Bhaskar,
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that the concept of paid support is
wrong. But, developers can operate within a 'business model' and set a
price for your services based on your costs. Those of us in medicine
don't have that option. All of our reimbursements are limited, either by
law (i.e. medicare/medicaid) or by contract (HMO/PPO), which we could
reject, but at the risk of our patients going elsewhere ("you don't take
my insurance"). We can't raise fees. Our costs are not controlled. If
the support contract goes up we either pay or go without, but employees
expect raises, if the phone co., electric co. or the landlord raises
charges, we pay. The Gov't also has a history of hitting us with
unfunded mandates. Many of us are still reeling from the costs of
HIPAA implementation. While I'm enthusiastic about the positive effects
on health care, I'm afraid that EHR may be the next unfunded mandate.
Unfortunately, some of us still have to keep within a shrinking budget.
And, some of us have had really lousy experiences with 'support
contracts' in the past. I'd be delighted to have someone come into my
office and install an EHR system, but as you posted elsewhere, no one
gives out warrantees, and I can't afford another expensive mistake. So,
the only practical way I can implement an EHR is as OSFS, installed and
supported myself with help from volunteers.
K.S. Bhaskar wrote:
Mike --
I can't speak for VistA, but at least for GT.M on x86 GNU/Linux, there
is no requirement to purchase support.
I would hope, however, that if you were using it successfully, you would
purchase a support contract because that's what funds ongoing
development of GT.M on x86 GNU/Linux, and is required to keep it viable
into the future. It's not that open source free software is not
commercial and that developers don't have to eat - the business model
for open source free software is based on selling services, rather than
selling licenses that restrict Freedom (as in "free speech", rather than
"free beer").
-- Bhaskar
On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 11:25 -0500, Dr. Schrom wrote:
I'm not opposed to allowing authors of proprietary software to have
free rein
to market their software and support as aggressively as their business
ethics
allows. VistA is in the public domain under FOIA, therefore CMS really
shouldn't
have the right to release a derivative of it (i.e. Vista-office) in
any way
which restricts "public" access to it. I should have the right to
install it
without vendor support. Sure, GPL projects flop, but the GOOD ones
survive
largely because of "support" from communities like Hardhats. I haven't
met
any of them personally, but there are some really bright people on
this list,
and if the can work someone like me through an installation of VistA,
I don't
feel that I want or need paid support, and I should not be required to
buy it.
Mike
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download
it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
_______________________________________________
Hardhats-members mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download
it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
_______________________________________________
Hardhats-members mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
