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.'"

Comments

Britain's biggest employer is Health?

[ObviousGuy]

What happens to the doctors who want to keep using Windows?

Re:Britain's biggest employer is Health?

[Anonymous Coward]

They will be un-assimilated

Re:Britain's biggest employer is Health?

[MoonFog]

How many Slashdotters would prefer Linux, but have to use Windows at work ?

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?

[Frymaster]

What happens to the doctors who want to keep using Windows?

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?

[tempest303]

Maybe they get the same answer as people get right now who want to use Linux instead of Windows at work:

"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?

[tempest303]

Right, unlike our capitalist system of HMOs, and we all know that HMOs are about Choice, Choice, and more Choice, not to mention great service and care for clients. Thank god for Freedom!

Re:Britain's biggest employer is Health?

[InadequateCamel]

The doctors don't use Windows, their secretaries do. In fact, several of the doctors whom I typed for used Macs whenever they could, using the Windows box only when they needed to get patient information from the network.

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)

Re:Britain's biggest employer is Health?

[Soko]

They learn and adapt to use the tools provided?

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?

[martinX]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm being pedantic, but the British NHS is not only Britain's biggest employer, it's Europe's biggest employer too.

Re:Britain's biggest employer is Health?

[nicklott]

Most GP's (family doctors) are "self-employed". They run their own practices or cooperate with other doctors to create small health centres. While they are paid by the NHS they still effectively run their own business. They can use whatever computer systems they like.

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 is effectively throwing money away. The NHS is a big black hole. While I support it in principle, the whole thing is chronically mismanaged and lurching from one political knee-jerk to the next. It is being seriously taken for a ride by the large IT contractors in this country, most of whom are just political appointees.

Re:Britain's biggest employer is Health?

[Sad Loser]

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?

[cehardin]

Here's a good one. At my local hospital they used to use X11 apps and xterms for their patient software.

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?

[IM6100]

In so many places, the IT staffers make the 'Central Services' technicians in the movie 'Brazil' look professional.

It's just how things go in large bureacratic organizations.

Re:Britain's biggest employer is Health?

[BorgDrone]

Remember, you're the guy who's supposed to assist them in doing their work

Nice theory, but that's not how it works, IT runs the company/organisation.

You should read BOFH more often.

Re:Britain's biggest employer is Health?

[TiggsPanther]

In a way, the timing kinda makes sense.

What with the NHS still uses some severaly outtated kit in some places, upgrading is becoming far mor necessary. Support for Win98 is, if not stopped, not likely to be around for too much longer. WinME as a workplace-OS is a joke. And the NT-based systems cost a scary amount of money.

Then, when you factor in the near-imminent introduction of Longhorn, looking into alternatives before that time is probably a good idea. Especially seeing that I'd pretty much bet that Longhorn won't play well with others - not even other Windows versions. So that means at some point they're gonna have to do a pretty big round of upgrading - even if they wish to stick with Windows. Either all now to something prior to Longhorn - making sure that everything's done before the older OSs are unsupported. Or wait until Longhorn, and probably have to change the whole lot to ensure interoperability.

Checking into alternatives can only be a good thing. Either they'll find an alternative, or MS will offer them a discount. Either way, financial win.

Plus something Linux-based will operate fairly well with Windows - via Samba. Meaning they can probably squeeze every last driop of life from their older kit - definitely a win for the NHS.

Tiggs

Re:Britain's biggest employer is Health?

[vrai]

Problem is that's the entire NHS. It is one of the few organisations in the world which has more managers than productive staff (i.e. doctors and nurses). It's got so bad that you could assign a manager to every doctor, nurse and bed - and still have some spare!

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.

Re:Britain's biggest employer is Health?

[SpaghettiPattern]

First, I worked in a huge hospital.

since when do end users get a say in their operating system?
Never underestimate the political power of doctors in a hospital. In most cases hospitals are organized like the army. That is, doctors -and not managers- are in charge of departments even though they are not trained to be managers but to cure people. The most obvious sad case is where a doctor manages a nursing department. Doctors cure and nurses nurse.

Don't expect the IT department to be free of doctors' influence. You're in luck if they think rationally and even more if the IT and the doctor's ideas coincide -in one perverse way or another.

Re:Britain's biggest employer is Health?

[mickwd]

"Everyone, and I mean everyone, who has at least rudimentary human intelligence and capability, can pay for their own healthcare."

"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?

[GreggBert]

To paraphrase Lewis Black...."Doctor's have the power because they often carry a rectal thermometer".

Re:Britain's biggest employer is Health?

[Alan Partridge]

Oh, in that case

R E S I G N !

Re:Britain's biggest employer is Health?

[michael_cain]

Everyone, and I mean everyone, who has at least rudimentary human intelligence and capability, can pay for their own healthcare.

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.

"Society" is already bending over backwards to help people out in need, voluntarily, without a menacing tax collector ripping people off selectively

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.

And, do you have any idea how absurd it is to see some upper-middle class family on a six figure salary using medical insurance from work to pay for doctor visits? Why in the hell does their employer even offer that kind of insurance?

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.

Re:Britain's biggest employer is Health?

[reclusivemonkey]

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.

I work for my local council as a finance technician and our IT people refuse to allow anyone to implement Access databases other than for personal use (not everyone has Access installed). I take your point about poorly implemented databases. However, quite often the best solution is an Access database. But even when I fully document a database and work through many revisions to find the simplest solution, I can find no one willing to allow me to show them how it works, however much they rave on about how good a program it is, or profess to be a database expert. The issue is further complicated by our Departmental IT Manager who insists on telling everyone you cannot share Excel spreadsheets between users. I relish such challenges at work :-), and find using Access to co-ordinate my own efforts and using Excel to collect and distribute the best solution. A developmental license might help, but then I wouldn't be able to simply jump in and create quick changes.

IMHO this is where the open source world is lacking. I use Slackware at home by choice and would love to use a *NIX desktop at work but without Excel and Access, I would be lost. Yes, Gnumeric is good. It does translate quite well. But it simply isn't anywhere near as user friendly as Excel. I can't remember specifics, but many of the things I do in Excel which added up to save me hours every day just aren't there in Gnumeric or any of the other open source equivalents. The same with Access. I know how much better a SQL/php database would be for my needs, but the learning curve is far too great for me to take on at the moment, especially as Access is such a great tool for quickly managing information for a single user. The backbone of our network is Unix based with mixture of NT/2000/XP desktops. I can see us migrating to a *NIX desktop in the future, and I can see the already slow machine that is a local council grinding to a halt. Are there any other *NIX acolytes out there in the current climate and shuddering at the though of their colleagues being faced with Gnome/Gnumeric or KDE/Calc?

first china...

[Frymaster]

now the british health system... it's amazing how the same operating system that cio's thought of as a science project a year ago can get the big contracts with nothing more than a respectable corporate name on the outside of the box.

Re:first china...

[October_30th]

with nothing more than a respectable corporate name on the outside of the box.

Maybe it's because that corporation provides services like an on-site support contract?

Re:first china...

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, whenever a large company wants a discount they say "linux", and MS kicks back a few bucks and all are happy
Well execpt for telstra ( AU )
Don't be fooled!!!

Re:first china...

[Coryoth]

with nothing more than a respectable corporate name on the outside of the box.

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...

[lga]

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.

Re:first china...

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

[mikechant]

My personal experience of the NHS (which I and my partner have used extensively in the last few years) is that it is improving rapidly - waiting times reducing, lots of new buildings, being called for appointments on time... The media always latch onto the worst cases, so as a result those who haven't used the NHS recently think it is much worse than it actually is. It is in the national interest to have healthcare available to all regardless of means in the same way it was in the national interest years ago to provide a proper sewage system instead of having it rotting in the street. It's all very well to say that each individual should be responsible for their own healthcare but that's not much consolation to those who *have* paid when they are (for example) killed by an epidemic which starts among the 'uncovered' population. Or take the example of a low paid worker with no health cover who currently makes a small contribution to GDP and taxation. A leg injury which needs an operation they can't afford permanantly removes them from the labour market, even though it is actually cheaper for the rest of the population to pay for the operation and get them back to work and contributing...

when will it stop

[prof187]

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

Re:when will it stop

[dankdirk77]

Yeah I didn't see

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

[Hi_2k]

The problem is, most people dont yet understand the diffrence between a monitor and a computer, so why should they understand the diffrence between operating systems? Linux still has never gotten mass media coverage in any real way. Until the 6'oclock news or the NY Times frontpage have in depth coverage of the fact that other operating systems exist, the average person, even the average high income person, will not understand that Linux is a (generally) better proposition than windows or that it is even another proposition.

