This time NIST bans Vista

First it was the DOT, now it's the NIST:

http://www.informationweek.com/windows/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=QMMQ4SLNSNR1YQSNDLRCKHSCJUNN2JVN?articleID=198000229

Microsoft Suffers Latest Blow As NIST Bans Windows Vista

Tech staffers at NIST, a part of the Department of Commerce charged with promulgating technology standards, are scheduled to meet on April 10 in Gaithersburg, Md., to discuss their concerns about the new operating system, which Microsoft released to consumers in January amid much fanfare and to businesses in December with lesser flair.

According to the formal agenda for the meeting, NIST technology workers will attend a session entitled "Windows Vista Security" to discuss "the current ban of this operating system on NIST networks." NIST officials weren't immediately available to comment.

Funny how the meeting comes a month after they make the decision. Basically a shoot-first-ask-questions-later sorta deal I guess.

All those FUD campaigns out there sure are working.

Hmm.. I dont think peoples opinions on Slashdot or Digg made a profound effect on their decision.

They probably did their own analsis and determinded Vista isn't worth the risk. They'll probably stick with XP.

sirhomer wrote:

Well they have to ban it before they make a final decision. In real big organizations this is critical, when they talk about "banning" an operating system or software application, it's an instruction that is followed by a possible hundreds of sysadmins. If they did not ban it, one sysadmin might install Windows Vista on some computers, and there is a problem.

Ahhh, but you can guarantee that these admins are all running as many test machines as they can possibly get away with. At least, that's the way that we did it in the last large enterprise that I worked at.


^^^This thing right here is called a carriage return/line feed, you use them to differentiate between thoughts.

Operating system upgrades were only ever contingent on one thing: backwards compatability. We had volume licensing, so if we didn't upgrade, we were actually losing money. Once we could guarentee that certain applications were going to work, we would start the roll-out. Generally this would happen during a two-year cycle of upgrading the desktop hardware.

Before you start going on about how we were stupid, I have to say that the enterprise I'm talking about was a multi-state healthcare system. Lives depend on the IT systems working. People were saying the same things about XP that they are now saying about Vista, and XP worked great for us at the time. I don't work there anymore, but as far as I know, the procedure is still the same. Once the apps work, out it goes.

sirhomer wrote:



Well they have to ban it before they make a final decision. In real big organizations this is critical, when they talk about "banning" an operating system or software application, it's an instruction that is followed by a possible hundreds of sysadmins. If they did not ban it, one sysadmin might install Windows Vista on some computers, and there is a problem.

No. In the real world you will find that *any* unchecked or untested OS will be banned. You wouldn't have to ban a new piece of software, be it an OS or an application, because by default everything is banned unless otherwise stated. You don't see talk of "banning" but of "approving".

I don't think they'll approve change to Vista that fast anyway...

The first generation of MC(whatever) for Vista holders are not available yet, and many government agencies DOES rely on the certifications to determine the abilities of IT peoples. So in their view, there's not yet any people available that can handle Vista machines. [/sarcism]

kettch wrote:

We had volume licensing, so if we didn't upgrade, we were actually losing money.

Errr, what? AFAIK volume licensing doesn't work like that; indeed the VL OS licenses allow you to install older versions of the OS/applications with no penalty at all.

reinux wrote:

Some executive got freaked out by all the horror tales Apple and co have been spreading.

Does this ring a bell: ´no one controls Linux, Linux is bad, Linux is not secure etc etc etc´.
It comes from both sides. I have spoken to many consumers and businesses who won´t switch to OpenOffice because it might not work perfectly with Microsoft Office. Not technical arguments but interchangebility.
Same with OS, no change because they don´t know if they can get used to it. Kind of like the UK not switching to driving to the right side. Neither is better or worse than the other but you have to change a lot of stuff. The system that got in first is there to stay, for left and rightsided countries. People don´t like change.
I´ll drive anywhere and I found the difference exists nowhere but in the mind.

