Ian, This is exactly the reason I've been using Flex. Flex 3.5 requires Flash player 9, which is 6 years old. Runs without an issue in IE 6, gives me more power than the HTML 5 frameworks etc etc. Naming technologies is dangerous due to possibility of spontaneous flame wars, but what I've been describing is the reason I've had to use Flex. (and don't even get me started on HTML 5)
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Ian McNicoll <Ian.McNicoll at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > Hi Seref, > > I accept that , but you can say exactly the same thing about browsers > and web connectivity generally. Until very recently the NHS in the UK > mandated IE6 - go figure. How long before we see snazzy new HTML5 > browsers in these environments? > > Ian > > Dr Ian McNicoll > office +44 (0)1536 414 994 > fax +44 (0)1536 516317 > mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 > skype ianmcnicoll > ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com > > Clinical Modelling Consultant,?Ocean Informatics, UK > openEHR Clinical Knowledge Editor www.openehr.org/knowledge > Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL > BCS Primary Health Care ?www.phcsg.org > > > > > On 11 September 2011 11:21, Seref Arikan > <serefarikan at kurumsalteknoloji.com> wrote: >> Peter, >> The problem is not necessarily about the capability of frameworks to >> manage updates or side by side execution. >> 90% of the time problem is about the IT policies of the institutions. >> If you develop with .NET 4.0, which would require a .net framework 4.0 >> runtime, you assume that the people using the software would be able >> to install the runtime, and install the software. >> many corporate/institutional machines do not allow their users install >> software. Most of the corporate/institutional IT is running on >> horribly old software. IT policy is the real issue I was referring to. >> I don't want to go into a long description of things that went wrong >> for me in the past, but let me just say that I've personally had >> enough issues with both Java and .NET deployment and upgrades that >> makes web based apps a much better option when it comes to this >> particular aspect of software life cycle. >> >> Regards >> Seref >> >> >> On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Peter Gummer >> <peter.gummer at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: >>> Seref Arikan wrote: >>> >>>> ... ?Unfortunately, most modern >>>> software development technologies arrive with their own runtimes, >>>> (.net framework, jre etc) and it quickly becomes a nightmare to deploy >>>> and update software. >>> >>> I'm not aware of any such deployment problems with .NET. I'm sure >>> there must be some, somewhere, but they must be edge cases. In ten >>> years of .NET development I haven't bumped into them. Different >>> versions of .NET sit side-by-side on the same machine just fine; ditto >>> for DLLs targeted towards different .NET versions. My daily work >>> involves a .NET 4.0 application that has dependencies on a lot of .NET >>> 2.0 DLLs; it just works seamlessly. >>> >>> - Peter >>> _______________________________________________ >>> openEHR-technical mailing list >>> openEHR-technical at openehr.org >>> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-technical mailing list >> openEHR-technical at openehr.org >> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical >> > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical >
