RE: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change
On Sat, 2005-12-31 at 19:54 -0600, HITS wrote: I agree this should not turn into a Cache/GT.M shooting match, as there are definite benefits to each. As far as the OS goes, Cache runs well on Windows, OpenVMS, TrueUnix and Linux. GT.M does not run on Windows (of which I am aware), but does run exceptionaly well on OpenVMS, TrueUnix, Linux, Sun Solaris and IBM OS. The bottom line could well come down to which OS you prefer to use. While GT.M does not have a licensing cost when running under i386 Linux, it does incur license fees under TrueUnix, OpenVMS, Sun Solaris, and IBM OS to my understanding. I am sure Bhaskar can straighten me out if I am in error. [KSB] Rodney, you are correct that there is not a GT.M for Windows today. GT.M is Free (GPL) on 3 platforms: x86 GNU/Linux, and Alpha/AXP (OpenVMS and Tru64 UNIX). On three platforms, there is a license fee: SPARC Solaris, pSeries AIX and PA-RISC HP-UX. -- Bhaskar --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637alloc_id=16865op=click ___ Hardhats-members mailing list Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change
I too find a resonance in Greg's comment that deserve support. I am under the impression that this is list is really supposed to be about VistA and its variants VOE and RPMS. In order to run those systems you need Mumps and you need an OS. So it is appropriate to discuss Mumps implementations and operating systems. Bhaskar has pointed out that Cache has a much larger installed base than GT.M. There are valid reasons why VistA/GT.M./Linux is a good option. There are also valid reasons why VistA/Cache/some OS are a good option. What we do not see on this list is very much help with Cache and other OS's. We see a lot of bad things said about Windows. Maybe that is a reason why we should be offering more help to Windows users and not making them feel that they should not be asking questions on this list. We really should welcome all users of VistA, VOE, and RPMS. Jim Gray - Original Message - From: Thurman Pedigo [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 9:03 AM Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change Though I don't want to turn this into a Cache/GT.M shootout, I find a resonance in Greg's comments that deserves support. This comment should in no way be taken as criticism of the dedicated members of this list who are quick to lend a helping hand, regardless of platform, to the newbie or people like me with experience in FileMan, though week in coding and plumbing the depths of VistA. I don't mention names to avoid overlooking important contributors - everyone here knows them. In respect to Greg's comment - I find myself winnowing the VistA specifics from the Linux/GT.M posts of this list. I had a go at Linux GT.M and decided that my time may best be spent getting a grip on VistA in a relatively familiar environment. I chose this route, correctly or not, over whole-cloth conversion to Linux while still struggling with VistA. I have spent a lot of time looking, in vain, for a solution and kept this observation low-key, since I think raising a criticism without offering a solution is counterproductive. I am no closer to the solution and only want to voice the reminder that just becaue you don't hear it doesn't mean the problem isn't there. I haven't the wisdom to make a suggestion for change. What I have done is frequently remind myself that's just the way it is. Noone's fault, noone to blame, though for those limited to Win/Cache we need to be a little more careful (efficient?) scanning our email. Thanks, thurman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hardhats- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Woodhouse Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 3:59 PM To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA --- K.S. Bhaskar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greg -- Normally, you are objective and reasoned. Thanks. I'll grant that you did catch me on a bad day. On this post, however, I regret that I have several bones to pick with you. See below. -- Bhaskar On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 13:14 -0600, Greg Woodhouse wrote: --- Ronald Ponto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The list does seem to have a preponderance of GT.M users, but VOE runs [KSB] How I wish this were the case! Owing to the number of VA users and the extensive use of non-GT.M implementations of MUMPS within the VA, and owing to VOE, I think GT.M users are probably in a non-trivial minority. I'll grant you that VA personnel are not usually the ones to ask questions here, but that seems neither here nor there. True, VA medical centers do use Cache', but I don't know that I'd infer that new users are necessarily going to be adopters of one platform over the other. As an aside, I started to delete that sentence (twice), because I really do not means this to be a Cache' vs. GT.M or a Fidelity vs. InterSystems type message. Both products (and perhaps others) ought to have a place on this list. on Cache' not GT.M. Ironically, I might be more ready to use GT.M if the list didn't seem so lop-sided on the GT.M side. I don't have an [KSB] It is probably a fair statement to say that there are more newbie users of VistA on GT.M on this forum (and of course newbie users need more help and are more vocal than non-newbie users; besides people ask questions where they find their questions are answered). Yes. But isn't that what I was saying? That the focus of discussion here seems to be on GT.M. Maybe that's okay. infinite amount of time, and certainly can't do everything I'd like, but I think it would be very nice to see a portable implementation that could be distributed with VistA installed (even if not completely configured). I am not at all happy with the way Linux seems to be the only OS that anyone wants to use for development. Again, I think I might be a bit more friendly to Linux if there were more of a balance (and if the distribution weren't so kute
RE: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change
I agree this should not turn into a Cache/GT.M shooting match, as there are definite benefits to each. As far as the OS goes, Cache runs well on Windows, OpenVMS, TrueUnix and Linux. GT.M does not run on Windows (of which I am aware), but does run exceptionaly well on OpenVMS, TrueUnix, Linux, Sun Solaris and IBM OS. The bottom line could well come down to which OS you prefer to use. While GT.M does not have a licensing cost when running under i386 Linux, it does incur license fees under TrueUnix, OpenVMS, Sun Solaris, and IBM OS to my understanding. I am sure Bhaskar can straighten me out if I am in error. Of key importance should be the interoperability of all versions of VistA that will allow everyone to intercollate information into their systems no matter the system of origination. Rodney H. Kay President Healthcare Informatics Technology Services, Inc. http://www.hits-inc.us 360-981-4000, fax: 866-278-2881 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of James Gray Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 10:47 AM To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change I too find a resonance in Greg's comment that deserve support. I am under the impression that this is list is really supposed to be about VistA and its variants VOE and RPMS. In order to run those systems you need Mumps and you need an OS. So it is appropriate to discuss Mumps implementations and operating systems. Bhaskar has pointed out that Cache has a much larger installed base than GT.M. There are valid reasons why VistA/GT.M./Linux is a good option. There are also valid reasons why VistA/Cache/some OS are a good option. What we do not see on this list is