11 ms·

And this is yet another reason the government should not use Proprietary software. F/OSS solutions wouldn't have these types of issues.

jimktrains2 10y ago
Thanks for the downvotes without any explanation. F/OSS would not have issues like this. It would provide the Navy with software that doesn't need to have it's "phone-home" mechanism removed. I'm not absolving the Navy, just putting forward the point of view that these types of software problems don't need to happen.
- tener 10y ago
  I did not downvote you, but I think the others may be downvoting you because there simply isn't F/OSS software available for many things - including, I believe, advanced VR. So F/OSS point is moot as it wasn't an option..
  - jimktrains2 10y ago
    They could have commissioned it. How much was this ruling and how much were the licenses they did pay for? We're starting to get to the point where it isn't necessarily cheaper to purchase. The Navy also has quite a bit of clout; they got this vendor to remove DRM. If the government insisted on F/OSS, there would be vendors waiting to write and support it.
  - mcbits 10y ago
    If the lawsuit actually ends up costing billions or hundreds of millions, they could have funded an open VR project on a scale larger than all of Ubuntu instead.
    - tener 10y ago
      I doubt their plan was to get sued.
      - mcbits 10y ago
        No, but they were probably planning (originally) to license the software. Maybe not at the full $1,000 retail or for 550,000+ computers... I wonder how the software would compare to the commercial offering if they had hired 100 independent contractors at $150k to develop it in the open. Incidentally, it looks like development was funded in part by the German government, but I can't find anything to indicate how much. http://www.bitmanagement.com/en/press/2013/bsstudio http://www.bitmanagement.com/en/press/2013/bsstudio
barneygumble742 10y ago
The problem with F/OSS in the DoD is supportability. If the software is fielded, there has to be someone (person or company) that's on stand-by that is available to support the product. This includes code maintenance and information assurance. There's a constant fair amount of personnel turn-over but the information and personnel to support the fielded software should be readily available.
- jimktrains2 10y ago
  > The problem with F/OSS in the DoD is supportability. If the software is fielded, there has to be someone (person or company) that's on stand-by that is available to support the product. So, hire someone? This is basically what RedHat does. F/OSS doesn't mean you can't pay people to support it.
  - barneygumble742 10y ago
    Yes and no. Depends on the project's importance and funding. It's always about funding.

jimktrains2 10y ago

Thanks for the downvotes without any explanation. F/OSS would not have issues like this. It would provide the Navy with software that doesn't need to have it's "phone-home" mechanism removed. I'm not absolving the Navy, just putting forward the point of view that these types of software problems don't need to happen.

tener 10y ago
I did not downvote you, but I think the others may be downvoting you because there simply isn't F/OSS software available for many things - including, I believe, advanced VR. So F/OSS point is moot as it wasn't an option..
- jimktrains2 10y ago
  They could have commissioned it. How much was this ruling and how much were the licenses they did pay for? We're starting to get to the point where it isn't necessarily cheaper to purchase. The Navy also has quite a bit of clout; they got this vendor to remove DRM. If the government insisted on F/OSS, there would be vendors waiting to write and support it.
- mcbits 10y ago
  If the lawsuit actually ends up costing billions or hundreds of millions, they could have funded an open VR project on a scale larger than all of Ubuntu instead.
  - tener 10y ago
    I doubt their plan was to get sued.
    - mcbits 10y ago
      No, but they were probably planning (originally) to license the software. Maybe not at the full $1,000 retail or for 550,000+ computers... I wonder how the software would compare to the commercial offering if they had hired 100 independent contractors at $150k to develop it in the open. Incidentally, it looks like development was funded in part by the German government, but I can't find anything to indicate how much. http://www.bitmanagement.com/en/press/2013/bsstudio http://www.bitmanagement.com/en/press/2013/bsstudio

barneygumble742 10y ago

The problem with F/OSS in the DoD is supportability. If the software is fielded, there has to be someone (person or company) that's on stand-by that is available to support the product. This includes code maintenance and information assurance. There's a constant fair amount of personnel turn-over but the information and personnel to support the fielded software should be readily available.

jimktrains2 10y ago
> The problem with F/OSS in the DoD is supportability. If the software is fielded, there has to be someone (person or company) that's on stand-by that is available to support the product. So, hire someone? This is basically what RedHat does. F/OSS doesn't mean you can't pay people to support it.
- barneygumble742 10y ago
  Yes and no. Depends on the project's importance and funding. It's always about funding.