As long as Windows doesn´t fall under 80% marketshare, they´ll do fine. Linux will survive on less than 1%. You see: there´s room for everyone.

I agree.

Marketshare hasn't had a profound effect on Linux or even BSD for that matter. As long as there are developers willing to write code, things will progress.

I mean the lack of marketshare has made it difficult for companies driven by profit to port their apps but a cross-platform, open-source clone is usually made and/or the apps eventually begin working with Wine or Crossover.

.NET apps will be a problem since Wine doesn't support the .NET APIs but hopefully the Mono project can continue developing their C#/VB.NET compilers so that companies can port their .NET-based products on all major platforms (Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, MacOS X, and Solaris) with miniscule effort.

blowdart wrote:



No. In the real world you will find that *any* unchecked or untested OS will be banned. You wouldn't have to ban a new piece of software, be it an OS or an application, because by default everything is banned unless otherwise stated. You don't see talk of "banning" but of "approving".

Exactly. In fact all these so called "bans" are an indication of a very different trend. Clearly there are a lot of sysadmins and users in these large organizations who are keen to see Vista in place. That's the only reason I've ever seen for a company to have to remind its staff of such a policy, you don't need to tell people not to use something they don't want to....

sirhomer wrote:

But it is a great thing that many federal government institutions are banning Vista.

Get away. Nobody likes you.

Can somebody ban him? Freedom of expressing opinions my a**, he's spreading hate speech!

sirhomer wrote:

Where I work we also banned Vista because the technical group decided that the cost of upgrading to Vista is not worth the benefits of the system.

Why don't you switch to a non proprietary operating system at your work . It's much cheaper.

ZippyV wrote:



sirhomer wrote: Where I work we also banned Vista because the technical group decided that the cost of upgrading to Vista is not worth the benefits of the system.

Why don't you switch to a non proprietary operating system at your work . It's much cheaper.

Because then he'd get no work done.

sirhomer wrote:

One issue. AutoCAD only runs on Windows.

Did you test it with Wine? Did it work? Have you volunteered to resolve the problems that cause AutoCAD not to run on Wine?

ManOfMicrosoft wrote:



sirhomer wrote: The smart idea of course, is to switch to a non-proprietary system. But it is a great thing that many federal government institutions are banning Vista.

Wow you are a nutcase. You know what would be better, if I (I need to watch my language) you in the face, repeatedly. (I need to watch my language).

Methinks one of our schizophrenic trolls has not only created another alt, but also poses as a MS 'fan'.

sirhomer wrote:



ZippyV wrote:  sirhomer wrote: One issue. AutoCAD only runs on Windows. Did you test it with Wine? Did it work? Have you volunteered to resolve the problems that cause AutoCAD not to run on Wine?

I rather just get rid of AutoCAD. Much easier.

There are lots of free open-source cad applications. Just look at Freshmeat. You can start the switch today!

reinux wrote:

What I do care about is the fact that people are making retarded decisions based on no good reason other than out of spite, not to mention the fact that Microsoft is the scapegoat for half of the world's computer problems these days.

Yet what I come across exclusively (keeping in mind that anyones experience is limited) is the exact opposite, in the sense that people keep using Microsoft because it is what they have been using all the time. A friend of mine owning a small business with 3 computers had to buy full versions of Office. I did propose OpenOffice and his only objection to it was the chance that it might not be compatible with the MS Office documents of his customers. The functionality itself was no problem at all. So he bought the licences (add the +60% european prices).
Microsoft´s omnipresence is the driver behind most decisions. I would like it to be quality because Microsoft has that certainly. Only thing is, it is rarely a reason to choose them and Microsoft would have to put out very crappy software, way crappier then any competition before the customers will look for alternatives.

I had this thought the other day...is it possible that Vista could end up being yet another Windows ME (Millenium Edition) type product? Sort of like a Windows MEII?