Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Building The Navy Intranet 519

wiredog writes "The Washington Post Business section has an article about the ongoing upgrade/integration of the US Navy's computer systems. The $6.9 billion project is the largest Federal IT project ever attempted. The mission is to get rid of, or upgrade, all the old software still in use (including, I kid you not, WordStar), do the same for all the hardware (including, I kid you not, typewriters), and link it all together. There are 100,000 different applications that have to be evaluated, and then either upgraded or replaced. I remember using WordStar. 20 years ago."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Building The Navy Intranet

Comments Filter:
  • WordStar! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Shanep ( 68243 ) on Thursday October 17, 2002 @11:59AM (#4470496) Homepage
    I remeber Wordstar back when I worked for the Navy in the late 80's!

    If they're willing to use Wordstar, they may as well just use vi. : )


    • If they're willing to use Wordstar, they may as well just use vi.

      Actually Joe [farviolet.com] is much more like Wordstar. There's nothing wrong with it.
      • Actually Joe [farviolet.com] is much more like Wordstar. There's nothing wrong with it.

        Oh I'm not saying there is, I prefer to use vi.

        Thanks for the link.

    • Re:WordStar! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by monadicIO ( 602882 )
      If they're willing to use Wordstar, they may as well just use vi. : )

      That would really be good. I hope some day we all will use plain text instead of bloated fancy-formatted text. vi is fast and reliable. Chances, are that raw text would probably be the only "format" still in use in 20-30 years. Often I get one line mails embedded withing tonnes of HTML crap - what a waste of resources - but then again, these guys are willing to spend billions...

    • Re:WordStar! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by foistboinder ( 99286 ) on Thursday October 17, 2002 @12:40PM (#4470922) Homepage Journal

      If they're willing to use Wordstar, they may as well just use vi.

      I wrote my masters thesis with vi and nroff in 1987. It looked better than those written with Wordstar.

  • by CounterZer0 ( 199086 ) on Thursday October 17, 2002 @11:59AM (#4470497) Homepage
    I kid you not, wordstar probably NEVER crashes on them. :)
  • I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sys$manager ( 25156 ) on Thursday October 17, 2002 @11:59AM (#4470498)
    This is something I've never understood about IT upgrades.

    If wordstar and typewriters are working, why spend $6b to replace them?

    A lot of IT spending seems like "make work" projects to me.
    • I can't speak for Wordstar, but as for the typewriters, that means you have to manually enter in things each time they are needed. Whereas by linking up all of your computers, the needed information (say, your SSN) pops up everywhere it is needed, on, say, all 1000 forms you need to sign just to get *in* the military. And fingerprints don't necessarily involve ink, either.
    • Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Shanep ( 68243 ) on Thursday October 17, 2002 @12:03PM (#4470533) Homepage
      If wordstar and typewriters are working, why spend $6b to replace them?

      Actually, funnily enough, this is a big concept that at least the Australian Navy seems to use.

      When I left in 1989, I was told the HMAS Hobart had a combined computing power on the whole ship, of a Macintosh Classic.

      Then again, when I left they were still mostly relying on analog computers.

      • Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Ralph Wiggam ( 22354 )
        I don't have the exact numbers, but I think the space shuttle computer is somewhere on par with the Mac Classic. I'm no fan of the space shuttle, but it does get people to space and back.

        -B
      • in 1989, I was told the HMAS Hobart had a combined computing power on the whole ship, of a Macintosh Classic.

        That's interesting, because if I recall correctly (I may not), the Mac Classic hadn't been built in 1989.
    • Re:I don't get it (Score:2, Informative)

      by mrscott ( 548097 )
      The Navy also needs to function like a business. While using WordStar and typewriters may work, keep in mind that it's tough to make corrections to a typewritten document and that sharing documents with other folks not using WordStar is likely quite difficult. Not to mention what these people do when a Word 2002 doc comes to them from someone else. I doubt Word Star has a filter for it. In the long run, the $6B investment may end up saving the Navy money when considering these scenarios.
    • Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cmallinson ( 538852 ) <[chris] [at] [mallinson.ca]> on Thursday October 17, 2002 @12:08PM (#4470591) Homepage
      If wordstar and typewriters are working, why spend $6b to replace them?

      My pen works fine too, but it isn't recognized on my network.

      • Ya but when the network is down and you get the hot intern to finally tell you her phone number, are you going to say sorry tell me again after the network is up and I can put it into my contact list or are you going to break out the "PEN" and write it down as fast as you can.
      • Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)

        by JordanH ( 75307 )
        • My pen works fine too, but it isn't recognized on my network.

        If it works fine, why put it on the network?

        My bicycle works fine, but it's not good for satellite maintenance.

      • wrong frame type maybe, (hahaha novell humor)
    • Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)

      by supabeast! ( 84658 ) on Thursday October 17, 2002 @12:22PM (#4470751)
      "If wordstar and typewriters are working, why spend $6b to replace them?"

