Macs Ostracized on Capitol Hill 50
jonerik writes "Wired News has an article today on the last Apple holdout on Capitol Hill, Ngozi Pole. Pole, the office and systems administrator at Sen. Edward Kennedy's (D-MA) Boston and Washington D.C. offices, argues that the Senate Office of the Sergeant at Arms (SAA), which makes technology recommendations to senators, wants to make its job as easy as possible by pushing Windows-based applications as much as they can. According to the article, 'The SAA allocates $250,000 per six-year term to each senator. The department had hoped Pole would use the budget to replace aging Macs in Kennedy's offices. Instead, Pole will spend the remainder of his budget through 2003 filling Senator Kennedy's Washington office with new flat-panel iMacs.' Unsurprisingly, the SAA declined to comment."
Classic Move (Score:2)
Jack booted thugs coming to steal my free artistic ways and replace them with the tools of cheerless beancounters!
At least in my corporate environment they limit "unification activities" to "encouragement" to migrate to the One Borg Platform. But anyone who wants to keep their Mac is welcome to do so and to receive corporate support as long as they keep their suite of installed applications reasonably close to the corporate standard.
Shoot the Admins! (Score:1, Flamebait)
Hell, my fist Mac experience was setting up Dave (a SMB clinet for Mac) and TCP/IP networking on an OS 9 box. Took all of fifteen minuits, and I spent most of that time looking and the inerds of the translucent mouse. Most Important Tip: Hold mouse button down to make menus stay. That's it. It's easy.
If these idiots can't figgure it out for $75,000 a year then recycle their carbon.
He'll the *hardest* computers to figgure out are MS Windows boxes - between all the rebooting and the buggy operating system, it's suprising that they don't migrate *away* from MS Windows.
I'd rather study 'man ifconfig' and be on my way, than play "where did Microsoft hide the network settings on this version of Windows?"
Like puting the SMB/Cifs,Domain and Workgroup name in the "My Computer." Hint for idiots at MS: Networking settings belong in the "My Network Places" or whatever you call it now days.
Jesus, this has turned into My Rant, against My Favorite Criminal Company.
My New Sig: Winodws-only admins suck.
Re:Shoot the Admins! (Score:2)
Re:Shoot the Admins! (Score:2)
I normally don't respond to AC, but retarded AC's are fair game.
Ipconfig is MS Windows bastard version of Unix ifconfig. Note the correct spelling as I had it. Now go flip the burgers, trash.
PS $75,000 is low for a decent admin - keep flipping the burgers and studying and maby even you'll get there.
I'll loose karma for responding - let it burn.
Re:Shoot the Admins! (Score:2)
Think different! (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's be fair here (Score:2, Interesting)
1. Security: MacOS X has only been around a short time and has no proven track record yet. Give it two more years and the beaurocrats might accept it. (Yes, I know. BSD has a HUGE track record, but try explaining BSD and OS X to your typical mouth-breather.)
2. Stability: While MacOS X is VERY stable, again it has no proven track record here.
3. Visibility: Macs (modern macs) always announce their presence. They are stylish devices which do not want to be hidden. This may not be good depending on who is stopping in to criticize you today.
4. Cost-effectiveness: Try explaining to a CBO accountant why you want to buy a $1200 iBook instead of a $500 bottom-barrel Wintel machine. Or better yet, try explaining it to a political columnist looking for an ax to grind.
Now, I am talking about MacOS X as that is what is shipping on all new Macs that the Feds might buy. OS 9 has similar issues.
My point is, these are all issues that Apple will need to convincingly overcome before the Feds will be knocking down their doors for units
Re:Let's be fair here (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Windows XP is just as revolutionary and hasn't been around as OS X (not mention the number of security holes found). It seems to me like there are no grounds to trust one and not the other... certainly not to outlaw one.
2. You talk about appearances, but what about the fact that the government brought Microsoft up on antitrust violations? This just makes them look like hypocrites helping M$ to stomp out the competition.
Re:Let's be fair here (Score:1)
If by revolutionary you mean taking the same code, and slapping on top some more elegant/ugly graphics, maybe.
OS X was written completely from scratch (well, those parts that apple wrote...).
You can not dare say that Windows XP was...
Re:Let's be fair here (Score:4, Informative)
CC:Mail, the current mail platform, is not Y2K compliant (I'm a former CC:Mail admin), it is not supported, and they are likely not providing any further patches of this dead platform. Everybody was supposed to make the switch to notes before Y2K. The SAA didn't. Macintosh has a CC:Mail client so the macs are likely just as secure/insecure as the rest of the users.
