Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
OS X Businesses Operating Systems Apple

Apple Polishing Mac OS X for Uncle Sam? 91

Posted by pudge from the get-out-your-faux-tin-foil-hats dept.
polarfleece writes "A report on Macteens that the latest build of Panther contains strong evidence that it is being customized for U.S. Government applications. I, for one, can't wait to see a whole lot of Apples being toted by gummint men (and women). Of course, do we REALLY want those gummint agents having access to the same technology we Apple users enjoy so much? On the other hand, to quote story author Clark Mueller, 'it just might be one of the more intelligent steps taken towards U.S. national defense.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Polishing Mac OS X for Uncle Sam? More

Apple Polishing Mac OS X for Uncle Sam?

Comments Filter:

  • Well ain't that cute... BUT IT'S WRONG! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 08, 2003 @10:52AM (#6900372)
    I, for one, can't wait to see a whole lot of Apples being toted by gummint men (and women).

    Shouldn't that be: I, for one, welcome our new apple toting overlords!

  • embedded images? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by udecker ( 251844 )
    I'm beginning to wonder why Apple would include items such as Department of Public Health and U.S. Army logos within the login panel, when individual customizations are usually done after installation?

    Does microsoft embed specialized content for "preferred rollout" people in Windows as well?

    Perhaps this is just a kitchen sink issue, and the release builds will not contain such images?

    • Re:embedded images? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by patman600 ( 669121 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @11:55AM (#6900989)
      The fact that they have every logo in there suggests to me that they will not have specialized builds, but just include them into the OS. If they were going to have specialized builds I would think that they would just have a specialized build for each division. Since they are just icons, and only take up a miniscule amount of space it seems easier to just have them in the commercial OS.
    • Yes, Seems an extraordinary decision to me, if this is right. I suspect that something is being mis-reported here. What does Apple do when the Department of Whatever becomes a customer, patch the general distribution of Mac OS X? That sounds sensible, and scalable - not.

      Surely Apple would be much more lilely to create a separate 'Government Edition installer' that wouldlet the customer define a logo for the start-up screen and a message etc.

      I suspect this build has some demo code in it, or that someon

    • More likely the directories with those files will be hidden but easily available, what a great idea!

  • Nice move (Score:1, Funny)

    by bigman8 ( 693083 )
    As a government employee, I'd love to see more Macs around here. This Windows stuff gets old after a while.

    • Re:Nice move (Score:2, Insightful)

      by IM6100 ( 692796 )
      Do the Bostisch Staplers, Canon photocopier, and 'HON' filing cabinets get old, too?

      Geez.

      It's just office equipment .

      • Re:Nice move (Score:5, Funny)

        by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @12:25PM (#6901345) Homepage Journal
        Well, when the staplers start randomly putting staples through people's hands, the photocopiers suck people in and spit them out in neatly collated slices, and the filing cabinets show an alarming tendency to decapitate the temps ... it might be time to start looking for alternative brands.

      • Bo$tich sucks! (Score:5, Funny)

        by SYFer ( 617415 ) <syfer AT syfer DOT net> on Monday September 08, 2003 @12:38PM (#6901559) Homepage
        You obviously haven't used a Swingline 37860 Easy Touch. The Swinglines are so much more innovative than the Bostich and the designs are more elegant and forward-looking as well.

        Most Bo$tich users bash Swinglines without ever having really used them beyond the ubiquitous consumer "Tot 50" model they had as a kid. Believe me, pro-level Swinglines can "ream-crunch" just as well as the Bostich line!

        The old straw-man arguments over refill compatibility have long since been resolved and the myth that Swinglines cost more to buy and maintain was put to rest with the redesign of the famous 747 Business Stapler series.

        When I was forced to use a "Bo$t-bitch" for my job, it jammed constantly--and always at the wrong time. My Swingline has been operating jam-free for 19 straight days (and I AM a pro user).

        PS: Anyone hear about the possibility that SL might roll out a water-cooled electric at the Paris Office Machines Fair? That would blow the springs out of any current BS device!
        • That was funny, thanks.

        • Re:Bo$tich sucks! (Score:5, Funny)

          by commodoresloat ( 172735 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @06:14PM (#6905170)
          I don't know what's with you Swingline fanatics. I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Swingline 37860 Easy Touch trying to staple 17 pages together for the past twenty minutes....

          ahh, forget it.
          • first the original poster, and now this - i laughed so hard i almost shat my pants...

            it's nice to see some of the posts that get modded funny really ARE funny...

            kudos to you my friend...