      Because the Navy wants everything tied together into one large directory designed for secure communication using standard software. Communicating encrypted messages is much eaiser when everything is standardized.
      • Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)

        by pmz ( 462998 ) on Thursday October 17, 2002 @12:59PM (#4471115) Homepage
        Because the Navy wants everything tied together into one large directory designed for secure communication using standard software.

        What a pipe dream. This is what IT companies have been promising for decades and have never delivered . Probably the last time this was accomplished was when an entire company ran off of one mainframe. One set of software, one set of terminals, one set of administrators, etc.
  • It will be 5 years behind schedule and 6.9 billion over budget.
  • by mdechene ( 607874 ) on Thursday October 17, 2002 @12:00PM (#4470510)
    And after this project is deemed a success, the Navy plans to decomission the USS Constitution.....
  • Microsoft (Score:5, Funny)

    by ericdano ( 113424 ) on Thursday October 17, 2002 @12:01PM (#4470517) Homepage
    I'm sure that Microsoft is more than willing to help....

    Or maybe we'll see a Apple Switch [apple.com] Ad that features the Navy....

    I still can't imagine that our government is so behind in technology....

    • Re:Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Doom Ihl' Varia ( 315338 ) on Thursday October 17, 2002 @12:05PM (#4470549)
      Much to my suprise the Navy uses Linux for a lot of things. I had a (small) role in the retraining of the USS Cole crew for their new hardware. Linux was part of the courseware. If I recall the instructor ended up having to "borrow" a few NICs because the systems given to him to do training weren't supported by Linux.
      • Re:Microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Ducky ( 10802 ) on Thursday October 17, 2002 @01:36PM (#4471508) Homepage

        I was a contractor working for the N/MCI last year. Linux was a bad word. Solaris was only used where they had absolutely no alternative.

        The problem was(is) that the higher-ups drank the koolaid, swallowed the FUD, and proclaimed Microsoft the great saviour of the Navy's dilema. Every workstation ran win2k, the mail system was Exchange, all the web servers ran IIS, you name it... except the global directory. That's where I came in.

        My job was to take the old system and migrate it over to N/MCI where they could control it (originally, a SPAWAR project). Job called for a Perl hacker familiar with LDAP(iPlanet). Perfect! When I got there, I wowwed em with my knowledge of Perl (not hard - interviewer was non-tech).

        After landing the job, I discovered not only was all the perl coding done (by contractors for SPAWAR a year prior), but EDS wanted to migrate it to Active Directory. Funny thing was that SPAWAR had already done benchmarking on the task and discovered that AD needed two weeks to complete the directory merge - something that needed to be done daily.

        After 3 months of struggling and arguing with them, I left disgusted. A friend of mine who remained told me that the very next Monday (I left on Friday), they canned almost all of the contractors due to budget contraints - my position included.

        -Ducky

    • Re:Microsoft (Score:2, Insightful)

      by LocutusMIT ( 10726 )
      I'm sure that Microsoft is more than willing to help....

      I'm not sure the Navy will want Microsoft's "help" after the incident with WinNT and the U.S.S. Yorktown [wired.com] a few years ago...
    • by belloc ( 37430 ) <<belloc> <at> <latinmail.com>> on Thursday October 17, 2002 @12:10PM (#4470617) Homepage
      Or maybe we'll see a Apple Switch [apple.com] Ad that features the Navy....

      I was fighting a sea-battle on the PC and it was like beeeeep beep beep beep beep beeeep! And then like half of my fleet was gone, and I was like unnnhhh...? It devoured my fleet. It was a really good fleet. And then I had to build it again and I had to do it fast so it wasn't as good. It's kind of...a bummer.

      I'm The U.S. Navy, and I'm a war machine.


      Belloc
    • by ari_j ( 90255 ) on Thursday October 17, 2002 @12:12PM (#4470640)
      ~In the Navy...~

      ~We can switch to Macintosh.~

      ~In the Navy...

      ~Our docs will never get lost.~
      ~In the Navy...In the Navy...~

      We want Macs! We want Macs! We want Macs 'cause they never crash.
    • by Gehenna_Gehenna ( 207096 ) <cavanetten@@@gmail...com> on Thursday October 17, 2002 @12:20PM (#4470723) Homepage

      I used to get mad when I couldn't sink any ships. I'd be all ready to fire of that Harpoon and all of a sudden the AEGIS rader would BSOD.
      One day we were all ready to fire off that CIWS at an incoming rocket when it just stopped working. Our captain started to surf the internet looking for the latest driver.
      After about an hour I just walked up to the firing console in the CIC, plugged it into my iBook and it just worked. We were killing terrorists and bombing Baghdad like it was going out of style. Pretty soon we were all done dominating the seas, and were able to pull into port annd have sex with cheap, foreign prostitutes.

      My name is Seaman Schmuckatelly and I have the clap.
      .er .. use a MAC.

