Bill Joy For New National CTO Post? 393
jddeluxe writes "In an article in today's NY Times, John Doerr of Kleiner-Perkins proffered up Bill Joy's name when queried by Barack Obama for a recommendation for the position of Chief Technology Officer of the Unites States which Obama has promised to create and that the country is overdue to have.
I think that's a brilliant idea, and while you're at it, have the FCC report to him as well, why don't you?" If Bill is unavailable, I'll throw my hat in the ring, although I'm holding out for Secretary of Tubes.
vi (Score:5, Funny)
We will fight! (Score:5, Funny)
Under Bill, vi will be the national standard. Yeah!!!
There will be a revolt! We, the Emacs revolutionary council, will take up arms and fight to the death!
Re:We will fight! (Score:5, Funny)
isn't there a key board shortcut for that?
Re:We will fight! (Score:5, Funny)
i think its:
ctrl-meta-shift-r alt-ctrl-p ctrl-' alt-meta-1 shift-2
then recomplie without perl extensions.
Re:We will fight! (Score:5, Funny)
You GNU emacs losers have to type that, but us xemacs users have it bound by default to the letter 'a'.
Re:We will fight! (Score:4, Funny)
and to type 'a', he has to hit:
ctrl-meta-shift-pedal-cymbal {thump thump clap} we-will-we-will-rock-you
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
XEmacs are merely the reform branch of the Emacs religion. You can put those thumbscrews down.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Link [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Last I heard, Bill prefers ed to his own vi.
REVIEW: You don't even try to use vi?
JOY: I'm used to having a 24-line terminal with no ability to scroll back. The reason I use ed is that I don't want to lose what's on the screen.
Of course, that was a long time ago, when vi was only 10 years old. Here's the interview from Unix Review [pdx.edu]. In the interview, he likens vi to a piñata.
On a more serious note, he does — gasp — criticize vi and say that it needs features and is a little complicated. It's an interesting historical read.
Re:vi (Score:5, Funny)
Under Bill, vi will be the national standard. Yeah!!!
If you ask me Bram Moolenaar would be an IMprovement over Bill.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes it's funny but it's funny because of the hint of truth. Which is exactly why you do not want a CTO at a government level. How easy is it to corrupt government officials? How many of them are idiots (ever heard Nancy Pelosi speak, wow... just, wow...)? Sure Bill Joy would be great but what if next election you get Bill Gates? Or Steve F'in Balmer? How about MS Windows being mandated for all government work because of ? How about letting the free market (no, not an MS monopoly that is, despite stories to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is exactly why you do not want a CTO at a government level
Disagree.
The national CTO will need to be a leader, not a manager. This is all technology not just IT. And it's not too far a stretch to presume this administration will demand a certain amount of transparency in the role, including an insistence on divestiture of share holdings in case of conflict of interest, but that's no matter -- what matters is not whether there's another Halliburton effect (there won't be) but whether or not the USA invests in technology at the appropriate scale.
There's a huge am
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar (Score:5, Insightful)
I just don't see RMS doing that, he's too much of a man of principle.
It goes beyond that. Certain people define themselves as opposition, as being not-the-man, and as such are uncomfortable in any position of authority, even if their principles were in no way being challenged.
These people serve a valuable role in society, but it is not within the corridors of power.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
These people serve a valuable role in society, but it is not within the corridors of power.
I was thinking about this exact subject this morning with regard to Ralph Nader. Smart guy, definitely has the interests of the people at heart, and he's worked in previous administrations under the Secretary of Labor. Unfortunately, he is literally his own undoing. His mere presence would polarize people to the point where nothing could get done, despite the fact that he'd probably have some pretty good ideas.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
These people serve a valuable role in society, but it is not within the corridors of power.
They are called "prophets".
They preach absolute righteousness and call for repentance (i.e. changing your ways).
They also wear odd clothing and have long beards, but that is a secondary qualification.
Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar (Score:5, Funny)
He prefers to commune with the wild beastes. I'm pretty sure RMS is sasquatch.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't think RMS would even take it.