        • Re:Bo$tich sucks! (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Chaset ( 552418 )
          This totally reminded me of a little cartoon I drew one time. I wish I'd kept it. It was a cover of a hypothetical "Stapler Monthly", with headlines such as "The New Swingline 447, is it Worth the Wait?", "Shootout: 20 latest Staple Removers Compared", "Stapling Tips: 20 do's and don'ts", "2003 Product Guide Issue"

          The sutbtle point of the cartoon was that non-enthusiasts of any given topic will never understand the enthusiasts. (In this case, taken to the extreme with staplers.)

      • Re:Nice move (Score:3, Funny)

        by mkldev ( 219128 )
        <snivel>If you take my stapler, I'll burn the place down.</snivel>

  • This should not come as a surprise (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dan Ost ( 415913 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @11:14AM (#6900545)
    The US government is one of the single largest consumers of computer
    systems in the world. Is it really surprising that Apple might make
    an effort to court it?

  • Gummint Mac use (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nystagman ( 603173 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @11:22AM (#6900621)
    For eight years I have had to battle tooth and nail to push my Mac purchases through, in contradiction of the VA's official approved platform BS. It's not impossible, merely ludicrously convoluted.

    As I am a researcher, not an "information worker," (irony at its finest) my argument has always been that I know better what I need to do my job, than does some IT clown who wouldn't know scientific computing if it bit him on the ass. Yet EVERY computer-related purchase (right down to a cable or toner cartridge) must receive IT approval at some central location before it then takes weeks/months to actually GET purchased.

    One thing that has helped is that I have completely segregated our laboratory network from the hospital network (which, by the way, for the longest time used unsecured WiFi until I showed them how easy it was to rummage around), thereby avoiding having to suffer through the mandated computer "training," which I can assure you is a complete waste of time, energy and money.

    The IT guys here all know me, and are amused by me attempts to keep the lab Mac-based. I, on the other hand, am always amused by the nonstop labor on their part to keep the wintel stuff from falling apart. (Blaster, anyone?)

    I hope that this offical addition of OS X to the supported list will make it easier for me to buy some G5s soon... Then I can pass some G4s down the line to the "Medical Media" (graphics) department, who were forced to switch from Macs several years ago. Not a popular decision. Not in the least.

    • Re:Gummint Mac use (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      be careful how you word such requests. example (from a gov't organization):

      my boss once ordered a "mac flatscreen". request denied: you don't need a flatscreen monitor.

      the boss then ordered a "cinema display" (the same thing). response: here ya go! have a good day sir.

    • Re:Gummint Mac use (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Wyatt Earp ( 1029 )
      Years ago, when I started working in the Public Sector I remeber there was a place that would sell PowerMac G3s in special configurations for schools, local government and the Federal Government who didn't allow Macs to be bought.

      The included a CD of either AIX or MKLinux and were billed on FRPs and Invoices as "Unix RISC Workstations".

      They were reboxed so that receiving wouldn't see the Apple boxes, but in all other reguards were G3 Minitower PowerMacs.
    • As a fellow VA employee/researcher I feel your pain. Our labs are outfitted with Dells running Windows 2000. Not horrible but a lot of software I run is Linux only so I bring in my laptop and a USB external Zip drive in case I need to download something.
      Ordering anything involves getting signatures from three different offices and much annoyance.
      • Why don't you just utilize VPN? You can at least get an analog modem and do the old dial-up method to get a VPN connection if your IT folks won't lease you a connection to the lan...
    • Something's up. When I got my certification for my ACTC a couple of months ago, I sat next to an army guy who was sent there (under protestation) to evaluate OSX for Army use.. One can only hope//

  • Navy Intranet? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bluethundr ( 562578 ) * on Monday September 08, 2003 @11:28AM (#6900656) Homepage Journal
    This sounds really wonderful for the implementation of Apple Hardware by Uncle Sam. But one Gov't market the likley won't be able to penetrate is that of the Navy/Marine Corp intranet! That is one bigass contract they are not going to be able to take advantage of because of the decision to standardize on Windoze 2000. "Angels and ministers of grace, defend us!"