    • Re:Microsoft (Score:3, Informative)

      by Shanep ( 68243 )
      I still can't imagine that our government is so behind in technology....

      Military tends to go for practical solutions, hone them till they work and then use them until the benefits of newer technology far out weigh the old.

      NASA still uses FORTRAN and I would'nt be surprised if COBOL is still being used where it was born.

      BTW, these guys [absoft.com], build a kick arse FORTRAN compiler for G4 CPU's that supports automatic vectorizing, SMP aware code. NASA was considering it for their fluid dynamics modeling.

  • by vlad_petric ( 94134 ) on Thursday October 17, 2002 @12:02PM (#4470528) Homepage
    I mean, the reliability of wordstar and even typewritters is infinitely higher than the one of Microsoft Word/Excel.

    I'm truly amazed that the security of this country relies indirectly on products "that were not engineered for security".

    The Raven

    • by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Thursday October 17, 2002 @12:37PM (#4470904) Journal

      I mean, the reliability of wordstar and even typewritters is infinitely higher than the one of Microsoft Word/Excel.

      If that seems either insightful or funny to you, go try creating some documents on a typewriter. Personally, I'd prefer a word processor with a lousy, cluttered UI, an annoying paperclip that keeps batting its eyelashes at me and a habit of crashing every two minutes over a typewriter any day.

      Wordstar, however, wouldn't be so bad. It wasn't so bad, back in the day. Assuming you could get printer drivers for it. That wasn't a problem years ago, but now... (yes, kiddies, printer drivers were once the job of the application, not the OS, or even the printing system. Luckily you could usually just type in a few codes to tell your app how to use your dot matrix printer's italics mode, bold mode, etc. For fancier stuff, though... ugh).

  • by belloc ( 37430 ) <<belloc> <at> <latinmail.com>> on Thursday October 17, 2002 @12:03PM (#4470536) Homepage
    But the $6.9 billion project has turned into a major technology headache for the services and the prime contractor on the job, Electronic Data Systems Corp. (EDS).

    Hey, if EDS can herd cats [eds.com], they can do this job, no sweat.

    Belloc
    • Yeah but can they write file conversion filters? Apparently not.

      What kind of applications are they finding that would require users to keep two computers at their desk? I can't imagine that they have many custom applications that run on PCs. I would guess that most of the custom stuff is run off dumb terminals which can be emulated on a regular desktop computer. They stated that they've migrated everyone onto a single financial application. And for the handful of antiquated PC applications that they're using, which ones don't have modern counterparts that can be used by converting file formats? Any ideas?
      • Not software filters. Hardware. Ever seen an 8" floppy drive for a modern PC?

        Neither have I. Since WordStar, and other programs, are probably running on TRS-80 level equipment the data will probably have to be migrated by hand...

    • ut the $6.9 billion project has turned into a major technology headache for the services and the prime contractor on the job, Electronic Data Systems Corp. (EDS).

      Isn't EDS an all-Microsoft-all-the-time company? No wonder they are having a "technology headache".
  • by Unknown Poltroon ( 31628 ) <unknown_poltroon1sp@myahoo.com> on Thursday October 17, 2002 @12:04PM (#4470542)
    I worked for them 5-6 years ago. THey had this one older than god crank app that barely ran on an 80-86, buch less a penium that you had to nurse along, because the messages it sent could be read by the navys standard telegraph sort of thing. THis way, even the guy in the 30 year old shack on theat island in the middle of the arctic circle talking to penguins could read the messages. I wonder if theyre also upgrading all the hardware too?
  • by msheppard ( 150231 ) on Thursday October 17, 2002 @12:06PM (#4470561) Homepage Journal
    I dunno if WordStar came up with them, but it had a ton of great keyboard shortcuts that exist today, but most people don't know about. Like Control-Y deleting a line. That command worked in the VB Editor. (I uh... asked a friend to test that... I don't program in VB, ha! Me, program in VB, d00d!)

    M@
  • by farrellj ( 563 ) on Thursday October 17, 2002 @12:06PM (#4470569) Homepage Journal
    Vi and EMACS are great, but for word processing, and I don't me lame desktop publishing which is what most programs like MS-Word and WordPerfect do today, for word processing, no one has created a better interface. Once you know the commands, you can virtually fly through editing a text document. Emacs and Vi are good, but they are designed for editing source code, not text.

