DoD Wary of That "Open" Word 165
joabj writes, "Why is the U.S. Defense Department still reluctant to use open source software, despite assurances from within the DoD itself? Blogging for Government Computer News, I found at a recent D.C. conference that to some extent the roadblock might be with that word 'open'."
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
If we apply the same standards to Opensource, we can look at established projects like Apache, Mysql or even Openoffice and they are still safe because others are successfully using the software, it is not really a matter of a central point for support. For a manager to okay a more obscure project for implementation means taking on a much greater and unknown responsibility.
They'll change their mind (Score:4, Informative)
Global corporations are just that, they don't owe loyality to any nation or any nation's war machine. The Americans will probably learn this (as they learn everything) the hard way.
In a similar vein, I would believe that all the ultra-high tech weapons that the Americans have sold to their more dubious allies do actually have back-doors that allow the Americans to disable these weapons should they be used against Americans by a country that has had a revolution. This was the lesson of Iran in the late 1970's. Hopefully it will be learned before all the high-tech weapons sold/given to Egypt over the past thirty years are used against the Americans and Israelis after the fall of Murabak's regime and the assendency of an Egyptian Islamic Republic.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If "partners" are getting the MS source, they can look at it for attack-vectors and re-compile it themselves. What then is the difference between Microsoft and Open Source? Only a few hundred thousand dollars.
-J
Re: (Score:2)
Treason (Score:2)
Since when is suggesting that Microsoft's trying to achieve world domination through doomsday logic and backdoors in Windows "insightful"? I would've picked "flamebait."
Or "redundant." ^.^
Good question (Score:4, Insightful)
Battles are not won or lost by whoever has the best terms and conditions from the manufacturer. If you're losing, you won't be around to complain, and if you're winning, you generally won't care.
Every time a major power (such as the US) has paid more attention to giving kickbacks to corporate sponsors than it has to producing successful products or successful missions, that power has had its arse well and truly kicked. Sometimes the power wins anyway, but it is not because of its unimaginative and self-serving attitude, it is despite it. It's not very hard to win when you have total land, sea and air supremecy, and can do round-the-clock carpet-bombing campaigns. (But even then, failure of imagination is lethal. Operation Market Garden got slaughtered because of such egotism.)
Personally, I dislike military structures. I find the notion of winning an argument by having the winner define what the argument was to be primitive and tribal. However, if we're going to have such organizations, we might as well make sure they're functional and concious, rather than degenerately repeating every mistake history has ever recorded.
The first firearm sniper. (Score:2, Informative)
From Wikipedia:Sniper [wikipedia.org]:
Re: (Score:2)
How about we call it "highly available source"? They like high availability don't they?
I'm actually more serious than kidding...
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how history would have changed if the Trojan Hourse had been covered in gl
not completely true (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
C-Span (Score:5, Interesting)
He specifically refered to making it an 'open source' setup if we were to mandate specific equipment to avoid vendor lockin.
While I don't follow the open source movement too closely, it's a major reference, from where I see it.
Tech or Politics? (Score:2)
I found this section of TFA thought-provoking: "In the military, leaving tasks unfinished until some indeterminate time in the future is simply not acceptable, especially in cases where life--and accountability--is at stake."
This is in response to Behlendorf's description of FOSS development as organic, relatively unplanned. It frequently doesn't include deadlines, guaranteed results, even release dates.
This takes the focus away from results and puts it back on method. If you use the most efficient develo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd expect you might find that you'd get the same thing that happens in software: most of the time, it's not the best product that "wins", it's the one that's fastest to market and fastest with new features, even crappy, bug-ridden features. If you have a really
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Especially in the military, would you want hurriedly built planes falling apart over enemy territory?
Re:Tech or Politics? (Score:4, Interesting)
Especially in the military, would you want hurriedly built planes falling apart over enemy territory?
I'd want a program (milspeak for "project") that knows how to limit it's objectives, yet also creates a platform for growth and enhancement.