Re:when will it stop

[MoOsEb0y]

Even when that happens, people still won't because people are stupid.

Re:when will it stop

[IM6100]

Clearly there should also be some boilerplate text included about the distinction between the Linux Kernal and the GNU system that makes up the body of the operating system. Perhaps a prominent mention of Richard Stallman and a sidebar on the GNU philosophy.

Re:when will it stop

[sydb]

Try not talking with your mouth full.

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?

[sithkhan]

Charles Andrews, Sun Microsystem's public sector head, said licence cost savings would come to tens of millions of pounds directly. 'And we won't force people to upgrade computers and technology on a 2-3 year cycle either. Customers can upgrade when they need to,' he said.

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?

[afidel]

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.

Re:How exactly is this a true statement?

[belmolis]

'And we won't force people to upgrade computers and technology on a 2-3 year cycle either. Customers can upgrade when they need to,' he said.

Not a troll, but Linux is immune from upgrades?

Linux doesn't force computer upgrades the way Microsoft software does. It isn't as demanding of the hardware, so you can keep using machines longer. And it is designed to run on a wide range of hardware rather than to become obsolete rapidly.

For software this is perhaps less true than for hardware, but at least there isn't the planned obsolence of MS software.

Re:How exactly is this a true statement?

[realkiwi]

I myself used StarOffice 5.2 happily for years on a Pentium 166 machine. I imagine that lots of these hospital computers will be running just word processing and spreadsheets. And of course connecting to databases. This will work as long as the hardware isn't fried in most of cases.

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?

[mcc]

Well, first off, if you look, he isn't saying the Linux means no-forced-upgrades-ever. He's saying that the overall Linux-based system which Sun is selling means no-forced-upgrades-ever. And this is valid as a sales point for Sun, no? I mean, historically, Sun has shown itself to be far more willing to provide support for "obsoleted" Sun software products than many other companies (in particular MS, the obvious target of the "2-3 year cycle" barb) have for their products, no?

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.

Re:How exactly is this a true statement?

[ducomputergeek]

I help convert two offices with about 40 employees each from Win to Linux. One of the major reason was it would work on their ageing ~PIII 700Mhz with 256MB of ram without any issues. We chose SuSE for one and RH for the other and when they need new hardware, they can go get white boxes from tigerdirect or whomever running like 1.2 Ghz AMD chips for under $300 and be happy for many years to come. Barring hardware failures, that should extend their current technology's use by another 2 - 3 years. Our company uses 100% Macintosh on the desktop. I have an older 1.2Ghz Althon machine with FreeBSD at home I use and I don't plan on upgrading that anytime soon. Hell we have Pentium Pro 200 servers that are still running FreeBSD 3.4.

Hell I just installed an older version of NetBSD on a 486DX2 66Mhz last week that we use as a file server. We put a new 30GB HD in, but for an office of 4 employees needing to back up word documents, it chugs along nicely and we got it for free.

Linux needs to be upgraded and patched just like any OS, however you can purchase a single copy of say SuSE and install it on as many computers as you need. If a company has say 100 computers, you can save thousands everytime a new version of windows comes out.

I have spoken with many companies that are looking into Linux to increase the life of their existing hardware. COmapnies are tired of the 2 years upgrade game and after the first of the year, we have contracts to oversee 6 offices switching to OpenOffice and provide training and helping 3 other companies switch to or upgrade their Macintosh systems.

Re:How exactly is this a true statement?

[Graspee_Leemoor]

" In a hospital like situation, where a machine does one thing and is expected to do one thing. Why does it need to be upgraded?"

Well, when the inspector comes round you really need the machine that goes "Bing!".

graspee

Re:How exactly is this a true statement?

