Re: confused about COTS vs open hardware

From: Alan Dechert <dechert_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Sat Feb 10 2007 - 19:37:03 CST

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Behlendorf" <>
To: "Open Voting Consortium discussion list" <>
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] confused about COTS vs open hardware

> On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Alan Dechert wrote:
>>> But back to the topic at hand - as another huge OSS advocate, I also
>>> feel
>>> that focusing first on OSS for the voting application itself (inclusive
>>> of
>>> all business logic related to voting) and leaving OSS for the operating
>>> system and firmware later is our best bet. ....
>> Interesting to hear that from you, Brian. It seems like the operating
>> system would be relatively easy to move to OSS. Firmware maybe not so
>> easy,
>> but doable over time.
> Seems like it, wouldn't it? Just saying, don't let it be a roadblock.
> Transparency in the voting software is the most important thing. If a
> vendor does that but still wants to run on unmodified
> commercial-off-the-shelf Windows, it's clearly inferior but should still
> qualify at some level.
Fine. FYI, and it does qualify under existing certification processes, and
would qualify under our proposed state certification requirements for
disclosed/Open systems.

The main tricky item with "commercial-off-the-shelf Windows" has to do with
Windows CE, which ITAs have treated as unmodified COTS when it clearly has
to be customized for the target platform. As we've discussed extensively on
this list, under the FEC guidelines, any customizations need to be reviewed
even though it's clear that quite a few systems with Win CE were certified
without reviewing those customizations.

Alan D.

OVC-discuss mailing list
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Wed Feb 28 23:17:15 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 28 2007 - 23:17:27 CST