I mostly agree. The problem with VistA is not that it is inadequately documented, but that we are trying to use it in wasy it was never designed to be used. But be that as it may, I agree that the fact that "out of the box" VistA isn't especially well suited for use in a non-VA hospital (or practice) is a major obstacle to adoption.
--- Terry Wiechmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Excellent points! > > I would contend the MUMPS standard is complete! Putting more effort > into > it is a waste of important, limited resources that can be better used > to > advance the state of VistA, especially in the area of productizing, > support infrastructure and evolution to state-of-the-art technologies > > that make it even more appealing. > > Organizations choose products because they solve problems for them! > Standards are important but not essential to success! > > Since the core Open VistA system was released, what new features, > packages, enhancements, etc. have been contributed by the Open Source > > community to take it to the next level, that is, a whole new version? > > Wouldn't it be better to concentrate on improving the state of this > important product (nationally important) rather than wasting time on > adding minor details to the underlying language? > > I don't buy the argument that VistA won't be accepted because there > isn't a standards body behind the underlying technology. It won't be > accepted because it is hard to install, it is inadequately > documented, > some of the modules still rely upon a roll-and-scroll interface, etc. > > These are the important priorities! > > Terry L. Wiechmann > 978-779-0257 > > > Cameron Schlehuber wrote: > > >Why should the criteria for a "living language" be that it is > undergoing > >constant change? Do standards have to change just to be considered > >"living"? The criteria could just as easily be that it is used in a > >competitive marketplace. To my knowledge not all of the '95 > standards have > >been implemented by ANY vendor. And as I understand the history, > one of the > >problems that faced M seen by a few vendors in the late '90s was > that it was > >being changed too drastically by the MDC, or at least that the juice > wasn't > >worth the squeeze. > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Nancy > >Anthracite > >Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 2:24 PM > >To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net > >Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] MDC Revival > > > >Don't you think that the VA is one big fat carrot and stick? They > are > >currently using the standard, and they may succeed in dumping M, but > > >personally, I think they will fail and the question is whether they > do it > >before or after blowing millions if not billions in an effort to > port this > >system to something else. They should just fix what they have an > get on > >with > >it. If they just quit trying to get rid of it, I think that they > will be > >able to bring in new people to advance and maintain VistA, but it > they > >persist in this misguided effort, they are just shooting themselves > in their > > > >collective feet. > > > >Being vendors of a dead language can't be good, at least not unless > you deny > > > >what you are I guess, and you become "X" instead of M. That seems to > be an > >attractive strategy that might be reversed if the MDC became viable > again. > > > >Hopefully, the vendors and all of the big sticks with carrots will > want to > >participate in that effort. If the VA ever sees the light, maybe > they will > >participate as well. > > > >If push comes to shove and none of the vendors want to participate, > maybe at > > > >least an ANSI standard can exist and progress to be there for the VA > to use > > > >to move VistA along after the next congressional investigation > explores > >where > >all of that money went when the VA tried to move VistA away from M! > > > > > >On Monday 28 February 2005 02:55 pm, Bhaskar, KS wrote: > > > > > >>I agree that from a user's perspective, having a standard makes a > >>technology easier to accept, sell to management, sell to the > general > >>public, sell to politicians, etc. > >> > >>From a vendor's perspective, it costs money to comply with a > standard, and > >>there must be enough people who say, "If you comply with the > standard, > >> > >> > >I'll > > > > > >>buy your product" (carrot) or, "If you don't comply with the > standard, I > >>won't buy your product" (stick). Especially in the case of a > public > >>company, there is a fiduciary responsibility to the owners (the > general > >>public) to spend money to maximize return. > >> > >>In the case of an M standard, who would proffer carrots or take a > stick to > >>the vendors? > >> > >>-- Bhaskar > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide > Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real > users. > Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Hardhats-members mailing list > Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members > ===== A practical man is a man who practices the errors of his forefathers. --Benjamin Disraeli ==== Greg Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