    As reported in this older /. story [slashdot.org] it's the largest federal IT project ever undertaken! The goal is to get as many people as they could up to a reasonable level of modernity. Some of those sorry fuckers are STILL using wordstar and the tech of similar vintage! So I guess that even Win2k would be somewhat of an improvementin those select cases. I'll bet however that some of the other branches are going to have to give up their brand new Apple hardware due to the new standardization (those mil outfits are a true tower of Babel!) are going to be *reeeealllly* unhappy!

    The Navy/Marine Corps intranet is being used as a template for the tech that the "Dept. Of Homeland Security" will use. Fortunatley, for the time being anyway, that department seems as largely fictional as the name is ominous. Fictional in the sense that the departments that are supposed to be talking to one another in a free flow of information...aren't. Not even to mention that in true 'big gov't' fashion the project is massively over budget and deadlines keep getting pushed back further and further.

    Go Uncle Sam! *yeesh*
    • Wasn't there a recent /. article about using Mac OS/X servers on Subs to do visualization? Seems they can't be too hardcore about w2k if this is true.
    • The NMCI is the biggest joke going out there right now. Over Budget and Late but this is EDS that we are talking about... NMCI will not get extended in fact the Marines are already opting out parts of the grand plan.

      The bases are getting less services for more money. Welcome to single party solutions...
      • There are exceptions to the NMCI rules. One is if the Systems will never touch the NMCI infrastructure. We are in the process of moving our Solaris apps to Mac OS X. They are used to perform acoustic data processing. I was able to get this through by showing that I could get the apps to run by doing a simple recompile it worked. In reality it has taken a few weeks to achieve bug for bug compatibility. The second factor was that a comparable sun was $8K vs the $2.2k for a single processor xServe( Through the
    • Well, we've been fighting for roughly 230 years and we're still kicking ass. I agree that Win2k sucks, but it's like the horrible un-reliable applications used for airplanes to communicate with the landing tower: the human brain always takes up the slack. Maybe people would start relying more on technology and less on intelligence if they ran anything more stable, eh?

  • Great for enterprise use (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dschuetz ( 10924 ) * <david@@@dasnet...org> on Monday September 08, 2003 @11:34AM (#6900737)
    I used to support a three-letter-agency (I still can't bring myself to say it out loud :) ), and we were 100% NeXTSTEP on the desktop.

    It was fantastic -- trivial to administer, and every machine was configured such that absolutely no user-specific data or configuration information was stored on the local desktop. You could log in to your officemate's computer, another one down the hall, or clear across the country, and everything was exactly as if you were at your own desk (though cross-country use was a little slow at times). This is something I've never seen done with Windows.

    It also made changing out hardware in case of failure a no-brainer -- grab a spare slab out of the closet on your way to the person's office, power down, swap units, power up, leave. 15 minutes, tops.

    Just about all the users loved the system, too (imagine! Secretaries, using UNIX! :) ), but they all wanted Microsoft Office on it -- that was the main reason they finally dropped NeXT for Windows (well, that, plus NeXT pretty much closing up shop to remake apple).

    Anyway, if the MacOS X boxes are anywhere near as reliable and easy to manage as NeXT was, then I'd really hope that Apple starts to push the enterprise angle stronger....

    • Re:Great for enterprise use (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Well since MacOS X *IS* NeXTSTEP (except it can run Office!) I think your unnamed agency would pick it up with no problem and run their code cracking software (or whatever they want, I have no idea which agency it is ;-) with minimal changes.

      The NeXT has/had *THE* best OS and development environment and I'm so glad it lives on in Mac OS X. Using project builder I can write complete, beautiful apps in an *afternoon*. I still can't be as productive with Java & Eclipse or vi and Perl/Ruby etc. Those NeXT

    • Where else would you feel ashamed to admit that you work?

      Well, besides OSDN.

    • Re:Great for enterprise use (Score:5, Interesting)

      by BWJones ( 18351 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @05:01PM (#6904550) Homepage Journal
      Just about all the users loved the system, too (imagine! Secretaries, using UNIX! :) )

      Ahhhh, now I know you are talking CIA. This actually surprised me back in 1991 or 1992 to see NeXT slabs on secretaries desks, but I thought it was very cool (I liked the Cubes). Aside from the rather interesting angle that certain current Apple fellows (former NeXT employees) had with cryptography, the security, built in scriptability, built in optical storage and other obvious choices for a critical, yet secure installation, NeXT had those cool black cases. :-) The running joke among the spook crowd was that that the black cases were the sole reason for the contract.

