Public-sector deployments of Linux are continuing to grow at the expense of Unix and Windows. The latest Linux win is the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC), in Washington, which provides administrative support, program management and policy development services to U.S. federal courts.
Use of Linux Grows in Public Sector
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I like a little color in the IT world, no more of this:
“Let’s all wear a black suit and tie, and work on an IBM clone in a Microsoft environment!”
personally i believe in the seperatino of church and state, and likewise i think the practice of using public tax money to enrich m$ is questionable.
tax $ should therefore be spent on linux
“personally i believe in the seperatino of church and state, and likewise i think the practice of using public tax money to enrich m$ is questionable.
tax $ should therefore be spent on linux”
WHAT? I always thought Linux was FREE. lmao
With your approach in mind perhaps the goverment shouldn’t buy cars and trucks from Ford, Chysler, and GM, either. Anyone know of an open source TANK available for a reasonable price?
Its good to see more OSS in the governent. I feel safer every time I hear of it.
Closed source software is a tremendous threat to national security, and the sooner the lawmakers realize that the better. Terrorists compromising an opensource project is nearly immpossible, as anyone could look and see it, and key defence systems could even compile everything from source that was carefully reviewed in house just to be certain.
A few well placed bribes to certain MS employees however could seriously, and far too easily, compromise every single system that makes use of their next version of windows, and nobody might even know it until it was too late. No matter how much source they share, you still cannot be sure that the binary you get from them is from the exact same source. Only a binary you compile yourself is secure, and if the government does any less, they are endangering us all.
” WHAT? I always thought Linux was FREE. lmao
With your approach in mind perhaps the goverment shouldn’t buy cars and trucks from Ford, Chysler, and GM, either. Anyone know of an open source TANK available for a reasonable price?
”
development of software can need investment of money. you dont open source your wife either. software is reproducible at near zero prices. so its not comparable to a tank. think before you talk
Open Source software permits on-site customization of code. It also permits immediate plugging of security holes, etc.
Consider if you will, the plight of a Navy fighter pilot and his aircraft maintenance crew – let’s call him something totally anonymous, something like Pappy Boyington ;^) – during the Second World War, when they discover that they are legally barred by Intellectual Property Rights laws from repairing the aircraft while away from the Sole Designated Repair Depot run by the Company Designated Sole Repair and Maintenance Crew.
That the benefits offered by a closed source license like Microsoft’s GSP, to governments worldwide.
“There’s a hole in my bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza,
“There’s a hole in my bucket, dear Liza,
“A hole.”
“Then fix it, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
“Then fix it, dear Henry, dear Henry,
“Fix it.”
“There’s a EULA on the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza,
“There’s a EULA on the bucket, dear Liza,
“I can’t!”
yeah, the government is spending more money than it should. from $5,000 toliet seats to buying a $500 copy of linux.
the good ‘ol usa loves to cater to companies… and ofcourse the most powerful like linux because they sell hardware.. lets buy something that should be free
Does this strike anyone else funny since SCO is in the middle of using the court system to stop Linux.
They are moving from Sun to HP hardware with some San Diego company getting the support contract.
ew………………..
You’re exaggerating. Try Google – toilet seats were $600-$800 but hammers $400 firm.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought that Suns Solaris was a closed source OS. Since everyone here has been commenting on the fact that they moved from closed source to open source, not MS to Linux, I don’t understand the meaning behind your comment. I did use MS as an example of a closed source software provider, but only because they are the most well known. Any closed source OS shares the same national security threat IMHO, and in the most secure areas, any closed source software at all, even a minor utility, makes me nervous.
A norwegian town just swiched from MS to linux (NOVELL and IBM- look for press release) @ work and so little time- running MS and lot`s of problems hehe
personally i believe in the separation of church and state, and likewise i think the practice of using public tax money to enrich m$ is questionable.
tax $ should therefore be spent on linux
Personally I believe in that church and state have nothing to do with open/closed source discussions. A government should only be concerned with getting the right product in the right situation and quite often that means a propriatry solution and there is nothing wrong with that.
