British Health System Looks at Linux 477
DanBrusca writes "The Observer is reporting that Britain's biggest employer, the National Health Service, may ditch Microsoft due to mounting licence costs. 'Richard Granger, NHS IT director, has ordered a trial of a Linux-based system from Sun Microsystems as part of a UKP2.3 billion computer modernisation plan. The plan could see Java Desktop software rolled out across the NHS's 1 million staff and 800,000 computers to replace Microsoft's Windows operating system and Office suite of programmes.'"
Britain's biggest employer is Health? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Britain's biggest employer is Health? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Britain's biggest employer is Health? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not up to the employers most of the time to decide. My guess is nothing happens unless they have a radical view at things and threaten quit quit if they have to switch.
Re:Britain's biggest employer is Health? (Score:5, Interesting)
Of the doctors in my hospital who know what an OS is, Linux gets a mention more often than not as a preferred platform.
Most people here run basic MS Office apps (and usually run them basically) and connect to legacy databases using terminals. Some people make their own Access databases but the IT people really hate that - you know how it goes: individual makes DB in Access, time passes, undocumented and poorly implemented Access database becomes the lynchpin of a Ward, originator leave, everyone's up shit creek.
We are migrating from '95 to XP and everyone is getting lots of training. This training could just as easily have been applied to Linus apps.
Re:Britain's biggest employer is Health? (Score:4, Insightful)
This certainly occurs, and I have been guilty myself, but it only happens because the IT people are so useless.
I would say that they are overworked, but they're not, they are just incompetent. (this is partly because health in the UK has yet to recognise IT as a core business skill, and pay accordingly)
Re:Britain's biggest employer is Health? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whilst they may be looking at using Linux, to move the whole organisation across (remember that it's the second largest non-military employer in the world) will take years, if not a decade. That's a lot of time for outside interests to derail the whole process.
Locked in to Windows (Score:5, Informative)
I have yet to find a way to get past Exchange and Citrix effectively. We looked at a few solutions that cames close, but the administration costs FAR outweighed the licensing savings (although Citrix licenses are astronomical). The other problem is that our document management system (necessary by law due to Sarbanes-Oxley Act) is iManage which only works with office and costs $75K.
Citrix??? What about X? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Citrix??? What about X? (Score:3, Insightful)
Say that, but apps running over the Citrix protocol are a hell of a lot faster than X apps. ESPECIALLY over slow network links. Citrix' number one heralded feature is good compression.
Re:Britain's biggest employer is Health? (Score:5, Insightful)
since when do end users get a say in their operating system? the doctors have the exact same amount of choice with the linux system that they had with the windows system: zero.
Re:Britain's biggest employer is Health? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Britain's biggest employer is Health? (Score:4, Informative)
"Tough shit, pal."
If they are concerned about interoperability between work and home, OpenOffice runs great on Linux *and* Windows, y'know.
Re:Britain's biggest employer is Health? (Score:5, Informative)
When I worked there most of my work was word processing (Word 97), email (GroupWise...wise my ass) and accessing online patient records through a terminal. All of this can be done on any platform, except I suspect that few of them crash as consistently and spectacularly (sp?) as a Windows 95 installation.
I am sure that there are specific, necessary programs in use that are Windows-based, but I am also sure that it would not be the first time that they had to write new software for their special requirements (the aforementioned ICSIS (sp) program for checking patient info, for example)
It's easy they can... (Score:5, Funny)
He called me complaining that I should have tried harder to convince him to switch away from Windows.
Don't forget! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Britain's biggest employer is Health? (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand where you're coming from, friend - not wanting to take anyone's freedom away. However, a doctor's function is to heal patients, not architect Information Systems. As long as the systems put in place provide him with the information he or she needs, in the form needed when it is needed, there should be no problem at all, after the initial learning curve.
As an IT professional, I know how to heal a sick computer, but for sick humans I refer them to a more much more qualified professional - a Doctor. The reverse should also be true.
Soko
Re:Britain's biggest employer is Health? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Britain's biggest employer is Health? (Score:3, Informative)
When the NHS is referred to in articles like this they generally mean the hospital system. I doubt most doctors in a NHS hospital even so much as look at a computer. Most of the terminal work will be done by nurses and admin staff.