Thus, if we're on a tight timeline, we'd need a quickly-built airframe that at first is limited (cheap already-existing engines, older model avionics and missiles, etc), but allows easy upgrade to newer faster engines, canards, more capable avionics, misiles and strike capabilities, etc.
Re:Tech or Politics? (Score:5, Interesting)
While this is frequently the case, it isn't necessarily the case.
Far too many people think that FOSS is just something you download off the web. Something that someone else creates, but which you, as the customer, have no control over. That choosing an Open Source product is like going to the grocery store, and that you only get to pick whatever products are being offered, and that you otherwise have no say in their design.
However, this isn't necessarily the case. I've spoken to a number of groups on this subject at length, and what a lot of people don't realize is that you can continue to use your existing sources of software, but that you simply have to demand that the developer provide it to you under an Open Source license. That's it. You can still contract out the development work to the companies you're using for custom development. You can still buy from your approved vendors list. The license that the software is provided under is a contractual issue, and thus is something that can be negotiated.
Yes, the vendor may want more money in order to provide their software as OSS. However, if you're a really large corporation or organization (like the US DoD), in generally you'll be able to specify these requirements. Either your vendors meet them, or they don't (in which case you take your business elsewhere). Same as any other requirement specified in the tendering process.
FOSS doesn't have to mean "downloaded from some guys website". For a big organization like the US DoD, this probably isn't terribly desirable (unless the software does exactly what you want, and you can either form a business relationship with the developer, do continued development in-house, or are willing to contract out feature additions and bug fixes to a third party -- this is, after all, the biggest strength of FOSS).
(I wonder what would happen if a really big organization like the US DoD went to Microsoft when it comes time to renew their bulk licensing contract and specified that the software must be licensed as OSS, and in return offered them twice the amount of the previous contract. What would win out? Greed and good business sense, or jealous protection of the code and the loss of a major customer?)
Yaz.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tech or Politics? (Score:4, Informative)
Shared Source != Open Source.
Open Source is about more than just being able to look at and build the source code. It's about the freedom to redistribute the software with your changes at will. It's about being able to hire on whatever development company you desire to enhance and improve the software.
Shared Source is mostly just a rouse to appear open, to try to stave off a migration to more truly open options. Shared Source doesn't really give you much in the way of additional freedoms -- Open Source does (and by Open Source, I am specifically referring to software that is licensed in such a way that it conforms to the Open Source Definition [opensource.org]).
Yaz.
Re:Tech or Politics? (Score:4, Funny)
What would happen is that MS would quickly get on the phone with their lobbyists and start persuading their captive congressmen to start leaning on the DoD to withdraw the FOSS requirement of the contract, but to keep the price at the same amount.
Re:Those are good points, buttttttt.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fair enough in this specific case I suppose -- however, my comments apply to any organization, particularly any large organization (as they have more money, and thus more leverage).
By way of an example, back in 2005 I attended a Health Informatics conference in Toronto, where a colleague of mine asked a panel of self-described "doers" whether or not they had considered Open Source software. I blogged about it here [mac.com]. In essence, they too were treating Open Source software as if it were a product that sat on the shelf, and not as something that you, as a customer, can demand. It is interesting to note that they discussed all sorts of development and partnership problems that OSS could solve for them, however collectively their attitude was pretty much to look for an existing OSS solution to their problems, and when they didn't find one, go to a commercial developer and use whatever license that developer dictated to them.
This is where organizations are going wrong with OSS. There is nothing wrong with using a commercial developer -- just mandate that the development they do for you is licensed under an OSS license. Canada Health Infoway claimed at the time they had $1.8 billion to spend in the field.
