Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Google Microsoft Technology

Los Angeles Goes Google Apps With Microsoft Cash 266

Dan Jones writes "The Los Angeles City Council has approved a US$7.25 million, five-year deal with Google in which the city will adopt Gmail and other Google Apps. Interestingly, just over $1.5 million for the project will come from the payout of a 2006 class action lawsuit between the City and Microsoft (Microsoft paid $70 million three years ago to settle the suit by six California counties and cities who alleged that Microsoft used its monopoly position to overcharge for software). The city will migrate from Novell GroupWise e-mail servers. For security, Google will provide a new separate data environment called 'GovCloud' to store both applications and data in a completely segregated environment that will only be used by public agencies. This GovCloud would be encrypted and 'physically and logically segregated' from Google's standard applications. Has cloud computing stepped up to prime time?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Los Angeles Goes Google Apps With Microsoft Cash

Comments Filter:
  • Why segregate? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by darkmeridian ( 119044 ) <william.chuang@ g m a i l . com> on Thursday October 29, 2009 @10:22AM (#29909927) Homepage

    Are the government servers more reliable, or more secure than the regular servers? If that's the case, what does that say about the peons who don't have access to it?

  • HOLD UP (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Monkeedude1212 ( 1560403 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @10:23AM (#29909953) Journal

    Does this mean I will be losing some of the 7385 MB available for my inbox space? I'm already using a whole 1% of that!

  • My prediction. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @10:29AM (#29910035) Journal
    There will be a subset of users who will hate it, mostly serious Excel jockies and the extremely change averse, but on the whole it'll be pretty popular.

    The biggest thing is space. In my(admittedly modest; but definitely nonzero) experience, users really, really hate dealing with storage quotas and love doing things(like storing files in the form of email attachments) that bump them into quotas. Unless the LA IT guys were unusually generous, or their deal with Google unusually stingy, most user's quotas will probably go up substantially. Plus, with Google doc's sharing functions, there will hopefully be much less attachment clutter eating email quota space.

    Aside from heavy users of particular Office functions, who will almost certainly end up retaining local copies of office one way or another(whether it be official IT department policy, or local departmental budgets, or some other means), most people will probably care more about not bumping into quotas than anything else.
  • by agbinfo ( 186523 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @10:32AM (#29910077) Journal
    If I understood this right, Microsoft was found guilty of using their monopoly in the OS sector to gain monopolies in other sectors. If they no longer have a monopoly in other sectors, this would reinforce the decision.
  • Passing the Buck (Score:4, Insightful)

    by _bug_ ( 112702 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @10:36AM (#29910157) Journal

    Has cloud computing stepped up to prime time?

    No.

    What it has done is given IT administrators the opportunity to pass the buck when there's a problem with a system. Now when the e-mail system goes down for hours and employees can't access crucial data, the IT admin simply points at Google and says "it's not my fault or my problem".

    That's all cloud computing offers. Unless you're a bit paranoid, in which case it also provides a single-point of attack for the government to eavesdrop under the banner of "keeping America safe".

  • by brian0918 ( 638904 ) <brian0918&gmail,com> on Thursday October 29, 2009 @10:37AM (#29910165)
    That would be like JK Rowling using her "monopoly position" on Harry Potter to overcharge for her books. They made it, they should be able to set the price for their product.
  • Re:Why segregate? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29, 2009 @10:41AM (#29910209)

    I wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with the Federal Information Security Management Act, from TFA:

    Google has pushed Google Apps as an option for government agencies, promising to ship a product called Government Cloud, which will be certified under the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), sometime next year.

    I would guess that some provision in it [wikipedia.org] requires segregated data servers, just in case the public consumer computer gets 'owned' by a cracker, that the government network is not instantly vulnerable.

    That's just guessing, it could be for any other number of reasons. IANAL, I am not a network engineer or security expert, and I only scanned the article to get some free, pointless, anonymous informative karma :)

  • by mc moss ( 1163007 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @10:51AM (#29910415)

    No, actually it's nothing like that. Reading a book doesn't require anything proprietary and it doesn't have to work with other software, etc.

    But I'm sure you have more knowledge about the case than the judge who made the decision.

  • Re:Why segregate? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by MikePo ( 579147 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @10:52AM (#29910431)

    Without knowing the current Infrastructure that LA uses I can't say with certainty that Google will be less secure. However typical it is always more secure to keep your data in house than outsourcing that storage.