Microsoft Exchange, the SAA proposed new mail server, has a native Macintosh client though many Exchange administrators don't know about it since it is hidden on a separate HFS partition. Put the client disk on a mac and the mac client shows up (I've also managed Exchange Servers).
Jaguar is supposed to come out with a native mail client with excellent Exchange compatibility. In other words, there are likely two viable clients going to be around RSN.
As far as security track records go, XP has what track record? How about 2000? Mac OS X is pretty much equal or superior in actual tract records to both of them.
Stability track records are similar. An Apples to pears argument isn't fair. MS's code base has been significantly redone and I haven't seen a whole lot of stability testing demonstrating either Apple or MS being superior here. Assuming instead of testing is just another way to not earn your paycheck.
As for visibility, I would say that this is not the SAA's business. It's the Senators business as they get a budget for all sorts of things, desks, chairs, computers, etc. and if they want to make things look good, that's their choice, not the SAA's.
As for cost effectiveness, Senate offices don't buy $500 scrape the bottom of the barrel laptops. They buy IBM's, Compaqs or Dells with which Apple is pretty price competitive, sometimes a bit higher, sometimes a bit lower.
I've worked in offices where administrators had a platform agenda, sabotaging other platforms, hardware and software, in favor of what they wanted. Occassionally, it can lead to a disaster where a sabotaged system is abandoned and they simply don't replace it.
This is no way to spend the taxpayer's money.
Re:Let's be fair here (Score:1)
Perhaps visibility and cost-effectiveness at least could be argued, though not very convincingly, by the Windows crowd. But stability and security? Not even close. Windows has never been as secure as Mac OS was, and probably never will be as secure or as stable as Mac OS X is. Of course it has a proven track record in stability: overwhelmingly, most Mac OS X users have never had a system crash. What else do you want?
And if you want "proof" about security then the counterargument is that Windows has been proven to be entirely insecure, and can make no claims about anyone else not having a proven track record without totally destroying their own credibility. Windows is the most insecure OS ever.
Re:Let's be fair here (Score:1)
I'm glad someone mentioned this. I have no hard numbers to back this up, but my experience tells me this is the truth.
Where I work, we have a staff of IS people who know virtually nothing about Macs, despite the fact that we run on about 50/50 PCs and Macs. I see our IS guys frequently sitting with glum looks on their faces in front of PCs, doing their time in front of a dead machine. They never do that with Macs. In fact, they couldn't--they wouldn't know what to do.
In 4+ years of using a Mac at my workplace, I have required exactly 0 tech support calls. With my Windows machine, I've required several. One of those calls required about half of my IS person's shift. In those years, I've seen countless dead PCs--Windows boxes that just outrightly die. I've never seen a single Mac do anything remotely close to that.
That's money going right down the drain.
I admit to being a Mac power user, but the steps for solving about 99% of all Mac problems (zap PRAM, rebuild desktop, trash the usual pref files) are easy and can be summarized in about three paragraphs that even novice Mac users can follow. A co-worker and I did exactly that and our entire dept. of Mac users never required support calls.
The only way you can think Macs are more expensive is by ignoring the long-term costs of support. Then again, I think most anti-Mac bigots know that because they never bring this issue up on their own.
Re:Let's be fair here (Score:1)
2. Stability:
3. Visibility: Macs (modern macs) always announce their presence.... What the hell does THAT mean? Is their a point or are you just fabricating out of whole cloth?
4. Cost-effectiveness: Try explaining to a CBO accountant... And I will show you a wasted afternoon. Your argument is weak.
The biggest issue with Macs not being "accepted" is the perception that somehow there is something "wrong" with them. There has yet to be anyone to explain what that might be. It is all FUD, plain and simple.
Re:i agree: no macs for public servents (Score:2, Informative)
Uh, that text appears nowhere in the Constitution.
Re:i agree: no macs for public servents (Score:1)
In conclusion, Linux in this case has possession of both the moral and technological high grounds.
Since when did morals have anything to do with the government?
Re:i agree: no macs for public servents (Score:1, Offtopic)
Subcultures often invent or redefine words in ways that the general culture would fine confusing. That's part of what defines a subculture.
So, if you want to be part of a given subculture, you have to learn its jargon. That's just the way it is (and appropriately so).