very much help with Cache and other OS's. We see a lot of bad things said about Windows. Maybe that is a reason why we should be offering more help to Windows users and not making them feel that they should not be asking questions on this list. We really should welcome all users of VistA, VOE, and RPMS. Jim Gray - Original Message - From: Thurman Pedigo [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 9:03 AM Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change Though I don't want to turn this into a Cache/GT.M shootout, I find a resonance in Greg's comments that deserves support. This comment should in no way be taken as criticism of the dedicated members of this list who are quick to lend a helping hand, regardless of platform, to the newbie or people like me with experience in FileMan, though week in coding and plumbing the depths of VistA. I don't mention names to avoid overlooking important contributors - everyone here knows them. In respect to Greg's comment - I find myself winnowing the VistA specifics from the Linux/GT.M posts of this list. I had a go at Linux GT.M and decided that my time may best be spent getting a grip on VistA in a relatively familiar environment. I chose this route, correctly or not, over whole-cloth conversion to Linux while still struggling with VistA. I have spent a lot of time looking, in vain, for a solution and kept this observation low-key, since I think raising a criticism without offering a solution is counterproductive. I am no closer to the solution and only want to voice the reminder that just becaue you don't hear it doesn't mean the problem isn't there. I haven't the wisdom to make a suggestion for change. What I have done is frequently remind myself that's just the way it is. Noone's fault, noone to blame, though for those limited to Win/Cache we need to be a little more careful (efficient?) scanning our email. Thanks, thurman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hardhats- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Woodhouse Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 3:59 PM To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA --- K.S. Bhaskar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greg -- Normally, you are objective and reasoned. Thanks. I'll grant that you did catch me on a bad day. On this post, however, I regret that I have several bones to pick with you. See below. -- Bhaskar On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 13:14 -0600, Greg Woodhouse wrote: --- Ronald Ponto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The list does seem to have a preponderance of GT.M users, but VOE runs [KSB] How I wish this were the case! Owing to the number of VA users and the extensive use of non-GT.M implementations of MUMPS within the VA, and owing to VOE, I think GT.M users are probably in a non-trivial minority. I'll grant you that VA personnel are not usually the ones to ask questions here, but that seems neither here nor there. True, VA medical centers do use Cache', but I don't know that I'd infer that new users are necessarily going to be adopters of one platform over the other. As an aside, I started
Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change
Hi, Where can I access the Clin Coord and IRM MENU? Thanks, LZ From: Nancy Anthracite [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 22:05:25 -0500 I am the one who had trouble with McAfee not allowing Cache to work, and just turning it off was not enough. McAfee had to be completely uninstalled, but I heard that the McAfee issue had been resolved. Unfortunatly, I am not sure where I heard it, but I am sure technical support can confirm or deny that. I agree that especially considering I was using the free single user download of Cache, the technical support was both unexpected and excellent. If I recall correctly, this happened the first time I installed Cache. This was before I met Jim Pietila and some of the others at Intersystems who I now pester fairly regularly! When we were in Boston at the WorldVistA meeting hosted by Intersystems, the support was truly unbelievable. Folks shagged out of bed on Sunday to come get things working for us, and that was only a small part of the help we were given. On Sunday 25 December 2005 05:42 pm, James Gray wrote: I hope I am on the right wavelength and right message. I am not aware of problems between McAfee and Cache. What I have mentioned on this list before is that Zone Alarm breaks Cache. To be more precise installing or upgrading Cache with Zone Alarm running will cause things to get screwed up in the install that cannot be fixed with a reinstall. I truly never understood the details. I also had problems with an upgrade of Zone Alarm. I will add that I think that Intersystems technical support for users of their free developers version of Cache is outstanding. That is much more than I can say for Zone Labs tech support. I do not know what if any problems there are with McAfee and Cache. Please do not confuse my complaint about Zone Alarm with McAfee. Jim Gray - Original Message - From: Ronald Ponto To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2005 3:41 PM Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change I wish they would log the answer so I wouldn't have to wait for them to answer the phone; I hate talking to Tech support. ---Original Message--- From: Nancy Anthracite Date: 12/24/05 07:26:30 To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change Also, call Intersystems Tech Support because I was told the problem with McAfee had been resolved. On Saturday 24 December 2005 07:16 am, Ronald Ponto wrote: I tried to setup VISTA but had a communication error (I am using Mcafee-which can cause a problem). I don't want to work without a firewall or virus screen so i went the other route. I downloaded the GT-M version and it downloaded pretty fast (I have a 100M connection). After downloading it I tried to write it to CD but my Easy CD Creator wouldn't work with the ISO file and I don't have any other way to read the ISO file. So I have put it on the back-burner till after Christmas- I am working the Christmas weekend including the government holiday which itself is a mess with Monday as the legal holiday. Time to get off my soapbox. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays Ron ---Original Message--- From: Thurman Pedigo Date: 12/23/05 10:35:46 To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change Though I don't want to turn this into a Cache/GT.M shootout, I find a resonance in Greg's comments that deserves support. This comment should in no way be taken as criticism of the dedicated members of this list who are quick to lend a helping hand, regardless of platform, to the newbie or people like me with experience in FileMan, though week in coding and plumbing the depths of VistA. I don't mention names to avoid overlooking important contributors - everyone here knows them. In respect to Greg's comment - I find myself winnowing the VistA specifics from the Linux/GT.M posts of this list. I had a go at Linux GT.M and decided that my time may best be spent getting a grip on VistA in a relatively familiar environment. I chose this route, correctly or not, over whole-cloth conversion to Linux while still struggling with VistA. I have spent a lot of time looking, in vain, for a solution and kept this observation low-key, since I think raising a criticism without offering a solution is counterproductive. I am no closer to the solution and only want to voice the reminder that just becaue you don't hear it doesn't mean the problem isn't there. I haven't the wisdom to make
Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change
