Re: [Fed-Talk] Someone Trying to Unsubscribe Me?
Re: [Fed-Talk] Someone Trying to Unsubscribe Me?
- Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] Someone Trying to Unsubscribe Me?
- From: William Cerniuk <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 11:17:10 -0400
It happens. There are apparently some teenagers on this list :-)
If everyone on the list agrees, there are no truths to be discovered, no myths to be busted. Some people (on this list and otherwise) have a difficult time with those that disagree with their points of view. The extreme is to remove contending ideas. Some people cannot stomach conceding a point.
I personally welcome disagreement with intelligent, thought provoking commentary. (arm wrestling optional)
--
V/R,
Wm. Cerniuk
Ph: 703.594.7616
On Oct 3, 2012, at 4:26 PM, "Villano, Paul Mr CIV USA TRADOC" <email@hidden> wrote:
> So apparently someone is trying to unsubscribe me from the list? It's not me
> and it's not Halloween yet for ghosts to do it...sooooo???
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcus, Allan B [mailto:email@hidden]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 3:56 PM
> To: Villano, Paul A CIV USARMY TRADOC (US); 'Dave Schroeder'; Walls, Bryan
> K. (MSFC-EO50)
> Cc: Sullivan, Matthew R CIV (US); email@hidden
> Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] Good App & Organization App Stores
>
> OK.
>
> Sorry, Okay.
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> Allan Marcus
> 505-667-5666
> email@hidden
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10/3/12 5:07 AM, "Villano, Paul Mr CIV USA TRADOC"
> <email@hidden> wrote:
>
>> Folks, please spell out your acronyms for we uninitiated. :)
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: fed-talk-bounces+paul.villano=email@hidden
>> [mailto:fed-talk-bounces+paul.villano=email@hidden] On
>> Behalf Of Dave Schroeder
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 2:39 PM
>> To: Walls, Bryan K. (MSFC-EO50)
>> Cc: email@hidden; Sullivan, Matthew R CIV (US)
>> Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] Good App & Organization App Stores
>>
>> Bryan,
>>
>> Looks cool! Out of curiosity, why did you do your own MAM app? Had you
>> considered solutions like EASE and AirWatch?
>>
>> - Dave
>>
>> On Oct 2, 2012, at 12:51 PM, Walls, Bryan K. (MSFC-EO50) wrote:
>>
>>> NASA is currently delivering several iOS and Android apps for
>>> internal
>> use. Currently we serve them from a website (http://apps.nasa.gov). One
>> is the apps@NASA apps that is an appstore for the internal apps. The
>> apps generally aren't useful unless you have NASA credentials once you
>> have the app.
>>>
>>> The are compiled with the NASA Enterprise license. If another agency
>> wanted to distribute an app, they could work with the developer to
>> recompile the code with that agency's cert, I'd think. Not sure how
>> hard that would all be. There would need to be some other changes to
>> the code to make them relevant, anyway (like changes in the
>> authentication setup, at least, and what servers are being accessed).
>>>
>>> On Oct 2, 2012, at 11:08 AM, Mike Pike wrote:
>>>
>>>> If that is an option that would be great... I cannot see apple
>>>> giving up
>> control of an entire app store platform, but if so that's great!
>>>>
>>>> The new apple developer agreement states we can no longer advertise
>>>> other
>> apps in our apps that are not our own apps... this will basically kill
>> Admob and other competitors to iAd (and in my opinion AdMob is much
>> better for the little people)... while not relevant to Federal at this
>> point, who's to say someday those draconian policies won't start
>> affecting what we can develop in house?
>>>>
>>>> I'm waiting for some enterprising state or the DOJ to file a
>>>> complaint
>> with the FTC on a monopoly on apps stores with apple, following the
>> same precedence as Internet Explorer did with Microsoft.
>>>>
>>>> We should have the option to choose app stores (apple App store,
>>>> Cydia,
>> other third parties). The app store itself is nothing more than a web
>> browser, and I think that with the IE/Microsoft and Windows Version N
>> it could be viable legal challenge.
>>>>
>>>> As iOS grows (if it continues to grow under its current leadership)
>>>> it
>> will become more and more of a monopoly. The terms of the developer
>> agreement get more and more restrictive, and as you move into a space
>> that Apple wants to dominate, they will not allow your app on the phone
>> (look at new Google Search with Voice).
>>>>
>>>> the enterprise App store solution bypasses Apple's review process,
>>>> but at
>> the same time limits who you can share apps with... but keep in mind
>> Apple can change the terms of that at any time.
>>>>
>>>> So lets say an agency has an app store, and another agency wants to
>>>> use
>> their app, they cannot unless they are on that agency's private app
>> store, or you build an ADHOC app, which is limited to 100 devices per year.
