[News] US Government Realises That Free Software is More Secure, Stresses the Fact
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
DoD: Open-source software more secure
,----[ Quote ]
| Daniel Risacher, Associate Director of
| Enterprise Services and Integration at the
| DoD's Office of the Chief Information Officer,
| helped write a memo requiring all DoD agencies
| to evaluate open-source software on an equal
| basis with proprietary software. The reason is
| simple, according to Risacher: Software that
| goes through a process of peer review tends to
| be more reliable and secure than software that
| has not had the same level of scrutiny.
`----
http://www.fiercegovernmentit.com/story/dod-open-source-software-more-secure/2009-11-09
Recent:
Open Source Software: More Reasons It Is More Secure
,----[ Quote ]
| That is why I’m so happy to see a new series of videos on Youtube by
| IngresCorp. These are short clips that deliver easy to understand messages.
`----
http://linux.sys-con.com/node/1072801##
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkr8LegACgkQU4xAY3RXLo603QCfU1qVOfr7C9TiIUA3HyvK3uO8
UKQAoKKedp5lq9fuR6r7gQOaiCKeoFWo
=14TR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mr. Majestic
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> DoD: Open-source software more secure
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Daniel Risacher, Associate Director of
> | Enterprise Services and Integration at the
> | DoD's Office of the Chief Information Officer,
> | helped write a memo requiring all DoD agencies
> | to evaluate open-source software on an equal
> | basis with proprietary software. The reason is
> | simple, according to Risacher: Software that
> | goes through a process of peer review tends to
> | be more reliable and secure than software that
> | has not had the same level of scrutiny.
> `----
>
> http://www.fiercegovernmentit.com/story/dod-open-source-software-more-secure/2009-11-09
>
>
No open source software is going to make it into the DoD or other such
military networks, unless it's supported by a contracting firm or vendor
that implements the solution, which must be a specialized solution that
meets a specific need.
http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=5290
High Plains Thumper
Doing a quick Google, I gather that does not inhibit its commercial
variant, StarOffice:
[quote]
9. Q: What are the differences between StarOffice 9 Software and the
OpenOffice.org 3.0?
A: At the core binary level there are no differences. StarOffice 9
Software is Sun's professional distribution of OOo and comes with:
* Extensions and mail/calendar functionality comes with StarOffice
Software, with OpenOffice.org you have to download each extension
separately.
* Sun warranty and indemnification.
* Hot fixes, patches and updates (OOo is full installation).
* Committed timelines.
* 3 free warranty support calls (in retail).
* Customization, if business opportunity is big enough.
[/quote]
http://www.staroffice.org/faq.html
StarOffice is already available under a Department of Defense contract:
[quote]
Enterprise Application Integration
Sun Software
Sun Products – Provides Sun Java Enterprise System (JES) and Sun
StarOffice. Sun JES products supply integration and service-oriented
architecture (SOA) software including: JES Identity Management Suite;
JES Communications Suite; JES Availability Suite; and JES Web
Infrastructure Suite. Sun StarOffice supplies a full-featured office
productivity suite.
Contractors:
Commercial Data Systems, Inc. (N00104-08-A-ZF38); Small Business;
(619) 569-9373
Dynamic Systems, Inc. (N00104-08-A-ZF40); Small Business;
(801) 444-0008
World Wide Technology, Inc. (N00104-08-A-ZF39); Small Business;
(314) 919-1513
Ordering Expires: 24 Sep 12
Web Link:
http://www.it-umbrella.navy.mil/contract/enterprise/application_integration/sun/index.shtml
[/quote]
http://www.chips.navy.mil/archives/09_Oct/PDF/contracts.pdf
StarOffice license is $29.
http://www.cdwg.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=1765757
Corresponding Microsoft Select license off an Air Force GSA contract is
$122.
http://www.cdwg.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=1580513
With StarOffice 1/4 the cost, there would be considerable savings to the
tax payer.
--
HPT
Ezekiel
"High Plains Thumper" <highplai...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:hdihsj$29r$1...@news.albasani.net...
> Mr. Majestic wrote:
>
> StarOffice license is $29.
>
> http://www.cdwg.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=1765757
>
> Corresponding Microsoft Select license off an Air Force GSA contract is
> $122.
>
> http://www.cdwg.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=1580513
>
> With StarOffice 1/4 the cost, there would be considerable savings to the
> tax payer.
