Trump used Pentagon budget for personal gain, Amazon alleges

[VanceMack]

:lamo

Also leftists on this site..."Trump is letting his buddies at Amazon get away with paying no taxes!!! Impeach!!!"

 

[dixon01767]

Is there anyone left in the country that so stupid that they don't realize that Donald Trump is using the government for personal gain?

What does Trump gain by a Microsoft contract? Asked not expecting an answer but instead to demonstrate you don't have one.

 

[Mason66]

What does Trump gain by a Microsoft contract? Asked not expecting an answer but instead to demonstrate you don't have one.

I have already asked that numerous times.

I doubt we will get any kind of answer.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Trump is going to be impeached...get over it.

Yes, the House will - regardless of the evidence - on (essentially) a "party line" vote approve the articles of impeachment.

And then, the Senate will - regardless of the evidence - on (essentially) a "party line" vote refuse to convict on those articles of impeachment.

When the Accused and the Jury are working together on "the structure of the trial and what evidence will be allowed", it's difficult to confuse that with a "fair trial". It sounds more like a kangaroo court than anything else. (And that, quite frankly is the impression that the "Republican" [whatever that means] Senators are giving to the rest of the world that does NOT consist of knee-jerk supporters of Mr. Trump [well, that portion of the rest of the world that actually gives a damn at any rate].)

Some of the rest of the world is simply taking the attitude "You won, live with it." attitude.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You are right, they should always buy the cheaper one, even if it is crap!

Actually one of the best ways of making a huge profit out of "Defence Contracts" is to realize that the requirements of the contract are (almost) always going to change AFTER the contract is awarded and then to crank up the price of making those changes in order to compensate for the lower amount of profit that was built in to the original contract (which it would now cost too much for the government to get out of).

You might liken that approach to Henry Ford's (possibly apocryphal) "If I was guaranteed 100% of the maintenance and repair business, I'd give my cars away for free." comment.

You might also liken that approach to the fact that it is almost always cheaper to simply junk your home printer and buy a new one than it is to purchase replacement ink/toner cartridges.

You might also liken that approach to the practice of having "loss leaders" in supermarkets (where some items are actually sold BELOW cost) in order to entice customers to purchase the remainder of their needs at inflated prices.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

No, I think term limits are a good thing overall, even if we need to not have a Reagan get a third term.

I think we need term limits for the representatives, and return the way senators are selected back in the hands of the state legislators.

Also...

Do away with retirement benefits for congress. Ideally, they would do one term, and return to civilian life.

Indeed, no one in the House of Representatives should serve more than two years and the operation of the government should be left in the hands of unelected civil servants (who are chosen solely for their partisan political leanings and replaced every time the government changes).

And, of course, having the Senators selected by the State legislators (who also have the unfettered right to gerrymander electoral districts) is a simply marvellous idea.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The solution to that is to return to the approximate one representative per 33,000 people. There would be too many votes for lobbyists to buy. Besides, then the people would actually get a chance to talk to the representatives!

Indeed, having (because of the constitutional limits on the number of Senators) a House of Representatives with around 10,900 members would be fantastic improvement.

Why, if every Representative were to be strictly limited to speaking for 10 minutes on any particular vote, and the number of "legislative days" were to remain at its current average of 138 per year, and if each sitting starts at the customary 1000 and concludes at the customary 1600 (with the customary two hour break for lunch), a new piece of legislation could be passed roughly every 2.2 years (assuming that every Representative actually uses their allotted 10 minutes to remind the folks back home that they are actually tending to business).

Of course, since the Representatives would be limited to a single 2 year term, that means that legislation introduced on the very first day of the Representatives' term would not be ready to be voted on until about 2 months AFTER the Representatives' terms had expired and new Representatives had been elected.

Having a government that was constitutionally unable to pass legislation would, indeed, be "American exceptionalism".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Here is the deal, as far as anyone involved is allowed to say...

Government Cloud will go Microsoft at all levels for a few key reasons:

1) The Skill base of the government employees in Microsoft by a wide margin due to decades of Microsoft install base.

2) End user applications (SharePoint, Office, SQL, Windows, Exchange, Active Directory) are all Microsoft nearly 100%

3) File sharing is SMB based, so native to Windows..

These Gov Cloud solutions, in the end, are tasked with building File Sharing, collaboration, mail and database services all of which must be compatible with the customer install base. That isn't to say that Amazon and Google can't build cloud instances that are compatible with these applications, they can, but Microsoft has an ace in the hole in that their entire support staff is focused, trained and expert in the Microsoft install base that the Government wants to move to cloud. That is a rather big ace in the hole.

Amazon is forced to fight the decision because losing this bid cost them huge in stock price. It was such a hit that Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos switched places in the richest people on the planet.

But Amazon didn't lose because Trump had some vendetta against Amazon, the Government chooses Microsoft because it's what they know.

I have been around DOD and Civilian government agencies for 30 years and Microsoft has been the hands down choice since forever.