And maybe it's just me, but the customer with $1.8 billion should be the one calling the shots. The problem isn't that they lacked the clout -- only that they lacked the knowledge to know what to ask for. They are at the whim of the development companies they contract out (which has bit these people on the butt before -- there have been a number of cases in this field where organizations have spent millions of dollars and spent years having a custom solution developed, only to find that it no longer suits their current needs (which have changed since development began), and/or won't run on their current deployment environment anymore, necessitating scrapping it and starting all over again).
Yaz.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't anyone think that the American Architects Association might have some pull with respect to the license terms for something like autocad? Or for funding a competitor with better terms?
all the best,
drew
http://www.nanowrimo.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.p hp?topic_id=33654&forum=157 [nanowrimo.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You are assuming that the AAA would find it in its best interest to have a low cost AutoCAD clone runnign around. First of all, lowering the cost of tools lowers the barriers to entry for new firms. Existing firms might not like that. Next, you're assuming that the tool is a significant cost for their members, worth
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you have assumed that for something to be Open Source Software, it must be made available for free to everyone.
This is not the case. If a large organization decides that as part of their purchasing contract specify that all software provided to them be under an Open Source license, this does not require the software developer to make it freely available to anyone and everyone who comes
Re: (Score:2)
That will never happen.
The DoD already specifies that
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Where "Open Source" is really competing is in vertical, single-source support and in that department, it usually doesn't have an advantage. It's not that government is averse to using the stuff, it's just that they don't want to end up with something like the VA and VISTA where they have hundreds of full-time developers devoted to keeping it alive. They'd prefer to sign a vendor on to provide it as a service so they can get on with fulfilling their mission, not pretending to be a software development company.
The benefit of open source is that you "own" the code in the sense of having unfettered access to it and can continue developing it even if the original owner ceases to exist. However, owning the responsibility of perpetual development is precisely what government agencies DON'T WANT -- and, frankly, for good reason. They're not software companies and they're very bad at pretending to be so (take a look at the FBI case management system, for instance). When people make the case for open source on those grounds, you've just presented them with the worst nightmare imaginable, so don't be surprised if they scream and run away.
Re: (Score:2)
How about closed source? Take the VISTA situation, for instance. If the source code was closed and the company lost interest or went out of business. It would be s
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
So, pretend you're a department manager with a million bucks to spend on some piece of software and your vendor just ceased to exist. Your existing application is ten years old and full of bugs. Do you spend your million bucks paying the salaries of ten developers to potentially get you to square one after a year or do you spend a half million bucks on licenses and support for a new package and still keep five in-house developers on to work on the transition?
Most people choose option number two. That's just the reality on the ground, so if you're going to make the open source case, frame it in that context. Don't put all your money on "hey! you've got the code!" -- because that's the least of the worries.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahmen Brother, their worries should be about whether the new rapists will be able to migrate the data on the old rapist's system to satisfy 30 year documentation retention requirements from the FDA! Imagine having to recall all implanted medical systems with a particular lot number and discover that you have to hand audit 50,000 paper medical records because inventory and patent data didn't transfer properly t
Use "Free" Software as in Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Naw... Then it sounds cheap. I say we actually start calling it "Freedom Software," rather than constantly having to explain that Free doesn't mean cheap because it means Freedom.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
People will then assume that "Freedom Software" is a euphemism for "French Software".
"Free Software" intentionally invokes Cold War (Score:4, Informative)
The term "free" is an intentional echo of cold war terminology and works for military types. Freedom is what they are all about and they are never supposed to obey an unlawful order. The American ideology of the Cold war carried over from the defeat of the German dictatorship and Japanese Empire but was firmly rooted in American history, writing and law. The core of that ideology is that free, moral people working in honest cooperation and competition are happier and more prosperous than people toiling under centralized dictatorships. Interesting expressions of these ideas can be found in the writing of Robert A. Heinlein, especially Starship Trooper [wikipedia.org], which is recommended reading in the US Marine Corps. Free software is an honest effort to make things work, guided by a free meritocracy. It works and has become best of class because people agree not to screw each other over, standards to modularize their work make it so things are interchangeable and the fittest work survives.