[IM6100]

Linux doesn't force computer upgrades the way Microsoft software does. It isn't as demanding of the hardware, so you can keep using machines longer.

I used to belive that, and it's still true if you run a 'Classic' Linux desktop with an older Window Manager. If you step into the 'modern desktop' world of KDE or Gnome, that just isn't true anymore. I've had way too many people scoff at me for running a Freenix and an X desktop on Pentium Pro or older Pentium II boxes, as if I'm being an idiot. The old days of reusing boxes obsoleted by Windows aren't really over, but that's NOT the reality for slick new desktop Linux distros that are being sold these days as Windows replacements. Agreed, a 'current' box (say, 1 GHz Pentium IV) is fine now. It's not gonna be fine for next years Linux bloat desktop.

And it's a really sad state of affairs, not at all what some of us hoped for.

Re:How exactly is this a true statement?

[Ewan]

Redhat have promised fixes for the next 5 years on redhat enterprise, Suns own solaris 8 is still supported after 3 years, and will be a couple of years yet I'm sure, windows nt4 is only just being dropped from support by microsoft after a long 7 years of patches.

5 years really is the minimum amount of time for support of an enterprise system.

Ewan

Sweet....

[Trelane]

Everyone in the world seems to be evaluating Linux on the desktop. And why not? It makes perfect sense. At most, you get a viable alternative to Microsoft; at worst, you get discounts from Microsoft.

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....

[dankdirk77]

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.

Re:Sweet....

[Kierthos]

That's the case at a lot of universities... want to know why? They want to hook you while you're young. They want you to get used to using Windows, so you won't want to break away from it and try something else.

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

Re:Sweet....

[kaizenfury7]

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.

Re:Sweet....

[Malcontent]

A few years ago most of the hospitals and schools in the US were running on unix boxes and mainframes with dumb or X terminals. Then somebody made the fateful decision to get rid of all those terminals and install windows instead.

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....

[matvei]

(starting with the ^$!* Universities!)

You know that you're a geek when you spend some time wondering what that regexp does.

Row

[marshall_j]

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?

Re:Row

[Soko]

I might be a little cynical but could it just be the NHS trying to get a better deal from MS?

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

[snero3]

I might be a little cynical but could it just be the NHS trying to get a better deal from MS?

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

Re:Row

[vidarh]

On the other hand, where is Windows today? Without Netscape being as threatening as they were, Microsoft might never have cared about the web, and the internet would have been nowhere near as widespread.

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

[IGnatius T Foobar]

On the other hand, where is Windows today? Without Netscape being as threatening as they were, Microsoft might never have cared about the web, and the internet would have been nowhere near as widespread.

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 market.

I don't know why people always assume that Microsoft is the only company capable of widespread deployment. Microsoft's anti-competitive practices chill innovation, not encourage it. In fact, it's probably a reasonable guess that the industry has been set back ten years or more because of all the innovations that never happened because people simply didn't want to bother trying to compete with Microsoft.

Open standards are the free world's only hope.

Finally! Sun has a strategy...

[Chordonblue]

And you know what? It looks as though it's working. Getting their desktop act together combined with StarOffice and excellent support may help Sun out of it's doldrums after all.

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...

[cioxx]

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.

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 and the keynote demo.

not important... my comment that is

[POds]

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!

Right tool for the right job.

[Chordonblue]

"Just wait until X starts crashing on them and they can't get their plug'n play scanner working..." Blah, Blah, Blah.

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.

And headlines later this week on slashdot:

[Anonymous Coward]

• British Health System Then Looks Away From Linux, Embarrased
  
• British Health System Asks Linux to Put On Some Clothes
  
• Linux Throws On a Spaghetti-Strap Dress and Comments Mockingly on Stodgy Brits
  
• British Health System, Now Somewhat Flustered, Looks At Linux Again
  
• Linux Says, So Is That A Router In Your Pocket Or Are You Just Glad to See Me

Re:And headlines later this week on slashdot:

[turgid]

Linux Throws On a Spaghetti-Strap Dress and Comments Mockingly on Stodgy Brits

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?