>>>>
>>>> Google Android allows multiple App stores... but again, unless
>>>> someone
>> from the DOJ or one of the states challenges the App Store monopoly and
>> makes the comparison of splitting browsers to operating systems it
>> won't change... Microsoft's WP7 and WP8 would also be a target, as they
>> are locking that OS down to a single store as well. Google would have
>> to be the one to push for this.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 2, 2012, at 9:58 AM, Loftin, Kathy (CONTR) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm pretty sure that is now an option with Good; I just pinged our
>>>>> rep
>> to confirm and, if I am correct, to ask for more details.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kathy Loftin, PMP
>>>>> DOE OCIO Tech. Integration and Engineering
>>>>> 301 903 3654
>>>>> Contractor to the Dept. of Energy
>>>>> ActioNet, Inc.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Mike Pike [mailto:email@hidden]
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 11:49 AM
>>>>> To: Villano, Paul Mr CIV USA TRADOC
>>>>> Cc: Loftin, Kathy (CONTR); William Cerniuk; Sullivan, Matthew R CIV
>>>>> (US); email@hidden
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] Good App & Organization App Stores
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe the app store is an enterprise app store via apple. I do
>>>>> not
>> think it's possible to have an app store that is not sponsored by Apple...
>>>>>
>>>>> If there is I would like to know as well :)
>>>>>
>>>>> mike
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 2, 2012, at 9:47 AM, Villano, Paul Mr CIV USA TRADOC wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Kathy We're developing apps and have distributed some Ipads but I
>>>>>> didn't know it was possible to set up our own "store." Can you
>>>>>> give me a detailed walkthrough of how you do that using the Good
>> software??
>>>>>> (Either by responding to the list if there's interest or to me
>>>>>> personally?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: fed-talk-bounces+paul.villano=email@hidden
>>>>>> [mailto:fed-talk-bounces+paul.villano=email@hidden]
>>>>>> On Behalf Of Loftin, Kathy (CONTR)
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 9:07 AM
>>>>>> To: William Cerniuk
>>>>>> Cc: email@hidden; Sullivan, Matthew R CIV (US)
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] When did Fed-Talk turn into iPhone/iOS
>>>>>> Chat Box
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We're using the Apple Volume Purchasing Program for now (on GFEs).
>>>>>> If/when we allow BYOD, I imagine we'll probably do the same. The
>>>>>> Service Desk has an Apple ID they use to load and manage the
>>>>>> software.
>>>>>> With BYOD, we will need to make sure we can delete any
>>>>>> government-purchased apps (thus freeing up the license for a
>>>>>> different
>> user) while not wiping the entire device.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We're using Good as our MDM. It lets us set up our own app store,
>>>>>> but since we don't have any internally developed apps at this
>>>>>> time, we aren't using that feature. The Good MDM does let us see
>>>>>> all the installed apps (even outside of the Good sandbox) and I
>>>>>> believe we'll be able to use it for the above-mentioned BYOD issue
>>>>>> at some point, to actually manage them; for now we haven't really
>>>>>> explored
>> that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just as an FYI, we don't have GFE Androids as yet. Again, if we
>>>>>> start allowing BYOD, I think we'll end up with quite a few of those.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kathy Loftin, PMP
>>>>>> DOE OCIO Tech. Integration and Engineering
>>>>>> 301 903 3654
>>>>>> Contractor to the Dept. of Energy
>>>>>> ActioNet, Inc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: William Cerniuk [mailto:email@hidden]
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 8:35 AM
>>>>>> To: Loftin, Kathy (CONTR)
>>>>>> Cc: Mike Pike; Joel Esler; Sullivan, Matthew R CIV (US);
>>>>>> email@hidden
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] When did Fed-Talk turn into iPhone/iOS
>>>>>> Chat Box
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Great info, thank you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How are you handling software? Has the organization figured out
>>>>>> an efficient way to provide software that the organization needs
>>>>>> users to have on their BYODs?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> R/Wm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 1, 2012, at 8:32 AM, "Loftin, Kathy (CONTR)"
>>>>>> <email@hidden> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have about 400 GFE iPads - out of an 8000 customer base in my
>>>>>> organization. Lots of people are starting to use them instead of
>>>>>> Blackberries. If we ever start allowing BYOD, I imagine this number
>> will
>>>>>> grow quite a bit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kathy Loftin, PMP
>>>>>>> DOE OCIO Tech. Integration and Engineering
>>>>>>> 301 903 3654
>>>>>>> Contractor to the Dept. of Energy ActioNet, Inc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: fed-talk-bounces+kathy.loftin=email@hidden
>>>>>>> [mailto:fed-talk-bounces+kathy.loftin=email@hidden]
>>>>>>> On Behalf Of Mike Pike
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 12:03 PM
>>>>>>> To: Joel Esler
>>>>>>> Cc: email@hidden; Sullivan, Matthew R CIV (US)
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] When did Fed-Talk turn into iPhone/iOS
>>>>>>> Chat Box
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you keep it to just federal equipment iOS will be almost
>>>>>>> eliminated
>>>>>> from discussion and the number of macs shrink exponentially by the
>> month.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The list will die.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is a federal related question:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How many people have a government provided iOS device? I have an
>>>>>>> iOS
>>>>>> device on government networks but its personally owned.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone 5
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sep 28, 2012, at 9:15 AM, Joel Esler <email@hidden> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If it's outside the charter, then it should stop.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know I've been participating in some of it lately, and I'll stop.
