Submitted by That is without a single shred of doubt the most awesome headline I ever got to put on OSNews. This headline is so awesome I don’t even need to write anything else, because it would just detract from the awesomeness. Cue Johnny Guitar, with a lone wanderer riding his horse towards a Mojave sunset, after just having… Wait, where were we? Right. Yes, Google has sued the US Department of the Interior because its Request for Quotation regarding a messaging solution demanded the use of Microsoft software.
Obviously, didn’t sit well with Google, and I’m sure other companies putting out competing software aren’t happy about it either (does Red Hat serve this market?). Google is seeking permanent injunctions against the Department of the Interior moving forward with this specific Request for Quotation until the DOI allows decent competition for the RfQ.
Basically, the Department of the Interior is looking for a “single hosted email and collaboration services solution” for its 88000 employees. That’s one heck of a potential customer right there – except that whichever company’s order would be picked, Microsoft would always win: the DOI demanded the use of Microsoft’s Business Productivity Online Suite-Federal (BPOS-Federal).
The DOI justified this demand by stating that “based on extensive market research, the Department determined that although many companies can provide messaging services in general, they either cannot provide services that address the complexity of messaging requirements within DOI, or they could not meet the degree of security required by DOI”.
Google points out that BPOS-Federal is a new product, and that there are no case studies or known customers who have implemented this product. In addition, BPOS-Federal has not been properly certified by any government agency at any risk level. Despite all this, the DOI still demands this tool.
Google obviously laments the security part of the DOI’s justification as well, citing research which shows that Microsoft’s software has serious downtime issues and security vulnerabilities. This is all marketing talk, of course, but there’s an element of truth in there.
It’s an interesting case, but I’m sure it’s going to take ages before we hear anything conclusive about this.
. The problem is just that when you’re logged in, “flat” comment view is the default. It can be fixed by adjusting the comment display settings in your account’s preferences. But that’s a matter of user account preferences, not a problem with your comment, really.
As a long-time Linux user, I too get irritated by the constant assumption that everyone is using Windows or the Mac. There ARE other options…
Heh, sticking it to the man! Too bad it’s Google doing it and not Richard Roundtree…
‘You see this cat Shaft is a bad mother-‘
-Shut your mouth!
‘But I’m talkin’ about Shaft’
-Then we can dig it!
Sticking it to the man? Um, dude, Google IS the man, now.
Yes, and they want to the product to be able to … you know .. just work … Linux is not known for providing that basic feature.
I realize that you are just trolling, but you really should get out more. In the corporate world, IT sets up both Windows and Linux – both “just work”. Do you seriously think they give the end user a stack of CDs and an instruction manual? 😀
Trolling call people troll, now thats funny.
Six or seven years ago, I would have said you have a point; however, in the past several years, this has changed dramatically. There are very few things that are easier to do in Windows than in Linux.
Tell that to organisations such as the London Stock Exchange are switching from MS technology to Linux because Windows Server, SQL Server and .NET caused outages and epic response times where as Linux not only worked, it flew.
In fact, I could list a dozen examples just like this, but I wouldn’t expect someone with your shrewd experience of enterprise IT infrastructures to care about the real world usage of small set ups like the LSE.
I’ve had Linux running as my primary Desktop for at least 6 years and really as long as 11.
Its *just worked* for me since then. I’ve had various machines including Laptops and Desktops and Servers. You’ve obviously not *used* a recent Linux Installer or Linux Distribution aimed at simpletons like you are purporting to be, via spouting off like this.
Go and install Mint Linux and get back to me.
Of course I realize you have the Latest–newest–non-disclosed, non-supported by the Vendor for Linux devices in your computer. Which means its not going to work…
When was the last time you actually installed Windows and didn’t need drivers for these exact same things and You expect a Linux distribution to be any different?
What does this have to do with Google suing the US govt?
Nada – zippit, both of you.
As a self-professed long-time Linux user — like apt get ‘latest-crappy-build’ — I’m sure that you’re busy with a lot of unrelated distractions …
These type of lawsuits seem fairly common against governments. You would think that they would learn to not list a particular company by name when letting companies bid for contracts. A competitor who you leave out always sues you.
Edited 2010-11-02 00:34 UTC
And it begs the question… would they have to try every single vendor option before deciding on one of them? I mean, if there were five different offerings for whatever software package they were looking at, if they tried the first three and decided that the 3rd one had everything they needed, would they get sued for not trying the last two?
Edited 2010-11-02 00:45 UTC
Almost certainly, since the last two might also provide everything they need, for half the price. In which case not only would the last two vendors have reasonable grounds to claim a biased process, but you’d end up with complaints over misuse of tax funding.