[Alystair]

As much as I like Linux, the front end needs to mature a bit before going into such a high risk environment where, most of the time, every second is a matter of life and death.

Re:Linux for front end machines?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are 100% correct. However the life and death machines have never run Windows or Linux, and almost certainly never will. They are very strictly the domain of Real Time Operating Systems and embedded systems. (QNX comes to mind, but I'm not 100% sure if it's ever been used in medical equipment).

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?

[outZider]

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.

Re:Linux for front end machines?

[IM6100]

Generally those are medical device applications where there are conditions that nobody observes in an 'IT' setting, and certainly not in the 'home' setting that many people have anecdotal experience in.

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 entire system has been rigorously tested and qualified.

Medical device manufacturers do embedd Windows NT/2000 into their products. And you can belive that before the systems get FDA approval it's all tested beyond what is believable.

It has little bearing at all on what we all experience day to day with Microsoft products, because it's highly integrated, unlike the hodge-podge systems we all end up with because we're free to tinker and add system components (hardware and software) at will.

Java Desktop System name

[zymano]

Linux Desktop System would be more accurate. Don't you think ? Don't forget . Sun is payrolling SCO by paying that IP license and has always distrusted linux. Ripping the nametag Linux off the OS software and replacing it with a Java title is something a greedy company would do.

Re: Java Desktop System name

[Chordonblue]

"Ripping the nametag Linux off the OS software and replacing it with a Java title is something a greedy company would do."

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 and Red Hat will eventually do this also with their distros. It's a good and important step in Linux' evolution.

It's easy they can...

[spineboy]

Set up their office any-way they want. One of my colleagues just set up his office about a year ago. I advised him to go with Apple for ease of use, but he wanted Windows - and promptly got hit with one of the big viruses, which shut down his office, until the hospitals computers were cleaned.

He called me complaining that I should have tried harder to convince him to switch away from Windows.

Not too surprising when you look at the numbers

[strider3700]

If anything I'm surprised that this doesn't happen more often. The license savings on 800,000 machines should come to a number that you have to an idiot to not seriously look into.

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 /IBM commercial on TV today. Not there standard E-server commercials, but just on the merits of 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

[palfreman]

Yes, of course its a good thing that they are looking at Linux, but it is wholly bizzare that these kind of things are still centerally planned in England, and that these kind of day-to-day technical decisions are made by a government minister in Whitehall and distributed down the hiereachy - presumably all the way to the cleaning in the end.

This is a result of previous government directives to start looking at Linux solutions 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 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, but really it would be better if this was happening according to other reasons.

Incomplete Headline

[Dr. Photo]

The story was supposed to read:

"British Health System Looks at Linux; Tells it to Quit Smoking and Exercise More" ;-)

About time

[AirLace]

The UK government spends millions on institutions like universities allowing them to research and develop all sorts of free software, ranging from kernel security features (StegFS, Cambridge) to userspace applications like text-to-speech (Festival TTS, Edinburgh) and VoIP (VIC, UCL). It only makes sense that they should reap the benefits. Why pay twice for something?

And just what's wrong with that?

[WIAKywbfatw]

You do realize that Britain's health system is socialist don't you? Under socialism, you take what is given to you.

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?

[WIAKywbfatw]

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.

Re:And just what's wrong with that?

[DrMrLordX]

It should be noted that the responsibility of any government is dictated by its founding principles(its charter, constitution, or whatever it uses as a foundation of law, if anything). The government of the United States does, techincally, only have a responsibility to provide for the public defense, along with a few other things enumerated within the Constitution(and this does not explicitly include medical care). However, other nations may not have such spartan requirements of their government.

Therefore, while your statement regarding the responsibility of government may be sound philosophically, it may not technically be true, depending on the nation.

Re:And just what's wrong with that?

[WIAKywbfatw]

Well, if you think you can't avoid getting sick then make damned sure you can afford to pay your own bills. Get an insurance or stash money under your mattress, but don't ask me for help. You don't owe me anything and I don't owe you anything.

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?

[TomV]

You do realize that Britain's health system is socialist don't you? Under socialism, you take what is given to you

'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?

