[Info-vax] [OT]: DoD stuff. Was Re: 2013 OpenVMS Boot Camp

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <nospam-ADD2FF.19031216012013 at news.chingola.ch>,
	Paul Sture <nospam at sture.ch> writes:
> In article <alo6m7F5shfU2 at mid.individual.net>,
>  billg999 at cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
> 
>> In article <nospam-280778.17471716012013 at news.chingola.ch>,
>> 	Paul Sture <nospam at sture.ch> writes:
>> > In article <alifpsFsgb3U1 at mid.individual.net>,
>> >  billg999 at cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
> 
> <snip> 
> 
>> >> That would be the responibility of the manufacturing contractor, not
>> >> the DOD.  A deal with Boeing or General Dynamics is not with the
>> >> government.
>> > 
>> > OK, I didn't realise that.
>> 
>> Most people don't.  The government buys very little at this level on its
>> own.  In every case I was involved in they ended out getting mini's or
>> mainframes from a contractor who kept responsibility  for the maintenance.
>> So it would be the contractor on the hook to DEC/Compaq/HP and  not the
>> government at all.  The PC world has changed a lot of that, but not at
>> the real computer level.  PC's are bought from DELL and have the same
>> warranty as everybody else.  Software is bought from MS and has the
>> same warranty (or lack thereof) as everyone else.
> 
> It's been many years but I do recall sales folks giving presentations to 
> the British MoD themselves rather than contractors.

That's true.  But when the RFP's hit the street they usually call for
a complete package and not just a piece of hardware.  And it is usually
a contractor who wins, being in a better position to ofeer everything.
When I was maintaining Primes at West Point we had EMC memory and CDC
disks.  Neither of which could be supported by Prime.  Thus my job.  :-)

>  
>> >> 
>> >> Open Office (MS Office-like)  --  iintersting.  :-)
>> > 
>> > I am surprised they are looking at OpenOffice, 
>> 
>> It probably comes bundled with whichever distribution the contractor is
>> pushing.
> 
> If the proposals were formed when Oracle still had ownership, that would 
> be Oracle.

No, I meant something like Scientific Linux which is a totally packaged
system with applications.  But it looks like they may be moving towards
this Libre Office thing, too.  It's also possible that the term "Open
Office" is being used as a generic term for a free non-MS Office suite
by people who really don't know any better.  :-)

>  
>> >                                                  since everyone else I 
>> > know has moved on to LibreOffice.  
>> 
>> Everyone?  I know of no one who was using OpenOffice (myself at the top
>> of the list) who has changed or even plans to.
> 
> I should have said "every former OpenOffice user I know has moved on to 
> LibreOffice"

I'll look at it, but if the whole reason for this is politics, I'll
probably stay where I am until there is a technical reason why I
need to move.

>  
>> >                                     The main developers of OO had some 
>> > sort of fall out under Oracle's stewardship and at the last look it was 
>> > being transferred to the Apache lot, and progress was slow.
>> 
>> It is already a fully functional product that easily competes with
>> MS Office.  I would need real reasons to change.  Politics don't fall
>> under that category.  If you are going to be affected by politics you
>> might as well get out of the Open Source world.
>> 
>> > 
>> > RE: the current warnings about Java as a browser plugin:
>> 
>> That affects everyone equally.  Homeland Security over here says to
>> just turn java off.  :-)
> 
> Yes I know. :-)
> 
>> > 
>> > IIRC OpenOffice in earlier distributions had Java bundled with it, 
>> > though that got separated out and became a separate download.  Until the 
>> > latest version LibreOffice would scream the first time you ran it unless 
>> > Java was present, nut it worked perfectly fine without Java with the 
>> > exception of the database stuff and perhaps some accessibility stuff.
>> > I just upgraded LibreOffice to the latest version last week and it no 
>> > longer protests about the lack of Java.
>> 
>> Well. considering all the people using PHP I really fail to see the
>> concern over Java security.  That's like buying $1000 locks for the
>> door while leaving the windows wide open.
> 
> I thought that PHP vulnerabilities came from poorly written code rather 
> than PHP itself.  Yes, I know that's debatable if you consider how easy 
> it is to write insecure PHP code :-) 
> 
> PHP CERT advisories in reverse date order are here:
> 
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/betcpvp
> 

I would imagine that many of the security problems with PHP will not get
reported by CERT because they are design features and not bugs.  :-)

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>