    Wordstar Still rules!

    ttyl
    Farrell
  • M$ Bob (Score:4, Funny)

    by jimmyCarter ( 56088 ) on Thursday October 17, 2002 @12:07PM (#4470573) Journal
    Based upon what I'm hearing from my contacts in the USN, Microsoft Bob [telecommander.com] will survive the chopping block and, is in fact, the key component to the new Navy Intranet.
  • by wiredog ( 43288 ) on Thursday October 17, 2002 @12:07PM (#4470576) Journal
    One of the reasons for replacing typewriters/WordStar/etc is connectivity. With the current system sending a message from one base to another might require using snail mail, or a courier. Modern systems have this thing called 'electronic mail'. I hear it's going to be the Next Big Thing.
    • While my memory is very hazy, I am 90% sure that WordStar 3.3 had two sister programs: SpellStar, which came from the era when spellcheckers were separate programs, and then I am pretty darn sure it came with MailStar as a messaging solution. Can anyone who actually used the program comment? Was it just mail-merge or was it an electronic messaging solution?
  • WordStar (Score:3, Funny)

    by misterhaan ( 613272 ) on Thursday October 17, 2002 @12:07PM (#4470585) Homepage Journal
    wordstar was burned into the first 2 amber monitors i got! i never actually used wordstar, but because of these i saw plenty of it . . .
  • by toupsie ( 88295 ) on Thursday October 17, 2002 @12:09PM (#4470603) Homepage
    remember using WordStar. 20 years ago.

    Ha, ha! I know the feeling. Yea, I remember using vi 20 years ago. Oh wait, I still do.

  • by los furtive ( 232491 ) <ChrisLamothe&gmail,com> on Thursday October 17, 2002 @12:10PM (#4470621) Homepage

    including, I kid you not, typewriters), and link it all together

    Once all the dot matrix printers were replaced with laser printers, a typewriter was the only thing that would work on carbon paper. Remember carbon paper?!!!!

  • this [info-sec.com] to happen again.
  • by tmark ( 230091 ) on Thursday October 17, 2002 @12:11PM (#4470624)
    Exactly what is so laughable about using WordStar and typewriters ? A competent WordStar user (and in the day, Wordstar was THE word processor for power users) could almost certainly outdo the best Microsoft Word or free-software-Word-clone user in 95% of the everyday typing tasks that people need to do.

    And typewriters still DO have their place. A good typewriter is still the fastest way to fill out a form, or fill out a label to put on a file folder, or even, sometimes, whip out a quick letter.

    Ridiculing tried-and-proven technology is about as arrogant as ridiculing conventional mail.
  • Much of the pain is borne by desk personnel who have to use the new system. "From an employee standpoint it has had a demoralizing effect because it's making the job more difficult," said Ken Polk, the Marine Corps representative to the Federal Managers Association He continued, "The new systems actually have the audacity to tell us where we want to go today, and how to get there. Thats the sort of decision we try to make for other people. Geez."
  • by raindog151 ( 157588 ) on Thursday October 17, 2002 @12:11PM (#4470635) Homepage
    95% of computer users would be just as productive with a typewriter and a subscription to [fill in the blank] pr0n magazines.

    don't be knocking wordstar or typewriters when they get the job done usually just as well.

  • by bravehamster ( 44836 ) on Thursday October 17, 2002 @12:12PM (#4470638) Homepage Journal
    There is a good reason to keep the typewriters around: filling out security clearance forms. You can't do these things on the computer (at least not the last time I did it). And filling them out by hand causes severe cramps in the thumb area by the 15th page.



    Besides, typewriters just *sound* cool. And they make you look very busy with very little effort. Stupit soft-touch keyboard, I bite my thumb at thee!

    • Well, that has been upgraded at least for Defense Contractors and the Army.

      My last renewal was done through some clearance form program (I have it somewhere). My son, applying for a higher clearance than I, used the same thing.

      But I do remember the days, not that long ago, where new employees were handed a book, essentually, to fill out and send.
  • So we could use open source software where appropriate, saving the taxpayer a couple of billion dollars (sooner or later it adds up to real money, and all that).

    A shame no slashdot readers are fit enough to join the navy.

    But seriously... if the costs can be lowered by using OSS, can we influence the choices made before it's too late?
    • by Camel Pilot ( 78781 ) on Thursday October 17, 2002 @12:36PM (#4470892) Homepage Journal
      A shame no slashdot readers are fit enough to join the navy

      What the heck are you talking about! In fact, I would venture a guess a significant number of slashdot readers work in one way or another for the Navy - I am one.

      Were I work we fear the NMCI contact mentioned in the article. Primarily because it shoves MS solutions down our throats and takes away our ability to choose the best approach to an application. In the project I work for we are in the process of replacing older Solaris/Sun based machines for Linux/Intel workstations. We recently selected Linux to run Matlab to process data instead of the Windows machines suggested by a contractor. We use use Perl extensively to prep, Q/A and archive data.
      Finally we use Perl/Apache/Linux to operate several intranets and internets installations.

      Unfortunately, the article paints a real false and negative picture of the use of technology in the Navy. It is sensationalism crap.
  • by Alien54 ( 180860 ) on Thursday October 17, 2002 @12:18PM (#4470701) Journal
    This ought to be interesting.