IMHO this
Re:Britain's biggest employer is Health? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, they modernized, guess what they use now? WinXP machines with X11 server software, accesing the exact same X11 app they used before.
Now that's progress!
Re:Britain's biggest employer is Health? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Britain's biggest employer is Health? (Score:5, Insightful)
"No nation, not even the "mighty" US of A has the wealth and willingness to pay for everyone's healthcare yet."
Sounds like a contradiction to me.
I hope you never have a serious, debilitating, long-term illness. If you did, you might, at last, realise the foolishness of the first sentence I quoted.
Re:Britain's biggest employer is Health? (Score:4, Informative)
True for many, particularly the young and the healthy, and for normal sorts of care. However, there are chronic conditions that very few individuals can pay for. The drug bill alone for treating some chronic conditions exceeds $60,000 per year. The median income for a family of four in the US is about $55,000. That family CANNOT pay for the health care for that child. It is not uncommon for an elderly person to run up $500,000 in health care costs during the last two or three years of their life. Few have that kind of resources available.
TTBOMK, there are no private charities whose purpose is to pay that type of large bill for anyone who is in need. In general, all of the programs that do so involve some degree of coercion. For Medicare and Medicaid, the government pays out of its tax base. In employer-provided insurance plans, the young and healthy pay more than their share in premiums to cover the costs of the older and sicker (the coercion in that case looking a bit more like a carrot than a stick -- the company plan provides more coverage than you need, but is "free"). And don't even think about buying private health insurance for your family if you have a child with such a pre-existing condition -- no one is going to sell you a policy at any price. Similarly if you're 93.
I agree that many aspects of the current coverage seem silly. IIRC, this form of "insurance" started with Kaiser during WWII. Among other things, Kaiser built fleets of standardized ships for the US Navy that were at least one of the critical factors in determining who won that war. Anyway, he found that it was cheaper to operate subsidized clinics to take care of workers and their families than to pay the cost of days lost to sickness or injury. In order to compete for workers, other companies had to offer some sort of similar benefit; most of them did it through private doctors and hospitals; at some point, insurance companies got involved in administering the plans. Such health care arrangements became a standard benefit demanded by the large unions. Keep in mind that health care was a LOT cheaper 60 years ago, so it seemed like a reasonable deal to the companies. Of course, if you're the top management at a company paying the line workers' health insurance premiums, you want the same benefit for yourself.
A system that made some degree of sense 60 years ago has been outstripped by changes in health care technology and society. Conditions that were fatal in the short term then can be treated (at high cost) and people can live for another 30 years. Doctors today come out of medical school owing $100,000 or more, and may face malpractice premiums of $100,000 per year. The US is the richest country in the world, and spends a larger percentage of its GDP on health care than any other industrial nation. At some point, I believe, we'll get this mess straightened out, although things will probably have to get worse before we're willing to take the needed steps.
And just what's wrong with that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh My God. A health system where you will be treated regardless, where you can get a heart bypass, a kidney transplant, cancer therapy or IVF treatment without someone first asking for your health insurance details or your credit card number and you choose to dismiss it because it's egalitarian?
I'm sorry, but I think a government has a few basic responsibilities towards its citizens. Making sure that it does its best to keep them all in good health by providing them all with decent medical care regardless of their ability to pay or their social standing is a good thing.
A sick child that needs a vital operation is a sick child that needs a vital operation. Whether or not her parents can afford to pay for whatever it takes to make her well again should not factor into the equation.
If this is what you decry as "socialist" then give me a "socialist" society any day of the week.
Re:And just what's wrong with that? (Score:5, Insightful)
'Realise'? It's one of the things I'm most proud of about my country.
Of course it's 'socialist'. It's also extrememly popular, and no political party dares to change it other than to tinker with some details. All the parties know full well that to run on a platform of removing the socialist NHS would be electoral suicide. Even Margaret Thatcher was too 'socialist' to dismantle the NHS. The *performance* of the NHS is a political hot potato. The *principle* of an NHS 'free at the point of use' is something every party has to support strongly to stand any chance at all in elections.
