Jamie:
> >Goes to the heart of competency.
John:
>
> Not really.
>
> Most people are not perfect and cannot see the future. I'm sure the people
> who had to make the decision were shown NTMail by some person who gained
> commission for the same (and hence had a vested interest), convinced the
> Telstra people that it would offer a better TCO than any other commercial
> solution (orders of magnitude cheaper hardware and software etc.) etc. etc.
>
> I'm sure even the preliminary load testing went to plan. It usually does.
> Maintenance is something a lot harder to test for.
>
> Why hang on? Because it costs a lot of money to change an installed system
> - especially a mail server that >100,000 people use. The longer you wait
> the cheaper the hardware becomes so you have to plan for a point where you
> minimise your losses by changing.
No proof, no evidence, but I bet it went like this:
* top heavy admin dictates NT, against techo advice
* techos try valiantly to make it work
* fails to work
* top heavy admin rails and rants, much gnashing of teeth. Blame,
finger pointing. Disillusioned techos. A lot of arse covering.
* finally, 'do not adjust your corporation, the fault is in reality'
doesn't work.
* Press release heavily slanted not to offend MS pals. (Still used
everywhere else in Telstra....)
I like my story better :)
Jamie
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
