> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Tansell > Sent: Wednesday, 8 November 2006 1:51 PM > > Maybe I'm a cynic, but (forgetting the additional benefit of > open source), the difference seems to be as simple as "Who is > paying for it". > > Argus has received "funding", whereas the other developers > have had to "pay their own way" from the outset. Unless > those at Argus receive no pay, the only real difference is > that public money has been used to seed Argus.
That is *not* the only real difference. The important real difference that you are neglecting is that the directors of commercial software vendors have an obligation under company law to make as much profit as legally possible for the owners of the business. They usually aim to achieve this by charging the highest possible prices that the largest possible number of customers is willing to pay. As I understand it, Argus was developed with a very different philosophy. (I am speaking as an 'ordinary' GP in a practice. I am not a spokesperson for ArgusConnect.) As I understand it, Argus was intended as a 'public good' to provide an essential service in our health system at the cheapest possible price. As I understand it, the aim is to provide a clinical messaging service that is open, interoperable, standards-compliant and above all as cheap to use as possible by not having to generate profits for anybody. I have learned that some people in our profession and in government find it hard to believe that anybody (in this case Ross Davey, Andrew Shrosbee and their colleagues at ArgusConnect) would actually invest so much of their time and energy in something intended for everybody's benefit without seeking large rewards for themselves. > Both Argus > and the "others" have a product that they want to succeed, > that they realise must be made to pay or the research and > development dries up. They must both succeed in generating > revenue to pay for staff, buildings, development, even coffee. Or...the government could fund Argus in the public interest as the national clinical messaging system so that users do not need to be asked to pay. I have put this to the federal Minister of Health this morning at a meeting with him. > > This shifts the difference to "with proprietary software, > those using it must pay" Do you use Winzip or Adobe Acrobat Reader? Do you pay for them? > I have long been an advocate of a single download client and > strong views have been voiced against me in many forums. All > I ask is to cut down on the rhetoric. Argus is a good idea, > but those things that make it good are being eroded because > the project is having to exist in the same commercial > marketplace as other offerings. Or...the government could fund Argus in the public interest as the national clinical messaging system so that it does not have to exist in the same commercial marketplace as other offerings. Oliver Frank, general practitioner 255 North East Road, Hampstead Gardens South Australia 5086 Ph. 08 8261 1355 Fax 08 8266 5149 M 0407 181 683 _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