http://www.intersystems.com/support/cflash/2003announce.html About half way down the page. . . On Dec 25, 2005, at 10:07 PM, Thurman Pedigo wrote: We've used McAfee and Cache for five years without a problem. I would point out we have a hardware firewall and don't use McAfee firewall - also use a licensed version of Cache. Cache has been used under both NT Server, and W2K3 Server (with McAfee) without signs of any problem. thurman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hardhats- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nancy Anthracite Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2005 9:05 PM To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change I am the one who had trouble with McAfee not allowing Cache to work, and just turning it off was not enough. McAfee had to be completely uninstalled, but I heard that the McAfee issue had been resolved. Unfortunatly, I am not sure where I heard it, but I am sure technical support can confirm or deny that. I agree that especially considering I was using the free single user download of Cache, the technical support was both unexpected and excellent. If I recall correctly, this happened the first time I installed Cache. This was before I met Jim Pietila and some of the others at Intersystems who I now pester fairly regularly! When we were in Boston at the WorldVistA meeting hosted by Intersystems, the support was truly unbelievable. Folks shagged out of bed on Sunday to come get things working for us, and that was only a small part of the help we were given. On Sunday 25 December 2005 05:42 pm, James Gray wrote: I hope I am on the right wavelength and right message. I am not aware of problems between McAfee and Cache. What I have mentioned on this list before is that Zone Alarm breaks Cache. To be more precise installing or upgrading Cache with Zone Alarm running will cause things to get screwed up in the install that cannot be fixed with a reinstall. I truly never understood the details. I also had problems with an upgrade of Zone Alarm. I will add that I think that Intersystems technical support for users of their free developers version of Cache is outstanding. That is much more than I can say for Zone Labs tech support. I do not know what if any problems there are with McAfee and Cache. Please do not confuse my complaint about Zone Alarm with McAfee. Jim Gray - Original Message - From: Ronald Ponto To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2005 3:41 PM Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change I wish they would log the answer so I wouldn't have to wait for them to answer the phone; I hate talking to Tech support. ---Original Message--- From: Nancy Anthracite Date: 12/24/05 07:26:30 To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change Also, call Intersystems Tech Support because I was told the problem with McAfee had been resolved. On Saturday 24 December 2005 07:16 am, Ronald Ponto wrote: I tried to setup VISTA but had a communication error (I am using Mcafee-which can cause a problem). I don't want to work without a firewall or virus screen so i went the other route. I downloaded the GT-M version and it downloaded pretty fast (I have a 100M connection). After downloading it I tried to write it to CD but my Easy CD Creator wouldn't work with the ISO file and I don't have any other way to read the ISO file. So I have put it on the back-burner till after Christmas- I am working the Christmas weekend including the government holiday which itself is a mess with Monday as the legal holiday. Time to get off my soapbox. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays Ron ---Original Message--- From: Thurman Pedigo Date: 12/23/05 10:35:46 To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change Though I don't want to turn this into a Cache/GT.M shootout, I find a resonance in Greg's comments that deserves support. This comment should in no way be taken as criticism of the dedicated members of this list who are quick to lend a helping hand, regardless of platform, to the newbie or people like me with experience in FileMan, though week in coding and plumbing the depths of VistA. I don't mention names to avoid overlooking important contributors - everyone here knows them. In respect to Greg's comment - I find myself winnowing the VistA specifics from the Linux/GT.M posts of this list. I had a go at Linux GT.M and decided that my time may best be spent getting a grip on VistA in a relatively familiar environment. I chose this route
Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change
I do not know enough about how security software is categorized and divided up. In any case it was the Program Control part of Zone Alarm that caused me problems with Cache (and some other software). The Zone Alarm control panel does not include Program Control under either Firewall or Virus protection. Jim Gray - Original Message - From: Nancy Anthracite [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Sent: Monday, December 26, 2005 9:56 AM Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change I think it was the Firewall that gave me trouble. On Sunday 25 December 2005 11:07 pm, Thurman Pedigo wrote: We've used McAfee and Cache for five years without a problem. I would point out we have a hardware firewall and don't use McAfee firewall - also use a licensed version of Cache. Cache has been used under both NT Server, and W2K3 Server (with McAfee) without signs of any problem. thurman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hardhats- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nancy Anthracite Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2005 9:05 PM To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change I am the one who had trouble with McAfee not allowing Cache to work, and just turning it off was not enough. McAfee had to be completely uninstalled, but I heard that the McAfee issue had been resolved. Unfortunatly, I am not sure where I heard it, but I am sure technical support can confirm or deny that. I agree that especially considering I was using the free single user download of Cache, the technical support was both unexpected and excellent. If I recall correctly, this happened the first time I installed Cache. This was before I met Jim Pietila and some of the others at Intersystems who I now pester fairly regularly! When we were in Boston at the WorldVistA meeting hosted by Intersystems, the support was truly unbelievable. Folks shagged out of bed on Sunday to come get things working for us, and that was only a small part of the help we were given. On Sunday 25 December 2005 05:42 pm, James Gray wrote: I hope I am on the right wavelength and right message. I am not aware of problems between McAfee and Cache. What I have mentioned on this list before is that Zone Alarm breaks Cache. To be more precise installing or upgrading Cache with Zone Alarm running will cause things to get screwed up in the install that cannot be fixed with a reinstall. I truly never understood the details. I also had problems with an upgrade of Zone Alarm. I will add that I think that Intersystems technical support for users of their free developers version of Cache is outstanding. That is much more than I can say for Zone Labs tech support. I do not know what if any problems there are with McAfee and Cache. Please do not confuse my complaint about Zone Alarm with McAfee. Jim Gray - Original Message - From: Ronald Ponto To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2005 3:41 PM Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change I wish they would log the answer so I wouldn't have to wait for them to answer the phone; I hate talking to Tech support. ---Original Message--- From: Nancy Anthracite Date: 12/24/05 07:26:30 To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change Also, call Intersystems Tech Support because I was told the problem with McAfee had been resolved. On Saturday 24 December 2005 07:16 am, Ronald Ponto wrote: I tried to setup VISTA but had a communication error (I am using Mcafee-which can cause a problem). I don't want to work without a firewall or virus screen so i went the other route. I downloaded the GT-M version and it downloaded pretty fast (I have a 100M connection). After downloading it I tried to write it to CD but my Easy CD Creator wouldn't work with the ISO file and I don't have any other way to read the ISO file. So I have put it on the back-burner till after Christmas- I am working the Christmas weekend including the government holiday which itself is a mess with Monday as the legal holiday. Time to get off my soapbox. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays Ron ---Original Message--- From: Thurman Pedigo Date: 12/23/05 10:35:46 To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change Though I don't want to turn this into a Cache/GT.M shootout, I find a resonance in Greg's comments that deserves support. This comment should in no way be taken as criticism of the dedicated members of this list who are quick to lend a helping hand, regardless of platform, to the newbie or people like me with experience in FileMan, though week
Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change
I hope I am on the right wavelength and right message. I am not aware of problems between McAfee and Cache. What I have mentioned on this list before is that Zone Alarm breaks Cache. To be more precise installing or upgrading Cache with Zone Alarm running will cause things to get screwed up in the install that cannot be fixed with a reinstall. I truly never understood the details. I also had problems with an upgrade of Zone Alarm. I will add that I think that Intersystems technical support for users of their free developers version of Cache is outstanding. That is much more than I can say for Zone Labs tech support. I do not know what if any problems there are with McAfee and Cache. Please do not confuse my complaint about Zone Alarm with McAfee. Jim Gray - Original Message - From: Ronald Ponto To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2005 3:41 PM Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change I wish they would log theanswer so I wouldn't have to wait for them to answer the phone; I hate talking to Tech support. ---Original Message--- From: Nancy Anthracite Date: 12/24/05 07:26:30 To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change Also, call Intersystems Tech Support because I was told the problem with McAfee had been resolved. On Saturday 24 December 2005 07:16 am, Ronald Ponto wrote: I tried to setup VISTA but had a communication error (I am using Mcafee-which can cause a problem). I don't want to work without a firewall or virus screen so i went the other route. I downloaded the GT-M version and it downloaded pretty fast (I have a 100M connection). After downloading it I tried to write it to CD but my Easy CD Creator wouldn't work with the ISO file and I don't have any other way to read the ISO file. So I have put it on the back-burner till after Christmas- I am working the Christmas weekend including the government holiday which itself is a mess with Monday as the legal holiday. Time to get off my soapbox. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays Ron ---Original Message--- From: Thurman Pedigo Date: 12/23/05 10:35:46 To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change Though I don't want to turn this into a Cache/GT.M shootout, I find a resonance in Greg's comments that deserves support. This comment should in no way be taken as criticism of the dedicated members of this list who are quick to lend a helping hand, regardless of platform, to the newbie or people like me with experience in FileMan, though week in coding and plumbing the depths of VistA. I don't mention names to avoid overlooking important contributors - everyone here knows them. In respect to Greg's comment - I find myself winnowing the VistA "specifics" from the Linux/GT.M posts of this list. I had a go at Linux GT.M and decided that my time may best be spent getting a grip on VistA in a relatively familiar environment. I chose this route, correctly or not, over whole-cloth conversion to Linux while still struggling with VistA. I have spent a lot of time looking, in vain, for a solution and kept this observation low-key, since I think raising a criticism without offering a solution is counterproductive. I am no closer to the solution and only want to voice the reminder that just becaue you don't hear it doesn't mean the problem isn't there. I haven't the wisdom to makea suggestion for change. What I have done is frequently remind myself that's just the way it is. Noone's fault, noone to blame, though for those limited to Win/Cache we need to be a little more careful (efficient?) scanning our email. Thanks, thurman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hardhats- [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Greg Woodhouse Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 3:59 PM To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA --- "K.S. Bhaskar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] w
Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change
I am the one who had trouble with McAfee not allowing Cache to work, and just turning it off was not enough. McAfee had to be completely uninstalled, but I heard that the McAfee issue had been resolved. Unfortunatly, I am not sure where I heard it, but I am sure technical support can confirm or deny that. I agree that especially considering I was using the free single user download of Cache, the technical support was both unexpected and excellent. If I recall correctly, this happened the first time I installed Cache. This was before I met Jim Pietila and some of the others at Intersystems who I now pester fairly regularly! When we were in Boston at the WorldVistA meeting hosted by Intersystems, the support was truly unbelievable. Folks shagged out of bed on Sunday to come get things working for us, and that was only a small part of the help we were given. On Sunday 25 December 2005 05:42 pm, James Gray wrote: I hope I am on the right wavelength and right message. I am not aware of problems between McAfee and Cache. What I have mentioned on this list before is that Zone Alarm breaks Cache. To be more precise installing or upgrading Cache with Zone Alarm running will cause things to get screwed up in the install that cannot be fixed with a reinstall. I truly never understood the details. I also had problems with an upgrade of Zone Alarm. I will add that I think that Intersystems technical support for users of their free developers version of Cache is outstanding. That is much more than I can say for Zone Labs tech support. I do not know what if any problems there are with McAfee and Cache. Please do not confuse my complaint about Zone Alarm with McAfee. Jim Gray - Original Message - From: Ronald Ponto To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2005 3:41 PM Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change I wish they would log the answer so I wouldn't have to wait for them to answer the phone; I hate talking to Tech support. ---Original Message--- From: Nancy Anthracite Date: 12/24/05 07:26:30 To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change Also, call Intersystems Tech Support because I was told the problem with McAfee had been resolved. On Saturday 24 December 2005 07:16 am, Ronald Ponto wrote: I tried to setup VISTA but had a communication error (I am using Mcafee-which can cause a problem). I don't want to work without a firewall or virus screen so i went the other route. I downloaded the GT-M version and it downloaded pretty fast (I have a 100M connection). After downloading it I tried to write it to CD but my Easy CD Creator wouldn't work with the ISO file and I don't have any other way to read the ISO file. So I have put it on the back-burner till after Christmas- I am working the Christmas weekend including the government holiday which itself is a mess with Monday as the legal holiday. Time to get off my soapbox. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays Ron ---Original Message--- From: Thurman Pedigo Date: 12/23/05 10:35:46 To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change Though I don't want to turn this into a Cache/GT.M shootout, I find a resonance in Greg's comments that deserves support. This comment should in no way be taken as criticism of the dedicated members of this list who are quick to lend a helping hand, regardless of platform, to the newbie or people like me with experience in FileMan, though week in coding and plumbing the depths of VistA. I don't mention names to avoid overlooking important contributors - everyone here knows them. In respect to Greg's comment - I find myself winnowing the VistA specifics from the Linux/GT.M posts of this list. I had a go at Linux GT.M and decided that my time may best be spent getting a grip on VistA in a relatively familiar environment. I chose this route, correctly or not, over whole-cloth conversion to Linux while still struggling with VistA. I have spent a lot of time looking, in vain, for a solution and kept this observation low-key, since I think raising a criticism without offering a solution is counterproductive. I am no closer to the solution and only want to voice the reminder that just becaue you don't hear it doesn't mean the problem isn't there. I haven't the wisdom to make a suggestion for change. What I have done is frequently remind myself that's just the way it is. Noone's fault, noone to blame, though for those limited to Win/Cache we need to be a little more careful (efficient?) scanning our email. Thanks, thurman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL
RE: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change
We've used McAfee and Cache for five years without a problem. I would point out we have a hardware firewall and don't use McAfee firewall - also use a licensed version of Cache. Cache has been used under both NT Server, and W2K3 Server (with McAfee) without signs of any problem. thurman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hardhats- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nancy Anthracite Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2005 9:05 PM To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change I am the one who had trouble with McAfee not allowing Cache to work, and just turning it off was not enough. McAfee had to be completely uninstalled, but I heard that the McAfee issue had been resolved. Unfortunatly, I am not sure where I heard it, but I am sure technical support can confirm or deny that. I agree that especially considering I was using the free single user download of Cache, the technical support was both unexpected and excellent. If I recall correctly, this happened the first time I installed Cache. This was before I met Jim Pietila and some of the others at Intersystems who I now pester fairly regularly! When we were in Boston at the WorldVistA meeting hosted by Intersystems, the support was truly unbelievable. Folks shagged out of bed on Sunday to come get things working for us, and that was only a small part of the help we were given. On Sunday 25 December 2005 05:42 pm, James Gray wrote: I hope I am on the right wavelength and right message. I am not aware of problems between McAfee and Cache. What I have mentioned on this list before is that Zone Alarm breaks Cache. To be more precise installing or upgrading Cache with Zone Alarm running will cause things to get screwed up in the install that cannot be fixed with a reinstall. I truly never understood the details. I also had problems with an upgrade of Zone Alarm. I will add that I think that Intersystems technical support for users of their free developers version of Cache is outstanding. That is much more than I can say for Zone Labs tech support. I do not know what if any problems there are with McAfee and Cache. Please do not confuse my complaint about Zone Alarm with McAfee. Jim Gray - Original Message - From: Ronald Ponto To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2005 3:41 PM Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change I wish they would log the answer so I wouldn't have to wait for them to answer the phone; I hate talking to Tech support. ---Original Message--- From: Nancy Anthracite Date: 12/24/05 07:26:30 To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change Also, call Intersystems Tech Support because I was told the problem with McAfee had been resolved. On Saturday 24 December 2005 07:16 am, Ronald Ponto wrote: I tried to setup VISTA but had a communication error (I am using Mcafee-which can cause a problem). I don't want to work without a firewall or virus screen so i went the other route. I downloaded the GT-M version and it downloaded pretty fast (I have a 100M connection). After downloading it I tried to write it to CD but my Easy CD Creator wouldn't work with the ISO file and I don't have any other way to read the ISO file. So I have put it on the back-burner till after Christmas- I am working the Christmas weekend including the government holiday which itself is a mess with Monday as the legal holiday. Time to get off my soapbox. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays Ron ---Original Message--- From: Thurman Pedigo Date: 12/23/05 10:35:46 To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change Though I don't want to turn this into a Cache/GT.M shootout, I find a resonance in Greg's comments that deserves support. This comment should in no way be taken as criticism of the dedicated members of this list who are quick to lend a helping hand, regardless of platform, to the newbie or people like me with experience in FileMan, though week in coding and plumbing the depths of VistA. I don't mention names to avoid overlooking important contributors - everyone here knows them. In respect to Greg's comment - I find myself winnowing the VistA specifics from the Linux/GT.M posts of this list. I had a go at Linux GT.M and decided that my time may best be spent getting a grip on VistA in a relatively familiar environment. I chose this route, correctly or not, over whole-cloth conversion to Linux while still struggling with VistA. I have spent a lot of time looking
RE: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change
