Microsoft Wins Homeland Security Contract
Posted by malebolgia on 16 July 2003 - 04:29 · 41 comments & 505 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgia
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgiaContact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
#1 Posted by helloalexb on 16 Jul 2003 - 04:41
- Ohh nooo! that means our home land security will be compramised due to bad software....why not apple just why not....or linux now thers a novil idea
-
#2 Posted by LonghornXP2006 on 16 Jul 2003 - 05:02
- OMG!!! Hacks everyday now.
-
(5 replies)
#3 Posted by guarana0324 on 16 Jul 2003 - 05:11
- Dude, that was like 5 years ago. Now MS software kicks ass in terms of security...
-
#3.2 Posted by WishX on 16 Jul 2003 - 05:54
- He didn't just say that... Tell me he didn't just say that...
-
#3.3 Posted by clonk on 16 Jul 2003 - 06:08
- obiviously you don't know too much about Microsoft's current products.
-
#4 Posted by JadeWolf324 on 16 Jul 2003 - 05:43
- gee i feel really safe now...stick a built for window HS (homeland security) on all the guns now. lol
-
(2 replies)
#5 Posted by JaredVolkl on 16 Jul 2003 - 05:58
- Microsoft is now one step closer to taking over the world.
, the rest of the world is for Linux 
-
#6 Posted by shimyrsar on 16 Jul 2003 - 06:40
- I'm gonna sing the doom song now! Doom doom doom doom doo-doo-doom!
-
(6 replies)
#7 Posted by werejag on 16 Jul 2003 - 06:50
- let me see bush admistration lets microsoft go on the antitrust case and now they help run homeland security? sound like a conflict of interest or at lease shady dealings. but im probly wrong.
-
#7.1 Posted by Chicane-UK on 16 Jul 2003 - 07:12
- No, you are probably right.
Its all a load of backscratching BS. -
#7.3 Posted by JaggedFlame on 16 Jul 2003 - 14:22
QUOTE Its all a load of backscratching BS.
Yup. Microsoft wins: "load of backscratching BS." Linux wins licenses in Munich: "unprecedented victory for Linux."
-
#7.4 Posted by Rambo2000 on 16 Jul 2003 - 15:12
- It was a victory for Linux Jagged, because people expected Microsoft to get thoes contracts like Homeland Security, but they didn't expect Linux to get contracts like Munich one and many others which is what is doing harm to Microsoft, whats inportant about Munich and many others is simple, is that if they make it work which they will over time, others are going to fallow and move to Linux, a bit like a chain reaction, also, remember that Linux never had these contracts to start with, so for them to get them means they are winning, Microsoft did have all these contracts as there was little other option to pick.
-
#7.5 Posted by JaggedFlame on 16 Jul 2003 - 17:02
- Of course it was a victory for Linux. This, on the other hand, is also a victory for Microsoft, not just "a load of backscratching BS."
You don't have to be the underdog to get a victory, you know. -
#7.6 Posted by Rambo2000 on 20 Jul 2003 - 15:17
- Yeah in some ways it is a victory for Microsoft too, but it's more for Linux because you just get a few moving over to Linux like your seeing in Munich and they make it work which they very likely will as it's reprogramable, others will follow and a lot of them will, thats how it is, you get the first few that take the leap of faith and makes it work and before you know it, most of them start moving over to it, thats what Microsoft is worried about, thats why they tried to stop it at any cost.
-
#8 Posted by MethosKel on 16 Jul 2003 - 06:53
- Signs of the Apocalypse
1. Microsoft Wins Homeland Security Contract
2. Microsoft buys out a major Telecom
3. Microsoft buys Canada, Central and South America
One down, two to go.
-
#9 Posted by Jason on 16 Jul 2003 - 07:40
- I see no problem here, well done Microsoft.
-
#10 Posted by IntelliMoo on 16 Jul 2003 - 08:46
- WOW! Just what the terrorists wanted!!!
-
(2 replies)
#11 Posted by LordLOC on 16 Jul 2003 - 09:05
- They are a buisness, they won a contract. Let's all bash MS now because of this. Perhaps if Red Hat, or Apple or someone else won the contract, all the Red Hat/Linux and/or Apple haters would come on down here and bash them to, but I somehow doubt it, because everyone knows Linux/Apple systems are "superior" to a Windows box
-
#11.1 Posted by Chicane-UK on 16 Jul 2003 - 12:18
- No.. actually all the Linux & Apple bashers (and there are probably more of those than there are Windows bashers on here) would come down and start bashing the decision.
-
#11.2 Posted by JaggedFlame on 16 Jul 2003 - 14:24
- Oh, please. There are more pointless uninformed Microsoft bashers than anybody, and you know it.
Hint: See Comment 13.1 for an example.
-
#12 Posted by fiBer on 16 Jul 2003 - 09:08
- Good onya Microsoft
-
(6 replies)
#13 Posted by Beast_4thHM on 16 Jul 2003 - 09:55
- Ms is the right choice .