Demanding that software developed with public money is publicly available is more reasonable, but in that case I think a BSD license is more appropriate than the GPL
” Its good to see more OSS in the governent. I feel safer every time I hear of it. ”
Yes it is good that the government is opening itself up to more alternatives as long as they are willing to accept the legal risks it should be OK.
” Closed source software is a tremendous threat to national security, and the sooner the lawmakers realize that the better. Terrorists compromising an opensource project is nearly immpossible, as anyone could look and see it, and key defence systems could even compile everything from source that was carefully reviewed in house just to be certain. ”
Bull, that is a load of crap. First of all, no one really scrutinizes code on the OSS side unless something goes wrong. There is no study or “real” proof that closed source is a threat to national security the only people that seem to think this are the zealots, Stallmanites and other OSS sorts. Until I see some kind of study besides an Open Letter from an OSS leader, I dont give that crap much weight.
” A few well placed bribes to certain MS employees however could seriously, and far too easily, compromise every single system that makes use of their next version of windows ”
And a few well placed bribes to a couple of Red Hat or Novell developers can get me a secretive back door and compromise into any Linux system. Considering over 90% of commercial Linux customers get their Linux software from a one or the other.
” Only a binary you compile yourself is secure, and if the government does any less, they are endangering us all. ”
They more than likely do not. Most of my Linux clients at work 635 total Linux clients only 3 recompile or do anything with their kernel, the others just use the default kernel that is shipped with their distribution. Government agencies outside the NSA and CIA like to throw it up and leave it alone.
Yes it is good that the government is opening itself up to more alternatives as long as they are willing to accept the legal risks it should be OK.
If they are willing to accept the legal risks of Proprietary software, they should be ready to accept those of Open Source software, since there is NO indication that one is riskier than the other.
Unless you still believe that SCO has an inch of a chance to prevail (in which case, you haven’t been following recent development, or are just too proud to admit that you may have given McBride and co. more credit than they were due).
First of all, no one really scrutinizes code on the OSS side unless something goes wrong. There is no study or “real” proof that closed source is a threat to national security
I think you should research the Inslaw/Promis scandal for an example of how a proprietary software cause national security problems (though not for the U.S.).
You may not think that it’s necessary to see the source code to feel secure about software but, guess what, China (among others) disagrees with you. For them having access to the Source Code is of VITAL importance. It may be paranoia, but it happens to be their policy.
the only people that seem to think this are the zealots, Stallmanites and other OSS sorts.
Roberto, could you for once write a post where you don’t feel the need to use derogatory language towards those who disagree with you? You always whine about how “zealots” are sending you hate mail, but then you indulge in this kind of flame-baiting as soon as you get the chance. That, in my book, makes you as much a zealot as those you would condemn. (Especially since, in this case, there are precedents of proprietary software containing backdoors used for espionage.)
And a few well placed bribes to a couple of Red Hat or Novell developers can get me a secretive back door and compromise into any Linux system.
To use your own words: what a load of crap. Once the backdoor is identified – and it will eventually, since the code is open – the developers would be the target of criminal and civil charges. If the software was used in government, they could even be charged with treason!
By definition, it’s a lot riskier to put backdoors in open-source software than in closed-source. I can’t believe you’d even try to argue that they are equal in this respect…
“personally i believe in the seperatino of church and state, and likewise i think the practice of using public tax money to enrich m$ is questionable.
tax $ should therefore be spent on linux”
Why, because you dont like Microsoft? If going the MS route works for anyone, be it the government, a business, or a home user, then go for it. If you dont agree, fine. Just give me a good reason other than the typical “its not MS” argument I hear so often. Its getting rather old.