    While the LA spokesman says it will be more secure that our current solution. I'm sure he is a PR weenie and if you talk to technicians in LA they would disagree.

  • by IP_Troll ( 1097511 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @10:54AM (#29910453)
    The is the whole point of a "monopoly position", they didn't just make a product, they eliminated all other reasonable alternatives to their product, creating an artificially high price.

    Your JK Rowling analogy is missing the part where JK Rowling buys up every other publishing company, shuts them down, turns the book industry into a harry Potter monoculture, and makes Harry Potter the only book series on the planet aside from a few hold outs that have the creativity to write their own books.
  • by slim ( 1652 ) <{ten.puntrah} {ta} {nhoj}> on Thursday October 29, 2009 @11:01AM (#29910567) Homepage

    I think this is a step towards relieving MS of their monopoly, even on OSs.

    How long until LA city employees don't need Windows for anything. If everything they do is in the browser, they can use Linux (maybe in the guise of ChromeOS)

  • by brian0918 ( 638904 ) <brian0918&gmail,com> on Thursday October 29, 2009 @11:07AM (#29910655)

    No, actually it's nothing like that. Reading a book doesn't require anything proprietary and it doesn't have to work with other software, etc.

    Neither does your OS. It wouldn't be good for business, but there's no requirement that the OS must work with anything else. How is your statement relevant to my analogy, again? It's like arguing that I've made a false analogy because JK Rowling is a woman and Bill Gates is a man - it's true, but irrelevant.

    But I'm sure you have more knowledge about the case than the judge who made the decision.

    If a judge correctly interprets an immoral law, does that make the law alright? Stop begging the question. I'm arguing what's right, not what's legal.

  • Re:Why segregate? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by oenone.ablaze ( 1133385 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @11:08AM (#29910685)
    Also, it sounds like multiple governments', or at least multiple government agencies' data are on the same cloud? I hope for Google's sake it doesn't get cracked, because pissing off one government sounds like no fun, let alone a handful of them.
  • Re:Why segregate? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PalmKiller ( 174161 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @11:08AM (#29910689) Homepage
    Government Security, bwahahaha, I love a good oxymoron Seriously folks, I am glad, as the inverse is also true. When the government segment gets hacked (and it will fairly quickly I suspect), our public network will be safe.
  • by Miros ( 734652 ) * on Thursday October 29, 2009 @11:11AM (#29910719)
    You're missing something more important here; it allows companies to shift costs from capital equipment to operating expenses which is HUGE from a business standpoint. Not to mention that it ultimately reduces the number of people needed to maintain these systems which is also very significant for large organizations. Reducing the costs involved is far more important than shifting the blame ever is; the people who make these kinds of decisions likely don't give a crap whose job it is to keep it up and running so long as it meets their needs and has a net positive impact on the bottom line.
  • by brian0918 ( 638904 ) <brian0918&gmail,com> on Thursday October 29, 2009 @11:18AM (#29910845)

    Not the same at all. There are millions of other books to choose from because Rowling's does own all the printing presses.

    It is the same. Re-read my post. I said a monopoly on Harry Potter, not a monopoly on books.

  • by Fastolfe ( 1470 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @11:24AM (#29910927)

    They are not able to meet the SLA's required for a business

    Citation needed. What theoretical "business-class" SLA are you holding Google to, and can you demonstrate that they haven't met it? Doing some hand waving about two or three outages this year, without quantifying how long they were, or what percentage of users were affected, is insufficient.

    but this could seriously interrupt procedures - what if cases weren't tried in due time?

    If unusually high availability of e-mail/documents is truly that important, if the brief unavailability of these services would bring justice to its knees, then I might question any decision not to invest in a hyper-available infrastructure. Simply not moving to Google Apps wouldn't be enough, in this case. I would expect the government to construct their own infrastructure with multiple levels of redundancy and code diversity, redundant networks and power systems. Obviously, they aren't going to do that. I strongly suspect (but, I admit, don't know for sure) that the city is choosing between managing a "standard" business-class infrastructure, and Google. If you're truly asserting that Google Apps does a poorer job than a typical business setup, I'd appreciate seeing some actual numbers to back up your assertion.

