Unfortunately, I now have all these apps installed on the server. Hlk requested it. Also, the clinical package we use demanded we install the medicare claims on the server, or else they would have to "start charging us for" support with related problems. jh On Thu, 18 May 2006 21:37, Peter Machell wrote: > On 18/05/2006, at 10:25 PM, Chris wrote: > > Is there a reason why each one wants to use their own proprietary > > downloader > > and put their own application within the supposedly secure area of the > > practice network? > > Well there isn't a *good* reason. > > > Healthlink are a smart company, > > What makes you say that? Healthlink are the only one I've encountered > that try to insist on installing their app on a server rather than a > workstation. When I took them to task, they sent me a list of about > 19 silly reasons and 1 good one. Until it matures into something more > reliable and less resource heavy, Java has no rightful place on a > server and the less apps installed there the better. > > Until these companies realise that we want a standard *lightweight* > download client, I suggest using as few of them as possible, and > installing the minimum number of these onto two workstations, with > one copy turned off. > > Peter. > _______________________________________________ > Gpcg_talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
-- VYVYAN & RICK: [together, run out the door to the stairwell, calling] Neil, your bedroom's on fire! _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
