Slashdot Mirror
British Health System Looks at Linux
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.'"
Actually, it's hard to see but many US hospitals are slowly moving away from M$. This is done in many cases because of IBM who come in and sell Linux for its openness and auditability; which is in demand in the wake of the HIPAA regulations.
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.
SCO: 800-726-8649
Verisign: 800-361-8319, 888-642-9675
Diebold: 800-433-VOTE (8683)
I think he is talking about the fact that under MS Liscensing 6 that you MUST upgrade certain components every X months or you lose the very expensive support you were paying for. Basically Sun is saying that they are willing to support an older configuration so long as you are willing to pay the bills. With MS that is not an option. In some instances it may be MUCH cheaper to pay a little more for software support than it is to upgrade all the hardware and pay for all of the technicians to do the upgrades. This isn't necessarily the best path all the time but if budgets are going to be lean for a year or two keeping the old systems on life support can often be a wise choice.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Actually it's not Windows that I am locked into at work, it's Office.
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.
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
Having the government pander the citizens only makes them weak and spineless (like modern day US or almost any "civilized" country).
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.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Wrong.
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.
- oZ
// i am here.
My parents are both currently working in the NHS, my Dad's a consultant at the local hospital, whereas my Mum's a GP.
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
Please note that the parent post is exagerating - it does not take 6 months to see an NHS doctor, it takes anything from 1 - 7 days depending on where you go.
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 Register story.
Steve.
A latent existence
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.