Officers with higher degrees will instantly appreciate the peer review nature of free software. People who have published scientific articles understand first hand the practical requirements of repeatability too. To them, if you can't repeat it yourself you have to take it on faith and no military person wants faith in anything but the almighty when they can have proof instead.
The non free people tried to call free software, "software communism" but failed and may have it thrown back in their face. Any military person will tell you that Communist contries are really nasty little fiefdoms, where who you know is more important than what you know and the top guy is in absolute lawless control of everything until murdered. This more resembles the distrustful, back stabbing and intentionally wasteful world of non free software in methodology and results.
I'll quote the gnu.org sites, see what you think:
All four practices resemble those used in the former Soviet Union, where every copying machine had a guard to prevent forbidden copying, and where individuals had to copy information secretly and pass it from hand to hand as ``samizdat''. There is of course a difference: the motive for information control in the Soviet Union was political; in the US the motive is profit. But it is the actions that affect us, not the motive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
With the added benefit that you could say "Are you sure you want to use Windows for that project ? I think we should use Real Software".
Thats funny (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
So what (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
All things considered... (Score:2, Funny)
Appearance is everything (Score:4, Interesting)
I dunno (Score:2)
Just need some thinking out of the old helmet. It could work.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The Puppy [theaerodrome.com]
KFG
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
We had one called the Buffalo once...and that was pretty descriptive of its flight characteristics.
rj
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to name an aircraft after a dog, make sure it's one that drops bombs.
B-2b Puppy
B-52H Rottwieler
Re: (Score:2)
And that my friends.... (Score:5, Insightful)
NMCI (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Before software goes onto NMCI it has to be certified. The certification process is obscure and not well documented, so the people doing the certification clean up--it takes around $30K of contractor work to get the software certified. It's full employment for DoD contractors who know something about NMCI certification.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, in a sane system you would ask "Show me the documentation that is the basis for Microsoft SQL Server's approval, and we'll provide equal documentation." The reason it probably does not work is that the documentation involves
Re: (Score:2)
a trivial response and lazy.
if you do not understand your own procurement system you are not ready to compete with Microsoft Federal Systems
---which does nothing on its own, but partners with the big boys on projects like the Reagan. Microsoft Appoints Federal Business [crn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What is even more ridiculus is that users had to sign a form saying you would not install any software not on the list - yes, the list you cannot see without significant fortitude in dealing with out-of-control, out-of-touch bureaucracy!
The list is a joke, however. For example most software is approved only at some earlier rel
Re: (Score:2)
I know it may sound odd but just to get access to the list of software that is "approved" is a lesson in bureaucratic absurdity; forget actually submitting something to get "approved".
Having gone through the approval process (DoD but not NMCI) to have several programs my company created I feel your pain. Conflicting requirements, forms that even the approving authority weren't sure how to fill out, changing program managers mid stream so you had to renegotiate any exceptions previously agreed upon were onl
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, NMCI is Microsoft all the way or it is the highway. It is ironic that an organization that is suppose to protect a market driven economy, freedom and apple pie has taken a centralized (communist) one-size-fits-all anti-competitive monoculture approach to handling its IT.
Not only that the framers of the NMCI contract were apparently unable to distinguish between the needs of word processing secaterial pools, powerpoint obsessed managers, and cutting edge research and development engin
Why don't the change the name from "Open Source" (Score:2)
What is really missing: (Score:2)
They Can Still Be Grateful.... (Score:2)
"Freedom Sauce"... (Score:3, Funny)
would be my suggestion for a DoD-friendly monicker.