Linux would mean that instead of evaluating intel reports they spend their time running the damn thing -
#13.1 Posted by Chicane-UK on 16 Jul 2003 - 12:24
- As a pose to rebooting it every five minutes
-
#13.2 Posted by JaggedFlame on 16 Jul 2003 - 14:24
- Not really, no.
-
#13.3 Posted by Rambo2000 on 16 Jul 2003 - 15:16
- It wont supprise me, either way, it will be easier to hack as the code is the same through out, thats one major problem Microsoft have that Linux doesn't, Linux securty can be diffrent as the company can create there own as the source code to Linux is avalable, where with Microsoft, the code is the same throughout which ends up making it easier to break in.
-
#13.4 Posted by JaggedFlame on 16 Jul 2003 - 17:03
- Oh, please. The government already has agreements with Microsoft where they can look at the code. The NSA has to look at it to certify it, for chrissake.
I haven't seen Linux gaining any government security certifications recently. Maybe that's for a good reason. -
#13.5 Posted by Jason on 16 Jul 2003 - 18:37
- http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=27149
Microsoft announced that Windows 2000 has received the highest level of security certification of any commercial operating system. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) awarded Windows 2000 with the Common Criteria (CC) certification for the broadest set of real-world scenarios yet achieved by any operating system as defined by the Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation (CCITSE). As an international standard that's often a requirement for local, federal, and international government contracts, the CC isn't an easy certification to receive.
-
#13.6 Posted by Rambo2000 on 20 Jul 2003 - 15:23
- Oh big deal so the goverment have the source code to windows, try telling that to all the govaments and companies that don't have access to the source code, Linux is for all and utimately because it's open, it will win, most companies and goverments want to be in control of there own desterny, not have to wait for Microsoft to get of there arse to put this or that feture in windows and not have to relie on Microsoft, with Linux, the company and goverments doesn't need to relie on anyone, they can reprogram it themself, Microsoft can't beat that and it doesn't matter how much FUD pro windows users come out with.
-
#14 Posted by Quick Reply on 16 Jul 2003 - 12:20
- It amuses me when the use the word 'win' and 'awarded', like it's a prize based on luck, they probably 'won' it out of a lucky dip
-
#15 Posted by MadDog on 16 Jul 2003 - 15:59
- Sometimes I wonder why is this place called NeoWin when it's full of people who hate Microsoft. Isn't there an Apple/Linux web site you could be hanging out in (like slashdot)? Microsoft won the contract because Windows is reliable and can be secured, just like Linux can. Security is only as tight as the people implementing it can make it. And if your PC running Windows really does crash every five minutes, box it up and send it back then grab a pen and paper... just be careful you don't poke an eye out. Your ignorance is made even more transparent by the fact you can't spell.
-
(4 replies)
#16 Posted by Mr. Black on 16 Jul 2003 - 17:10
- I can't wait to hear "We weren't able to stop the new terrorist attacks because our Win2K3 Servers were down - our staff couldn't access the Report filed about possible attacks because of it."
Better hope not...
-
#16.1 Posted by Jason on 16 Jul 2003 - 18:21
- Employ the right people and it will not happen, 2000 and 2003 are very stable, securable OS's BUT this is all dependant on the admin staff as goes for ANY OS.
-
#16.2 Posted by JaggedFlame on 16 Jul 2003 - 18:29
- Well done, Mr. Black. You can't wait to hear about a terrorist attack.
-
#16.3 Posted by t0nyh0 on 16 Jul 2003 - 20:15
- hahahahah >, I agree with about how OS's security depends on the administrators administering them, and also think about this.. How long has windows been around... what about linux? Do you trust a teenager or would you trust a 7 year old more?
-
#16.4 Posted by Jason on 18 Jul 2003 - 16:09
- I would trust neither, in my opinion they are both too young too be dealing with mission critical servers.
You need to start at the bottom in an IT based job and build up to an Admin, a teenager would not have built up any real world experience so I couldn't trust them or a 7 year old.
Sorry but mission cirtical servers require the best staff with many years of experience.
The agreement delivers licensing coverage for about 140,000 desktops and will help the department to establish a common computing environment, Homeland Security said in a statement. Dell Marketing LP. was selected as the reseller, to provide the day-to-day management of the enterprise agreement, it said.
Changelog:
Diskeeper build 430 adds support for Windows Server 2003, and includes performance and reliability improvements to the boot-time defragmentation engines.
Please Note: On a small number of Windows XP systems, running a boot-time defragmentation may result in a Windows message being displayed after the post-defragmentation reboot indicating that the system did not start up properly. This is sometimes followed by a CHKDSK operation, which finds no disk errors. We are investigating the cause of this message, but at this time no system that has displayed this startup screen or run a post-defragmentation CHKDSK has demonstrated any problems. You can simply use the default "Start Windows Normally" option, or let the timer time-out. Your system will then boot up normally.
Also Note: The Diskeeper NTFS boot-time engines have been modified in this build to verify they have exclusive access to the volume being defragmented. This change ensures that no other drivers or services can modify the volume while the boot-time defragmentation is running. If the volume cannot be locked, an error message appears describing this and the boot-time defragmentation will not run.