Bhaskar, KS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the software is released under
GPL, does that make it any less Free
if the organization developing it is a commercial entity?
Not in the proper sense of the word free as in freedom that FOSS exemplifies.
But for a lot of people who think OSS
Bhaskar, KS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The trouble comes from using the word FREE (FOSS) in an increasingly
commercial world of software.
Maybe commercial users of FOSS should drop the word Free and call it OSST
(open source software technologies).
Free as in beer belonged to the last
Greg Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One problem in people not learning from VistA is that it is so difficult to
install and run! The other point is that the various modules have different
licences. It is not fully open sourced in that sense (or am I wrong?).
Some of the largest
Phillipe,
I would like to know your approach to things, more clearly. The list I made is
more in fun than an initiative for OSHCA!! My interest infact is in the use of
IT for the area of Research, audit and CME for clinicians. The BIG jobof making
those for administrators, managers,
Hi Nandalal,
There was nothing personal in my message. I just wanted to point out
that time is probably come for out of the box thinking.
You are probably aware that current standards in the medical domain are
all dedicated to report making. It means that nothing exists to give a
proper vision
--- Nandalal Gunaratne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greg Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[NG]
One problem in people not learning from VistA is that it is so
difficult to install and run!
[GW]
The trouble is that VistA was developed over a period of approximately
30 years during which it was
On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 14:37 -0600, Greg Woodhouse wrote:
[KSB] ...snip...
runs on a commercial OS. With regard to platforms: VistA runs under
InterSystems Cache' (a commercial M implementation) and GT.M (an open
source M implementation). Historically, it has run under DSM, OpenM,
[KSB]
On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 16:02 -0600, Greg Woodhouse wrote:
--- Bhaskar, KS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the myths that is part of the FUD spread by vendors whose
business models are not based on open source licenses is that
software
based on open source licenses is not commercial.
Joseph Dal Molin wrote:
I feel a partnership between a couple of IT savyy clinicians and expert
programmers with a wholesome way of looking at things, can create the
infrastructure of the future HISs.
Nandalal, you have in one sentence described how VistA was first
developed and evolved
I feel a partnership between a couple of IT savyy clinicians and expert
programmers with a wholesome way of looking at things, can create the
infrastructure of the future HISs.
Nandalal, you have in one sentence described how VistA was first
developed and evolved for the better part of its
Thomas Beale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:yes...well, systemic solutions to
interoperability require systemic
changes to the architecture, not ad hoc additions on the outside. You
have to be consciously designing for interoperability (along with the
other 28 incredibly complex things you
--- Joseph Dal Molin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nandalal, you have in one sentence described how VistA was first
developed and evolved for the better part of its history, all be it the
number of collaborators was much larger.
[GW]
I think that's a fair statement.
So the real issue IMHO is not
--- Philippe AMELINE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joseph,
By simply implementing VistA as far and wide as possible, do you mean
that you want to provide the patients with Vista ?
---
Perhaps the best way to implement VistA as far and wide as possible,
in Joseph's words, is to make it as easy as
Fair enough. I suspect that the problem you describe here may be a bit
of a red herring, though. The problem is not so much IT people (and I
think that is a problematic term, at best) thinking they have the
expertise to design health information systems, but a lack of cohesion
in the field as a
Woodhouse
Sent: 24 Ocak 2006 Salý 06:24
To: Open Health
Subject: Re: [openhealth] Senator Endorses VistA for EHR Standard
On Jan 23, 2006, at 4:26 PM, Thomas Beale wrote:
Just to be clear on what I would want to see for VistA to be
considered
open in terms of interoperability
that XP runs a lot faster
and securely than a native installation...It even
uses less memory! Any
comments???
:s/VistA/Microsoft Windows/g
SO what is the message: Use the experience,
requirements and best practices
from VistA to immediately start next gerenation
VistA; but with a
Gregory Woodhouse wrote:
major new language. Do the people having the skills to build complex
software systems have the expertise to know what to build?
isn't the usual wisdom that there is only one pre-requisite - to have no
idea of the true magnitide of the task before starting ?-)
Ignacio Valdes wrote:
In a Hospital Connect editorial, Delaware senator Tom Carper has
endorsed the Veterans Affairs VistA software as a reference model for
a national standard EHR: ...Efforts are underway within the federal
Where is the reference model (i.e. information and service models)
Will Ross wrote:
Putting this as politely as possible, I believe the distinguished
Senator from Delaware is using the term reference model as a sound
bite in a political context as opposed to the rather more precise
meaning of the term Reference Model in software engineering.
;-)
[wr]
In a Hospital Connect editorial, Delaware senator Tom Carper has
endorsed the Veterans Affairs VistA software as a reference model for
a national standard EHR: ...Efforts are underway within the federal
government to ensure that all health care providers will be able to
use IT in a uniform
20 matches
Mail list logo
