The interesting question is the work content in the porting of VistA to the GT.M platform. I think ESSI, Medsphere and others were given the contract by the Hui to do the porting. Apparently there was some work which it will be useful to know. What was the work content in porting to another Mumps platform? Obviously there was some work. My only contention is that it is possible the job was not fully complete or there are possible glitches that are not fully understood.
Which again raises the question as to whether GT.M based VistA will work on other OSes. I am sure that one can purchase a licence for GT.M on Unix or Windows. I presume it should and GT.M may be cheaper even on these OSes than Cache. --- Kevin Toppenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/3/06, Joseph Puthooran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... > But I struggle to > > understands the why there is an almost exclusive preference > for > > Cache by most vendors there. But what are these pros & cons > in > > the context of VistA? > > I'll let others answer, but I suspect it has to do with the > fact that > Cache' runs on Windows which more people are comfortable with, > while > GT.M currently does not have an opensource Windows version. > But other > than that I do not believe there is any difference in the > VistA code > running of Cache' vs. GT.M, or that the port was more or less > complete > for one platform vs. another. > > Kevin > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
