[Fsf-friends] pacta sunt servanda

[Ramanraj K]

paivakil@vsnl.net wrote:
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Ramanraj K <ramanraj@md4.vsnl.net.in>
      >
      >>>Did you mean C-DAC or did they change names (like ER&DCI and NCST)?
      >>
      >>The Hindu reported "C-DAT" and I am not sure if CDAC has some
      >>sub-division that is called C-DAT or if it is a mere spelling
mistake.
      >
      >
      > Do not be elated. I was at the meeting at Hyatt.

Its neither elation nor disappointment - just a bit of news.

      > It indeed is, err ... ummm.. ah... the C-DAC.

Are you really sure? CDAC stands for the Centre for Development of
Advanced Computing. I wonder what the hyphen is doing in C-DAC. If
needless hyphens are ok, I prefer to call it C-DA-C :) The CDAC website
seems to be ncst.ernet.in. So, the ghost of NCST: National Centre for
Software Technology is still around.


      >
      > But then, this project is handled by thee division formerly
      > called the NCST, which has been merged into C-DAC.
      > Unfortunately, the original C-DAC continue their old
      > `non-philosophy'while the (erstwhile) NCST is changing
      > with the times, and right now, the `open source' phase
      > of migration (of philosophies, that is).

Hillis, who built a computer with 64,000 processors at MIT in 1985, was 
in converstion with NR Narayana Murthy, Chairman of Infosys at: 
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/836641.cms and I wrote 
about it to the ILUGC List. Visit:

http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/pipermail/ilugc/2004-September/012345.html
http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/pipermail/ilugc/2004-September/012349.html

Sivasankar, who had the opportunity to meet Hillis, filled in a lot of 
other things, and also incidentally said this:

<quote>
I'd also add that had the DoE policy makers understood even a little
bit of the ideas that he was enunciating, they never should have
attempted the disastrous CDAC project, which tried to use transputers
in an MIMD architecture. But that's the subject for another long story
</quote>

CDAC could be disastrous anyway, and for now, the "minor" differences in
philosophy may be the last thing to worry about.  Opening up projects to 
the public may be the best way to avoid mistakes at the earliest point 
of time.  Many people are genuinely interested in the projects at CDAC, 
and disclosing initiatives to the public would be in the best interests 
of all.

      >
      > After my and Nagarjun's (what I believe is) useful
      > interaction with the NCST people who will be handling the
      > project, I hope they will realise the difference.

What is the project about?  But, instead of expecting details like that,
it is better to imagine that life is better when full of surprises, and
some day they may open out a beautiful package some evening at the Hayatt :)