    Based on anonymous sources I know who are currently working at AMSA [aol.com], this could be hell. AMSA is currently a test bed for microsoft development, and they are involved in "upgrading" their system, eventually replacing a 4 or 5 person department running their tracking software on PIC on Unix or something like that, with a windows based system with several hundred employees. Given the morale there (see the link for esplanation), it is not hard to get some gossip

    Part of the problem is that with PIC, they can get real time information, not possible currently under MS. And some of the functionality does not translate well when you migrate out of a multidimensional software enviroment.

    If I recall correctly, PIC was first devolped by/for the government to provide a multitasking environment with natural language queries on machines as small and slow as an IBM XT. It was and is from the start a combination OS/Database. Which MS is only now starting to explore.

    I imagine that there any number of these systems out there in the navy enviroment, among others.

    Typically this is a case where the MS solution is in fact an inferior technology.

    BTW, PIC was part of the technology acquired by IBM when IBM purchased Informix.

  • I'm surprised nobody has said it yet... (or at least, I couldn't find anyone that could... there are probably a bunch below my current threshold which will make this post look idiotic, but I digress...) but an open source solution to this problem would be relevant here, especially considering they are using older file formats anyway and Office compatibility isn't a must right now. Go open source!

    Of course, they won't do it. Bush LOOOOVES his widdle baby Bill so it's probably M$ for everyone! But it would be nice...
  • by marian ( 127443 ) on Thursday October 17, 2002 @12:20PM (#4470727)

    I've had the experience of working in several government agencies that were in the midst of this type of situation. Fortunately, they were much smaller installations. What the article doesn't talk about is the barrier to each individual unit/cost center to purchasing common hardware and software. It is next to impossible for a US Government agency to buy the latest and greatest of anything because of how purchasing works.

    In order to buy *anything* you must first go to the GSA (General Services Administration). They send you copies of their current vendor contracts. GSA contracts are put together either yearly or every year and a half. This means that if you aren't ordering at the very beginning of the contract cycle you are getting older models of equipement or software, for higher prices. The contracts are not modified to reflect current market prices or models. If you catch the cycle at the end, you'll be buying 1 to 1 1/2 year old computers/software for 1 1/2 year old prices. A win for the vendor and a big lose for the agency buying stuff.

    But wait, there's more. Now that you've ordered through the GSA contract, you have to receive your goods. This takes a very long time. The terms for payment from the US Government is not what you would call favorable to the vendor. The stuff you've bought has to get sent to the GSA, then the GSA has to send it to you. Has anyone ever heard of efficiency in a government agency? I didn't think so.

    So what if you don't want to go through the GSA? Well, then you have to write up an RFQ (request for quotation) and publish it so that vendors can submit bids. Not a short or easy process. You then must take the lowest bid that will meet your requirements and start doing the contract thing. Once the contract is in place the vendor can start work. Some government agencies have interesting contract regulations. For example, one that I worked for had an unpublished rule that a vendor could increase the price of goods/services by up to 10% without the contract having to be re-bid. Take that to its logical conclusion.

    It's always more difficult when it involves the government.

    • Now that you've ordered through the GSA contract, you have to receive your goods. This takes a very long time. The terms for payment from the US Government is not what you would call favorable to the vendor. The stuff you've bought has to get sent to the GSA, then the GSA has to send it to you. Has anyone ever heard of efficiency in a government agency?

      This is true.. When I was a contractor working at NASA Ames, I helped purchase some
      pretty large computer equipment which took about six months of meetings and such
      and really seemed pretty long and pointless.

      But the really pointless part was that this gear was finally shipped to us, but
      sat in the shipping building on the base for several months because
      it was lost in there among all the other stuff that was bought a year ago.

      Some of that stuff never makes it out of the building because the project
      it was purchased for has been cancelled or the staff working on it are no longer
      available, etc. There are no doubt dozens of these shipping wherehouses with
      orphaned obsolete computer gear all over the country.

      But, when you work for the government theres really no incentive
      to rock the boat or streamline anything. It's like working for
      the post office.

  • behind the times (Score:2, Insightful)

    by JewFish ( 315210 )
    computer games like Doom and music-swapping Napster software. Well considering that the later doesnt even exist anymore, and that you cant even jump in the former its obvious the navy is even further behind than we thought.
  • ...some even had CD burners.
    ..when sailors wanted to send e-mail attachments to a Navy base across the country they sometimes found that their counterparts couldn't open the Microsoft Word or Excel document.
    No doubt there were a few suspect .ppt files in there too.

    ..The new system was designed to change all that.
    Yey, they're going to be using OpenOffice!

    ..also cluttering the files were computer games like Doom and music-swapping Napster software.
    And this is a surprise? It's time that people woke up and realised that people are people, no matter where they work. And people like to play doom and listen to music :)
    It will certainly be interesting to see how this turns out, how over-budget it is, whether it actually improves efficiency (cus it sure isn't at the moment with the two-systems per person approach) and how many security holes pop-up during the transition.
  • by Mastos ( 448544 ) on Thursday October 17, 2002 @12:24PM (#4470763)
    I'm been involved in this "cleanup" for a year now and let me tell you it isn't pretty. While I think its a good idea, unfortunately, their goal is to migrate everything they can to Windows 2000/Office 2000 and get rid of shareware/freeware, therefore open source, products.

