On Saturday 20 May 2006 08:29, john dooley wrote: > A tad harsh Horst. How about you step back a little and try and see it > from the other side for a while... > > Everyone is quick to criticise us but somewhere the balance has been > lost and now general practice just demands electronic delivery even if > they have never sent a path specimen to a company. So we have GPs > ringing up demanding the download client after 2 hardcopy copy to dr: > reports. > > Id say a little more understanding and consideration is due for the > benefits these clients have brought and the solutions people have chosen
You can stop right here, because you are wrong. Completely. I am *not* saying that there is anything wrong with pathology companies providing download clients. What i wrong is that these clients do *not* use standards or openly published protocols, and the servers do *not* allow other than proprietary clients to connect and fetch the data The *right* way to do it is to use an openly published protocol, preferably an already established standard, then to produce client software adhering to these specifications - and let the end user chose whether they want to roll their own or use yours. I am sick to death of being bullied into running crappy software or being bullied into running specific platforms for no good reason at all. All I am asking for is to open the field for all players, not just those who buy and wear your uniform Horst _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