He would also have to cut his hair, trim his beard, start wearing ties, and taking showers on a regular basis. Can you imagine RMS in a suit and tie? I just cannot picture that.
Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar (Score:5, Interesting)
Bill Joy is also the guy who keeps warning of the end of the world if we don't stop developing various technologies. He wrote a number of articles and did a bunch of interviews about the world turning to gray goo if we don't kill nanotech research, how computers and weapons will kill us all, etc.
He started work on a self-sufficient, solar powered sailboat, presumably his form of a bomb shelter for the coming techpocolypse.
Basically, he has turned in to a crazy old coot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What? They are against fusion??
Ok, I'm now officially not shining for them anymore!
Against fusion... pah...
Yours,
Sol the Sun
(Friend of Joe the Plumber)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Obama: Nuclear power worth considering, not panacea [reuters.com]
Could it be that Obama is actually a center-Right presidential candidate, and not the radical left wing terrorist sympathizing deep green wacko he was portrayed as in the campaign? Say it ain't so, Joe (the Plumber).
Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar (Score:5, Insightful)
This thread points out the problem of anointing one person as CTO. Hate to say it but this is one of those things that might do better with a board, not a leader. That is to say that while there may be a judge, it's the jury that counts. Using one man is not enough, even the SCOTUS has nine. When it's important enough to do something, it's important enough to do it right. RMS should probably be on the jury, along with other notable technology evangelists.
Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar (Score:5, Funny)
Hear Hear...
A board of 7. must have a mix of OSS and Closed source experts, as well as hardware experts.
Experts... not some guy that was CTO for some corperation, I want people that are either leaders in IT technology, or people that made a difference.. Being able to Code or design is a requirement for the position. too many time I have seen CTO's that were promoted from the Sales department.
Oh wait ,that will never happen... because it would be fair and balanced.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
i don't think a "group" of 7 people would be that susceptible to groupthink. generally, when it comes to group behaviors, the larger the group, the more pronounced the effects of group psychology are.
groupthink/group mentality isn't a blanket argument against synergetic bodies or group collaboration, nor is it a very good argument for autocratic decision-making. deliberative assemblies, or committees, are so popular because when you invite more than one perspective on a particular issue you encourage discus
Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar (Score:5, Interesting)
But think about it, a really representative panel of that sort would really need someone representing, say, Microsoft, maybe Apple, maybe HP and/or Dell, and then a couple of FOSS guys. Imagine Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, RMS, and ESR on such a committee. Easily imagined. Now imagine anything getting done by this committee, ever... Not so easily imagined. When the closed source guys were not fighting over which of their personal pet technologies was best for a given purpose, they'd be in grid-lock as RMS and the FOSS guys try to block all proprietary anything. I'd be inclined to say that the closed source people should get 4 seats and the FOSS 3 seats: on the theory that it's more likely that at least on closed source advocate would side with FOSS on a given specific question than that the the FOSS guys will ever side with the closed source guys, and if all 4 cosed source guys agree with something it's likely to be a least a slightly open system.
Still I think one guy, preferably fairly neutral and willing to work with all parties and being advised by a committee like you recommend, would be better. He might not always do what any one of us might want or hope he'd do, but a least something will get done.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think a board is the right move. And Ballmer should hold the chair.
A holistic technocracy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A board? Oh, dear. No. It'd be a quagmire, a committee designed by a committee. icann did that, whciuh is why it takes $62M to replace what used to be literally a $15K/yr part time contract.
Brian K. Reid. Everybody else is either too corrupt or too bizarre to actually do the job. Brian understands people, unlike most geek geniuses.
Nobody else can do as good a job in that role. Plus, never forget Sun was founded by the commission of a federal crime.
Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar (Score:5, Funny)
Under Federal law, you have to be a licensed theoretical physicist if you want to begin a multi-billion-year chain fusion reaction.
Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know how to break this to you but the position of National CTO isn't quite as important as the role of SCOTUS. Upholding the laws and constitutional freedoms of the citizenry is much more important than what IM client government employees wil be allowed to use.
Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, I know what you're saying also, but let me quote rs79, a /. oldtimer:
Brian K. Reid. Everybody else is either too corrupt or too bizarre to actually do the job. Brian understands people, unlike most geek geniuses.
Now, limiting the controlling input to such a function for the ENTIRE COUNTRY to one person is fraught with problems as illustrated by the quote above. Even one President is backed up by House, Senate, and SCOTUS. See, if it's important, there should be some checks and balances. Just the mere mention of M$ on this site is cause for a flamewar. How would a single CTO personage be able to deal with all the crap/politics/bribery/governmental interference and all that will come their way? Even the DoJ was not free from corruption. One person, without a jury behind them, will fall prey to special interests. It seems inevitable. The idea is right, perhaps even the execution of that idea will be, but I have doubts about a single person as head of that implementation.
Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar (Score:5, Funny)
I nominate Ray Kurzweil.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Kurzweil?
You gotta be kidding.
OK, so the man's got vision, but so has any brain-addled acid-crazed schizo hippy you care to mention.
You need someone with real vision and practical common-sense, like Joy, or maybe Jobs (yes, I know I'll get flamed for that) or even Wozniak.
You might as well suggest Eric Drexler - another self-publicist with no notable contribution to make.
Or... (Score:5, Funny)
Secretary of the Internet. [xkcd.org]
Finally its over (Score:2, Funny)
vi wins! Fatality!
In other news, what happened to Slashdot's RSS feed? I used to be able to get the feed based on my subscription, but that stopped worning yesterday.
Isn't this like having... (Score:2)
Isn't having a Chief Technology Officer like having a Chief Refrigeration Officer or a Chief Vending Machine Officer?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"The office should have had a 20 minute meeting deciding what their needs were, and pass that onto the technology department, who would simply deliver those needs."
Knock Knock,
Hey, guess who's in charge of that dept? When you want to create such a department guess who you appoint first?
Thirteen Stripes (Score:3, Informative)
Not eleven, not twelve, but thirteen. If you guys keep putting only 12 stripes on our flag, then the terrorists have won.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's ok, we're just disowning Georgia.
Isn't he the pessimist? (Score:5, Interesting)
I seem to recall Bill Joy having some decidedly pessimistic and even luddite attitudes towards future tech, but it's been so long since he's been in the news that I don't remember now what. Paranoid about nanotech, I think, for starters.
Re:Isn't he the pessimist? (Score:4, Informative)
You're probably thinking about the 2000 article in Wired, 'Why the Future Doesn't Need Us' [wired.com], which he said in a 2003 interview was Wired's title, not his. [wired.com]. It was criticized in quite [slate.com] a [archive.org] few [reason.com] places, but there were plenty of people who gave merit to what he was saying.
I think it's wise to understand that there are risks inherent to almost any solution, and no just adopt technology for technology's sake -- look at what happened with the election machines, and those damned flash splash pages in the late 90s. I probably need to re-read his article, as I can't remember most of it, but I don't remember it being as pessimistic as people made it out to be.
Bill Joy's terrorist connection (Score:4, Insightful)
If the Republicans went crazy over Obama's friendship with Bill Ayers, just wait until they find out what Bill Joy said about Ted Kaczynski (the unibomber) in Wired.
Re:Bill Joy's terrorist connection (Score:5, Interesting)
You mean this? [wired.com]
"I am no apologist for Kaczynski. His bombs killed three people during a 17-year terror campaign and wounded many others. One of his bombs gravely injured my friend David Gelernter, one of the most brilliant and visionary computer scientists of our time. Like many of my colleagues, I felt that I could easily have been the Unabomber's next target. Kaczynski's actions were murderous and, in my view, criminally insane. He is clearly a Luddite, but simply saying this does not dismiss his argument; as difficult as it is for me to acknowledge, I saw some merit in the reasoning in this single passage. I felt compelled to confront it."
Bill Joy doesn't sound that out of line. If you're going to confront terrorists, you need to understand their doctrine and motivation so that you can discredit the entire philosophy, rather than just turn them into martyrs.
