On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 08:31, Kantor, Gary wrote: > The open-source approach has worked best for tools, and there > is no example that we are aware of in which something as > complex as an EHR has succeeded.
With all due respect, I don't think you have though this through before you wrote. If you consider a database system like PostgreSQL - which is a lot more complex than any EHR that may build on top of it or some other database system - just a tool as well, than you may label an EHR system a tool as well. After all, all meaningful computer programs can be seen as tools, devices to a purpose. The free software orld had to bootstrap itself. So the first thing to write were compiler building tools, then compilers, then basic sysadmin tools, then powerful libraries, database systems, and so forth. Complexity has nothing to do with stages of this evolutionary creative process - compexity is dealt with whenever need arises. GCC is extremely complex, and so is the KDE project - both far more complax than any EHR ever will be. So, instead of the typical vapourware proceeding of the commercial software world (make a bold announcement, show around some non-functional dummies to impress investors, and once you have the capital start implementing some of what you announced) the free software world builds a sound infrastruture first, and then a Darwiian process takes care of user needs as they arise and become feasible to be realised. It is *NOW* feasible to create free EHR systems. As I outlined before, most projects are not complete yet, nor would they fulfill every users demands. But almost every single project has something valuable and well done. If we can get them to interoperate by agreing on cpmmon APIs and protocols, we are already almost there. We just didn't realize it yet. Horst