Also, I recall whenever I install Oracle (closed source) I have to click an agreement that I will not use the software in the design or production of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. I've never encountered such a clause when using open source software, so maybe this might be something that would appeal to the DoD, who I presume would rather not be tracked down by one of Larry Ellison's hit squads.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly open-source (according to most), but the Sun licence contains the following clause:
Re: (Score:2)
A handful of reasons (Score:5, Informative)
2) Specs. Usually, the system is being developed is meant to replace another system that is in-place. The only things to be changed are what are specced out. This doesn't prevent things from being entirely rewritten, but it usually stays on an existing DoD platform.
3) Speaking of platforms, check out the existing specced out platforms. Lots of people go with DIICOE, or GCCS for various reasons. Some might include a desire to get something included as a DIICOE segment, which is profitable, or GCCS, because it's ubiquitous.
4) STIGs. If there isn't a STIG written for it, you're going to have a harder time getting approval to operate it on a classified network. Even if all of your major apps are covered, you'll have to get extensions regarding applications that are not covered. Extensions are not intended to be waivers... so, you're only supposed to get an extension if you intend to replace it. It is hard to justify an extension for new software. Why not just write it in a compliant fashion? Because the security audit will be more of a PITA, they avoid any step into the unknown. Some of this is just inertia.
5) Security through obscurity. It sounds asinine, but the DoD doesn't rely on security through obscurity.... they rely on anything that is considered a good practice, obscurity is just one of those many practices. It's not that they are using telnet or anything silly like that. It's just that they want as many layers as possible.
6) Common open source is embraced. Everyone runs Apache. It's as ubiquitous as IIS. It's the things that are considered more "out there" that aren't.
All of that aside, there have been open source initiatives, but contractors have been reluctant to bite. Reasons vary, but this is the essential dynamic. The DoD retains the rights to most of the source code for projects that they fund, so, they already have the source code... they give it to anybody that they please, including the next contractor to work on the project. Contractors don't want to share source with each other for competitive reasons. Since they're all bidding to produce identical products, giving other contractors the ability to develop experience with a product can only hurt their business, this experience is their primary bargaining chip when bidding (that and the ability to undercut their competitors, or qualify for special considerations, such as being a small business).
Then there is the concern of enabling foreign interests to develop commensurate technologies. Nobody wants to share code to decode IFF signals, or to build similar systems. Thinking that the government would publish code to do these things is just asinine.
You always have your crumudgeons who also will just resist open source... which is the same even outside of DoD interests, but the DoD comes with a host of other concerns. All of these in mind, I'm not sure that the DoD is necessarily stilted against open source. Some sectors of the DoD have embraced it quite readily... these are just the faster-moving sectors who adopt technologies more readily. The DoD is a very large entity, and, as such, slow adoption, when combined with very well established platforms results in this exact behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
dod (Score:2)
entity that only holds one opinion about anything.
Open source renamed for DoD (Score:2)
I'm not unhappy with that (Score:3, Insightful)
But nevertheless, if the military would rather not use any of my "open" code, it makes me feel better, even if it is not rational.
Re: (Score:2)
Not the only reason, but a possible one. (Score:2, Informative)
The idea is that, eventually Guido is going to want you to repay the favor. The Army can't get something for free because, later on, it might be seen as biased.
Also, they want to be seen as supporting American buisnesses. When you use open-source, and get it for free, it is almost like you are taking it away from the economy.
Now, I don't dispute that there
hire people to code open source apps (Score:2)
Then they will be:
* paying for the "favor"
* supporting businesses (by hiring people)
* helping businesses (by creating useful software)
What the DoD objects to (Score:2, Insightful)
Good lord, I actually have something to contribute!
In a nutshell, the DoD *really* doesn't like that they don't know who wrote the software, and they also don't like the lack of a central point of contact. They'd rather hire, say, $defense_contractor to write a similar piece of software, because they get a couple of reassuring beliefs (we will not attempt to discuss the VALIDITY of these beliefs, please):
1) that $defense_contractor is using properly trained, vetted programm
who wrote the software .. (Score:2)
To find out who wrote the software, just read the license agreement
Novell Software License Agreement [novell.com]
Red Hat Agreements [redhat.com]
Cleversafe Commercial License [cleversafe.com]
Digium End-User License Agreement [digium.com]
"CCEVS evaluation is really REALLY expensive and takes frickin' forever. Now, this is no barrier to Microsoft, which has had enough money and time to get Windows
No problem! (Score:2, Funny)
Just do a cut and paste and replace "open" with "Dark Top Eagle Hammerfist YMCA Shiny Leather" and you'll see military types lining up around the block for the stuff.
