Tom, I am not sure that you intended to continue this discussion on the openhealth list, but I think it might be better on a MUMPS list (such as GUMP) or comp.lang.mumps. BTW, I am glad to see that you are on GUMP list and that you posted info on GT.M to openhealth before I could get to it. It may be obvious to you already, but I am tremendously excited about the GT.M release to Open Source. I think they (Sanchez/Greystone) have already done the hard work of developing a solid and highly scaleable platform on which we can realistically expect to run mission critical applications in the near term. Our problem is learning to use it and to map a conversion strategy from DTM (in my case) or Cache (in yours) or whatever MUMPS we have currently running our existing apps. Thomas Good wrote (referring to MumpsVM and FreeM): >I was kinding of hoping for some cross pollination here. ;-) I totally agree. FreeM and MumpsVM appear to be quite complementary in some ways. They also share some of the same limitations. There are also possibilities for cross pollination between these and GT.M and Monty and Language::MUMPS and others. Although I personally expect to be focusing exclusively on GT.M for the near future, this is the direction I want to take the freem.vmth.ucdavis.edu website - in support of all Open Source or Free or free MUMPS. --------------------------------------- Jim Self Manager and Chief Developer VMTH Computer Services, UC Davis (http://www.vmth.ucdavis.edu/us/jaself)
