On Wednesday 16 December 2009, OpenSpace wrote: > > I am not sure the conclusion is right. > In this case it is more a management issue (and perhaps overconfidence?)
Not over confidence. Plain incompetence of the IIM officials. Look at their statements like "linux is hard to use". Obviously they know nothing about the tech available in floss for such tasks. IMO they are ignorant of the tech per se - floss or non floss. > If they had gone in for such a large operation without testing on foss > also, there would've been the same breakdowns. Not entirely correct. Presume they did test on M$ and sorted out whatever problems were there - imo a very reasonable presumption. Then they hire test centers. The dynamics change completely now. Infact with doze the environment can change in a few minutes, primarily because of the "wrong by design" nature of it's entire stack - which is a feature not a bug. > Then I dread to think what > the backlash against foss would've been. With floss such sudden shifts in environment are un heard of. Also with floss the preexam systems audit could probably be done away with by simply using a suitably modified live distro. > Luckily they chose prop-soft and that has given foss an opening. In their > overconfidence they got into this mess. Next time when they do it on foss > they will take a lot of care... and foss can take the credit!! -- Rgds JTD _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