Re:Bill Joy's terrorist connection (Score:4, Insightful)
You're assuming that the context will be presented, or matter. Clearly, you've not paid attention the last few years.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Clearly you have no hope for the next few.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As I understand it, the Ayers quote was "I didn't do enough", not 'plant' enough. He claims (at least since a few weeks before 9/11) that it's not specifically about bombs or even other violence. Maybe he's spinning it, maybe if anyone had asked him the same questions in the late 70's or 80's it would have been different, but yes, the context there probably matters. Deciding whether Ayers really counted as a terrorist or not means first reading up on COINTELPRO, considering all that the plethora of double a
About time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:About time (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, a lot of the younger politicos would probably struggle with VCRs, since all they ever knew was iPod or TIVO. Makes them smart rather than dumb, in my opinion, (VCRs used to be a bitch to program).
Do we really need people who know how things work 'under the hood' to make smart tech decisions? Or do we need smart people with vision, who then consult with or employ the right people? Not sure that Kennedy knew how the rockets worked, but he got people to the moon just the same.
Now get off my lawn.
Re:About time (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone who can't program a VCR probably can't program much else, nor follows instructions very well. I agree with the OP.
Re:About time (Score:4, Insightful)
The simple answer is BOTH. We've got 300 million people, surely we can find a few who have a reasonable amount of both technical competency and vision. One without the other to balance it is worse than useless.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a CTO, not a CIO.
The scope of the position needs to go well beyond information technology; it needs to span all the technology that NASA is developing, all the spyware and remote killing machines the NSA is constructing, the research and findings of the NIH, etc. A strong technology background is not particularly necessary. Skills in matrix management, in extracting comprehensible models of complex technologies from experts, and in providing leadership in situations where goals and visions are clo
No need (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't need a national CTO. We can make our own technology decisions without the government telling us what to do.
Re:No need (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No need (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, because that approach has worked so well with the financial industry.
Re:No need (Score:4, Informative)
If you think the government has been staying out of the financial industry for the past 70+ years, you haven't been paying attention.
Re:No need (Score:4, Insightful)
Paying attention? The unregulated market brought us the Great Depression 70 years ago and until Bush the markets stayed regulated. The _recent_ deregulation is why we're in the mess we're in now.
There's no way you don't already realize this, I'm not sure why you posted what you did.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The division between commercial and investment banking broke down under Clinton, with bi-partisan support. And Congress-critters, democrat and republican, both made certain Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac remained unregulated or loosely regulated.
That said, Bush did push deregulation or simply lack of it via the SEC.
Gerry
Re:No need (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a common misconception.
Bush did nothing to deregulate the financial industry.
He is a flaming chowderhead and guilty of high crimes against the people of the United States and the Constitution. But to be fair, this particular accusation doesn't stick.
Re:No need (Score:5, Informative)
It wasn't Bush, but it was deregulation and it was Championed by conservatives. The reason why you don't see it mentioned specifically might due to some embarrassment over the bill being signed by Bill Clinton in 1999.
----from wikipedia---
Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which passed the U.S. Senate in one form on a party-line vote of 54 (53 Republicans and 1 Democrat) to 44 (all Democrats) and on a 343-86 vote in a different form in the House of Representatives, before being resolved by a joint conference committee; the conference report was approved by both houses of Congress (Senate: 90-8-1, House: 362-57-15) and signed by President Bill Clinton.[2][3]
--------------------
And here is a thoughtful perspective on re-regulation from people you probably hate:
http://www.aflcio.org/aboutus/thisistheaflcio/ecouncil/ec03052008a.cfm [aflcio.org]
Re:No need (Score:5, Informative)
That's a flat out lie, mod parent down.
The community reinvestment act was passed during the Carter Administration, and has nothing to with the FACT that lenders made unqualified loans KNOWING IN ADVANCE that those loans would be bundled and sold so that the originator was no longer directly on the hook for the potential (probable) loss.