Exactly. When you’re making government-wide contracts that involve 10.000 software licenses, you *really* have the time to test all of the five available before and consider the costs and the benefits very carefully, because involving that amount of people to use the same software for a long time should not be done lightly (and preferably not favor big monopolies either).
Without any solid basis you mean, right? Because there are cases where getting a Mac or Windows systems will be a logically better solution…
(And I’m saying that as an MS hater…)
That’s what I meant by “preferably”. It really should be avoided, especially on such big contracts, but sometimes you just can’t do without.
Edited 2010-11-02 22:01 UTC
Um, why not write the RFP to specify the functions needed, and then only evaluate the software packages that are proposed to meet the RFP?
I understand government and military purchasing is very similar. Why not write more generic requirnments? Because someone with decision making authority likes the Microsoft brand and has decided that on a solution that can work with their own pet project can be considered.
I’ve heard tell of military projects get to the point of beta test user. A officer change brings in a new figurehead that likes Microsoft and suddenly the previous and nearly complete project is scrapped to support some officer’s brand preferences.
the point is that they essentially specified “implementers” of the Microsoft solution… they were bidding for implementations, not the actual software. This is how they get their toe-hold. At some point the government will want it’s big contractors involved.. and there will be no “open” implementation because that would be “unfair” to Microsoft’s “property” rights.
After that Microsoft will “alter the deal…” the goal is not to hold up the government, but all the people that have to CONNECT to the government with the mandated software.
One has to remember that Microsoft has very deep pockets and an army of lobbysts in washington to hypnotize mindless politicians into bending to its will.
Let’s all give Google our support against the evil empire and its minions.
So … lets support one evil empire over another evil empire …. mmm yeah … no.
You forgot this important saying: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Well, if everybody believed in that ,then we’d all be terrorists
No! We would all be happy, full of rainbow colored love and enjoying our eternal friendships in an endless sea of smileys and happy thoughts.
Oh, and there would be no trolls. Yeah! The Internet would be pure once more.
The internet would not be the internet were there no trolls on the internet to provide… counterarguments
That is a complete fallacy.
US exterior politics were dictated by that bs for decades and guess what it lead to the raise of the mullahs in Iran — the US helped installing a dicatator (the Shah) before that and it backfired — lead to more radicalism in Afghanistan, lead partially to huge drug problems in South America …
And they still continue this crap, supporting warlords in Afghanistan because they say they fight the Taleban.
To make it short and more understandable:
Just to hurt my enemy I would not f–k his girl friend — who wants to overthrow him just to have the power for herself — if she was ugly like hell.
Edited 2010-11-03 11:47 UTC
So does Google.
Frankly, this doesn’t look like an issue with lobbyists.
“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
Oh, right. Because, after all, Google is just a non-profit running on a shoestring budget, and doesn’t have millions of users. Oh, wait…
Google’s complaint about case studies steers towards hyper-correctness.
It is true that there are no case-studies for BPOS-Federal, which is a new, specially tailored version of BPOS for the US Federal Gov’t. But won’t it by definition be true for all time, if that is used a disqualifying complaint against the product being purchased by the US Federal Gov’t? To belabor the point, BPOS-Federal was created with the intention of selling to exactly one customer: the US Federal Gov’t. If the fact that the US Federal Gov’t has no history with the product is a disqualification for it acquiring the product, won’t that be a disqualification in perpetuity?
That angle is particularly interesting as there seems to be at least one case study of BPOS for a similar size institution as the DOI (~100,000 seats) available:
http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?casestu…
All that said, I can understand why Google would be irked by the bid solicitation. Only in highly unusual circumstances would anyone want a large contract like this to be awarded to a vendor without a competition. However, it is also possible that BPOS-Federal is the only thing available on the market that does what the DOI wants done. That wouldn’t be too surprising, as (see above) it was designed specifically to meet the needs of that particular customer.
No. In the complaint this fact is used to show that there is no valid reason for specifying BPOS-Federal in particular, and that by the government’s own rules other solutions should have been allowed to be proposed, and considered under fair competition.
Edited 2010-11-02 00:55 UTC
Ah, fair enough.
LMAO! lemur2 p0wn3d by BPOS-Federal.
It’s easier to let a vendor essentially define the specification for you, than it is to write a good one yourself. Not better, just easier.
Edited 2010-11-02 01:10 UTC
I thought this was going to be Google Vs Patent Office….
my (former) employer did just that 10 months ago and won
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&l…
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=