    Of course there are tons of HP-UX, Solaris, etc boxes that will stay, but those will be in a completely seperate network and not supported. Thankfully, as a Java developer, I can move all my development to a *nix box and keep all the open source software I use.

    Its all probably a good idea for the Navy, but I wish they didn't hold such a negative view of any software you didn't pay a crap load of money for.
  • When the whole Navy converts to W2K, who will be left to tow them into port when it crashes? Some jarheads in a rowboat?
  • As a former snipe... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jaymzter ( 452402 )
    I can tell you that it's horrendous the way the navy treats IT. They are married to M$. Don't be fooled by any feelgood articles you might read, on the deckplate M$ is king. Granted, he's an old king since he's prolly only NT4! But when the navy looks for solutions, microsoft is the only place they look

    Keep in mind that it has been my experience that things move extremely slow in the military. That's why when my shop did happen to have a printer, it was dot matrix (year = 2000). There was one laser printer for the entire division ( a collection of shops ~100 ppl)
  • Ghaaa!!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by JimFromJersey ( 155779 ) on Thursday October 17, 2002 @12:29PM (#4470810)
    As an ex-squid, let me assure you this is a bad idea. Why? If you lock a sailor in a room with a steel ball they will either lose it, eat it, break it, or fuck it. They don't need more expensive toys to break. To be honest the above only applies to OS's, Crypto-Weenies, oh yeah, and air-dales ... friggin brown shoes ...


  • The article talks about how most of the software is too outdated to run on Windows 2000.... errr... isn't Windows 2000 out of date?

    Last I checked MS was dropping support for it.

    Only the military.

  • by theflea ( 585612 ) on Thursday October 17, 2002 @12:30PM (#4470832)
    Will WOPR be upgraded? What's the newest version?
  • Really I do.

    Of course the memory comes from going to see a shrink to investigate my past lives.

    Lessee... there was the one where I used WordStar, the one as a Spanish Jew during the Inquisition, and the one where I was Lothar the Norseman, Conqueror of the Seas, Destroyer of Kings, Rescuer of Chambermaids.

    So it all just goes to show that:
    1) WordStar is old.
    2) It is true that Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
    3) The Norsemen were... wait. no. Lothar was a "game" my girlfriend thoguht up last week. Sorry. Got a little confused there.

  • Okay, I'm contributing to the random anti-MS FUD here, but I am seriously worried. Standardisation can provide lots of benefits, agreed. However, how many footholds does Microsoft have into the standards space right now. I can see the requirements..."We absolutely MUST have MS Office...and it only runs on Windows"...or "Outlook has the largest enterprise deployments as an e-mail infrastructure in the world, so we should start with that as a base".

    So by starting with something inocuous, it can really snowball. We've all been on projects where the MS rep directly sells his wares to the business, and then you're caught having to integrate the stuff. How hardcore do you think they, or their hardware shills (HP) will market this stuff?

    For an organisation as unwieldy as a government military institution, how much due diligence do you think will take place? How will total cost of ownership be factored in? What metrics for "secure" would actually exist?
  • Navy sub (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Hepkat ( 78639 )
    I considered joining the navy several months ago and I went on a tour of a nuclear trident sub out in GA. The systems aboard the ship were rediculously old, considering their purpose is to control enough nuclear payload to wipe out most of the life on this planet. The fire control room was probably 20x30ft filled w/ rows of equipment which had the combined processing power of, and I quote, "an atari 2600". I'm almost amazed that those things could calculate a firing solution in any reasonable amount of time...
    • Have you ever seen a blue screen on a 2600? Kind of puts the whole "wiping out most of the life on the planet" thing into perspective, doesn't it?

      Remember that neophilia isn't necessarily the first criterion when designing systems designed to do things which affect, as you so accurately pointed out, most of the lives on the planet - all while being depth charged.

    • Do you think that an A-ganger on this sub is just going to be able to dash off to Fry's when a critical component breaks? Subs are a special case that highlight some of the extremes of a combat environment. They are over-manned and many processes that you or I would look at and call inefficient and a poor use of technology are set up that way for a reason: if it breaks or if the ship takes damage then everyone's life may depend on being able to fix the problem. That means that sometimes it is better to put a person flipping switches or re-directing compressed air in the loop rather than a fancy electronic component -- if the person is injured someone else can step up and take over and if something breaks it can be repaired from stock onboard the sub.


      Just because something can be replaced with a shiny new gizmo does not mean that it should be replaced. If the old process is good enough and is well-understood by the crew then what benefit is there to replacing it? It is rather sad that you could not see the whole boat as a large, complicated process and understand the elegance and graceful degradation in the face of component failure that is built-in to these systems. Maybe once you understand the technical challenges of designing fault-tolerance complex systems you will start to appreciate these boats for the marvels of systems and process integration that they can be...

