Oops, you made an assumption. By reading the word "financial" you
assumed I meant for money saving for NASA. The financial reasons could
have been anything. What I was saying is I believe it was for reasons
other then what was operationally better for NASA.
Jeff M
On Jul 20, 2009, at 3:49 PM, t.piwowar wrote:
On Jul 20, 2009, at 12:03 AM, Jeff Miles wrote:
And do you remember how upset many of those scientists where when
NASA made that switch? This is still debated, but I think it was
purely a financial decision rather then what was best for the job.
No not financial...
"If Mr. Garman had performed an analysis of his own database, it
would show the Macintoshes were 5 times less expensive to operate
and support. The IG was presented with numerous studies, some based
upon Mr. Garman's own database, which clearly shows Mr. Garman's
standard will cost more to the taxpayer."
And this part of the report is especially rich...
"When non-Microsoft vendors wanted to voice their complaints
concerning limiting open and fair competition, they were directed to
the Ombudsman of JSC (a new position initiated by your office). The
Ombudsman for JSC is Sue Garman, Mr. Garman's wife."
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives,
privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://
www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
