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.'"
What happens to the doctors who want to keep using Windows?
I have been pwned because my
Linux is an 'open-source' system for running computers invented by a young Finnish student in 1991 and refined by thousands of programmers working together across the internet.
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
My other sig is an import.
The National Health Service, Britain's biggest employer, is considering ditching Microsoft software after a row over mounting licensing costs.
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?
Sun seem to have done the right thing, at the right time. I assume the Java Desktop thingo doesnt have huge licence fees, because then there would be no point in people using it, if their sole reason was to get away from Microsoft!
:)
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!
Giving IE users a taste of their own medicine since 2005 - http://pods.-is-a-geek.net/
I don't think that they're necessarily blind, but US-based entities, both private and government, are so mired in Windows-based systems that it takes quite a bit of forward-thinking to make any sort of dramatic change to their computing systems. Imagine trying to justify the cost and time to your superiors who are just trying to keep things up and running so that they can keep their jobs. I don't think people are being blind, but maybe they're being short-sighted.
Microsoft doesn't have nearly the stronghold it has on the rest of the world as it has on the United States, so it's more viable for organizations in other countries to consider alternatives.
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:
- Associated software. If you go with the MS OS, you're probably going to be going with other MS software as well, for example Word. If you want to do this, you're going to continuously over time upgrade Word, both because MS continuously updates Word, and because you will have to keep upgrading Word in order to work with the new-version Word documents people send you. Over time this means that you will have to eventually upgrade your OS as well in order to run the newest version of Word. That sort of thing. With a Linux solution, you have access to the code and have the ability if you need to to (in an analogous situation) alter the OpenOffice and/or Linux itself so that a newer version of OpenOffice runs on an older version of Linux, or add support for newer document formats to the older OpenOffice you were running.
- Hardware upgrades. Over time, what if you want to perform partial hardware upgrades on some of your systems, or add new systems, but you wish to keep your network homogenous from a software standpoint? If MS does not choose to continue to add support to its OS for new hardware, and they often do not, then what do you do? You will be unable to work with the new hardware without performing an upgrade. With the Linux solution you have the ability to add support for new hardware yourself if the vendor chooses not to.
Both of these cases imply on the Linux side changes to the code, which is a sort of upgrade. However the open source model provides the *possibility* of doing minor upgrades to bring over crucial new features, rather than (say) having to upgrade all the way to WinXP from W2K, with all the baggage that implies, just to get one tiny little feature. Moreover they give you a large degree of flexibility in your choice of vendors. If the British health system needs changes to the system they are using, they may go to Sun and purchase the upgrade, OR they can hire an independent contractor of their choice, point them at the code, and say "add these features".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.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
X is network aware, but on many networks it's pretty difficult to port around X apps. If you're talking about a bunch of machines getting their IP from DHCP, for instance, it can be a problem. Also it can be a real hassle if there are multiple partitioned subnets around the building.
Agreed, though, that the amount of futzing around to get Citrix isn't more or less of a mess than X servers.
"How enthusiastic is the IT staff going to be for people to be 'flinging around bitmaps' on the network?" is another good question regarding remote X apps... A few dozen people running remote X Apps is gonna use considerable bandwidth.
A Good Intro to NetBS
If using Linux helps to improve the sysetm in some way, I am all for it. It was clear while lying in hospital that the problems were not made by the medical staff, rather by the management, and in part they had failed to provide efficient systems for making appointments, and other basic essentials. A well thought out system may reduce the incidence of incidents such as I experienced, by ensuring that the correct department does actually send someone to do some tests.
Althought the NHS was introduced by a socialist government, the need had been obvious for a long time, and it would probably have happened under any government when the time was right. Unfortunately the present so-called socialist government is intent on surpassing the damage Maggie Thatcher did. Socialism does not work, never has, and never will. Blair is trying to go the US way, by stealth. Many will die as a result, as they do daily in the US. Many third world countries can do better in making basic health care available freely. The US is a seriously backward and disfunctional society, we do not want their health care methods in the UK.
