On Wednesday 12 December 2001 01:01, Douglas Carnall wrote: >I'm sorry to say that all of the demos > of OS practice software I have seen are frankly not competitive with > currently available proprietary practice software.
Arden Syntax stuff is competitive with eg SOPHIE and EMIS Protocols... CORBA PIDS is competitive with the absence of a locality patient/person ID server Python, as a scripting language that is implicit in any system based upon it, or probably Zope, and possibly others, or Perl etc, is competitive with the scripting languages underlying the variable parts of variuous systems. MySQL/PostGreSQL is competitive with the back end databases... Proper security features are competitive with what exists in UK GP software... VISTA-M as far as I can see, and I want to look a _lot_ harder and deeper, is competitive with district wide elecctronic patient records. Galen and GEHR are decidedly competitive with the largely unvoiced models and ontologies underlying existing systems - which have structure, but it isn't so firmly based in what we do as it should be if it is to move the state of the art forward. GNotary may be a star, actually. There is nothing like it in use currently, and it is very close to killer-app status IMHO. What I am approaching is that the way in which the RFA need adjusting is to modularise aprovability. > The situation is complex: Microsoft have just announced their alliance with > BT, Cisco, SchlumbergerSema and others in a partnership codenamed > LightBulb. Its main purpose will be to challenge the existing suppliers to > the UK market, Torex, EMIS, McKesson HBOC and the like. Further and better details on this please Doug, off list or as a pointer probably. >By definition OSHCA is interested in open source at this higher level, where > we don't, to my knowledge, have battalions of suits pressing our case. Small higly motivated and trained groups, working behind the lines<g> -- From one of the Linux desktops of Dr Adrian Midgley http://www.swis.net/midgley/