    • Not true (Score:1, Funny)

      by macguiguru ( 608453 )
      There are NO Macs on NCC 1701(any letter).

    • You can do exactly this with Mac OS X Server; now called the process is called NetBoot [apple.com], I dunno what it was called at NeXT.

      When one was hosting OS 9 clients from OS X Server 1.2, the clients could be diskless. Now, however, OS X 10.2 clients require a local drive, but just for swap; everything else is on the server--which could be in a locked closet, as you mention. And the local swap isn't even necessary with Server 10.3--hm, maybe Apple removed that requirement by request of a specific client?

  • Lockout? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by secolactico ( 519805 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @11:49AM (#6900914) Journal
    Of course, "everyone" is saying that the desicion to standarize on Win2k is wrong because it ties you to a single software vendor (Microsoft). Wouldn't the adoption of Apple tie you down to a single software *and* hardware vendor?

    • Re:Lockout? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 )
      What I find interesting about this post is the assumption that there has to be a single vendor for anything. This mindset seems to me to be the product of the Microsoft era; I don't know how many comments I've seen, in many different contexts, of the "Well, replacing Microsoft with ___ would be just as bad." ("___" is usually Apple, although I've seen Sun and, lately, Red Hat.) In fact, of course, "Microsoft or ___" is a false dichotomy. Buyers -- especially government buyers, although I'd argue that la

    • Re:Lockout? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by imnoteddy ( 568836 )
      Of course, "everyone" is saying that the desicion to standarize on Win2k is wrong because it ties you to a single software vendor (Microsoft). Wouldn't the adoption of Apple tie you down to a single software *and* hardware vendor?

      Only if you had a "Mac only" policy. It is better to allow the best tool for the job rather than mandate a monoculture.

    • I think the difference is in what's implied - standardizing on Win2K also results in standardizing in MS Outlook, MS Office, MS SQL, MS IIS, MS Printer Sharing etc. While Apple offers alternatives to these that are included, many (e.g. MySQL, Apache, CUPS) are open source and widely supported/modifyable. So if you take the OS as part of the hardware (true from a certain point of view), you are more free to use any other software on top of it. Especially if you throw a Unix base and X11 into the curve (fo
    • Buying only Win2k would mean a another hardware lockout, x86 hardware only?
    • Of course, "everyone" is saying that the desicion to standarize on Win2k is wrong because it ties you to a single software vendor (Microsoft). Wouldn't the adoption of Apple tie you down to a single software *and* hardware vendor?

      But... but.... Apple, good!
      Microsoft, bad!

    • Re:Lockout? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by fermion ( 181285 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @04:46PM (#6904388) Homepage Journal
      Actually, in my experience the only time one gets a 'single vendor' policy is if one uses MS. Even in the old days, Apple products inter-operated with other machines unless those machines were specifically designed to work only with PCs. And if they were, one found that they were obsolete much faster than general machines.

      With OS x the choice becomes even greater. The Mac has entered the *nix community and represents choice for the user. Web boxes do not have to be running IIS with the accompanying license and month patches, but can be Apache boxes with reliable support contracts. For the data entry person, a x86 Linux box running thin net to the application and data. More secure that a full fledged Windows box in which the person has rapid access to all the data. For the superuser who needs more box, a Mac or even Sun Blade. Oracle or MySql would handle the database needs. Standardize on MS Office and StarOffice. Administration is the pretty much the same on all machines. The kernel is customizable, and shell commands can be added or subtracted as need.

      Hell, you can even put in some windows machines for the apps that require it.

      No MS is the definition of single source. Everyone else knows how to play together.

    • Re:Lockout? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tres ( 151637 )
      "Lock" is the key word here. If you look at the way that OS X is built, you see that Apple isn't trying to lock anything. They're pushing a hardware platform that can interoperate with your pre-existing legacy systems. They're doing it by using open standards and open source.

      Really, I think you're mixing Apples and oranges. When you talk about a vendor lock in, it's where systems aren't interoperable with software or equipment from other vendors. If you want to use a BSD or Linux server on your network, O

    • Yes, but in a GOOD way! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MarcQuadra ( 129430 ) * on Monday September 08, 2003 @06:27PM (#6905275)
      Think of this:
      Government chooses Apple, gets 'integrated' solution and support for hardware and software. No more 'ping pong' between hardware and software vendors.