Re:i agree: no macs for public servents (Score:1)
Browser-based applications work: A case study (Score:1, Offtopic)
When I was first employed, we had a Windows-based system that did contact management, a clunky order entry system used only by clerks, and a half-done cold fusion application that was supposed to be used for online ordering, but in practice simply did not work. (It took 4 seconds to search for a part).
I was hired to shepherd the online ordering application to completion, but I quickly realized that you could use one for internal ordering as well. So I rewrote it in Linux, made it efficient, and added design features so both salespeople and customers could easily enter orders. But the contact management system was still not working well, and it integrated poorly with the new ordering system.
So I eventally convinced the company to bite the bullet; I wrote a contact management system for the salespeople that was browser-based and (of course) integrated perfectly with the online ordering system. So now salespeople have their contact management and ordering done with one integrated system that works very well.
Unfortunately our IT person (who handles the Windows machines) can't be convinced to switch away. But all they do is run a browser anyway, so his administrative load is significantly reduced. They also use Outlook for email, but that was his choice, not mine.
So now we have mainly happy employees running a system that's based on Linux and can be updated and improved continuously without strain. Believe me, I couldn't have single-handedly developed the same thing under Windows. It could have been done, but it would have taken a lot more time and a lot of help. (Can you imagine installing the silly thing on 70-odd PCs?)
In short, a browser-based application is faster to develop, more efficient to deploy, and just plain works better than what Microsoft is pushing. And I'm proud to say I haven't used one piece of Microsoft software to develop the system - it's strictly gcc, perl, mySQL and a little PHP.
I may be prejudiced - heck, I am, of course - but browser-based software using a Linux back end just plain works. There's no reason in the world not to use it, and it has the nice bonus of being compatible with any platform on the planet - I've used it with Linux, MacOS 9, MacOS X, and even an SGI.
And oh yes -- Windows, too.
D
Re:Browser-based applications work: A case study (Score:1)
Asking the wrong questions (Score:5, Insightful)
Far too many Windows-only admins have been trained as MCSEs, and that training emphasizes a one-world homogenous platform. Products and platforms. "Here's Windows - and the things you can do with it," rather than, "What do you need to do, and how can Windows help you do that?" The thought processes of these admins (and I've seen this time and time again in 14 years of being a sysadmin) takes the cant of "how can I convince my customers to work this way?" The way that the MS tools provide.
It's the wrong question. The wrong approach.
The user is the customer, not the enemy. They pay you to solve their problems, so give them solutions. It shouldn't matter what platform - Mac, Windows, Linux, FreeBSD - what should be at issue is what provides the best solution for the customers needs.
Excellent point, now... (Score:1)
Re:Asking the wrong questions (Score:2)
This creates a twofold problem. The first part is that Windows geeks know that there are other platforms, but are unwilling to admit that other platform does something as good or better than Windows does. If you dont believe me try telling a Windows zealot that IIS is not secure. The second part of the problem is that in seeing the other platforms as irrelevant the Windows geek will rely on unsubstantiated Microsoft FUD as arguments against the alternative.
I am halfway to a NT4 MCSE (I quit a long time ago when I realized what it really was) and a main undercurrent in the material was that Windows is best and there are no alternatives, which is how all of the MCSE's that I know view the world. I believe that Microsoft did this on purpose in order to further the monopoly.
Don't get me wrong, there are Linux users that will tell you that there is no alternative to Linux, and that everything that Windows does is crap. Most of the time I am like this because even if Microsoft does something right I feel that we cannot give them any more power. It's a good thing that Microsoft rarely does anything right. On the other hand I am always willing to look at the alternatives to what I am proposing because I don't not have all of the information, and there may be a better or more elegant solution that I have not considdered. Very very few Microsoft admins are even willing to do this.
Re:Asking the wrong questions (Score:3, Funny)
And you claim to be a sysadmin? Riiiiight.
You've got to be kidding/trolling... (Score:1, Troll)
Computers are tools to help us do life. They are not life itself. Go play frisbee, dammit. =)
Re:Democrats only? (Score:2)
Congress Can't Define One Standard, But... (Score:4, Insightful)
Goldin didn't institute this policy, I feel, but some other clown at a NASA agency. Today, since NASA's mandate needs more than a bunch of Windows workstations (with fault tolerances that would give a man-rated program like the Shuttle cause for abandoning spaceflight altogether since destruction of the spacecraft or launch failures would be a virtual certainty) to handle scientific programs and the like. For NASA, moving to Windows just made no sense. For Capital Hill, there is some sense for this until you realize that, in these days, standardizing on a single platform locks a company into the faults (many dangerous) which can result in data destruction or security compromises.