It is encouraging that a company with a culture of competence, like Sun, is involved in this. It could equally well have been IBM or various others, who can and will deliver high-quality systems. The good thing is that the software company with the very worst track record of gross incompetence is not involved. We do not want the NHS turning into a Bill monopoly. Some businesses seem to exist for the sole benefit of the IT department, and their software supplier. The NHS belongs to the entire population of the UK, any software they invest in should be for the benefit of us. Use of Linux is a good thing because the saving in licence fees will be truly enormous, and as the programming interface is much more manageable than the grossly excessive number of APIs in Windoze, it follows that development of good quality software is quicker and cheaper under Linux than under Windoze. This is a win-win situation. I have yet to hear of anyone who found development more difficult under Linux than Win, unless of course their idea of development was writing bug-ridden Visual Basic applications, or AciveX......
My GP is one of the best (I have experienced the opposite) and the entire practice is very up to date, computers linked to the local hospital etc, yet one day recently none of it would work, results of my blood test could not be checked, and the receptionist was reduced to making appointments by pen and paper. The server, running some hugely expensive program under NT, had crashed....... It was down all day. Enough said, I think.
hopefully moving to Linux will help combat the problems various NHS trusts had with recent computer virus attacks - I know of one Trust where for weeks access to online medical records was only possible for a short amount of time every day.. makes one wonder how big the human cost of computer viruses is..
1: 99% of the NHS is not "life and death". it's the day to day administration of such a vast entity as the nation's health.
2: linux is not very nice on the desktop, but the sun package copes with most nux shortcomings.
3: dude. *windows*. come on, DUDE!
Outside the UK, people probably do not realise the true state of the NHS. First, it is a sort of compulsory HMO. You have no choice about whether or not you join. Second, it has dreadful standards of care. It has the highest rate of MRSA and hospital infection in the developed world, the population it looks after has terrible cancer survival rates due to delays in treatment. Third, it is prodigiously wasteful. According to its own estimates, about 20% of its spend is wasted. It is full of managers and administrators who distort clinical priorities for political objectives. A classic example is, if you enter hospital with a smashed hip, there is a magic window before the injury starts to heal, when operating will more or less guarantee total recovery. Wait longer, and you will have problems later. Well, surgeons are being obliged by managers to delay treating these cases, and to give higher priority to trivial elective surgery. Why? Because they can get more trivial ops done in a short time, and this lets them meet the political waiting list target. Yes, there are huge queues of people in the UK waiting months and months, sometimes years, for elective surgery. Effectively, the NHS is a government run machine for rationing UK people's access to health care. What happens, the government contracts with the state owned hospitals and care organisations for a certain amount of care of various kinds. If the money runs out before the year ends, you are out of luck. Some kinds of treatment are simply not available. Generally, getting properly treated in the UK for anything expensive or complicated involved winning a series of fights with a mad beaurocracy whose main aim often seems to be to prevent care.
What does everyone in the UK do if they can afford it? They take private health insurance. This applies to the unions, who are the strongest supporters of the compulsory NHS monopoly. Or they pay again. Large numbers of people take out loans or second mortgages to go abroad to have treatment. And it is not true that people love it. Look at the numbers. Recent surveys show that the number of people who are unhappy with it have been rising steadily for the last ten years.
If you want to see a system that works, look at Continental Europe - social insurance. If you want to find out the truth about the NHS look up Harriet Seargent's pamphlet "Managing not to Manage".
There is no substitute for the facts when thinking about these things.
because it will create a big demand for those with Linux skills to support those boxes. And I for one intend to be at the front of the queue... and deity help any MCSE waver who thinks he can jump it...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Let's hope it happens, but I have to admit that this does smell of the NHS trying to apply pressure on Microsoft for discounts. Whether it happens or not, that the story itself exists and is credible is really bad news for Microsoft.
Non-US public sector, where corporate America is not that popular right now could offer a real shot in the arm for OSS. Their software purchasing decisions are as much about politics as technology. Whatever the reasoning, a few big projects like this will mean real budgets, real users and absolute cast iron customer reference sites...
The NHS is one of the worst health care systems in the developed world. One of the statistics compares outcomes for stomach cancer. probability of surviving 5 years in UK: about 15%, France about 25%, Germany 35%, US about 45%. The Economist estimated that it takes 18 months off the life expectancy of the average Brit.
One could continue on about filthy wards, rates of infections etc. It's a socialist system and it doesn't work properly. Give me capitailism and choice any day
It is unfortunate that so many fellow Brits unquestioningly back the NHS. It's not really free - we pay for it in tax.
Have you looked into CrossOver Office? I use it to run Outlook/Office XP on Linux. Beats Citrix.