On 7/27/05, Todd Berman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't believe that the applications part under emulation is solvable. Perhaps for one, maybe for most, but there will be an application that is necessary which won't work. Or will work until an upgrade comes out which uses the newest library, which chokes the emulation layer.
That's just MY opinion though.
That's my other hangup. I think rich clients suck. I nice, W3C compliant web-app would work in pretty much any browser client, and that puts all the work on the server, where it belongs, so you don't have a whole lot of browser dependencies. If you're going to code around that, might as well just stay with a native app.
Well, as I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, WINE requires a Windows License also?
> I've only seen ONE Desktop Linux deployment which worked out. That
> was in a very tightly controlled vertical application environment for
> reserving and dispatching limos.
>
Healthcare seems to be a fairly tightly controlled vertical application
environment as well. Obviously not to the same extent, but far closer
than your average home user. The hard part is the required applications
(CPRS, VistA Imaging, BCMA, GUI-Vitals, etc), but that is a hard
*solvable* problem. And if you go crossplatform, its not an issue either
way which platform is being used. But the option exists in the future to
allow for the platform to be migrated without the application changing.
I don't believe that the applications part under emulation is solvable. Perhaps for one, maybe for most, but there will be an application that is necessary which won't work. Or will work until an upgrade comes out which uses the newest library, which chokes the emulation layer.
That's just MY opinion though.
> Now, if there was a WEB based VistA client, running that under a
> browser under linux would likely be productive. Maybe thunking
> through a J2EE app server?
>
> But now we're adding needless levels of complexity.
>
Now, would you mind explaining how a web based clinical application
running under linux is feasible, but a native one is not?
If it is feasible to run the web based version, then obviously the
native one is feasible too.
A rich client is not a bad thing in this situation.
That's my other hangup. I think rich clients suck. I nice, W3C compliant web-app would work in pretty much any browser client, and that puts all the work on the server, where it belongs, so you don't have a whole lot of browser dependencies. If you're going to code around that, might as well just stay with a native app.
> We're pretty much stuck with CPRS, and it's target client is Windows.
>
But we aren't :).
Well, as I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, WINE requires a Windows License also?
