[News] Linux Better Choice than Microsoft for Military - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] Linux Better Choice than Microsoft for Military - Linux ; http://www.gcn.com/print/26_16/44607-1.html GCN Home > 07/02/07 issue Order out of chaos Technique | Hill Air Force Base streamlines systems and improves aircraft maintenance By Trudy Walsh /Quote/ The base had been using HP Superdome and Sun servers. “Hill had huge metal,” ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: [News] Linux Better Choice than Microsoft for Military

  1. [News] Linux Better Choice than Microsoft for Military

    http://www.gcn.com/print/26_16/44607-1.html

    GCN Home > 07/02/07 issue
    Order out of chaos
    Technique | Hill Air Force Base streamlines systems and
    improves aircraft maintenance

    By Trudy Walsh

    /Quote/
    The base had been using HP Superdome and Sun servers.
    “Hill had huge metal,” Babb said. “You name it, they
    had it.” And the Windows environment on the base Babb
    described as “unstable.” There had been some data
    attacks and other security concerns.
    /-Quote/

    /Quote/
    By consolidating and standardizing on less expensive
    x86, 64-bit architecture and consolidating on the Red
    Hat Linux platform, the Air Force saved more than $5
    million. To sustain the existing environment would have
    cost Hill $5 million per year. The Linux system cost
    $100,000.
    /-Quote/

    http://www.redhat.com/promo/summit/2...s/hillafb.html

    /Quote/
    4. Please describe your vendor selection process and
    why you chose Red Hat in the end.

    When choosing a vendor for the new system, the IT
    managers at Hill AFB considered both Windows 64-bit and
    Linux. Frustrated with their current Windows
    environment, it became clear to the IT architects that
    Linux was the preferred solution. Because of security
    concerns, Hill needed to run security-enhanced Linux
    that was common-criteria certified. Red Hat Enterprise
    Linux stood out as the only Linux that was able to meet
    security concerns.

    In addition to having enhanced security, Red Hat's
    solutions were much more economical than others. To
    sustain the existing environment and increase
    capability, it would have cost Hill a minimum of $5
    million per year to use Solaris. Red Hat Enterprise
    Linux cost $100,000, just two percent of the cost of
    the old operating system.
    /-Quote/


  2. Re: [News] Linux Better Choice than Microsoft for Military

    On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:20:22 -0500, J(ohn|ane) Doe wrote:

    > http://www.gcn.com/print/26_16/44607-1.html
    >
    > GCN Home > 07/02/07 issue
    > Order out of chaos
    > Technique | Hill Air Force Base streamlines systems and improves
    > aircraft maintenance
    >
    > By Trudy Walsh
    >
    > /Quote/
    > The base had been using HP Superdome and Sun servers. Hill had huge
    > metal, Babb said. You name it, they had it. And the Windows environment
    > on the base Babb described as unstable. There had been some data attacks
    > and other security concerns.
    > /-Quote/
    >
    > /Quote/
    > By consolidating and standardizing on less expensive x86, 64-bit
    > architecture and consolidating on the Red Hat Linux platform, the Air
    > Force saved more than $5 million. To sustain the existing environment
    > would have cost Hill $5 million per year. The Linux system cost
    > $100,000.
    > /-Quote/
    >
    > http://www.redhat.com/promo/summit/2...s/hillafb.html
    >
    > /Quote/
    > 4. Please describe your vendor selection process and why you chose Red
    > Hat in the end.
    >
    > When choosing a vendor for the new system, the IT managers at Hill AFB
    > considered both Windows 64-bit and Linux. Frustrated with their current
    > Windows environment, it became clear to the IT architects that Linux was
    > the preferred solution. Because of security concerns, Hill needed to run
    > security-enhanced Linux that was common-criteria certified. Red Hat
    > Enterprise Linux stood out as the only Linux that was able to meet
    > security concerns.
    >
    > In addition to having enhanced security, Red Hat's solutions were much
    > more economical than others. To sustain the existing environment and
    > increase capability, it would have cost Hill a minimum of $5 million per
    > year to use Solaris. Red Hat Enterprise Linux cost $100,000, just two
    > percent of the cost of the old operating system.
    > /-Quote/


    That's the finish, then.

    Hill AFB are the standard setters for the US military, and publish
    Crosstalk magazine, the software standard as advocates of the Software
    CMM.

    http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/
    http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstal.../11/index.html




  3. Re: [News] Linux Better Choice than Microsoft for Military

    Robin T Cox wrote:
    > On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:20:22 -0500, J(ohn|ane) Doe wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.gcn.com/print/26_16/44607-1.html
    >>
    >> GCN Home > 07/02/07 issue
    >> Order out of chaos
    >> Technique | Hill Air Force Base streamlines systems and improves
    >> aircraft maintenance
    >>
    >> By Trudy Walsh
    >>
    >> /Quote/
    >> The base had been using HP Superdome and Sun servers. Hill had huge
    >> metal, Babb said. You name it, they had it. And the Windows environment
    >> on the base Babb described as unstable. There had been some data attacks
    >> and other security concerns.
    >> /-Quote/
    >>
    >> /Quote/
    >> By consolidating and standardizing on less expensive x86, 64-bit
    >> architecture and consolidating on the Red Hat Linux platform, the Air
    >> Force saved more than $5 million. To sustain the existing environment
    >> would have cost Hill $5 million per year. The Linux system cost
    >> $100,000.
    >> /-Quote/
    >>
    >> http://www.redhat.com/promo/summit/2...s/hillafb.html
    >>
    >> /Quote/
    >> 4. Please describe your vendor selection process and why you chose Red
    >> Hat in the end.
    >>
    >> When choosing a vendor for the new system, the IT managers at Hill AFB
    >> considered both Windows 64-bit and Linux. Frustrated with their current
    >> Windows environment, it became clear to the IT architects that Linux was
    >> the preferred solution. Because of security concerns, Hill needed to run
    >> security-enhanced Linux that was common-criteria certified. Red Hat
    >> Enterprise Linux stood out as the only Linux that was able to meet
    >> security concerns.
    >>
    >> In addition to having enhanced security, Red Hat's solutions were much
    >> more economical than others. To sustain the existing environment and
    >> increase capability, it would have cost Hill a minimum of $5 million per
    >> year to use Solaris. Red Hat Enterprise Linux cost $100,000, just two
    >> percent of the cost of the old operating system.
    >> /-Quote/

    >
    > That's the finish, then.
    >
    > Hill AFB are the standard setters for the US military, and publish
    > Crosstalk magazine, the software standard as advocates of the Software
    > CMM.
    >
    > http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/
    > http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstal.../11/index.html
    >



    Well there's nothing to say that the military can't make a bad decision,
    but I think the vast amount of research, knowledge and dare I say
    funding available to them makes a bad choice unlikely.

    I think the MS mistake (Looking to the future with Vista particularly)
    has been to insist that the "Core" remains inextricably linked to
    peripheral software like IE. In fact with WMP becoming more than a
    player in the concept of DRM and with DRM getting built into the core
    Vista is (if anything) more vulnerable to compromise.

    The key seems to me to be to get a highly stable core and stop messing
    with it except for critical improvements, this contrasts with
    Microsoft's design which demands constantly messing with the core. I
    don't see how this can be effective, it's going to keep breaking apps or
    demand workarounds to avoid breaking apps. Don't see a Defense
    Department that maybe want to spend much time developing secure apps
    enjoying having to reinvest that time again when something breaks.
    Rather like building a fort on quicksand.

    Personally I think MS decision to foist updates onto an OS without user
    knowledge and against user settings (or so the users thought) is very
    bad, a very serious error IMHO, and something they will live to regret
    when taken in context with their WGA / WPA so called security measures.
    It actually says to the user "We have no clue", and that's a pity. Ya
    don't really want your missile guidance system deciding to reboot with
    incoming 7 miles away



  4. Re: [News] Linux Better Choice than Microsoft for Military

    J(ohn|ane) Doe wrote:

    > http://www.gcn.com/print/26_16/44607-1.html
    >
    > GCN Home > 07/02/07 issue
    > Order out of chaos
    > Technique | Hill Air Force Base streamlines systems and
    > improves aircraft maintenance
    >
    > By Trudy Walsh
    >
    > /Quote/
    > The base had been using HP Superdome and Sun servers.
    > “Hill had huge metal,” Babb said. “You name it, they
    > had it.” And the Windows environment on the base Babb
    > described as “unstable.” There had been some data
    > attacks and other security concerns.
    > /-Quote/
    >
    > /Quote/
    > By consolidating and standardizing on less expensive
    > x86, 64-bit architecture and consolidating on the Red
    > Hat Linux platform, the Air Force saved more than $5
    > million. To sustain the existing environment would have
    > cost Hill $5 million per year. The Linux system cost
    > $100,000.
    > /-Quote/
    >
    > http://www.redhat.com/promo/summit/2...s/hillafb.html
    >
    > /Quote/
    > 4. Please describe your vendor selection process and
    > why you chose Red Hat in the end.
    >
    > When choosing a vendor for the new system, the IT
    > managers at Hill AFB considered both Windows 64-bit and
    > Linux. Frustrated with their current Windows
    > environment, it became clear to the IT architects that
    > Linux was the preferred solution. Because of security
    > concerns, Hill needed to run security-enhanced Linux
    > that was common-criteria certified. Red Hat Enterprise
    > Linux stood out as the only Linux that was able to meet
    > security concerns.
    >
    > In addition to having enhanced security, Red Hat's
    > solutions were much more economical than others. To
    > sustain the existing environment and increase
    > capability, it would have cost Hill a minimum of $5
    > million per year to use Solaris. Red Hat Enterprise
    > Linux cost $100,000, just two percent of the cost of
    > the old operating system.
    > /-Quote/



    Hmmm... just two percent... offering a 98% savings? Now that's a WOW factor.
    Of corse, we all know that the perceived windows problems were purely due
    to stupid windows users that knew nothing about computers...


    --

    Jerry McBride (jmcbride@mail-on.us)

+ Reply to Thread