From: Joseph Dal Molin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, 29 October 2004 6:22 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: OGC OSS report (was) Re: NHS/IA revisionism > > OGC report published.... now what will the NHS say on their web > site????????????????????? > > The software could "generate significant savings", according to the > Office of > Government Commerce (OGC)." > > http://www.ogc.gov.uk/index.asp?docid=2190#finalreport > > BBC coverage: > > "UK government departments moved a step closer to using open-source > operating > systems such as Linux after a study found that they were > "viable" products." > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3960025.stm >
The NHS will just say that the OCG report focussed on typical government administrative functions, and that health care delivery is significantly different from other forms of government administration. They'll be correct, of course - it is different. However it doesn't logically follow that a FOSS approach has no utility in health. But that is what they will imply. Here in the state of New South Wales (Australia), a Dept of Commerce tender for all-of-govt contracts for Linux software and support services (especially the latter) closes today. When the tender results are announced in a month or two, it will make it considerably easier for government departments and instrumentalities, including health authorities and public hospitals, to deploy Linux and linux-based systems in mission-critical roles (where 24x7 in-depth support infrastructures are a sine qua non). Tim C > Adrian Midgley wrote: > > On Tuesday 26 October 2004 21:48, Tim Churches wrote: > > > > > >>Richard Grainger, the head of the NHS IA > > > > Certainly he is in charge, but of the NPfIT which is > esentially taking > > over > > from the NHSIA. > > The IA was established when the Information Management > Group (IMG) was > > dismembered into the IPU (Information Policy Unit - a part > of the DH - > > Department _of_ Health) about 1992 in order to make it more > difficult to make > > large mistakes rapidly in a monolithic centrally directed > organisation. > > > > 1992 was therefore the time of the last big spasm in NHS IT policy, > > and gave > > rise to the plans to introduce X.400 email systems running > in a virtually > > private network. X.400 went away last year or the year > before, never having > > really worked, and having been introduced in about 1999 or > so (I forget). > > > > > >>contracts being offered. That probably means that open source won't > >>get a much of a look in. Adrian, is that a correct surmise? > > > > > > There is expressed the theory that after it all goes > wonderfully well > > for us, > > the rest of you will buy it and we will share the profits > into the Exchequer. > > It sounds like a sales-talk to me but I know little of such things. > > > > There has never been any prohibition on the use of open source > > software, > > however one of the quid pro quos for the deal - if unspoken > - seems to be > > that the developers get the onwership and control of the > results... so as to > > make it easier for them to extract large amounts of money > from the rest of > > the world which they will share with teh NHS and .gov.uk > > > > Who knows. Perhaps it might work. > > The developments in quantum computing seem interesting, > they also operate as I > > understand it, in an arbitrarily large number of parallel universes. > > >