I tried to setup VISTA but had a communication error (I am using Mcafee-which can cause a problem). I don't want to work without a firewall or virus screen so i went the other route. I downloaded the GT-M version and it downloaded pretty fast (I have a 100M connection). After downloading it I tried to write it to CD but my Easy CD Creator wouldn't work with the ISO file and I don't have any other way to read the ISO file. So I have put it on the back-burner till after Christmas- I am working the Christmas weekend including the government holiday which itself is a mess with Monday as the legal holiday. Time to get off my soapbox. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays Ron ---Original Message--- From: Thurman Pedigo Date: 12/23/05 10:35:46 To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change Though I don't want to turn this into a Cache/GT.M shootout, I find a resonance in Greg's comments that deserves support. This comment should in no way be taken as criticism of the dedicated members of this list who are quick to lend a helping hand, regardless of platform, to the newbie or people like me with experience in FileMan, though week in coding and plumbing the depths of VistA. I don't mention names to avoid overlooking important contributors - everyone here knows them. In respect to Greg's comment - I find myself winnowing the VistA "specifics" from the Linux/GT.M posts of this list. I had a go at Linux GT.M and decided that my time may best be spent getting a grip on VistA in a relatively familiar environment. I chose this route, correctly or not, over whole-cloth conversion to Linux while still struggling with VistA. I have spent a lot of time looking, in vain, for a solution and kept this observation low-key, since I think raising a criticism without offering a solution is counterproductive. I am no closer to the solution and only want to voice the reminder that just becaue you don't hear it doesn't mean the problem isn't there. I haven't the wisdom to makea suggestion for change. What I have done is frequently remind myself that's just the way it is. Noone's fault, noone to blame, though for those limited to Win/Cache we need to be a little more careful (efficient?) scanning our email. Thanks, thurman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hardhats- [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Greg Woodhouse Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 3:59 PM To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA --- "K.S. Bhaskar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greg -- Normally, you are objective and reasoned. Thanks. I'll grant that you did catch me on a bad day. On this post, however, I regret that I have several bones to pick with you.See below. -- Bhaskar On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 13:14 -0600, Greg Woodhouse wrote: --- Ronald Ponto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The list does seem to have a preponderance of GT.M users, but VOE runs [KSB] How I wish this were the case!Owing to the number of VA users and the extensive use of non-GT.M implementations of MUMPS within the VA, and owing to VOE, I think GT.M users are probably in a non-trivial minority. I'll grant you that VA personnel are not usually the ones to ask questions here, but that seems neither here nor there. True, VA medical centers do use Cache', but I don't know that I'd infer that new users are necessarily going to be adopters of one platform over the other. As an aside, I started to delete that sentence (twice), because I really do not means this to be a Cache' vs. GT.M or a Fidelity vs. InterSystems type message. Both products (and perhaps others) ought to have a place on this list. on Cache' not GT.M. Ironically, I might be more ready to use GT.M if the list didn't seem so lop-sided on the GT.M side. I don't have an [KSB] It is probably a fair statement to say that there are more newbie users of VistA on GT.M on this forum (and of course newbie users need more help and are more vocal than non-newbie users; besides people ask questions where they find their questions are answered). Yes. But isn't that what I was saying? That the focus of discussion here seems to be on GT.M. Maybe that's okay. infinite amount of time, and certainly can't do everything I'd like, but I think it would be very nice to see a portable implementation that could be distributed with VistA installed (even if not completely configured). I am not at all happy with the way Linux seems to be the only OS that anyone wants to use for development. Again, I think I might be a bit more friendly to Linux if there were more of a balance (and if the distribution weren't so "kute"). [KSB] Since I don't have the right to distribute Windows, or OS X, the choice comes down to Linux and *BSD variants. But there is nothing to stop you from instal
RE: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change
The first line should of set with CACHE. ---Original Message--- From: Ronald Ponto Date: 12/24/05 06:18:11 To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change I tried to setup VISTA but had a communication error (I am using Mcafee-which can cause a problem). I don't want to work without a firewall or virus screen so i went the other route. I downloaded the GT-M version and it downloaded pretty fast (I have a 100M connection). After downloading it I tried to write it to CD but my Easy CD Creator wouldn't work with the ISO file and I don't have any other way to read the ISO file. So I have put it on the back-burner till after Christmas- I am working the Christmas weekend including the government holiday which itself is a mess with Monday as the legal holiday. Time to get off my soapbox. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays Ron ---Original Message--- From: Thurman Pedigo Date: 12/23/05 10:35:46 To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change Though I don't want to turn this into a Cache/GT.M shootout, I find a resonance in Greg's comments that deserves support. This comment should in no way be taken as criticism of the dedicated members of this list who are quick to lend a helping hand, regardless of platform, to the newbie or people like me with experience in FileMan, though week in coding and plumbing the depths of VistA. I don't mention names to avoid overlooking important contributors - everyone here knows them. In respect to Greg's comment - I find myself winnowing the VistA "specifics" from the Linux/GT.M posts of this list. I had a go at Linux GT.M and decided that my time may best be spent getting a grip on VistA in a relatively familiar environment. I chose this route, correctly or not, over whole-cloth conversion to Linux while still struggling with VistA. I have spent a lot of time looking, in vain, for a solution and kept this observation low-key, since I think raising a criticism without offering a solution is counterproductive. I am no closer to the solution and only want to voice the reminder that just becaue you don't hear it doesn't mean the problem isn't there. I haven't the wisdom to makea suggestion for change. What I have done is frequently remind myself that's just the way it is. Noone's fault, noone to blame, though for those limited to Win/Cache we need to be a little more careful (efficient?) scanning our email. Thanks, thurman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hardhats- [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Greg Woodhouse Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 3:59 PM To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA --- "K.S. Bhaskar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greg -- Normally, you are objective and reasoned. Thanks. I'll grant that you did catch me on a bad day. On this post, however, I regret that I have several bones to pick with you.See below. -- Bhaskar On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 13:14 -0600, Greg Woodhouse wrote: --- Ronald Ponto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The list does seem to have a preponderance of GT.M users, but VOE runs [KSB] How I wish this were the case!Owing to the number of VA users and the extensive use of non-GT.M implementations of MUMPS within the VA, and owing to VOE, I think GT.M users are probably in a non-trivial minority. I'll grant you that VA personnel are not usually the ones to ask questions here, but that seems neither here nor there. True, VA medical centers do use Cache', but I don't know that I'd infer that new users are necessarily going to be adopters of one platform over the other. As an aside, I started to delete that sentence (twice), because I really do not means this to be a Cache' vs. GT.M or a Fidelity vs. InterSystems type message. Both products (and perhaps others) ought to have a place on this list. on Cache' not GT.M. Ironically, I might be more ready to use GT.M if the list didn't seem so lop-sided on the GT.M side. I don't have an [KSB] It is probably a fair statement to say that there are more newbie users of VistA on GT.M on this forum (and of course newbie users need more help and are more vocal than non-newbie users; besides people ask questions where they find their questions are answered). Yes. But isn't that what I was saying? That the focus of discussion here seems to be on GT.M. Maybe that's okay. infinite amount of time, and certainly can't do everything I'd like, but I think it would be very nice to see a portable implementation that could be distributed with VistA installed (even if not completely configured). I am not at all happy with the way Linux seems to be the only OS that anyone wants to use for development. Again, I think I might be a bit more friendly to Linux if there were
Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change
Robert, in Easy CD Creator, Choose File, Record Disk from Image. Note that one of the choices for an image file is a .iso On Saturday 24 December 2005 07:16 am, Ronald Ponto wrote: I tried to setup VISTA but had a communication error (I am using Mcafee-which can cause a problem). I don't want to work without a firewall or virus screen so i went the other route. I downloaded the GT-M version and it downloaded pretty fast (I have a 100M connection). After downloading it I tried to write it to CD but my Easy CD Creator wouldn't work with the ISO file and I don't have any other way to read the ISO file. So I have put it on the back-burner till after Christmas- I am working the Christmas weekend including the government holiday which itself is a mess with Monday as the legal holiday. Time to get off my soapbox. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays Ron ---Original Message--- From: Thurman Pedigo Date: 12/23/05 10:35:46 To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change Though I don't want to turn this into a Cache/GT.M shootout, I find a resonance in Greg's comments that deserves support. This comment should in no way be taken as criticism of the dedicated members of this list who are quick to lend a helping hand, regardless of platform, to the newbie or people like me with experience in FileMan, though week in coding and plumbing the depths of VistA. I don't mention names to avoid overlooking important contributors - everyone here knows them. In respect to Greg's comment - I find myself winnowing the VistA specifics from the Linux/GT.M posts of this list. I had a go at Linux GT.M and decided that my time may best be spent getting a grip on VistA in a relatively familiar environment. I chose this route, correctly or not, over whole-cloth conversion to Linux while still struggling with VistA. I have spent a lot of time looking, in vain, for a solution and kept this observation low-key, since I think raising a criticism without offering a solution is counterproductive. I am no closer to the solution and only want to voice the reminder that just becaue you don't hear it doesn't mean the problem isn't there. I haven't the wisdom to make a suggestion for change. What I have done is frequently remind myself that's just the way it is. Noone's fault, noone to blame, though for those limited to Win/Cache we need to be a little more careful (efficient?) scanning our email. Thanks, thurman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hardhats- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Woodhouse Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 3:59 PM To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA --- K.S. Bhaskar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greg -- Normally, you are objective and reasoned. Thanks. I'll grant that you did catch me on a bad day. On this post, however, I regret that I have several bones to pick with you. See below. -- Bhaskar On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 13:14 -0600, Greg Woodhouse wrote: --- Ronald Ponto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The list does seem to have a preponderance of GT.M users, but VOE runs [KSB] How I wish this were the case! Owing to the number of VA users and the extensive use of non-GT.M implementations of MUMPS within the VA, and owing to VOE, I think GT.M users are probably in a non-trivial minority. I'll grant you that VA personnel are not usually the ones to ask questions here, but that seems neither here nor there. True, VA medical centers do use Cache', but I don't know that I'd infer that new users are necessarily going to be adopters of one platform over the other. As an aside, I started to delete that sentence (twice), because I really do not means this to be a Cache' vs. GT.M or a Fidelity vs. InterSystems type message. Both products (and perhaps others) ought to have a place on this list. on Cache' not GT.M. Ironically, I might be more ready to use GT.M if the list didn't seem so lop-sided on the GT.M side. I don't have an [KSB] It is probably a fair statement to say that there are more newbie users of VistA on GT.M on this forum (and of course newbie users need more help and are more vocal than non-newbie users; besides people ask questions where they find their questions are answered). Yes. But isn't that what I was saying? That the focus of discussion here seems to be on GT.M. Maybe that's okay. infinite amount of time, and certainly can't do everything I'd like, but I think it would be very nice to see a portable implementation that could be distributed with VistA installed (even if not completely configured). I am not at all happy with the way Linux seems to be the only OS that anyone wants to use for development. Again, I think I might be a bit more friendly to Linux if there were more of a balance (and if the distribution weren't so kute). [KSB] Since
Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change
Also, call Intersystems Tech Support because I was told the problem with McAfee had been resolved. On Saturday 24 December 2005 07:16 am, Ronald Ponto wrote: I tried to setup VISTA but had a communication error (I am using Mcafee-which can cause a problem). I don't want to work without a firewall or virus screen so i went the other route. I downloaded the GT-M version and it downloaded pretty fast (I have a 100M connection). After downloading it I tried to write it to CD but my Easy CD Creator wouldn't work with the ISO file and I don't have any other way to read the ISO file. So I have put it on the back-burner till after Christmas- I am working the Christmas weekend including the government holiday which itself is a mess with Monday as the legal holiday. Time to get off my soapbox. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays Ron ---Original Message--- From: Thurman Pedigo Date: 12/23/05 10:35:46 To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change Though I don't want to turn this into a Cache/GT.M shootout, I find a resonance in Greg's comments that deserves support. This comment should in no way be taken as criticism of the dedicated members of this list who are quick to lend a helping hand, regardless of platform, to the newbie or people like me with experience in FileMan, though week in coding and plumbing the depths of VistA. I don't mention names to avoid overlooking important contributors - everyone here knows them. In respect to Greg's comment - I find myself winnowing the VistA specifics from the Linux/GT.M posts of this list. I had a go at Linux GT.M and decided that my time may best be spent getting a grip on VistA in a relatively familiar environment. I chose this route, correctly or not, over whole-cloth conversion to Linux while still struggling with VistA. I have spent a lot of time looking, in vain, for a solution and kept this observation low-key, since I think raising a criticism without offering a solution is counterproductive. I am no closer to the