Donald J Bindner wrote: >The most obvious answer here is simple. They wanted to be able >to do it without investment. The location was also something to >consider, because the machines you refer to aren't in a general >lab (so they aren't exactly under the pervue of ITS).
Tatro, Chad wrote: > These were the reasons exactly. [...] > We ARE interested in providing other options for students, but we need > to do it in a way that provides the best level of service and support. [...] > At ITS, we're definitely not experts in everything, but we're willing to > work with others to help meet the computing needs of the campus > community. With all due respect but I do not understand the justification of a decision whose results would have achieved what Chad Tatro was saying: that is to provide „other [OS] options for students.“ Furthermore, 60% of the student workers that were working in the TLTC lab last semester are very experienced using Linux. Thus, assistance could have been provided to other students in a better fashion than in the PL308 library lab that holds 4 or 7 times more people. Here again, I am not saying all that to talk bad about people or something. Instead, I want to point out that FSCK as an organization and certain members such as Don or I did already offer help. Yet, the decision making last semester did cost the university the easy launch of one or two test linux machines in the library. Nevertheless, I am glad to hear, Chad, what you did have to say. I hope that we find a solution to the dilemma. FSCK is going to help you in every respect possible when it comes to getting Linux boxes up and running. Thank you for your feedback. Alex ----------------------------------------------------------------- To get off this list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with Subject: unsubscribe -----------------------------------------------------------------