Deregulation allowed these criminals to get away with this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/01/conservatives-seek-to-shi_n_131020.html [huffingtonpost.com]
Re:No need (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No need (Score:4, Informative)
BAKER (R-LA): It is indeed a very troubling report, but it is a report of extraordinary importance not only to those who wish to own a home, but as to the taxpayers of this country who would pay the cost of the cleanup of an enterprise failure. The analysis makes clear that more resources must be brought to bear to ensure the highest standards of conduct are not only required, but more importantly, they are actually met.
WATERS (D-CA): Through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke, Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines.
MEEKS (D-NY): As well as the fact that I'm just pissed off at OFHEO, because if it wasn't for you, I don't think that we'd be here in the first place, and now the problem that we have and that we're faced with is: maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place, you've given them an excuse to try to have this forum so that we can talk about it and maybe change the, uh, the direction and the mission of what the GSEs had, which they've done a tremendous job. There's been nothing that was indicated that's wrong, you know, with Fannie Mae! Freddie Mac has come up on its own. And the question that then presents is the competence that -- that -- that -- that your agency uh, uh, with reference to, uh, uh, deciding and regulating these GSEs. Uh, and so, uh, I wish I could sit here and say that I'm not upset with you, but I am very upset because, you know, what you do is give -- you know, maybe giving any reason to, as Mr. Gonzales said, to give someone a heart surgery when they really don't need it.
ROYCE (R-CA): In addition to our important oversight role in this committee, I hope that we will move swiftly to create a new regulatory structure for Fannie Mae, for Freddie Mac, and the federal home loan banks.
CLAY (D-MO): This hearing is about the political lynching of Franklin Raines.
FALCON (OFHEO Regulator to MEEKS (D-NY)): Sir, Congressman, OFHEO did not improperly apply accounting rules. Freddie Mac did. OFHEO did not fail to manage earnings properly. Freddie Mac did. So this isn't about the agency engaging in improper conduct. It's about Freddie Mac.
SHAYS (R-CT): Fannie Mae has manipulated, in my judgment, OFHEO for years -- and for OFHEO to finally come out with a report as strong as it is, tells me that's got to be the minimum, not the maximum.
FRANK (D-MA): ...etcetera. Uh, I -- This -- You -- you -- you seem to me saying, "Well, these are areas which could raise safety and soundness problems." I don't see anything in your report that raises safety and soundness problems.
WATERS (D-CA): Under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines, everything in the 1992 has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. What we need to do today is to focus on the regulator, and this must be done in a manner so as not to impede their affordable housing mission, a mission that has seen innovation flourish from desktop underwriting to 100% loans.
MANZULLO (R-IL): Mr. Raines, 1.1 million bonus and a $526,000 salary. Jamie Gorelick, $779,000 bonus on a salary of 567,000. This is -- what you state on page 11 is nothing less than -- than staggering. The 1998 earnings per share number turned out to be $3.23 and 9.mills, a result that Fannie Mae met the EPS maximum payout goal right down to the penny. Fannie Mae understood the rules and simply chose not to follow them. If Fannie Mae had followed the practices, there wouldn't have been a bonus that year.
RAINES: Because banks don't -- there aren't any banks who only have multifamily and single-family loans. These assets are so riskless that their capital for holding them should be under 2%.
CLINTON: The responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was president to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
False
http://www.stablecommunities.org/node/472 [stablecommunities.org]
Re:No need (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit. The people making these qualified loans knew full well that they were likely to default, they didn't care because they also knew the loans would be bundled and sold.
NO ONE and NO LAW forced these people to make those loans.
Re: (Score:2)
Please tell that to all the Comcast users.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Insightful? Think about it, the comment isn't even on topic. Why would anyone think that the government having a CTO (even companies with less than 100 employees have one) translates into "government telling us what to do"?
I think having some standardization and efficiency across agencies would save some money, and, the parent poster probably agrees with that. Maybe he's still on that first cup of coffee.
Re:No need (Score:5, Insightful)
You dolt.
The government has millions of computers, and you don't want someone to set policy? Look at what the mindless, out of control, dead in a ditch projects have cost us.
They're not setting policy FOR YOU, nitwit-- for the government. DO what you want. Let someone put reason into executive branch decision making in government IT!!