Re:And just what's wrong with that? (Score:3, Informative)
This was due to Mrs T. deciding that it was more cost-effective to outsource the cleaning staff to third party contractors, rather than having in-house staff assigned to each ward. Early government research had realised that it was better to have three types of disinfectant to clean wards. Really strong stuff to clean the floors, mild stuff to clean walls, doors and door handles, and weak stuff to clean the ceilings. Having in-
Re:And just what's wrong with that? (Score:4, Insightful)
The care you receive as an acute admission rather than a waiting list admission is exceptional. It is held up by bed shortages and bed-blockers (people who get a foot in the door and can't be dicharged for social rather than medical reasons), and the rate-limiting factor is usually bed availability rather than operating time or whatever.
I am a doctor (surgeon) in the UK, and if I was sick I'd want to be treated in the NHS. Definitely not private unless it was for minor ops (i.e. lower waiting list) as anything major, if the shit hits the fan, requires transfer to an NHS ITU. And not in the US where they have forced to practice defensive medicine (i.e. get a test not because it's indicated but instead investigate everything so that the lawyers can't find something that's been missed - every test has morbidity associated with it). Testing for everything de-skills doctors as they become more reliant on results than clincal acumen. (This usually evens out as they get more experiences though).
The NHS is a huge beast where the problems are related to many things, including trying to cover everything (too much integration into social care etc.). It is spawling and wasteful, but it has so much legacy problems I don't see how it can be fixed.
Re:And just what's wrong with that? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And just what's wrong with that? (Score:5, Informative)
If you don't want to pay medical bills, don't get friggin' sick in the first place.
Wow, what an insightful position. I suppose you can somehow chose whether or not to be born with a congenital illness can you? Or to grow up in an environment where, say, TB is present? Or whether or not to get hit by a drunk driver? Or to contract leukemia? Or cancer? Or to need a working kidney?
Who knew it was that easy!
Here's a related story that you'll like.
In the 1990s, the US Agency for International Aid (USAID), which was set up specifically to help the poor in developing world nations, put the US itself on its list of developing nations, and started providing assitance to housing and poverty projects in Washington DC, Boston, Seattle and elsewhere. In 1994, USAID took a group of Baltimore healthcare workers on a field trip to Kenya in a bid to boost that city's child immunisation rates. Before visiting Kenya, which boasted a near 100 percent record, only 56 percent of Baltimore's infants were effectively immunised. After learning from the Kenyans, Baltimore managed to improve that figure to 96 percent.
Clearly, Baltimore made a big mistake in seeking to improve the health of its future generations. All it's succeeded in doing is making them "weak and spineless". Yeah, right.
Re:And just what's wrong with that? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't see how it's in your interest that your fellow citizens are fit and able to contribute to society rather than be sick, infirm and unable to work then you're rather more short-sighted than I first thought.
(Oh, and if you have any more insightful comments to make, then please do so while logged in. After all, you're not ashamed of your opinion, so why post as an AC?)
Re:And just what's wrong with that? (Score:4, Insightful)
Therefore, while your statement regarding the responsibility of government may be sound philosophically, it may not technically be true, depending on the nation.
first china... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:first china... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe it's because that corporation provides services like an on-site support contract?
Re:first china... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe it's because that corporation provides services like an on-site support contract?
To be fair though, there have been several Linux companies (Redhat and SUSE most prominent) that have offered support contracts. When Sun offers pretty much the same thing people take notice - it's amazing what a anme can do. Especially when you not that Sun is in decline (not irreversible, but let's face it, they haven't been doing quite so well the last few quarters) while Redhat and SUSE are both pushing ahead.
It will be interesting to see if uptake of Sun's Linux distro will see Redhat and SUSE's fortunes improve further - they are big names in the linux business, so if linux gets to be a name of note, all of a sudden they could start making some big contracts.
Jedidiah
Re:first china... (Score:5, Informative)
Secondly, this project was the idea of the NHS, not the government, and the NHS IT director is negotiating with the government for the funding. See this [theregister.co.uk] Register story.
Steve.
Re:first china... (Score:5, Informative)
when it takes 6 months to see a doctor for a sore throat
What the fuck are you smoking? I can nip down to my doctor and see her this afternoon (spend 10 minutes in the waiting room) and get a prescription there and then... nip out of the door and round to the chemist to pick it up.
