[oclug] DND Sole Source Acan
chris123 at netcom.ca
Sat Feb 17 13:51:07 EST 2001
On Saturday 17 February 2001 12:21, you wrote:
> Richard Lamothe wrote:
> > Chris: Can you provide more details? When was the ACAN published on
> > Merx? What specifically was being purchased, just a desktop upgrade? If
> > so, what Linux company would offer a functional equivalent? Corel? I
> > rather suspect not. How about Red Hat? The challenge must be undertaken
> > with a firm that can offer a functionally equivalent competitive
> > product.
> Yes, I couldn't see much room for a challenge. You can find it on merx;
> search for "Microsoft and DND".
> WINDOWS 95 UPGRADE - ACAN
> Reference Number: PW-$$ET-605-6203
> Source ID: FD.DP.QC.10077.C2
> Solicitation Number: W8474-01BC02/B
> Published: 06/02/2001
> Closing: 16/02/2001 05:00 PM Eastern Standard Time EST
> Looks like that's all folks. That's how our tax dollars are spent.
8M...hmmmm the stations in question are standard issue 166 with 32 megs ram
(vintage early 90's) soooo how much memory does w2K need to operate at
reasonable levels and what processors are recommended. Sooo the 8M will
possibly result in 50k x say 300/unit min upgrade (installed cost) = another
150M if my math is correct. So lets adjust that to say a 75M extra/add-on
inclusive of volume discount.
A challenge could then have possibly been based on the following. Leave the
current units in place, install linux as the OS at the desktop level, deploy
vmware server solutions for MS compatibility and set the entire system up an
ltsp server nodes. Current hardware supports this solution. Lots of
customization but non issue for the right hands. End result would have been
dual linux/DOS terminal solution that boot in 15 sec or less, full
compatibility with existing in house MS based apps and linux as the carrier
OS for further integration with existing NOS. End users would never even see
a standard linux desktop if so desired. Trivial (again in the right hands)
but no one wanted to play LOB..... at least the folks that I talked too.
Support and training components could have been outsourced to the right
partners......same for integration and server admin. Desktop admin could have
been eliminated as its a terminal based solution. Setup the help desk off
site (standard contract) and your rolling. Am I missing anything? Role out
and testing. On a terminal based solution these can be greatly reduced in
comparison with desktop deployments. Security consideration? Reduced effort
as its focussed on the server side. Isolate the mail requirements again linux
based or freeBSD or variant combined with HP's mail solution and I think you
could have quite a viable and secure solution. Labour? Possibly a challenge.
In my mind three or four local companies supported by the right distro
vendor, and it could have been done. Good luck to those who challenged. The
solution is currently working in other locals in Europe and the States....for
a lot lot less. Comments on the local viability of the above are welcomed. I
must admit I got wind of this too late (two week effort is not
sufficient)....but not the next one..:) Also to be fair in the assessment
there were probably other non technical reasons that I am not aware of at
this time why this one went this way.
More information about the OCLUG