<soapbox subject="Operating Systems and the Tyranny of the Majority">
I am a long time lurker, first time troll baiter... The clinical informatics folks, esp. those in CIO positions and commercial system vendors needs to wake up and realize what a nightmare Windows is. There remains a naivet� in plush offices about the alternatives (both OSS and proprietary alternatives to Win32). The Linux community needs to make some better cases and fix some of the end-user annoyances and get these people using GNOME or KDE for their day-to-day work. Marketing is important. Perception is reality. Novel, as well as the enthusiastic major vendors such as Sun and IBM, really need to deliver. Windows, as hacked, stolen, kludged as it is has a finite lifespan before pieces start to fall off. I hate having to use a closed, monolithic, be-all, do-all OS! > Certainly from the research perspective both Linux, in the > form of affordable super computer clusters and Mac OS X in > the form of desktop alternative and as a server hub for a > unit or lab, the momentum is clearly established. But in > classrooms, homes and offices, little impact is felt. So... Why not Linux on the desktop? (or freeBSD for that matter). It offers a lower cost of acquisition (but not maintenance) than Macs/OS X (which to my knowledge is one in the same, i.e. you get both the box and the OS from the same sole source--hardly "open", even if the OS is based/derived from BSD!). In addition, for clinical application deployment it _should_ be attractive, since it avoids the nightmare of Win32's patch work of bug/fixes/bugs in the fix/security holes, etc. It runs fine on most hardware you would use for clinical workstations (a lightweight stylus driven wireless pad with long battery life not withstanding), and would be a huge performance gain over "solutions" such as Citrix on Win32 that are commonly used to "lock down" and manage the configuration of the client. The GUIs (if you feel these are needed) in the form of KDE and GNOME are workable and easy to use (not to setup and configure, but for clinical workstations this isn't useful for many reasons). While end users (particularly Laptop users) may need to rely on Win32/OS X for some time (waiting for drivers....waiting....waiting), esp. if Novel, WordPerfect, IBM/Lotus don't start churning out some M$ Office alternatives (I have tried OpenOffice and rapidly returned to the Borg's latest release). CrossoverOffice, WINE, etc. are a crutch. Currently important crutches, but crutches none the less. A mutually agreeable file system (other than FAT!) would also be a huge benefit for those of us who are in dual-boot limbo for the foreseeable future. Gates, et al, will remain the 227kg gorilla, so seamless file exchange is going to be an ongoing requirement. Painful, but true. If you code applications for compatibility using a standard language you can deliver to any of the above (with the exception of threads in C++ and the lack of a STL-like thread library). OS/2 is still alive at IBM, but I don't know enough about it to comment. I don't know anything about BeOS. For clinical servers QNX seems to be worthy of consideration (and possibly for workstations as well). It is supposed to be POSIX compliant, and has decent graphic libraries. I cannot fathom why we use Windows for applications upon which we manage peoples health. Even more concerning is the use of non-managed desktop PCs (running IE, Yahoo! Messenger, WinAMP, GNUTELLA, Outlook, etc.) for clinical use. Open sourced, tested and peer reviewed software are the viable path for clinical information systems, but the OS issue is a "clear and present danger". </soapbox> _______________________________________________________ Kevin M. Coonan, M.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Adjunct Assistant Professor, Division of Emergency Medicine NLM Fellow, Department of Medical Informatics University of Utah School of Medicine > -----Original Message----- > From: Wayne Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 5:50 AM > To: "openhealth-list @ minoru-development . com" > Subject: Re: Linux Medical News is 5 Years Old > > On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 20:18 -0600, Ignacio Valdes wrote: > > Linux Medical News is 5 years old as of yesterday. > > > Great work, your personal dedication is impressive. > > > > Has the landscape > > changed much since then? Is the work finished? > > http://www.linuxmednews.com/linuxmednews/1112317813/index_html > > > I am sure this depends upon where you stand now compared to 5 > years ago. > Since my perspective is still that of a US academic medical > center, I would have to say the technological landscape is in > more turmoil then ever before and the status of linux in > medicine is just as uncertain now as it was 5 years ago. > > Certainly from the research perspective both linux, in the > form of affordable super computer clusters and Mac OS X in > the form of desktop alternative and as a server hub for a > unit or lab, the momentum is clearly established. But in > classrooms, homes and offices, little impact is felt. >