  • by dangitman ( 862676 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @11:25AM (#29910951)

    With the advancement of Google and open-source software,

    Oh yes, Google and Open Source Software... the kind of Open Source Software that's so secret they won't release the source code to.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29, 2009 @11:29AM (#29911023)

    OK, Mr. Smart-Ass, when Microsoft comes to you and says "You can't ship Linux on your computers unless you agree that 99% of your computers have Windows installed, regardless of what your customers ask for", and you say "No! I will not agree to that!", how many computers will you sell when you can't sell Windows. That's anti-competitive behavior, and Microsoft is guilty as hell.

  • by Miros ( 734652 ) * on Thursday October 29, 2009 @11:33AM (#29911085)
    I'm not from the LA IT department but I will say that I think the real feelings of the people making the decisions in the large organizations (business types, not necessarily IT types) are making those decisions based on cost analysis. Hosted/cloud services meet their needs and shift expenses from capital expenditures to operating expenditures (which is really important, smaller regular cost can be substantially better than large upfront cost from a financial perspective, even if the regular operating cost will add up to more than the capital expense given enough time). Not to mention it probably permits significant reductions in IT staffing, which is also very expensive. In the end, if it meets the requirements and it's cheaper it makes sense to do it. Certainly there is a cost associated with diminished reliability, but that's just another variable in the equation in determining which is more financially sound. For most slashdotters this is probably not good news as the story of cloud computing is about increasing productivity while maintaining or reducing IT expenditures over time, not growing them.
  • by brian0918 ( 638904 ) <brian0918&gmail,com> on Thursday October 29, 2009 @11:42AM (#29911213)
    [citation needed]
  • Re:HOLD UP (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MBGMorden ( 803437 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @11:50AM (#29911361)

    Still shows 0% for me :). I think I'm using like 44MB total.

    Google has to be using some compression or something though. My Lotus Notes mail file at work with a similar message volume is 600+ MB.

    I find it ironic though when they determined at work that we all needed to clean up our mailboxes in anticipation for a 250MB quota. Google manages to give me 7GB and with our own dedicated server our admin wants me to stay within 250MB. Something just seems wrong about that.

  • Re:Why segregate? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Schadrach ( 1042952 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @12:13PM (#29911769)

    It's probably a mix of FIMSA and public accountability/recordkeeping laws. Consider that one of the points made when Palin's Yahoo! email was "cracked" was that it was illegal for her to use that account for any kind of government business due to an accountability law in that state. Likely similar considerations are at the root of having a separate government cloud.

  • Re:My prediction. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sarhjinian ( 94086 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @12:22PM (#29911895)

    There will be a subset of users who will hate it, mostly serious Excel jockies and the extremely change averse, but on the whole it'll be pretty popular..

    More people than you think will hate it. The average, desk-bound, minimum-wage Excel/Outlook jockey will bitch at any change. Note that these people bitch if you get them a new computer, or even if you move the coffee machine to a new room down the hall. They bitch at every change, every day, all the time. These people are, in a lot of organizations, far more pervasive than you might think.

  • Re:Cloud? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Miros ( 734652 ) * on Thursday October 29, 2009 @12:31PM (#29912037)
    Sorry about the babble, I've been getting used to writing that way. I agree that it's a business process revolution rather than a technical one, but I disagree that timescale is the whole story. I think the real meat on this one is in the economies of scale that can be enjoyed by the cloud services provider. This is also more of a hosted application situation than a flexible scaling situation, but the flexible scaling is important as it translates into significantly greater efficiency on the part of the provider. It reduces the need to purchase hardware and maintain data-centers as well as the need for workers to maintain those systems; and it should translate into a significantly lower cost per user than more traditional approaches (for all of these reasons and also obviously the scale benefits enjoyed by the provider which are very significant).
  • by agbinfo ( 186523 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @01:15PM (#29912795) Journal

    "If I understood this right, Microsoft was found guilty of using their monopoly in the OS sector to gain monopolies in other sectors"

    MS wasn't "found guilty" of anything because it was a civil -- ah forget it.

    Sorry if I didn't use the proper legal expression. I'm sure everyone understood.

    So, what are these "other sectors" that MS now enjoys a monopoly in?

    At the time they were found "guilty" of leveraging their monopoly in the operating system market to gain market shares in the browser market. Microsoft had essentially managed to gain a monopoly in the browser market. They could not have gained that monopoly without illegally leveraging off their monopoly in the OS market.

    The fact that they no longer have a monopoly in the browser market is an indication that the ruling had the intended effect.

