On Apr 27, 2013 8:46 PM, "Sasi Kumar" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Just one more bit of information. The AICTE circular says at the end that taking account in the Microsoft cloud is mandatory. But, it does not say that a college cannot use an alternative facility. They can always take an account in the cloud, but use their own facility. This was an idea suggested by Prof. Kannan Moudgalya at a recent meeting at FISAT, Angamali, Kerala. > > Further, you can download the AICTE approval handbook from the link: http://www.aicte-india.org/downloads/approval_process_12_13_051011.pdf > There is a comment about "open source" software in appendix 5 (page 114). It says, "Utilization of Open Source Software may be encouraged" This is something that we can use in our arguments.
''Encouraged'' is a word that can cover many misdeeds, I am afraid. There is a perfectly valid, if patently ridiculous, idea, that FOSS advocates are hanging about to reengineer free software solutions that will patch on to the semi-closed data files and applications – which I can see will grow as Microsoft development partners start selling to the colleges, hence the demand assurance. Of course, without the 'support' of the Microsoft ecosystem, FOSS ware will always be playing catch-up, with reduced prices and no hope of some hidden 'bonus' that accrues to business partners, sort of like medical conferences in Bali for pharma associates. By the way, is this the only reference to FOSS in the entire handbook? Just curious. Prof Moudgalya's idea is refreshing. However, it actually may involve completely redesigning the 'university' cloud for privacy, security and open collaboration, if it turns out the 365 cloud is fundamentally weak on any of these aspects (there may be others, of course). I cannot guess what the scale of such an exercise will be, especially if it also involves recruiting and nurturing a subset of participating colleges during the developmental phase. -- Vickram Fool On The Hill communicall.wordpress.com "The cameras were all around. We've got you taped; you're in the play. Here's your I.D. (Ideal for identifying one and all.) Invest your life in the memory bank; ours the interest and we thank you." Jethro Tull: A Passion Play (1973) > > Regards, > Sasi > > > On 27 April 2013 11:29, A. Mani <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Pranesh Prakash <[email protected]> wrote: >> > What all would be our reasons for opposing this? >> >> >> add lack of ooxml interoperabity etc from previous discourses. >> >> \begin{itemize} >> \item {It is not application independent.} >> \item {Does not support Pre-Existing Standards.} >> \item {Depends on Proprietary Vendor-Specific Tech.} >> \item {It Neglects Standards like MathML, SVG because of M\$ Corporate >> interests.} >> \item {Not truly backward compatible as M\$ Word is all Closed Source Stuff.} >> \item {permits proprietary extensions to create vendor lock-in.} >> \item {Is not compatible with existing open standards like ODF} >> \item {It is not Legally Safe: Competitors cannot be sure} >> \item {The full spectrum of all possible MS-OOXML implementations is >> not understood} >> \end{itemize} >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Best >> >> A. Mani >> >> >> -- >> A. Mani >> CU, ASL, AMS, CLC, CMS >> http://www.logicamani.in >> _______________________________________________ >> network mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in > > > > > -- > V. Sasi Kumar > Free Software Foundation of India > Please see: http://swatantryam.blogspot.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > network mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in >
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
