment?

  • So does this mean any and every judge would now have to recuse {her,him}self from any SCO vs Linux case due to conflict on interest?

Slashdot Top Deals

It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster. - Voltaire

Close