And you can bet your bottom dollar that, as soon as Microsoft[sup]®[/sup] has a lock on the government business, Microsoft[sup]®[/sup] will "cease supporting" whatever software the US government requires to continue operating and will be more than willing to "negotiate" the price of installing/upgrading the existing software to the latest version of Windows[sup]®[/sup] (with its plethora of unknown "security issues" [patches {with their own unknown "security issues"} which Microsoft[sup]®[/sup] will be more than willing to sell to the US government at a "negotiated" price]).

This is what is known in the trade as "sucking the customer into the story and then putting them in the position that they HAVE to keep on buying from you at whatever price you decide you are going to charge for the stuff that the customer has to have in order for their first purchase to continue working" and is considered a "smart business practice".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Moreover, the government bidding process is entirely transparent and works like this:

1) Government decides they need to contract a private enterprise to provide a service

2) Government staff submit the requirements that must be met by the service provider

3) Government develops a list f items that the service provider must provide and guidance of how services will be scored

4) Potential Service providers take that list and write a detailed proposal on how they will meet each requirement

5) Government takes all proposals and conducts a review of the proposals, scoring each item in accordance with guidelines

6) The scores are tallied and the Provider that scores the highest wins the bid

7) Government releases full evaluation and scoring justifications for all service providers to review

The end.

Also, if there was some vendetta against Amazon it would show up in unfair scoring, but in my experience the reason everyone tends to lose to Microsoft is in support... nobody knows Microsoft like Microsoft.

Yep, and when Microsoft[sup]®[/sup], for its own reasons, decides to STOP supporting an existing version of its software then no one else is allowed to do so either (because that would be a violation of the intellectual property rights of Microsoft[sup]®[/sup]).

At that point the customer has a choice of [a] having software that has "security issues" and which may breakdown at any moment, living with the chaos involved in completely replacing its software with a non-Microsoft[sup]®[/sup] product, or [c] paying whatever Microsoft[sup]®[/sup] feels like charging for its "new and improved" software (which may not work any better than its old software and which might be riddled with "security issues" that have not been discovered yet).

 

[jmotivator]

And you can bet your bottom dollar that, as soon as Microsoft[sup]®[/sup] has a lock on the government business, Microsoft[sup]®[/sup] will "cease supporting" whatever software the US government requires to continue operating and will be more than willing to "negotiate" the price of installing/upgrading the existing software to the latest version of Windows[sup]®[/sup] (with its plethora of unknown "security issues" [patches {with their own unknown "security issues"} which Microsoft[sup]®[/sup] will be more than willing to sell to the US government at a "negotiated" price]).

This is what is known in the trade as "sucking the customer into the story and then putting them in the position that they HAVE to keep on buying from you at whatever price you decide you are going to charge for the stuff that the customer has to have in order for their first purchase to continue working" and is considered a "smart business practice".

Well.. not really, or at least not the way you seem to think. Windows has a rather long support base. The US government is really just now sun setting it's Windows 7 and Windows 2008 server install base in favor of Windows 10 and Sever 2016... and updating Exchange 2003 to 2016. Windows 7 was rolled out to replace Windows XP. That would be a support period of about 8 years each... even longer for Exchange. That is a LOOOOONG time in IT.

In fact What generally drives OS updates more than anything is demands by the software installed on the servers, not the servers and workstations... and even then, Microsoft is the last one to give up the ghost, usually, on software. In general, I find the Windows Server platform has better support and less strict support windows than, say, RHEL, and fewer software requirements of a specific Windows build than RHEL as well.

 

[jmotivator]

Yep, and when Microsoft[sup]®[/sup], for its own reasons, decides to STOP supporting an existing version of its software then no one else is allowed to do so either (because that would be a violation of the intellectual property rights of Microsoft[sup]®[/sup]).

At that point the customer has a choice of [a] having software that has "security issues" and which may breakdown at any moment, living with the chaos involved in completely replacing its software with a non-Microsoft[sup]®[/sup] product, or [c] paying whatever Microsoft[sup]®[/sup] feels like charging for its "new and improved" software (which may not work any better than its old software and which might be riddled with "security issues" that have not been discovered yet).

Well, if you go by Linux "support" there are as many hobbyist programmers writing code for Windows 7 than for comparably old RHEL installs.

In fact, the bigger knock against Windows from an IT perspective is how rarely they overhaul their core kernel, which adds life to any OS long past official support.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Well.. not really, or at least not the way you seem to think. Windows has a rather long support base. The US government is really just now sun setting it's Windows 7 and Windows 2008 server install base in favor of Windows 10 and Sever 2016... and updating Exchange 2003 to 2016. Windows 7 was rolled out to replace Windows XP. That would be a support period of about 8 years each... even longer for Exchange. That is a LOOOOONG time in IT.

In fact What generally drives OS updates more than anything is demands by the software installed on the servers, not the servers and workstations... and even then, Microsoft is the last one to give up the ghost, usually, on software. In general, I find the Windows Server platform has better support and less strict support windows than, say, RHEL, and fewer software requirements of a specific Windows build than RHEL as well.

