CNet has a good article on some of the issues behind recent developments with Microsoft, Open Source and the US Government. Read between the lines, and it's clear that Microsoft is actively lobbying behind closed doors to stop supporting it's most virulent competitor - Linux.
The article fairly points out that there are some significant reasons why the US Federal Government in general (and the NSA in particular) shouldn't be developing products like SELinux. First, the government cannot endorse a vendor or a commercial technology. Second, there is a long standing tradition that the government's role in technology is to fund expensive, speculative and long-term research projects; it is then up to US companies to take that basic research and turn it into a commercial product (cf UNIVAC, and so on). Third, by funding SELinux, the NSA was put in the precarious position of competing with Microsoft, a corporation that ostensibly has a net positive effect on the US economy. Fourth, because SELinux is GPL'd, its benefits are not limited to US citizens and corporations, but are free for anyone in the world to use (including foreign companies that compete with domestic ones).
The good news is that development of SELinux is moving to the Cyberspace Policy Institute at GWU, so that SELinux can eventually gain some security certification. This way, everyone wins: the government can adhere to its own rules and guidelines, the NSA can continue to do some research, and SELinux can become a secure OS suitable for government installations.
So they should support Microsoft instead? What kind of twisted logic is that?First, the government cannot endorse a vendor or a commercial technology.
Re:Competing with Microsoft
ziggy on 2002-08-17T22:03:02
No, they shouldn't and don't support Microsoft. You'll never find an ad that says "The US Department of Energy runs on SQL Server", or "The State Department trusts its websites to IIS".So they should support Microsoft instead? What kind of twisted logic is that?The government, like any business, needs software to complete its job. It also has a vested interest in supporting American business (companies like Oracle, Microsoft, Sun, Palm, Sleepycat, RedHat and Zope Corp.).
Supporting Microsoft in terms of buying its products is a different story, one that it tightly linked to its monopoly on desktop software. The sad fact is that there is no legitimate alternative for a general purpose desktop that doesn't include Microsoft software. In that respect, the US Government doesn't really have a choice in the matter, a position most companies find themselves in today.
Re:Competing with Microsoft
chromatic on 2002-08-18T00:05:34
The sad fact is that there is no legitimate alternative for a general purpose desktop that doesn't include Microsoft software.Given the amount of money governments spend on software and given the U. S. government's (sometimes precarious) position as defender of healthy capitalism, I'd like to see an effort to sponsor legitimate alternatives. That, to me, is a choice the government ought to consider.
Re:Competing with Microsoft
ziggy on 2002-08-18T03:39:08
Yep. That's among the many roles of the federal government. That's one reason to support adoption of open source software at all levels of government. It's certainly not an excuse to mandate open source to the exclusion of more suitable proprietary software.[...] I'd like to see an effort to sponsor legitimate alternatives.Re:Competing with Microsoft
pudge on 2002-08-21T21:34:18
That's among the many roles of the federal government.
It is? Where is this role mentioned in the Constitution?
