> How negligible would it be if the software vendor saved the user $10K in > database fees,
Hi John, Can you substantiate that figure with an example? There are decent, integrated packages that don't require any where near that level of spend on the underlying database. > some more in "office' fees and further down the line, Yes, this is a hidden cost and creates an opportunity for vendors to differentiate themselves by integrating their products with Open Office or similar. But perhaps this is already possible... EG - Genie has its own letter writer, but allows letters to be outputted to Microsoft Word, then sucked back in after editing. On my Mac running Genie, I simply set the default application to open .doc files to NeoOffice (a Mac Open Office build). The "round trip" worked fine as I suspect Genie simply tells the Operating System to open the exported temporary .doc file using it's default application. Does a similar arrangement (changing the default application) work with other clinical software or is the integration more tightly coupled? > some > more in OS fees; --and teh user was happy to pay half the difference to the > software vendor? General practice isn't moving to Linux en mass. Sorry. > Is there an unspoken standover tactic by a major OS seller to developers? No, but if you're in the software business you can either write programs for an established market or create a new one. History (in the OZ GP/Specialist segment) has proven the former is more viable. It's a chicken and egg scenario and I doubt anyone has the money or the starch to be a rooster. Cheers, Simon _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