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like the government is essentially a very large organization that would benefit from someone overseeing how technology is implemented and deployed within it.
Shrink it then.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay fine, but FIRST we start with a Chief Financial Officer of the US...
Because, really, the last thing you want is everybody in the government using the SAME architecture on the SAME networks. Oh yeah, that'll be secure...
Re: (Score:2)
It'll probably be better than what's there now. I've worked with a lot of different government systems, and in my experience the really nasty security holes aren't due to obscure platform bugs, they're due to the really stupid shit that people do to get these different systems to talk to each other. A common architecture would get rid of a lot of that cra
Re:No need (Score:4, Funny)
Security through shit just plain not working in the first place? That's innovative, I like it.
BusinessWeek article (Score:4, Informative)
This is a huge opportunity (Score:4, Interesting)
The Obama administration may be the place where the driving of the golden spike uniting open source development with open source government takes place. Using Federal IT standards to drive proprietary formats out of the government departments will create a cascade of rationalization and standardization throughout the US economy. Our creaky and costly medical care system desperately needs this kind of rationalization.
Accordingly, a prominent and effective member of the Open Source community should occupy this position, not a big-time software corporatist.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Open source software didn't drive the economy of the 90's, or the economy of the last few years. Forcing your ideological views on others through government is both stupid, and dangerous.
Re:This is a huge opportunity (Score:4, Interesting)
Says you. In my professional experience over the last 10 years, Linux and Apache on commodity hardware have been integral in lowering barriers to entry for small companies and the cost of scaling for large ones.
-Isaac
vi will become the national text editor too (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I wager 400 quatloos on the new comer emacs.
How about Bill Jolitz? :) (Score:2)
Now HE'S the man.
IMHO (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd feel more comfortable with someone from the research or academic circles than I would with someone from industry for a position like that. Might just be my bias, but I feel that someone from industry might be a little more biased toward a particular set of interests. Although marginalized to some degree, I think someone like current science advisor John Marburger would be a much better choice. Just my $0.02.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What the CTO needs... (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the first things that should be done is to mandate equal consideration for .NET and LAMP because Java has way too much of a fanboi following in the federal government.
Of course the fact that the federal government has done research that finds that reducing the number of languages reduces costs has nothing to do with them preferring to pick a single standards based, multi-vendor approach. Nope its because they are "Fanboys" and that stuff in the military drones would be better done in LAMP than in Java...
Federal Government uses LOADS of different technologies most of them are in the heavy lifting space rather than being about LAMP type areas (LAMP for Air Traffic Control?).
Ah but you are just talking about websites, which is a single part of the estate and are of course not thinking at all about support and maintenance across thousands of sites and the advantage of having a limited set of technologies would bring in enabling more cross government sharing.
Nope you just want to see your favourite technology being used.
Personally I'd like to see the CTO take a machete to the costs of IT in federal government, OSS would be part of that but consistency would be the major element.
Bruce Perens (Score:3, Interesting)
Bruce is my vote for CTO. I'd rather have someone outspoken in the role that's only partially crazy.
I'm surprised (Score:3, Funny)
This is a solution to ? (Score:3, Informative)
This is a solution to an un-defined problem. We should only implement solutions AFTER we have defined a problem. "Jumping to Solutions" is why so many decision-making processes go wrong.
Expanding the Presidential Empire is not necessarily the answer to our current problems. Government interference in the distribution of goods and services normally reduces the effectiveness and efficient workings of the marketplace, thus depriving the potential customers.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather see Marcus Ranum there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bruce Schneier [wikipedia.org] perhaps?
Nah, put him in charge of Homeland Security... then in 6 months when he dissolves it as "redundant and ineffectual" transfer him to the NSA working on crypto and shoring up our technology infrastructure. Could also put him in charge of the TSA for a bit to help streamline that down to something sane like it used to be and eliminate all the security theater.
Re:While we're at it (Score:5, Funny)
My president (and Fox News) has taught me that it's more important that Americans "feel" secure than actually be secure. He just doesn't get that. You gotta listen to your gut on these things. He's too much of a thinker. Probably socialist, too.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)