On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 20:43, prabir <[email protected]> wrote: > IHMO, we should place our objections slightly differently. > > 1) Proprietary brands for both hardware and software are wrong, so no > apple and no xp > 2) Fair tendering practices should allow competition and only give > system specifications [.........]
I've raised the "lowest bidder" point earlier but this thread is more apt -- for the most part, the tendering process culminates with the 'the lowest bidder wins'. In general, very little planning goes into other factors that can have long term impact on: 0. software reusability between departments. The reusability aspect is relevant to the larger public. So case data/information being publicly accessible in free formats is crucial. 1. data accessibility between departments, especially the lower courts, and hence users. 2. TCO -- i'd rather not mention this in the face of US$3/- OS'es. *sigh* Here its extremely easy to conjure up figures (which are subject to change). Thin ice. While all of them are not directly relevant to this particular case, some of these factors do have a long-term impact on 'how' and 'where' the tax-payers money is being used. It was perplexing to read the tender title specifically ask for "Apple Laptops for Supreme Court of India", when its commonly known that even if "Apple" has the most user friendly interface, its by far the _most expensive_ ; untill i scrolled down to the pre-qualification for bidders : "All authorized dealers of Apple India Private Limited". There is also the possibility that those issuing the tender might not know the difference between "technical specifications" that are brand/vendor neutral and otherwise -- some education is enough at times. This begs the question "whom do we seek to educate" !? /0 paise. -- vid http://vid.svaksha.com || _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