A couple of years ago, my Dad was given a blood test which showed up possible cancer. In one week he saw a specialist and was sent for further tests (again within a week) which revealed early prostate cancer. Within a month he was in hospital having his prostate removed by the best specialty surgeon and team in the country followed by chemotherapy.
Cost to him: 0. God bless the NHS, and fuck right-wing loonies who think the U.S and its third-world civilisation approach to healthcare works.
Re:first china... (Score:5, Insightful)
when will it stop (Score:5, Interesting)
how long until they stop seeing it necessary to give linux a definition? i kinda wonder why they feel like 'quoting' open-source in this too, do they think they're lying? =D
Re:when will it stop (Score:5, Funny)
Windows is a 'closed-source' system for wrecking computers stolen by a young American student in the early 80s and rejected by thousands of programmers working together across the internet.
Re:when will it stop (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:when will it stop (Score:3, Funny)
Re:when will it stop (Score:3, Funny)
Or: does she understand the difference between a loudspeaker and a hifi system? You could explain that as loudspeakers are for audio, so a monitor is for light.
If she doesn't understand the function of a loudspeaker, then you might want to give up.
I find lot's of people just aren't interested in understanding how things work. They just want... to go on holiday^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hvacation and stuff. Not saying your mum's like this, so don't take any offence!
How exactly is this a true statement? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a troll, but Linux is immune from upgrades? This is not the way to convince people to use Linux, by implying that once you install/download Linux, you can walk away without any more upgrades. I wish he had been more clear about the costs involved instead of being so vague.
Re:How exactly is this a true statement? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How exactly is this a true statement? (Score:3, Insightful)
5 years really is the minimum amount of time for support of an enterprise system.
Ewan
Re:How exactly is this a true statement? (Score:3, Insightful)
You will be able to open OpenOffice 3 documents with OpenOffice 1.1 I am guessing. That is not an option with Word or Excel from my previous experience.
Re:How exactly is this a true statement? (Score:5, Interesting)
However, for the sake of argument: if you look in general at a Linux-based system like this one versus a Microsoft-based solution, you will indeed find it is true that the Linux-based solution will be far less susceptible to forced upgrades. This is because Microsoft has two covert methods by which it forces upgrades:
And note that with everything I have said here, you can replace "Linux" with "Open Source" and "MS" with "Closed Source" and it works just fine.
Re:How exactly is this a true statement? (Score:3)
Re:How exactly is this a true statement? (Score:3, Funny)
Well, when the inspector comes round you really need the machine that goes "Bing!".
graspee
Sweet.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, let me correct that. Everyone in the world but in the United States. Why is it that the US companies and organizations (starting with the ^$!* Universities!) are the only ones blind to the potential of FOSS (and the interaction between FOSS and a RAIS (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Students) hacking on it!), or at least to the fact that Microsoft will give them a discount if they at least look at the competition?
Re:Sweet.... (Score:5, Informative)
I agree about the universities, Microsoft is doing the RIAA thing and trying to buy their way into the classrooms for a propaganda war. Sad really that this goes under the radar to most people.
Re:Sweet.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Chances are very good that the person who made that decision is still in the same position. To now make a decision to move away from windows would be like admitting that you were wrong when you made a decision to move to windows in the first place. A CIO would rather die then to lose face like that.
American schools and hospitals will not even condier switching unless there is a turnover in the CIO position.
Re:Sweet.... (Score:4, Funny)
(starting with the ^$!* Universities!)
You know that you're a geek when you spend some time wondering what that regexp does.
Re:Sweet.... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also why Lexis-Nexus does so well. Lexis-Nexus is basically a case law database. It's almost always available for free by law students in the computer labs they have. Once they graduate and get out in the 'real world', they are used to the ease and familiarity of it that they keep using it, at whatever the going rate is (It's measured in dollars per minute).
It's OS and software crack.
Kierthos
Row (Score:5, Interesting)
What's the chance that MS will be offering them a heavily discounted plan after this.
I might be a little cynical but could it just be the NHS trying to get a better deal from MS?
Re:Row (Score:5, Insightful)
And why the hell wouldn't they? That's one of the reasons I've gotten into FOSS - I want a big stick with which to beat Microsoft into submission with.