      Also, Apple is the 'little guy' in that situation, they would be able to focus on their biggest client's needs, while MS has to be everything to everyone. If Uncle Sam says 'Jump' Apple would ask 'how high?' while Microsoft says 'maybe later!'

      Using the 'underdog' is often the best way to get top-notch service, I work for a small company contracting on Citizens Bank, we all absoultely bust ass to make 'big brother' happy, while our larger competition has much bigger things to worry about. Sure, Citizens pays a bit more for us, but the VALUE is much better.

    • Re:Lockout? (Score:3, Informative)

      by phillymjs ( 234426 )
      Wouldn't the adoption of Apple tie you down to a single software *and* hardware vendor?

      Perhaps, but only for the client machines. Thanks to Apple's wholehearted adoption of open standards, you can mix and match to form the rest of your network, if you desire-- whereas Microsoft's stuff only plays nice with competitors' products grudgingly, when it plays nice at all.

      ~Philly

  • White Hats vs. Black Hats (Score:5, Funny)

    by Frightened_Turtle ( 592418 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @12:15PM (#6901202) Homepage
    Well, as anyone can tell you, the movies always show the good guys using Macs, and the bad guys using Windoze.

    So if government types start using Macs, that'll mean that the good guys are taking over! Woo! Hoo! (I love how the sun always shines in my own little reality...)

  • oh you americans (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BortQ ( 468164 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @12:26PM (#6901363) Homepage Journal
    Now that it's becoming uncool to buy microsoft because of their egregious security (even though they are an american company) it's good to see that the US gov is turning to another american company to throw their moneys at.

    Not that I blame them. One of the jobs of government is to promote local businesses. The US would do well to develop many different competing computer platforms, rather then have all their eggs in one (shoddy) basket.

    I'm also pleased that some other governments (germany, some asian ones) are trying to do the same. Perhaps we may have a range of interoperating platforms after all!

    • The rest-of-the-world will get its last laugh. I'd bet the vast majority of money spent on "American" technology products never goes to American workers. Most of the hardware is fabricated in the Far East, Mexico, etc. Even the software and tech support is moving off-shore.

      Won't long before the only America labor in a tech product is the lawyer's billables for the EULA.

  • Finally, tax payers money go in to good use! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Hackie_Chan ( 678203 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @02:17PM (#6902858)
    Have you guys read the EULA you have to agree when installing Mac OS X? It says that you can't use it in anyway in connection to flight controls or nuclear facilities, or any form of weapon of mass destruction. So much for putting Macs in to the coolest agencies...

    Seems to me that the reason why the Navy used Linux on their newly acquired Xserves [slashdot.org] were because they couldn't use Mac OS X without violating the contract!

    Oh, but maybe you think this maybe be the reason [theapplecollection.com] to all this?

    Or maybe it's because the government wants to become "hip" again? [wired.com] :)
    • God, I wouldn't want OS X, Linux or w2k being used in connection with flight controls or nuclear facilities. Not unless it was fully certified for real-time fault tolerant use!!!

      Man, don't scare me like that. You're one of those guys who puts Windows based machines in control of dangerous equipment, aren't you.

  • Apple in the Military (Score:3, Funny)

    by TrippTDF ( 513419 ) <hiland.gmail@com> on Monday September 08, 2003 @03:14PM (#6903438)
    iGrenade (shaped like everyone's favorite logo, in one of five fruity colors)

    iMine (out of the box and into the ground in 10 minutes)

    iTank (now with 40 GB hard drive to store 10,000 of your favorite songs while you drive around the desert and kill people)

  • The real reason? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by defunc ( 238921 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @03:59PM (#6903901)
    What about it's good to have an ex VP on your board of directors to help you connect with the right people? Don't mean to minimize Apple's OS effort, but worth a thought...
  • Isn't Apple simply trying to follow / benefit from the rise of patriotism in America? I know a lot of people who would use these icons (particularly 15-year-old l33t ha>orZ who watch "Alias" and Stargate too much)...

  • GAAAH! I already debunked this crap twice... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anarchitect ( 9282 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @03:27AM (#6907903) Journal
    ...both here [macteens.com] and here [macrumors.com] .

    C'mon people - a little Google can take you a long way.
  • as long as they have to carry the barbie make up case/toilet seat laptop around....

Slashdot Top Deals

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Close