Time to rebrand then. (Score:2)
The choice shouldn't be difficult (Score:2)
Just use a different word (Score:2)
administrative talent perhaps (Score:2)
"Blogging for Government Computer News"? (Score:2)
Nevermind the incorrect capitalization, but does that even mean anything? Yes, this is offtopic, yes this is nitpicking, but seriously: Does that really mean any more than "Smurfing for government computer wews"? Personally I think "grofling for news" sounds cooler, not to mention it's one step ahead of being branded "hip" in that negative way.
Anyway, I stopped reading right there. So the comments here may be gibberish and all non-sense, but can't we at least expect the summaries to be in semi-proper en
Re:I see their point (Score:4, Insightful)
How many are pissed that they were fired or laid off?
You have to look at security as a cost v. reward thing. It may be very expensive to obtain and reverse engineer a binary program which is used as part of a security system. But if it uses "Security through obscurity", you only have to do it once. If you use a real security system, it has to be cracked every time the keys change.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Security through obscurity" isn't a bad thing. If you can manage to keep tight control over who has access to the source code, you've eliminated one more security issue. Obviously, the quality of the code is more important. But still."
Only on Slashdot would this be modded as flamebait. Use some logic people! Open source does not necessarely equal more secure. It often can, but it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it's not that "Security through obscurity" is evil, it's that a lot of people who claim "Security through obscurity" are really using obsurity to "secure" shoddy and insecure coding practices. There's been more than once I've been tempted to release a small scratch my own itch project to the community, then thought I'd hold off until I've had a chance to clean-up the code, which never happened. When you know that your wo
Re: (Score:2)
Even if they alter, extend, or otherwise change a piece of GPL software, the source is only open if they're distributing the software. If they're only using it in-house, or only distributing to trusted recipients, then there's no issue. As far as i know, you can't file freedom of information act requests for pieces of software
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? Are you sure about this? Works of the federal government are automatically in the public domain. If they create a work of code, and it is recorded by a federal agency, it is public domain and should be available for request.
Re: (Score:2)
What is a record?
A record is the product(s) of data compilation, such as all books, papers, maps, and photographs, machine readable materials, inclusive of those in electronic form or format, or other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteris- tics, made or received by an agency of the United States Gov
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a "For Official Use Only" category that is unclassified, but only for official government use (in case you couldn't figure that one out). The software written where I work will not be given out to the public because of this status, nor would anyone really have a want for it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually Not (Score:2, Informative)
Microsoft military .. (Score:2)
Most of the worlds governments also have full access to the Windows source code including China [zdnet.com].
"MS has worked quite well for most things that the military has needed in the past. At least it was when I was in"
Sunk by Windows NT [wired.com]
was Re:For one, fear of being too open.
viral fud .. (Score:2)
On the contary Open Source is less 'viral' than many closed source licenses. For instance it prevents SCO suing AutoZone or DaimlerChrysler for producing derivitive works using Linux.
"From firsthand experience I can tel you that it does."
From first hand experience, can you produce any evidence as to this claim. Or did you have to sign a NDA [wikipedia.org] agreement and are sworn to secrecy.
"Also, you have the anti-US, anti-DoD attitude of ma
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if IBM guarantees and puts its mouth on line to support Ubuntu or even Firefox, then we would see a massive increase in usage and adoption.
That is why the military doesn't take suggestions for weapons from anonymous people and instead outsources it to Lockheed or Martin even though