3 ms·

The Whitehouse report should scare the shit out of anyone invested in better software. People think the report is a step in the right direction, it's not. You

The Whitehouse report should scare the shit out of anyone invested in better software. People think the report is a step in the right direction, it's not. You do not want the blob of D.C. putting their eyes on anything that looks like a bottomless money pit for consultants and self-proclaimed experts. Once that happens and is codified to some degree in law, it's very difficult to change or remove. This potentially affects every government system in existence, and those systems are already some of the most legacy systems today. The US Navy still pays Microsoft to maintain support for Windows XP, so the idea this will happen in any less than a 25 year horizon is absurd. And even then, the dates can be extended. Why put a stop to the gravy train when it can keep going -- it's not like the public is even aware of just how enormous the federal government really is. Once you understand this an opportunity to extract billions of dollars from large organizations, you then have to ask what their lobbyists will do to change the laws in their favor to completely neuter the legislation codified into law. I haven't see anyone even consider this highly likely, if not almost certain outcome.

nindalf 3y ago
I've read the report and it seems balanced and fair. I liked that they tackled how improvements could be made on many fronts, taking different approaches in each one. They didn't go overboard with any assertion or recommendation. On one hand you're saying the problem is intractable and it'll take 25 years to solve. Then why are you criticising an effort to get the ball rolling? You're frustrated by the Government using old, outdated and possibly insecure software. Then surely the White House exhorting the Federal government to fix these issues and procure software without issues is a good thing? Of course any change is an opportunity for consultants to make money, but that doesn't mean the change isn't needed or that the White House is wrong for starting it.
- infamouscow 3y ago
  Because there is no clear objective success criterion. Further, once consultants are being paid, they're disincentivized to actually accomplish this incredibly broad and nebulous goal. It allows politicians to campaign on more secure computing, but never actually accomplishing anything except profiting from their spouse being one of these consultants. And by never solving the problem, it continues, which only further justifies spending more money to "fix" the problem. You might call this cynical, it's not, it's realistic. I challenge you to find an example where this level of corruption isn't taking place, and explain what makes you so confident that will be the case for this specific issue, drawing specifically on areas of contrast. If you can overcome the government corruption, you still have to overcome the lobbyists. You can't do both except in situations where the corporations are in cahoots with the government.
  - vlovich123 3y ago
    Politicians are not campaigning on this at all. This is a niche topic that only impacts software developers. Nor is this setting out milestones for switching. It’s just advice saying “hey guys, consider other alternatives to C/C++”. It’s a social pressure - there’s no force of law behind this yet. And at most the government can only compel what their own vendors do.
  - nindalf 3y ago
    You are so terrified of government, and yet you don't recognise how powerful government actually is. You're scared of some overreaching law and excessive waste, but actually that's not what's happening here. This is the White House using its Bully Pulpit to effect change. That is at once more effective in this particular case (because a law forcing the use of a language would be unconstitutional) and less harmful (because people can choose to ignore it).
    - infamouscow 3y ago
      This is a gross mischaracterization. I would encourage you to re-read both of my replies so as to best respond to the points about how government involvement does not actually solve problems, but instead perpetuates problems because of institutional corruption. Ad hominem attacks are not a counterargument to these inescapable facts, they're also against the community guidelines and do very little to persuade anyone to your position: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - nindalf 3y ago
        I’ve read far more coherent anti-government polemics than the one you’ve written. Those didn’t convince me, and I doubt re-reading yours will. They’re so greyed out I can barely make them out anyway. What you’ve mistaken as an ad hominem attack was me trying to tell you - even though you’re concerned of what the government may do here by passing laws, they’re doing much more with much less effort. I’m surprised that you were unable to grasp that.
lenerdenator 3y ago
So what else do you propose?

nindalf 3y ago

I've read the report and it seems balanced and fair. I liked that they tackled how improvements could be made on many fronts, taking different approaches in each one. They didn't go overboard with any assertion or recommendation. On one hand you're saying the problem is intractable and it'll take 25 years to solve. Then why are you criticising an effort to get the ball rolling? You're frustrated by the Government using old, outdated and possibly insecure software. Then surely the White House exhorting the Federal government to fix these issues and procure software without issues is a good thing? Of course any change is an opportunity for consultants to make money, but that doesn't mean the change isn't needed or that the White House is wrong for starting it.

infamouscow 3y ago
Because there is no clear objective success criterion. Further, once consultants are being paid, they're disincentivized to actually accomplish this incredibly broad and nebulous goal. It allows politicians to campaign on more secure computing, but never actually accomplishing anything except profiting from their spouse being one of these consultants. And by never solving the problem, it continues, which only further justifies spending more money to "fix" the problem. You might call this cynical, it's not, it's realistic. I challenge you to find an example where this level of corruption isn't taking place, and explain what makes you so confident that will be the case for this specific issue, drawing specifically on areas of contrast. If you can overcome the government corruption, you still have to overcome the lobbyists. You can't do both except in situations where the corporations are in cahoots with the government.
- vlovich123 3y ago
  Politicians are not campaigning on this at all. This is a niche topic that only impacts software developers. Nor is this setting out milestones for switching. It’s just advice saying “hey guys, consider other alternatives to C/C++”. It’s a social pressure - there’s no force of law behind this yet. And at most the government can only compel what their own vendors do.
- nindalf 3y ago
  You are so terrified of government, and yet you don't recognise how powerful government actually is. You're scared of some overreaching law and excessive waste, but actually that's not what's happening here. This is the White House using its Bully Pulpit to effect change. That is at once more effective in this particular case (because a law forcing the use of a language would be unconstitutional) and less harmful (because people can choose to ignore it).
  - infamouscow 3y ago
    This is a gross mischaracterization. I would encourage you to re-read both of my replies so as to best respond to the points about how government involvement does not actually solve problems, but instead perpetuates problems because of institutional corruption. Ad hominem attacks are not a counterargument to these inescapable facts, they're also against the community guidelines and do very little to persuade anyone to your position: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - nindalf 3y ago
      I’ve read far more coherent anti-government polemics than the one you’ve written. Those didn’t convince me, and I doubt re-reading yours will. They’re so greyed out I can barely make them out anyway. What you’ve mistaken as an ad hominem attack was me trying to tell you - even though you’re concerned of what the government may do here by passing laws, they’re doing much more with much less effort. I’m surprised that you were unable to grasp that.

lenerdenator 3y ago

So what else do you propose?