Bull, that is a load of crap. First of all, no one really scrutinizes code on the OSS side unless something goes wrong. […]
And:
And a few well placed bribes to a couple of Red Hat or Novell developers can get me a secretive back door and compromise into any Linux system. Considering over 90% of commercial Linux customers get their Linux software from a one or the other.
Did you ever read this:
http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/1584
“Examining the two lines of inserted code a little closer, it became quite apparent that this was a blatent attempt to insert a back door into the Linux kernel that could have been used to illegitimately become the ‘root’ superuser on a Linux server.”
Into any Linux system? Looks like somebody already tried – and failed. No, it’s all out in the open, and the companies concerned are represented there as well.
And they discuss, argue, discuss, argue some more, all out in the open, and there’s not a lot that can be hidden when they’re prepared to shoot anyone down for bad code or that sort of thing – when Linus Torvalds himself refuses to regard his 0.1 code as sacrosanct:
– I wrote them (and looking at the original ones, I’m a bit ashamed:
the “toupper()” and “tolower()” macros are so horribly ugly that I
wouldn’t admit to writing them if it wasn’t because somebody else
claimed to have done so
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.2/1241.html
ust give me a good reason other than the typical “its not MS” argument I hear so often. Its getting rather old.
m$ is….
bloated
full of virueses, and trojans
unsafe
unstable
a very expensive game console.
forced upgrades
slow
unusable
expensive
etc etc etc………
ust give me a good reason other than the typical “its not MS” argument I hear so often. Its getting rather old.
m$ is….
bloated
full of virueses, and trojans
unsafe
unstable
a very expensive game console.
forced upgrades
slow
unusable
expensive
etc etc etc………
“bloated”
Depends on what you consider bloated. On a fresh install, its nice and snappy. Only after installing lots of other programs, things may get slow, but thats really not an issue of MS, but the company that decides that you need to have their service running in the background after you install. I guess this doesnt happen to Linux, doesnt it? Besides, if you are worried about programs like Movie Maker and Messenger taking up valuable hard drive space, then its time to upgrade.
“viruses and trojans”
Dont remember the last time I had a virus or trojan on my system. A properly maintained Windows system doesnt seem to have a problem here. Viruses and trojans are out there for sure, but wait till Linux eventually becomes a worthwhile target for these. Of couse, in Linux, it would be a problem with the user not using the computer correctly, while in Windows, its a fault of MS.
“unsafe”
Yea, I better watch my fingers since they might get cut off using Windows. Guess Linux is the kinder, gentler way to go, huh?
“unstable”
Windows 95/98/ME was. Windows 2k and XP are rock solid. I would dare to question the stability of Linux. I have two machines running Windows XP, and its been a few months since I have had to reboot due to a stability issue. Linux, on the other hand, I have had crash on me several times in a period of just a few days.
“a very expensive game console”
If all you do is run games. I use my computer for far more than just games, so I wouldnt exactaly say its an expensive game console. Cant blame you for trying with this one.
“forced upgrades”
Yea, look at all those people running Windows 98 forced to upgrade to Windows XP. Seriously, this is about as bad as the expensive game console argument.
“slow”
Got some bench marks to prove this one? My Windows XP installation (going on almost a year) on my desktop is just as quick as when I first installed it. A fresh installation of Mandrake 10 on the same computer just feels unresponsive and clunky by comparison.
“unusable”
How so? What are you unable to use in it? I wonder how I was able to post this reply… Certainly didnt do it in Linux, or Mac OS! Funny that my OS is unusable, yet I am USING IT RIGHT NOW!
“expensive”
I guess that depends on what you mean by expensive. I dont consider $200 for an OS that just works out of the box, and runs what I want when I want expensive. The fact that I can just plug in my hardware, install a few quick drivers is great. Yea, I paid a good chunk of money for Windows, but its well worth it with the time I have saved.
“etc etc etc………”
Running out of ideas, huh? But its MS (sorry, M$), so any excuse not to use their products, no matter how bad it may be, is a valid one.