It's called competition, friend. Every time someone uses FOSS to get deep discounts on Windows and/or Office, it takes just a little more steam out of the Microsoft steamroller. I hate to wish ill on anyone, but this is good for the IT industry, IMHO.
It also makes a business case for evaluating FOSS, putting it into the minds (if not the hearts) of the PHBs. It will become a more common thing to have Linux installs, which will cause Microsoft's customers to make them conform to standards that everyone can live with.
All around, there is no downside here. Your cynicism is born from impatience, of wanting FOSS to win NOW. Patience, friend, and keep a clear head - intelligence, not emotion, is what we need to use in order to restore innovation and freedom to the industry.
Soko
Re:Row (Score:5, Insightful)
But the paradox here is that Netscape's achilles heel was that Microsoft could afford to give away a product that was competing with their main revenue source, forcing them to dramatically rework their business model. In the case of open source, Microsoft is on the receiving end of the same medicine.
Re:Row (Score:3)
Ok, this is just patently ridiculous. If not for Microsoft caring about the web, the web would have happened just the same. We would have had Netscape everywhere. And perhaps there would be true innovation happening, instead of web technology dropping to a standstill once Internet Explorer captured the
Re:Row (Score:4, Insightful)
I would be willing to bet that you are not far off on that point. It costs a fare amount for a large organisation like that to move from one application to another let alone a whole OS. You have to consider all the retraining of stuff + installition cost etc.. I would be willing to bet that 50-60% of the big corporations that have treaten to go to linux have just done so to screw a better deal of MS
Finally! Sun has a strategy... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to admit that I wasn't sold on the 'Java' desktop (whatever), but it seems that they are pushing the right buttons here.
Re:Finally! Sun has a strategy... (Score:5, Informative)
Don't be so quick to discount Sun's desktop push. They're heavily investing into R&D and have a roadmap in front of them which will drive innovation on Java-equipped desktop clients.
For example, have a look at Project Looking Glass [sun.com] and the keynote demo [sun.com].
not important... my comment that is (Score:5, Interesting)
Good on Sun! Someone had to do it, and really, who else could have pulled it off? And dont say Apple
Great, Grand, Wonderful... Everybody on the BUS!
And headlines later this week on slashdot: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And headlines later this week on slashdot: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd rather be slightly plump, well-fed and contented than scrawny, edgy and looking like an emaciated anorexic skeleton to conform to your Hollywood stereotype thank you very much. Those "tart's breakfasts" will catch up with you one day...
Linux for front end machines? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Linux for front end machines? (Score:5, Insightful)
The rollout will be for generic office type machines, noting lab results, appointments, taking notes, rosters, and that hundred and one other, non-life-and-death uses.
Re:Linux for front end machines? (Score:5, Informative)
Some medical companies, names upon request, use Windows NT as the OS that runs their diagnostic and monitoring devices.
Many come with a warning to restart the device daily.
No joke.
Re:Linux for front end machines? (Score:3, Insightful)
The hardware platform is a specific configuration. Nothing is added, nothing changes. The specific hardware combination that makes up the system is fixed, and has been rigorously tested as a system.
The software on the machine is a specific configuration. Nothing can be added by the operator, and the ent
Java Desktop System name (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Java Desktop System name (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe, but I like to think more of it as something that a company that wants to MAKE MONEY would do. You'll recall, that's why companies often do this sort of thing.
The real question is: WHY?
Answer: To not only sell customers on the the desktop, but on the backend server architecture as well. The word 'Java' helps Sun distinguish itself from every other Linux distro.
You watch, Novell
Not too surprising when you look at the numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
Where as the license savings on the 20 machines at work comes to a small enough amount we don't decide it's worth porting the one program we require on windows so we don't think about it much. We also however don't upgrade very often, 10 95's 5 98's and a few others just for testing purposes.
Now having said this, we're moving our product to linux, partially for the higher margins we can get when we don't have to pay license fees on the servers we sell and partially because the old OS is expensive garbage that should have been retired 10 years ago. The massive number of free tools helps with the move, and the advertising push people like IBM have been doing really helps with the customers and the boss. I actually saw my first Linux
The workplace is definitely changing and it's not at all like I guessed it would be 10 years ago when I started school.