  • Re:Why segregate? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by bsdaemonaut ( 1482047 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @02:30PM (#29913945)

    In the two years that I've had our current core FreeBSD server I can honestly say that its never had more than a few minutes of downtime that wasn't associated with our power or internet provider. That downtime was always caused by situations in which a cloud solution wouldn't be accessible anyway. Our secondary FreeBSD server that handles mostly backups, dhcp, and dns, has an uptime that now exceeds six months.

    In my mind when you use google apps you have to worry about the stability of google, your provider, and your own setup. I only have to worry about my own setup. It's a clear win for me. Sorry.

    Face it, for certain organizations it's a great solution: these are ones that either don't have dedicated and competent IT staff or would have to invest a whole lot in hardware due to company size. For those of us who have competent IT staff and don't require a server farm, not running our own servers locally just means our few servers are spending that much more time being idle.

  • by notaprguy ( 906128 ) * on Thursday October 29, 2009 @02:38PM (#29914077) Journal
    So Google has a few thousand customers - most of whom are also using Microsoft Office - and Microsoft is dead? Ok then...
  • Re:Why segregate? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by symbolset ( 646467 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @03:38PM (#29914959) Journal
    They're more reliable than the Microsoft Danger servers I believe. People are still reporting data loss on their SideKicks today.
  • by radtea ( 464814 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @03:42PM (#29915017)

    the IT admin simply points at Google and says "it's not my fault or my problem".

    I'm not sure who you mean by "the IT admin"? Is that like a buggy-whip maker?

    One of the big advantages that makes remote hosting with a standard application infrastructure (which is all "cloud computing" is in this context) attractive is that you get to fire most of your admins because you no longer have much in the way of in-house servers.

    One of the reasons why this is happening now is because after a decade of of living with "a computer on every desktop and in every home" we have a very good idea of what we want these gadgets to do, and a pretty good idea of how to do it. So the economic viability of remotely hosted standard applications is the result of the rapidly slowly pace of innovation in desktop office software (which is no surprise.)

  • by david_thornley ( 598059 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @04:15PM (#29915555)

    Given your political views, I can only suggest you emigrate to Somalia. In that paradise, there is no central government controlling the market, and people are make any associations they want, No society will take your rights away.

  • by syousef ( 465911 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @04:16PM (#29915571) Journal

    "Cloud Computing" is just web based thin client with the servers outsourced to a 3rd party who you then trust to run their services scalably. The reason it hasn't been done before is simply that it's batshit insane and before you added marketing hype you'd lose your job even suggesting something as asinine. You simply don't put your day to day operations at the mercy of yet another 3rd party (and unlike basic utilities these services aren't simple and service levels are a bear to negotiate).

  • by agbinfo ( 186523 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @05:17PM (#29916587) Journal

    "At the time they were found "guilty" of leveraging their monopoly in the operating system market to gain market shares in the browser market."

    Well, the US courts' position on IE is a bit muddled. In an earlier case Judge Jackson's ruling about MS bundling IE with Windows was overturned on appeal.

    The penalty was overruled but not the finding of facts. There's no question that Microsoft was found "guilty" of using their monopoly in the OS sector to gain a monopoly in the browser market.

    "The fact that they no longer have a monopoly in the browser market is an indication that the ruling had the intended effect."

    I don't see how. Has MS eliminated IE from Windows? Has it been including firefox?

    Maybe you don't remember about Microsoft preventing retailers from supplying Netscape with Windows and making changes to the OS that would break other applications? Do you not remember the Microsoft-only OS calls that IE would use which would make it perform faster?

    The fact that they no longer use these practices is an indication that the judgment had some impact.

  • Re:My prediction. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by zero0ne ( 1309517 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @06:09PM (#29917417) Journal

    These are also the kind of people that I would either never hire or get rid of shortly if I ran the company.

    In this economy and technology aware world, why the hell would you want an employee that can't adapt to a simple word processor change?

    You want MS office? OK but you are getting a 20% pay cut then bitch; oh you need MS Project and Visio? make that a 40% pay cut.

    (Visio is debatable as I haven't seen anything comparable; any suggestions?)

  • Re:Why segregate? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29, 2009 @10:03PM (#29919711)

    because pissing off one government sounds like no fun

    War ships have been rendered unusable for days after Windows crash. What happened to Redmond exactly?

"Life begins when you can spend your spare time programming instead of watching television." -- Cal Keegan

Working...