Yeah... and if the government bought Cessna's instead of stealth bombers
there would be a considerable cost savings to the tax payer.
Snit
8:03 PM:
LOL!
Seriously, why doesn�t HPT even consider quality.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
John Fuhrer
Because he can't afford it.
One thing life has taught me is that the people who criticize items like
BMW, Porsche, Corvette etc are generally those that can't afford them.
High Plains Thumper
> "High Plains Thumper wrote...
>
>> StarOffice license is $29.
>>
>> http://www.cdwg.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=1765757
>>
>> Corresponding Microsoft Select license off an Air Force GSA
>> contract is $122.
>>
>> http://www.cdwg.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=1580513
>>
>> With StarOffice 1/4 the cost, there would be considerable savings
>> to the tax payer.
>
> Yeah... and if the government bought Cessna's instead of stealth
> bombers there would be a considerable cost savings to the tax payer.
Your point is? Of course, you have no point.
Very few ever have the need to build a 1,024+ column spreadsheet.
StarOffice is a professionally written product and will meet many a need
at a far greater savings.
Besides, everything is headed toward cloud computing. Then one won't
need a thick client with expensive software and applications, only web
browser.
--
HPT
High Plains Thumper
> Snit wrote:
>> Ezekiel stated:
>>> High Plains Thumper wrote...
>>>
>>>> StarOffice license is $29.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cdwg.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=1765757
>>>>
>>>> Corresponding Microsoft Select license off an Air Force GSA
>>>> contract is $122.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cdwg.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=1580513
>>>>
>>>> With StarOffice 1/4 the cost, there would be considerable
>>>> savings to the tax payer.
>>>
>>> Yeah... and if the government bought Cessna's instead of stealth
>>> bombers there would be a considerable cost savings to the tax
>>> payer.
>>
>> LOL! Seriously, why doesn¹t HPT even consider quality.
B2 Bomber is heavy, slow, and very expensive to own and operate, much
like the product Ezekiel is defending. It is also reserved for
special missions, not day-to-day targets, where the need outweighs the
risk.
> Because he can't afford it.
> One thing life has taught me is that the people who criticize items
> like BMW, Porsche, Corvette etc are generally those that can't afford
> them.
Very few Government entities use expensive vehicles to do daily common
tasks. Those purchases are reserved for very specialised needs, like
law enforcement after speeders on open stretches of highway or special
undercover operations, and are purchased in much fewer quantities.
StarOffice would suite the majority of needs without reservation.
--
HPT
40- hophead: "I have been reading and occasionally posting to CSMA for
a long time now, since 1995 at least. There have always been trolls
and morons, but I've never seen anything quite so disruptive as the
Snit circus. Snit will *never* back down or stop, and neither will
most of his opponents. A good kill file is your only hope." 20 Aug
2009 http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3161a78667e299eb
Snit
11/12/09 8:16 PM:
Or those that cannot recognize quality.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
fa3ba3a7-81fe-4ede...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com on
11/12/09 9:04 PM:
> John Fuhrer wrote:
>> Snit wrote:
>>> Ezekiel stated:
>>>> High Plains Thumper wrote...
>>>>
>>>>> StarOffice license is $29.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cdwg.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=1765757
>>>>>
>>>>> Corresponding Microsoft Select license off an Air Force GSA
>>>>> contract is $122.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cdwg.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=1580513
>>>>>
>>>>> With StarOffice 1/4 the cost, there would be considerable
>>>>> savings to the tax payer.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah... and if the government bought Cessna's instead of stealth bombers
>>>> there would be a considerable cost savings to the tax payer.
>>>>
>>> LOL! Seriously, why doesn�t HPT even consider quality.
>>>
> B2 Bomber is heavy, slow, and very expensive to own and operate, much like the
> product Ezekiel is defending. It is also reserved for special missions, not
> day-to-day targets, where the need outweighs the risk.
>
How far are you going to go out of your way to miss the point? Just
curious.
>> Because he can't afford it. One thing life has taught me is that the people
>> who criticize items like BMW, Porsche, Corvette etc are generally those that
>> can't afford them.
>>
> Very few Government entities use expensive vehicles to do daily common tasks.
> Those purchases are reserved for very specialised needs, like law enforcement
> after speeders on open stretches of highway or special undercover operations,
> and are purchased in much fewer quantities.
>
> StarOffice would suite the majority of needs without reservation.