>>>>>> Hopefully people will follow.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sep 28, 2012, at 10:28 AM, Taylor Armstrong
>>>>>> <email@hidden> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For what it is worth, I'm 100% in agreement with Matthew.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm on multiple mailing lists, forums, etc. This is where I go
>>>>>>>>> to look for things that apply to the Federal workspace, but at
>>>>>>>>> leas
>>>>>>>>> 1/2 the traffic in recent months seems to be little different
>>>>>>>>> from the traffic on any number of Apple user forums.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure, we all need to see/discuss things, but if we're talking
>>>>>>>>> about our personal equipment, etc., then let's talk about it
>> somewhere else.
>>>>>>>>> The signal/noise ration in the FedTalk forum has gotten worse
>>>>>>>>> recently - there are TONS of great resources for general OS X
>>>>>>>>> and/or iOS discussion, but this is one of, if not the ONLY one
>>>>>>>>> that should be dealing specifically with Federal .gov
>>>>>>>>> implications - FISMA, encryption, policies, CIS Benchmarks, etc
>>>>>>>>> etc. Wading through discussions of personal experiences on
>>>>>>>>> non-govermnent owned equipment makes it harder to find the
>>>>>>>>> relevant
>> topics.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just my 1/50th of $1...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And yes, I CAN hit delete... but should I have to? Those
>>>>>>>>> topics are outside of the charter of this list.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Taylor
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Villano, Paul Mr CIV USA
>>>>>>>>> TRADOC <email@hidden> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Exactly, Mr Sullivan. And that is exactly why we need to be
>>>>>>>>>> discussing these things on the list NOW, before a General
>>>>>>>>>> Officer sees the shiny new iThingy and says he wants one for
>>>>>>>>>> official business. These devices and the software they use are
>>>>>>>>>> "disruptive innovation." It's not enough to wait until they
>>>>>>>>>> hit the supply chain. We must know BEFORE then. And the only
>>>>>>>>>> way to tell for ourselves whether the various reports are true
>>>>>>>>>> or not are to use them ourselves before the General gets one.
>>>>>>>>>> And the only way we can do that is to use our own personal
>>>>>>>>>> experiences since the DoD is on the verge of Bring Your Own
>>>>>>>>>> Device.
>> (Which is best? Why or why not?
>>>>>>>>>> Which provider has provisos we can't use in DoD? Which is a
>>>>>>>>>> better vendor? What are the limitations of the software,
>>>>>>>>>> device,
>>>>>>>>>> network?)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The discussions are important not for the moment for official
>>>>>>>>>> use but in the very near future as we advise the command and
>>>>>>>>>> protect
>>>>>> Soldiers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>> From:
>>>>>>>>>> fed-talk-bounces+paul.villano=email@hidden
>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:fed-talk-bounces+paul.villano=email@hidden.
>>>>>>>>>> c om] On Behalf Of Sullivan, Matthew R CIV (US)
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 8:40 AM
>>>>>>>>>> To: email@hidden
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Fed-Talk] When did Fed-Talk turn into iPhone/iOS
>>>>>>>>>> Chat Box
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Isn't Fed-Talk for actual important information like how to
>>>>>>>>>> make things work and support each other with Mac, iOS issues
>>>>>>>>>> where actual FED work is involved. There are hundreds of other
>>>>>>>>>> more appropriate venues to banter about how awesome or useless
>>>>>>>>>> the new iPhone is or how awesome or useless the new iOS Maps are.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Matthew Sullivan
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
>>>>>>>>>> Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
>>>>>>>>>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>>>>>>>>>> o
>>>>>>>>>> ng%
>>>>>>>>>> 4
>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>> noaa.gov
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This email sent to email@hidden
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
>>>>>>>>> Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
>>>>>>>>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>>>>>>>>> e
>>>>>>>>> .co
>>>>>>>>> m
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This email sent to email@hidden
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
>>>>>>>> Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
>>>>>>>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This email sent to email@hidden
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
>>>>>>> Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
>>>>>>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>>>>>>> q
>>>>>>> .do
>>>>>>> e
>>>>>>> .gov
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This email sent to email@hidden
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
>>>>>>> Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
>>>>>>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>>>>>>> o
>>>>>>> m
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This email sent to email@hidden
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
>>>>>> Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
>>>>>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>>>>>> arm
>>>>>> y.mil
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This email sent to email@hidden
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
>>>>>> Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
>>>>>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This email sent to email@hidden
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
>>>> Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
>>>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>>>> g
>>>> ov
>>>>
>>>> This email sent to email@hidden
>>>
>>> Bryan Walls
>>> email@hidden
>>> 256-544-3311
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
>>> Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
>>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>>>
>>> This email sent to email@hidden
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
>> Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>> .mi
>> l
>>
>> This email sent to email@hidden
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
>> Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>>
>> This email sent to email@hidden
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>
> This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden