OK I havent done anything programming wise with Microsoft products and I cant claim to be a competent professional grade programmer, but I have toyed with various OSS IDEs to do small things. The Ruby/Rails system has a huge amount of builtin functionality, and even I was able to produce a working small proof oif concept app in a short time from scratch. There are sophisticated IDEs for any language you like to name under Linux. I just think it is unfamilarity with Linux and the learning curve required to get any new system up to scratch that keeps vendors locked in to M$. There is no question that OSS DB systems are sophisticated and stable enough for commercial grade use, and all the other components are there
There is definitely a business opportunity there - eventually someone is going to exploit it. I wish I had the expertise and determination to do so. Yes I think the Linux vendor could exploit that gap. He could get some of that money instead of it being paid to M$.
R
On Thu Mar 29 5:04 , syan tan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>sent:
meaning the vendors can triple the price of their product, so long
as they use open source backends that have negligible costs?
And they still provide indemnity insurance - maybe the insurance
won't cover open source ? Seems to be a push by some IT professionals
for some proprietary products, so maybe there is a commission paid
to the vendors for using such products.
Or maybe the RAD tools like access, delphi, visual foxpro and
powerbuilder are just too easy to use , and open source stuff
is either one level too basic - i.e. too loosely bound to a db product ,
has strings attached , or aimed at a few levels too high, and all
require too much homework ,
so it was and still is , easier to knock up a cottage industry
item using proprietary tools.
I just had a look at pracsoft and I was a bit shocked about
how little it lets you do e.g. I wanted to get an estimate of
the year's billings for insurance quote, but couldn't do it
in pracsoft. thought that was a shocker of a narrowing of application
scope. Was wondering, anyone daring enough to use a spreadsheet
for financials , or is it all myob ? what besides practice management
software, what other accounting packages are used alongside, or are
some practice management software complete in themselves.
It's to do with the taxation rules compliance expertise, isn't it,
which marks out myob's scent ?
On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 21:23 +0800, john hilton wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 March 2007 9:11 am, Simon James wrote:
>
> > Hi Horst,
> >
> > This is all fine if you're starting from scratch, but the vendors with
> > approximately 95% of the Australian GP/Specialist market have products that
> > date back into the early-mid nineties. Unlike now, I doubt there was as
> > much separation between the database and development environments back in
> > the day, or any quality FOSS SQL servers.
> >
> > Even if these "legacy" vendors did the programming to allow
> > mysql/postgres/firebird to be used instead of proprietary database
> > applications, the task of migrating practices and supporting dozens of
> > extra combinations (SQL flavour x clinical software version) would be huge
> > and the payoff to the vendors negligible.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Simon
> >
> >
>
> How negligible would it be if the software vendor saved the user $10K in
> database fees, some more in "office' fees and further down the line, some
> more in OS fees; --and teh user was happy to pay half the difference to the
> software vendor?
>
> Is there an unspoken standover tactic by a major OS seller to developers?
>
> jh
> _______________________________________________
> Gpcg_talk mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
>
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
_______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