At least you do not try to compare StarOffice with the expensive, higher
quality cars.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Ezekiel
"High Plains Thumper" <h...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:hdijo4$35g$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Ezekiel wrote:
>> "High Plains Thumper wrote...
>>
>
> need a thick client with expensive software and applications, only web
> browser.
Right. Because now that PC's are more powerful than ever and less expensive
than ever people around the world will want to dump personal computers and
do all their processing with what is effectively a terminal. I know that
when I want to edit some video or audio the first thing that I want to do
is to upload all the files and edit huge images online via my web browser.
The catchy new slogan of this new exciting technology can be - "The network
is the computer."
John Fuhrer
Most people can recognize quality when exposed to it.
John Fuhrer
> John Fuhrer wrote:
>> Snit wrote:
>>> Ezekiel stated:
>>>> High Plains Thumper wrote...
>>>>
>>>>> StarOffice license is $29.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cdwg.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=1765757
>>>>>
>>>>> Corresponding Microsoft Select license off an Air Force GSA
>>>>> contract is $122.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cdwg.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=1580513
>>>>>
>>>>> With StarOffice 1/4 the cost, there would be considerable
>>>>> savings to the tax payer.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah... and if the government bought Cessna's instead of stealth
>>>> bombers there would be a considerable cost savings to the tax
>>>> payer.
>>>
>>> LOL! Seriously, why doesn�t HPT even consider quality.
>
> B2 Bomber is heavy, slow, and very expensive to own and operate, much
> like the product Ezekiel is defending. It is also reserved for
> special missions, not day-to-day targets, where the need outweighs the
> risk.
You make a point, but let's put it this way.
The objective is to win the war, not take out certain targetsetc but an
overall "win the war".
You are given 2 choices.
A Cessna or a Stealth.
Which would *you* pick?
Look, I'd love to see the govt save our tax dollars and if StarOffice or
whatever can do it, I'm all for it.
Seriously.
JEDIDIAH
>
>
>
> "High Plains Thumper" <h...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:hdijo4$35g$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Ezekiel wrote:
>>> "High Plains Thumper wrote...
>>>
>>
>> Besides, everything is headed toward cloud computing. Then one won't
>> need a thick client with expensive software and applications, only web
>> browser.
>
> Right. Because now that PC's are more powerful than ever and less expensive
> than ever people around the world will want to dump personal computers and
> do all their processing with what is effectively a terminal. I know that
...well. Consumers made MS-DOS king when there were multiple better and
cheaper alternatives. So you can't always count on the common n00b to do
the sensible thing.
[deletia]
--
Metallica is not worth the ruination of someone |||
who has pirated their music / | \
Chris Ahlstrom
> On 2009-11-13, Ezekiel <ze...@nosuchdomain.com> wrote:
>>
>> "High Plains Thumper" <h...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:hdijo4$35g$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Ezekiel wrote:
>>>> "High Plains Thumper wrote...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Besides, everything is headed toward cloud computing. Then one won't
>>> need a thick client with expensive software and applications, only web
>>> browser.
>>
>> Right. Because now that PC's are more powerful than ever and less expensive
>> than ever people around the world will want to dump personal computers and
>> do all their processing with what is effectively a terminal. I know that
>
> ...well. Consumers made MS-DOS king when there were multiple better and
> cheaper alternatives. So you can't always count on the common n00b to do
> the sensible thing.
It is a bit weird. I thought a minimal RAM, minimal disk drive netbook
would be highly desirable, but now there are 1 Gb/160 Gb hard-drive
netbooks.
Microsoft co-opting a market, or real consumer choice?
Let's play along, and assume the latter.
This would indicate that people still want a kind of desktop on the run.
And yet, I rarely see those devices out in public; rather, I see either
notebook computers or phone-computers (and much more of the latter).
In private (at people's homes), it seems like notebooks are more the norm.
I'm not sure you can pigeon-hole the markets just yet.
--
You will be run over by a beer truck.
DFS
> ...well. Consumers made MS-DOS king when there were multiple better
> and cheaper alternatives.
uh huh... and all along there were 8 angry *nix-heads who knew about
computers - the rest of the billion users were clueless.
> So you can't always count on the common
> n00b to do the sensible thing.
You mean "sensible" like you - who claims he would turn down a $100,000
Corvette?
I think I'll stick with my 'noob' sensibilities.