It's bizarre this is a Central Govt. matter (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a result of previous government directives to start looking at Linux solutions [silicon.com] in the government. This is something that has not trickled down all the officials to get as far as being a policy announcement in the left wing press here (of which the Observer [observer.co.uk] is just one example.
Obviously this is a better situation than before, when government directives insisted that Microsoft solutions be looked at first, so far as anyone can tell simply because Tony Blair did not understand computers but did enjoy Bill Gates' company when they met - they are a similar age, and see themselves as similar global figures, and I personally think they have a similar contemptable attitude to people who are ultimately their paymasters. Now Tony Blair is politically weaker, following the recent Gulf war not being popular within the Labour Party [labour.org.uk], but really it would be better if this was happening according to other reasons.
Incomplete Headline (Score:5, Funny)
"British Health System Looks at Linux; Tells it to Quit Smoking and Exercise More"
About time (Score:5, Insightful)
Bah! (Score:5, Funny)
Eat lots of fish and swim in cold water once a day (Score:3, Funny)
"Trusted" computing (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's see what happens next (Score:5, Insightful)
1. They threaten Microsoft and get their deep discount. Smart.
2. They buy into Sun and pay dearly for support as well as for rewriting all of their already working software. Stupid.
Somehow I think the entire point of this "switch" is to do #1.
Re:Let's see what happens next (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm all for this but... (Score:4, Insightful)
I see it in every linux debate I read - this will only succeed when linux becomes easier to use. No more editing obscure text files or reading howto's. Things just have "to work" before people will change
(OK, things don't always "just work" in MS, but mostly it does and people need some incentive to sell them on a change like that).
Re:I'm all for this but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all for this! (Score:5, Informative)
The way that they use computers (mainly for work) is fairly simple. My Dad will use some form of presentation building software - for preparing talks at meetings, a web browser - for filling in his "education" points list, and a word processor - for writing letters. That's it - for work both at home and at the hospital where he works. I've found that once the computer has Linux installed on it, he's got no real problems (using GNOME as a Window Manager) doing this tasks. He likes StarOffice Impress, and he's commented that Galeon is faster than Internet Explorer.
My Mum, is generally the same, she needs a scanner - for preparing practice booklets, or information leaflets, a word processor, an email client, and that's about it. At work, she says, I just "put in my password, click OK, and then click on the program icon". Now, that's not something that'd be hard to implement on Linux. Also, being part of a General Practice, they have to purchase their own computers, and software. She has commented before on the cost of the software, and how it seems to be "paying a lot for not very much".
My thoughts? Can Linux be implemented as a desktop implementation for users? Definitely. The user does not need to install software, or hardware for that matter - they cannot at the moment, as they're not "administrators" on their own machines.
Remote management would be easier, IMHO, and there'd be less problems with network floods due to virii that inevitably end up on the Windows systems.
The Police in our area, West Yorkshire, UK, have already made the switch and are running their systems on Linux. This, to me, is an indicator of how Linux, when properly implemented, can be used on the desktop. If the NHS do come up with a decent solution, I'd imagine they'll see the benefits (probably mainly cost benefits).
This post is based purely on personal experience
Wouldn't it be more accurate... (Score:5, Insightful)
As others have pointed out this isn't a victory for Linux...Sun isn't exactly the biggest fan of penguin branded OS and kernels. Heck they don't even call it Linux.
Let's take a moment to think about this (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing they need to know... (Score:4, Funny)
Standardising the NHS OS (Score:4, Informative)
It is impossible to remove all of the Windows boxes and replace them with Linux Desktops and Open Office, but it may start some standardisation in an outfit that has every Windows OS from MSDos 6.2 to Windows XP (including a lot of stops along the way, 3.1 and ME).
For those using machines that do not require Windows, I see no problem in switching to a Linux Desktop. Or site uses Novell as well for the backend, so Linux is definitely in our future.
I know Microsoft is expensive, but... (Score:4, Funny)
Not a hope in hell (Score:5, Informative)
This is pure dealing with Microsoft, there is not a hope that Linux will be generally taken on.
And Microsoft will recognise that too.
If they had wanted to take it seriously, they would have required Linux solutions when they put out the original tender in April. They didn't.