  • by Andy Social ( 19242 ) on Thursday October 17, 2002 @12:48PM (#4470987) Homepage
    I only see a small piece of the Navy's IT structure, primarily the systems that deal with intelligence collection and dissemination. The current development system runs on Solaris 2.8, and they allow clients running Windows to connect, but the developers don't like it. Current military developers (I work with Joint, Navy and AF) seem to have a great love of using Java for the interface controls. This allows any properly-configured client on a network to access the server, and then the geeks can keep their servers MS-free. The military intell community knows very well how completely worthless Windows is for mission-critical functions. Unfortunately, the rest of the military sometimes forgets. Wasn't a cruiser knocked out by a BSOD last year?

    The development and deployment cycle for Naval systems is on an entirely different time scale than the norm, even in the military. Navy systems get upgraded when a ship comes into port, if there is time and resources available at that portcall. Considering the current operations tempo (optempo for the buzzword-impressed), about 1 or 2 intell ships get upgraded per year. They won't tell me how many total ships there are, but I know it's more than a dozen. So, just the installations will take 10 years, if nothing goes wrong and there's no major war.

    If there's a war, nobody gets upgrades if they're needed in the theater, or as immediate backup to the fleet in the theater. Makes time schedules rather flexible.
  • by Kefaa ( 76147 ) on Thursday October 17, 2002 @01:06PM (#4471198)
    What I would hope to see is a case where the Navy says:
    We do these things and we use these products/applications. This should cut the number from 100,000 to 1000. While not every government agency needs to act like a business, in 99.9999999999999999% of the cases the Navy (Marines, Air Force, etc.) could.

    They intent would be to standardize on a set of products such that an application requester would not build their own or for that matter go off on their own to decide.
    You need a database, choose DB1, DB2, DB3...
    You need a procurement application: PA1, PA2 no others and these interface with each other.
    You need a desktop, choose Vendor1Product1 ...
    You need an OS, OSA, OSL, OSM, etc. and it must be an xyz compliant version, this network support.
    any step toward a consistent infrastructure that does NOT list parts. (I was talking with a guy from my State government who was ordering outdated computers because they are force to list the components. What $2000 got you in 2001, is different from today, but buracracy only lets them buy what was specified in the budget.)

    We do not want to see is 100,000 applications rewritten in VB, or C++ or anything. 100,000 came from attrition. If they are going to have to convert get them prove you cannot use one from the list.

    I doubt however this will happen. There are too many interests that do not benefit from a smooth, consistent approach. Too many contractors who cannot make money selling packages, and too many buracrates who benefit from a custom approach.

    My cynical side says to look for it to be $12 billion, and 99,999 systems.
  • by QwkHyenA ( 207573 ) on Thursday October 17, 2002 @01:08PM (#4471216) Homepage
    As a government contractor I've got to tell you that the NMCI has been a huge monsterous headache from its inception. Our small company has several contracts with various naval bases in the US. Finding information on when cross-overs will happen?, what new requirments will need to be met?, what ports will be open?, What software will be acceptable?, what servers will be allowed? has been impossible. One week we here that all webservers will be running IIS and then the next week we hear they're only supporting Apache! Don't even get me started on what DB's will be allowed to operate on thier network!

    Another problem with NMCI is that once the hardware part is settled and running smoothly THEY WILL GET FIRST DIBBS ON ALL SOFTWARE PROJECTS! That's right boys and girls! So, if your company has developed a cool information management tool that the navy currently can't do without, within the next 5 years (so I've heard) NMCI will get a chance to replace your software with their version without bidding on it!!

    And!! You ready for this! THIS NETWORK CAN'T PROCESS CLASSIFIED DATA!! Yep! You heard me! It's sorta like having a car with no WHEELS!!

    Man I love payoffs and politicians! They both start will a 'P'! which is damn close to the letter 'S' for screwed!

  • by alizard ( 107678 ) <alizard.ecis@com> on Thursday October 17, 2002 @01:08PM (#4471221) Homepage
    Hierachy is even more important in military commands than it is in major corporations. The people who decide what OS and what the major apps and who the major contractors in the case of the US Navy are probably getting their electronic mail printed and delivered to them... and they are deciding based on feel-good Microsoft advertising in Navy Times or business week. Political oversight? Don't expect it from appointees of people whose bosses got MS political contributions that got them elected.

    Funny, but given that the Navy is going to be running supercarrier navigation and weapons systems off Windows 2000, i.e. the evolved version of the platform that turned the USS Yorktown into a sitting duck... the only people who have reasons to cheer this decision are the world terrorist community.

    What would they do with the power to shut down or redirect the firepower of a US nuclear fleet? Live and find out, but if I knew anyone in the USN at this point, I'd be telling them they don't need to re-enlist. If our country values their lives so cheaply as to regard MS products as adequate protection... what does a sailor who's been in for a few years owe her country in further service?