Someone on the Hill needs to be reminded of their own laws. Problem is that the Hill MAKES the laws, and it wouldn't be the first time where Congress does its "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" routine.
Government is normally not allowed to pick one competitor over another for anti-competitive reasons. Bidding is normally done for things where multiple standards are impractical (like fighter jets).
Standardizing on Windows for Congress puts up a big "HACK ME" sign to terrorists and other people with time to waste. UNIX isn't a panacea, but it has a hell of a better resistance to attacks and doesn't suffer from Microsoft's code insecurity and bloat.
Most importantly, Mac OS X is the only UNIX family that runs Microsoft Office, but without the virus compromising technologies like ActiveX and VBScript.
Re:Congress Can't Define One Standard, But... (Score:2)
I could be wrong, but when I installed Office X, I could have sworn I saw it install "Visual Basic for Applications"--VBScript.
Re:Congress Can't Define One Standard, But... (Score:2)
Practically all VBA components in Office for Mac do not respond in the same way. That's why Mac OS is immune from VBScript and ActiveX attacks--the virus writers either do not have the technical ability to create a virus which can execute on Mac OS, or there's not really a way to do so. Sure, this is "security through obscurity" thing going, but it IS a fact.
Code Red, Nimda, "ILOVEYOU" have no effect on Mac OS.
Maybe it's not just the cost factors (Score:4, Insightful)
But there is another factor that's kept Macs out of federal life to a big extent: the law on universal access, formerly known as handicapped access in less enlightened times.
Specifically, mandates in Section 508 (29 USC 794d) of the Federal code, require computers purchased by fed agencies (not to mention their websites and more) to be fully accessible to people with vision problems, etc.
With Jaguar, Jobs claimed at WWDC that its "universal access features go well beyond fedarally mandated standards."
Translation: "We screwed ourselves, but now we're fixing that."
In other words, with this upgrade, the OS includes Quartz for magnification so the magnified screen is relatively resolution-independent. Zooming in on text would show you a fully anti-aliased font at whatever font size you needed, not just pixelated magnified clunkiness. Apple is apparently also shipping screen-reading software with Jaguar, and it works for interface parts (menus, windows), for documents or any text under the mouse. Keyboard navigation (remember "Sticky Keys" and Easy Access Software way back when?) is back, this time for Classic apps, not just Cocoa ones.
Altogether, these changes make it legal now for Apple to compete for federal purchasing contracts. This flaw in Apple's operating systems before now, maybe more than the SAA, was to blame for the relatively poor marketshare in government offices. At least now that has a chance of being changed.
That being said, I still don't like Congress all that much, just on general principles. I hope they get hammered, too. But Apple's not completely pure, either. Is anyone?
Re:Maybe it's not just the cost factors (Score:2)
Apple will get a solution--and, if they are in their usual form, a solution that's elegant. Microsoft sometimes makes nice innovations like contextual menus (from right-clicks, although I bet that's stolen from three-button UNIX), but trying to activate and access these features would make Rube Goldberg cry. Apple tends to make switching a feature on easier.
I think Apple had to pick what was important when setting up Mac OS X, and while there are universal access features, they needed to concentrate on getting the OS code working. With Jaguar, they can concentrate on the cool features and important details. Don't know if this will make a difference on the Hill.
Anybody care to write a virus that wipes out corruption in government?
Re:Maybe it's not just the cost factors (Score:1)
I read somewhere today that UA was quite good, but was provided in Easy Access from Berkeley Systems, later maker of the flying toasters screen saver. I don't know why they dropped the ball on this, but I think it was sometime around System 8, wasn't it?
Ted "Snorkel" Kennedy? (Score:1)
This is why Microsoft won't be punished (Score:2)
In the specific case described in the article, there are many options that would provide the same capabilities to the end user ("e-mail, the Internet, a word processor and the ability to create output") without making support more difficult, so going Microsoft-only provides no real benefit while increasing the risk of abuse (from a convicted abuser) or deficiencies resulting from a situation similar to a lack of genetic diversity. Nature and society are full of examples of why this is a very bad idea, but I guess reality isn't in the Senate's technology plan either...
And this is different from 99% of IT how...? (Score:1)
Even so, I would have at least expected some California reps to use a few more Macs, supporting their home state industries and all.