John Fuhrer
> JEDIDIAH pulled this Usenet boner:
> It is a bit weird. I thought a minimal RAM, minimal disk drive netbook
> would be highly desirable, but now there are 1 Gb/160 Gb hard-drive
> netbooks.
Technology moves on Jeb...
At some point Jeb, you are going to have to realize that 640k and a green
screen hooked to a Hercules Graphics Card isn't going to cut it anymore.
chrisv
> trolling fsckwit wrote:
>>
>> "High Plains Thumper" wrote:
>>>
>>> Besides, everything is headed toward cloud computing. Then one won't
>>> need a thick client with expensive software and applications, only web
>>> browser.
>>
>> Right. Because now that PC's are more powerful than ever and less expensive
>> than ever people around the world will want to dump personal computers and
>> do all their processing with what is effectively a terminal. I know that
>
>...well. Consumers made MS-DOS king when there were multiple better and
>cheaper alternatives. So you can't always count on the common n00b to do
>the sensible thing.
Hell, even DRDOS made little headway against the market power and FUD
of the Microshaft Corp, despite being clearly superior *and*
completely compatible with all the software!
John Fuhrer
> Hell, even DRDOS made little headway against the market power and FUD
> of the Microshaft Corp, despite being clearly superior *and*
> completely compatible with all the software!
DrDOS was clearly superior to MSDOS or PCDOS (IBM's version).
They were always one step ahead of Microsoft.
As for compatible, it was once DRDOS implemented code to bypass the version
checking routines used in some programs when they tried to install.
Great product DrDOS.
Ezekiel
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:nl3rf5hj9kbr2nvgp...@4ax.com...
Sounds like chrissy is about to pull a Rick - "It's completely compatible"
but that doesn't mean that it's 100% compatible.
JEDIDIAH
>
>
>
> "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:nl3rf5hj9kbr2nvgp...@4ax.com...
>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>> trolling fsckwit wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "High Plains Thumper" wrote:
>> Hell, even DRDOS made little headway against the market power and FUD
>> of the Microshaft Corp, despite being clearly superior *and*
>> completely compatible with all the software!
>
>
> Sounds like chrissy is about to pull a Rick - "It's completely compatible"
> but that doesn't mean that it's 100% compatible.
...got an actual example?
Being 100% compatible with MS-DOS is a pretty low bar.
--
Linux: Because I don't want to push pretty buttons. |||
I want the pretty buttons to push themelves. / | \
Ezekiel
"JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:slrnhfrb3...@nomad.mishnet...
> On 2009-11-13, Ezekiel <not-...@the-zeke.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:nl3rf5hj9kbr2nvgp...@4ax.com...
>>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>
>>>> trolling fsckwit wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "High Plains Thumper" wrote:
> [deletia]
>>> Hell, even DRDOS made little headway against the market power and FUD
>>> of the Microshaft Corp, despite being clearly superior *and*
>>> completely compatible with all the software!
>>
>>
>> Sounds like chrissy is about to pull a Rick - "It's completely
>> compatible"
>> but that doesn't mean that it's 100% compatible.
>
> ...got an actual example?
See the recent OpenOffice compatibility fiasco thread... Rick claims that
just because someone claims that "fully compatible" and "100% compatible"
are not the same thing. Using his "advocate" definition of what "fully
compatible" is - that leaves plenty of room for DR-DOS to be "fully
compatible" no matter how many actual incompatibilities exist.
> Being 100% compatible with MS-DOS is a pretty low bar.
The DOS api's were very limited and relatively simple to implement.
chrisv
> trolling fsckwit wrote:
>>
>> "chrisv" wrote:
>>>
>>> Hell, even DRDOS made little headway against the market power and FUD
>>> of the Microshaft Corp, despite being clearly superior *and*
>>> completely compatible with all the software!
>>
>> Sounds like chrissy is about to pull a Rick - "It's completely compatible"
>> but that doesn't mean that it's 100% compatible.
Sounds like the trolling fsckwit is pulling an "Ezekiel" - ignoring a
clear and correct point due to some possible "imperfection".
>...got an actual example?
>
>Being 100% compatible with MS-DOS is a pretty low bar.
Nah. He'd rather FUD.
"Everyone should buy the genuine Micro$oft product, just in case."
Right, "Hadron"?
The funny thing is, the next day they might say something like "Linux
has small market share because there's too much choice."
Fscking idiots.