    This project is going to get US service people killed sooner or later, not just waste our money.

  • WordStar (Score:4, Insightful)

    by f97tosc ( 578893 ) on Thursday October 17, 2002 @01:12PM (#4471268)
    OK, there have been uncountable posts now that discuss the pros and cons of WordStar.

    The issue was not that everybody used WordStar and that now they have to switch. The issue was they everybody used a zillion different programs (of which WordStar was one example).

    The idea is, as many other have pointed out, to improve communications. A first step is to make sure that applications are standardized. If everybody had used WordStar, they could probably have made this happen with that program, but in reality M$ Word was probably much more common.

    Tor
  • Typewriters ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dougmc ( 70836 ) <dougmc+slashdot@frenzied.us> on Thursday October 17, 2002 @01:13PM (#4471280) Homepage
    I've found that even today, typewriters are the best tools for filling out forms. Well, beyond writing it out by hand.

    I've tried scanning forms, then editing the scanned files in various tools, but it never worked right.

    They may be getting rid of some of those beasts, but the armed forces love forms, so they're going to still need typewriters :)

    A friend of mine tells me that the army is trying to go paperless. They now get emailed publications and are specifically prohibited from printing them out -- and they're punished if caught printing them out. Ack!

  • by _UnderTow_ ( 86073 ) on Thursday October 17, 2002 @01:14PM (#4471284)
    I actually work at a Navy base that is scheduled to be transitioned to this new network. The initiative is called NMCI (Navy/Marine Corps Intranet). From everything I hear this project has been one big cluster f*** from day one. My base was scheduled to be transitioned over a year ago but delays have pushed it back so far that we're not even supposed to start for at least another year.

    This whole thing is such a colossal waste of taxpayer money.
  • US technology lag (Score:3, Insightful)

    by defile ( 1059 ) on Thursday October 17, 2002 @02:35PM (#4472305) Homepage Journal

    If you're comparing the US Navy's antiquated technology to some other country's Navy and wondering how the US, the world's largest superpower can be so ridiculously far behind, consider this.

    While FOO may have modern systems now, 20 years ago they probably had no IT at all, compared to how the US Navy was running cutting edge WordStar. Such is the case for financial networks in the US vs. Europe. They're old and crappy here, but we've had them since the 60s, whereas Europe is only getting them fairly recently.

    Legacy systems support is a huge bitch. And who the hell are Electronic Data Systems? I swear, all of these companies that work with the public sector have such generic names. Are they chosen just because their names are so generic or what?

    Criminy!

  • by sethadam1 ( 530629 ) <ascheinberg@gmai ... inus threevowels> on Thursday October 17, 2002 @03:08PM (#4472731) Homepage
    Okay all - I work for the Naval Sea Systems Command and I can tell you the REAL goods.

    We have been preparing for NMCI for years. Our original "AOR date," or Assumumption of Responsibilities, was Fall 2000. The contract award was delayed several times and finally awarded to EDS rather than the expected frontrunner, CSC. Rumor was that CSC was prepared to run with it. EDS had already disbanded their team.

    NMCI has been nothing but heartache. The ISF, or Information Strike Force, a team EDS has assembled to lead the tranisition, is comprised of mostly freshfaced green sys admins who "basically" understand Windows 2000 and have decided to put 400,000 users, printers, mailboxes, etc, on TWO domains across the country. By my rough estimation, they may even run out of valid IDs for their active directory.

    The ISF has been so unprepared they have pushed data inventory calls on us at the rate of once every few months. This has overwhelmed our staff and left us bankrupt energy wise. Most recently, the following two events have REALLY HAPPENED:

    Upon reviewing our state of the art cat6 network, they told us they would "upgrade us" to cat5.

    They told us they would replace our brand new Cisco switches, locked to the port by MAC, with older, less efficient models, because "our staff is trained on them."

    The plan calls for swapping out subpar equipment in Commands who have less money and replacing it with better equipment poached from Command who have it, juggling resources but also leaving those command with less. The rumors are that they will simply NOT support a good portion of legacy apps. Also, word is that they intend to do everything from block ALL non-approved websites to lock the desktop to the wallpaper and screensaver -- with EDS LOGOS!!

    The most elite support you can buy is "4 hours response time." Laptops will cost your outfit over $300 a month, and at the end of two years, it's taken away. Computers will cost over $190/mo. We could buy new equipment semi-anually for cheaper. Now they are forcing us to buy Windows 2000 licenses and migrate ourselves from NetWare 5.1.

    This is a complete waste of money. Great idea on paper - absolutely deplorable and pathetic implementation. I'm embarrassed and frustrated as a taxpayer and eventually, I may quit on principle.

    I've thought about going to the newspapers and sharing some of this information. As a citizen, I'm incredibly upset because it reeks of closed door deals. Your Navy is spending 6 -12 billion dollars on this, and it appears almost every command will need to stand up a second network just to function. How does that make you feel?

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Working...