solution and only want to voice the reminder that just becaue you don't hear it doesn't mean the problem isn't there. I haven't the wisdom to make a suggestion for change. What I have done is frequently remind myself that's just the way it is. Noone's fault, noone to blame, though for those limited to Win/Cache we need to be a little more careful (efficient?) scanning our email. Thanks, thurman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hardhats- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Woodhouse Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 3:59 PM To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA --- K.S. Bhaskar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greg -- Normally, you are objective and reasoned. Thanks. I'll grant that you did catch me on a bad day. On this post, however, I regret that I have several bones to pick with you. See below. -- Bhaskar On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 13:14 -0600, Greg Woodhouse wrote: --- Ronald Ponto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The list does seem to have a preponderance of GT.M users, but VOE runs [KSB] How I wish this were the case! Owing to the number of VA users and the extensive use of non-GT.M implementations of MUMPS within the VA, and owing to VOE, I think GT.M users are probably in a non-trivial minority. I'll grant you that VA personnel are not usually the ones to ask questions here, but that seems neither here nor there. True, VA medical centers do use Cache', but I don't know that I'd infer that new users are necessarily going to be adopters of one platform over the other. As an aside, I started to delete that sentence (twice), because I really do not means this to be a Cache' vs. GT.M or a Fidelity vs. InterSystems type message. Both products (and perhaps others) ought to have a place on this list. on Cache' not GT.M. Ironically, I might be more ready to use GT.M if the list didn't seem so lop-sided on the GT.M side. I don't have an [KSB] It is probably a fair statement to say that there are more newbie users of VistA on GT.M on this forum (and of course newbie users need more help and are more vocal than non-newbie users; besides people ask questions where they find their questions are answered). Yes. But isn't that what I was saying? That the focus of discussion here seems to be on GT.M. Maybe that's okay. infinite amount of time, and certainly can't do everything I'd like, but I think it would be very nice to see a portable implementation that could be distributed with VistA installed (even if not completely configured). I am not at all happy with the way Linux seems to be the only OS that anyone wants to use for development. Again, I think I might be a bit more friendly to Linux if there were more of a balance (and if the distribution weren't so kute). [KSB] Since I don't have the right
Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change
I wish they would log theanswer so I wouldn't have to wait for them to answer the phone; I hate talking to Tech support. ---Original Message--- From: Nancy Anthracite Date: 12/24/05 07:26:30 To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change Also, call Intersystems Tech Support because I was told the problem with McAfee had been resolved. On Saturday 24 December 2005 07:16 am, Ronald Ponto wrote: I tried to setup VISTA but had a communication error (I am using Mcafee-which can cause a problem). I don't want to work without a firewall or virus screen so i went the other route. I downloaded the GT-M version and it downloaded pretty fast (I have a 100M connection). After downloading it I tried to write it to CD but my Easy CD Creator wouldn't work with the ISO file and I don't have any other way to read the ISO file. So I have put it on the back-burner till after Christmas- I am working the Christmas weekend including the government holiday which itself is a mess with Monday as the legal holiday. Time to get off my soapbox. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays Ron ---Original Message--- From: Thurman Pedigo Date: 12/23/05 10:35:46 To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members] VISTA- platforms - name change Though I don't want to turn this into a Cache/GT.M shootout, I find a resonance in Greg's comments that deserves support. This comment should in no way be taken as criticism of the dedicated members of this list who are quick to lend a helping hand, regardless of platform, to the newbie or people like me with experience in FileMan, though week in coding and plumbing the depths of VistA. I don't mention names to avoid overlooking important contributors - everyone here knows them. In respect to Greg's comment - I find myself winnowing the VistA "specifics" from the Linux/GT.M posts of this list. I had a go at Linux GT.M and decided that my time may best be spent getting a grip on VistA in a relatively familiar environment. I chose this route, correctly or not, over whole-cloth conversion to Linux while still struggling with VistA. I have spent a lot of time looking, in vain, for a solution and kept this observation low-key, since I think raising a criticism without offering a solution is counterproductive. I am no closer to the solution and only want to voice the reminder that just becaue you don't hear it doesn't mean the problem isn't there. I haven't the wisdom to makea suggestion for change. What I have done is frequently remind myself that's just the way it is. Noone's fault, noone to blame, though for those limited to Win/Cache we need to be a little more careful (efficient?) scanning our email. Thanks, thurman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hardhats- [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Greg Woodhouse Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 3:59 PM To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] VISTA --- "K.S. Bhaskar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greg -- Normally, you are objective and reasoned. Thanks. I'll grant that you did catch me on a bad day. On this post, however, I regret that I have several bones to pick with you.See below. -- Bhaskar On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 13:14 -0600, Greg Woodhouse wrote: --- Ronald Ponto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The list does seem to have a preponderance of GT.M users, but VOE runs [KSB] How I wish this were the case!Owing to the number of VA users and the extensive use of non-GT.M implementations of MUMPS within the VA, and owing to VOE, I think GT.M users are probably in a non-trivial minority. I'll grant you that VA personnel are not usually the ones to ask questions here, but that seems neither here nor there. True, VA medical centers do use Cache', but I don't know that I'd infer that new users are necessarily going to be adopters of one platform over the other. As an aside, I started to delete that sentence (twice), because I really do not means this to be a Cache' vs. GT.M or a Fidelity vs. InterSystems type message. Both products (and perhaps others) ought to have a place on this list. on Cache' not GT.M. Ironically, I might be more ready to use GT.M if the list didn't seem so lop-sided on the GT.M side. I don't have an [KSB] It is probably a fair statement to say that there are more newbie users of VistA on GT.M on this forum (and of course newbie users need more help and are more vocal than non-newbie users; besides people ask questions where they find their questions are answered). Yes. But isn't that what I was saying? That the focus of discussion here seems to be on GT.M. Maybe that's okay. infinite amount of time, and certainly can't do everything I'd like, but I think it would be very nice to see a portable implementation that could be distributed with VistA installed (ev
