GT.M does not currently run on Windows and I am not sure, but I suspect, the Linux version is the Unix version. The issue, again, is likely with VistA and that work has been done with Linux. GT.M for the Alpha has been released to open source, but I don't know that anyone has made the necessary adjustments to the VistA code to take advantage of that.
The work you are alluding to is available to see right in the source code, I would think, and the problem is, again, not likely GT.M but VistA and these should be solvable problems by an expert programmer that knows the infrastructure. There are some of them who are members of WorldVistA and some who are available for hire. I would ask you again to post what your problems are on Hardhats, i.e., specifically what you think runs on Cache/Windows and not on GT.M/Linux with a side by side demonstration of what works in Cache but not with GT.M. It will also be necessary to specify what flavor of Linux you are running as that could be the source of your problem. That should make the process of fixing it much easier and you might get some help without hiring a programmer. On Monday 05 June 2006 18:55, Joseph Puthooran wrote: 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 -- Nancy Anthracite _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