Were it not for the howls of outrage coming from Microsoft[sup]®[/sup] users everytime that Microsoft[sup]®[/sup] deliberately obsoletes its own product, you can bet that that "service window" would be one hell of a lot shorter.

Admittedly this is a single (and anecdotal) case, but I know of one company that would have had to spend around $25,000 PER COMPUTER to "upgrade" from Windows XP[sup]®[/sup]. The new Windows[sup]®[/sup] program wouldn't have cost anywhere near that much, but the fact that the company would have had to replace all of the specific use software that was NOT from Microsoft[sup]®[/sup] that it required to stay in business made up the balance.

Personally, I think that ANY software that the originating company no longer "supports" should automatically revert to the public domain. If the company's newest version is, in fact, a significant improvement then the market will allow the older (and now public domain) software to die a natural death. If not, then the company will simply have to actually develop software that IS a significant improvement and not merely a "marketing ploy".

Other than games and graphics, I would bet you that about 90% of the computer users could get along just as well with Windows 3.1[sup]®[/sup] as then can with Windows 10[sup]®[/sup].

Not only that, but (other than games, graphics, and on-line video streaming), I would bet you that about 90% of the computers couldn't tell the difference between a computer operating at 800mb/s and one operating at 4gb/s.

That is not to say that there are NO benefits from improved software and higher operating speeds, only to say that those benefits aren't (for most people) quite as big as the marketing brochures tell you that they are.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Well, if you go by Linux "support" there are as many hobbyist programmers writing code for Windows 7 than for comparably old RHEL installs.

Quite possibly. However just watch what happens when some independent offers "security upgrades" to a Microsoft[sup]®[/sup] produce that Microsoft[sup]®[/sup] no longer "supports".

In fact, the bigger knock against Windows from an IT perspective is how rarely they overhaul their core kernel, which adds life to any OS long past official support.

Not being directly involved, I can't disagree with you. However, I doubt that those "overhauls" actually involve RE-WRITING the core kernel as what appears to be the standard is to "patch" around those code lines which have been discovered to be defective (and the discoveries are NOT generally made by Microsoft[sup]®[/sup] personnel directly).

 

[jmotivator]

Were it not for the howls of outrage coming from Microsoft[sup]®[/sup] users everytime that Microsoft[sup]®[/sup] deliberately obsoletes its own product, you can bet that that "service window" would be one hell of a lot shorter.

Soooo... Microsoft gives the customer what they want? Those. Bastards. :roll:

Admittedly this is a single (and anecdotal) case, but I know of one company that would have had to spend around $25,000 PER COMPUTER to "upgrade" from Windows XP[sup]®[/sup]. The new Windows[sup]®[/sup] program wouldn't have cost anywhere near that much, but the fact that the company would have had to replace all of the specific use software that was NOT from Microsoft[sup]®[/sup] that it required to stay in business made up the balance.

XP was 14 years old when it was official taken off support. That is ancient by software standards. Sorry, but any software that ran on Windows XP but would not run on later versions of Windows is the fault of the software manufacturer.

Also, Microsoft is not responsible for the exorbitant cost of Software that other companies sell. :roll:

Personally, I think that ANY software that the originating company no longer "supports" should automatically revert to the public domain. If the company's newest version is, in fact, a significant improvement then the market will allow the older (and now public domain) software to die a natural death. If not, then the company will simply have to actually develop software that IS a significant improvement and not merely a "marketing ploy".

They offered XP for free for years, and if you had a licensed copy when they shut down the key server you could still use it on the original hardware forever, or until the hardware failed. Even then, Microsoft offered until earlier this year a "Downgrade Rights" feature that allowed you to install Windows 10, fully licensed, and ten downgrade to Windows 7 or XP and have it work fine.

Or, you can use one of these options to license Windows XP... but, for the most part, if you have used Windows 7 and later you'll likely be pulling your hair out and upgrading before long.

XP was a great OS for its day, but it was well past the usefulness when Microsoft pulled the plug. Anyone who hadn't upgraded from XP after 18 years have a whole set of problems that are not Microsoft's fault.

Other than games and graphics, I would bet you that about 90% of the computer users could get along just as well with Windows 3.1[sup]®[/sup] as then can with Windows 10[sup]®[/sup].

OOF. When was the last time you used Windows 3.1 :shock:

May you never have to find out how wrong you are. Windows 3.1 was really nothing more than a GUI interface for Microsoft DOS.

Not only that, but (other than games, graphics, and on-line video streaming), I would bet you that about 90% of the computers couldn't tell the difference between a computer operating at 800mb/s and one operating at 4gb/s.

Only if the software doesn't include all of the QOL features that we have become accustomed to. So yeah, 30 year old software runs great of operating systems released 30 years ago..not sure you are breaking any ground with that claim.

That is not to say that there are NO benefits from improved software and higher operating speeds, only to say that those benefits aren't (for most people) quite as big as the marketing brochures tell you that they are.

As someone who supports government and so I see pretty much all OS flavors since Windows 95, I would disagree. Operating System updates are far more than window dressing.