I am increasingly interested in historical analogs to the open source
movement. When Martin Luther insisted that the Bible be translated into
German (and subsequently English), the idea was that a clerical elite was
controlling religious practice and belief via the Latin language. The
translations sparked all sorts of social upheaval, including, according to
at least some writers, the American revolution.
Where does this analogy break down? Quite simply at the point where one
compares open source to English or German. Much of open source is written
in C/C++: strictly Latin. So, in many cases, the open source movement is
just monks talking to monks, and Gates is doing a better job with Visual
Basic. How can you have open source in medicine when
>I thought maybe 0.1% of doctors in busy general
>practice would be able to set up and maintain a decent firewall.
?
If I thought that this was just the tortured imaginings of my ignorant
soul, I wouldn't post this. But this is a real problem. Things like PHP
are doing far more for open source than the Linux kernel is.
John
At 06:16 AM 5/9/01, you wrote:
>Horst Herb wrote (on 26/11/00):
> > ...
> > http://www.astaro.com/products/
> > Might be of interest for doctors/clinics/practices with neither time nor
> > knowledge to set up a proper firewall.
> > ...
>
>When Horst posted this, I thought maybe 0.1% of doctors in busy general
>practice would be able to set up and maintain a decent firewall. During
>the last 5 months, I reckon that percentage has become smaller, as
>security problems become more evident and more complex.
>Does anyone know of firewall software (open or proprietary) that makes
>it easy for non-geeks to look after?
>I ask this from a point of view that it is the practitioner's
>responsibility to keep his records safe.
>Has anyone had experience of RedHat's fee-paying system maintenance
>program, or Ximian's RedCarpet?
>Is Debian inherently easier to maintain?
>Are these worries relevant?
>
>--
>Trevor Kerr
>Pathologist
>Blackburn Victoria Australia