Realistically? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Realistically? (Score:3, Insightful)
its about time too! (computer virus problems) (Score:5, Interesting)
personally I think this is brill... (Score:3, Interesting)
Many Info Systems are Unix based (Score:5, Informative)
When I joined one of the private companies which only provides medical IS software, I wasted a month realising that the Linux based solution I was developing wouldn't be accepted because the NHS Trust wanted a Windows based solution. So I spent a week trying to understand and get actual prices and sources for discounted licenses for Microsoft's server software. A quarter of the budget for this project involving custom software went to Microsoft license fees.
The reason it had to be Windows? A serious systemic lack of resources and skills. Any IT personnel working for the NHS who has enough skills to administer a Unix machine (or has actually completed their MCSE exams even) ends up taking a better paying job elsewhere. So the NHS Trusts end up relying on untrained IT staff and nurses who have moved into IT to get away from shift work. Nevermind the fact there was a 2 to 1 ratio of managers to tehnical staff (yes, 2 managers, 1 system administrator).
I have never seen such a screwed up system on such a large scale before. It is almost impressive just how broken the NHS IA / IT is.
Re:Many Info Systems are Unix based (Score:3, Informative)
When I did a presentation the doctors and admins were really excited about it. Not about our software or the intranet, but they thought this meant that the dumb terminals that they had in their offices or work areas were going to be replaced with PCs. To their disappointment they weren't. No budget was allocated for PC upgrades. So
It can happen (Score:3, Insightful)
We are are on the slippery slope to adopting Linux.
A lot of our internal finance systems are being switched over to the Oracle/Java E-business suite on Linux servers.
OK we are still on NT 4 desktops (we are very, very conservative as regards IT infrastructure). We will switch to Win2K desktops eventually. However, what happens after that is anyones guess. We already stripped Unisys of their IT support contract to save money, all our IT staff are now in-house. Linux does seem the next logical step. Several senior IT staff have hinted to me that wide-scale Linux adoption may be the next step they take.
We want cheap, very cheap. If we can train our own in-house IT staff to support Linux without having to pay outside companies then all the well.
Once companies realise that they can have a comprehensive and reliable IT infrastructure based on Linux, without havong to employ an outside firm such as Sun or IBM then Linux will become a big thing.
And as far as I am concerned the sooner the better!
Right tool for the right job. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm.. Installing software or hardware in this sort of environment shouldn't be left to users in the first place. If YOU don't know what you're doing that's your own problem.
I know plenty of doctors offices locally either using Unix-based apps under Windows (which really sucks), or are still using DOS-based ones (Wow, pick your poison). Please keep in mind that a national healthcare network shouldn't have to worry about whether or not it can play Half-Life 2.
Re:umm, why pay for sun when you can get linux fre (Score:4, Insightful)
-It's an entire system involving servers and backend software, not just the desktops
-They get the hardware and support in the same package
-Sun's distro is customised for standardised desktops, easy roll-out and maintenance unlike regular distros
-They get a company who they can pin problems on
-They already know and trust Sun, since it provides their current server hardware
Re:umm, why pay for sun when you can get linux fre (Score:3, Insightful)
Two words.
"Commercial Support"
100% Free Distros are all well and good, but for something as large as the NHS it'd be useful to have a commercial support contract running.
Plus, as someone else mentioned, hardware would probably come as part fo the package. So any software and hardware support would all go through one central place. Plus, more importantly, you could be pretty damn sure that all hardware will be supported by the software.
Meaning an easier life for the on-site admins.
Tiggs
Re:Quick he's crashing!` (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now the above sounds crazy, sterile environment causes problems. But think about evolution, in a normal environment these resistant germs might not be prevalent because they cannot compete with other germs. But if something removes the other germs then voila MRSA. They have nothing controling their spread.
When I lived in the UK I viewed the BBC as very biased, the education system as decrepid and the NHS out of control.
Now I live in the US I see the BBC as the paragon of unabised reporting, the UK public education system as an ideal and the NHS as a very vital piece of public infrastructure.
Where is the US liberal media I read so much about? Why does a country that prides education so much have a high illiteracy rate? You have many doctors but hardly any public healthcare.
In short, it's better to have a large unwiedly public healthcare system than not have one at all.
Bullshit. (Score:3, Insightful)
Your sterotyping is grotesque and revelas only your very particular anecdotal experience.