Horst Herb wrote:
>> I do see that binding the kernel to current DBs is required - even for
>> testing. So the question is - can we get some energy together to test the
>> kernel with MUMPS, Oracle....
>
>Oracle would certainly be a good choice (if open source), MUMPS has to many
>drawbacks in my opinion (was an excellent choice 10 years ago).
If you are talking about high-priced proprietary DBMS then you should
definitely consider Cache', InterSystems' "new improved" MUMPS. Intersystems
advertising claims that it is many times faster than Oracle, even at
traditional relational applications, and much more so for object oriented
applications.
The primary argument against MUMPS of any weight in my opinion is that there
is currently no open source implementation of it. Making and/or helping to
make an open source implementation of MUMPS is one of my primary interests.
Other than that, MUMPS has a number of exceptional strengths in
the areas of efficiency, flexibility, simplicity, and scalability, that
apply especially well to the needs of healthcare computing and which have
been proven over many years in both Laboratory and Hospital Information
systems.
>The choice of open sourcing everything is not a religious one (as you seem
>to think) but based on real world concerns. I think on the long run any
>medical software not beeing open sourced will be unthinkable. See
>http://www.linuxmednews.com/linuxmednews/955806388/index_html (Closed
>Medical Software Poses Unacceptable Risk)
I agree.
---------------------------------------
Jim Self
Manager and Chief Developer
VMTH Computer Services, UC Davis
(http://www.vmth.ucdavis.edu/us/jaself)