[tiger99]

That is how it is supposed to work, and until Maggie Thatcher, both main political parties wished it to continue to be so. However I can speak from direct personal experience when I say that now it does not, if you do suddenly need major surgery for cancer, it will only happen if you happen to have insurance, otherwise you are left lying on a trolley for 24 hours, and in a ward for 3 days, without a single attempt at diagnosis. If you then suddenly remember that your employer has provided you with insurance, it all changes and 12000 worth of surgery etc happens very quickly indeed. As I said, I speak from direct personal experience.

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.

Re:And just what's wrong with that?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:And just what's wrong with that?

[SmackCrackandPot]

It has the highest rate of MRSA and hospital infection in the developed world,

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-house staff meant that the cleaners had "latent knowledge" about which areas needed the most attention, and took pride in keeping their individual wards clean. But now, it's just a minimum wage job.

Installing layers of managers and administrators was another of Mrs T's ideas. The media was always full of stories about how various hospitals and wards had been built and were lying empty and unused while others had waiting lists (mainly because the regional authorities had planned urban growth and had built the hospitals first). This led to the development of the internal market where different areas could buy services from each other - now being extended to buying treatments from abroad.

Compare this to France, where they also have "free" health service. The difference is that all the hospitals, dentists and doctors are privately run, but everyone is required to contribute to a compulsory private insurance scheme. Visitors can also pay privately.

As an example, I had to see a dentist while in France. I was able to book an appointment to see the dentist the next day. Instead of taking standard photographic X-rays which required development, she took digital X-rays which were available immediately and were logged into a digital patient case history.

Unfortunately in the UK, nearly all the dentists are moving into the private market. This is due to the number of new cosmetic treatments which are available, but the government won't fund. However, there is a catch to this. Private dentists seem to charge ridiculous high amounts for treatment. A basic set of X-rays would cost around 100 pounds ($150 dollars), a filling would cost 100 (150) and a wisdom tooth extraction 500 (750). In the latter case, this cost me only 10 on the NHS.

Re:And just what's wrong with that?

[sdokane]

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.

Re:And just what's wrong with that?

[balloonhead]

The NHS has a rather unique situation, but the problem (bug or feature?) is that there are different people with power with different priorites. Managers want solutions which look good on paper (i.e. shorter waiting lists etc.), medical and paramedical staff want highest standards of care, middle managers are into empire-building.

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.

Bah!

[use_compress]

The last thing you want is an obese penguin giving you health advice.

"Trusted" computing

[InadequateCamel]

I can't wait until Longhorn is running on my hospital's computers so that I can feel secure in the knowledge that Microsoft is busy backing up and securing my health records on their personal servers...

Let's see what happens next

[melted]

Select one of the choices below:
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

[primus_sucks]

I'm sure the "Java Desktop" or any other Linux disto has all the desktop software that 95% percent of office workers need. If they had millions of custom VB apps running on there desktops they probably wouldn't be looking at switching to Linux. All the in-house corporate desktop apps I've seen written in the last 5 years have been either web or Java based.

people hate change

[wifitek]

People hate change,fuck the people just make the change it's for the better!

I'm all for this but...

[JohnnyKlunk]

My wife works for the NHS here in London. We dual-boot here and she finds linux too difficult. She's OK to read email and the like but installation of hardware or software is just too difficult under linux for your average NHS worker (not that they're stupid, they just know about other things).

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...

[AirLace]

Why would an NHS worker have to install hardware or software? This is what the NHS would pay Sun for, and Sun would probably implement a centrally managed system rather than sending round technicians to update each workstation individually.

Wouldn't it be more accurate...

[pixelgeek]

It seems that NHS is looking at *Sun* and their tech support and not Linux.

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.

Locked in to Windows

[charnov]

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.

Re:Locked in to Windows

[Guido von Guido]

Have you looked into CrossOver Office? I use it to run Outlook/Office XP on Linux. Beats Citrix.

Let's take a moment to think about this

[Anonymous Coward]

This is great. Linux has gone from a university project in a country which has never had an empire to moving in on the largest software company in the world, all within a little over ten years. This is awesome achievement. Here on /. we spend a lot of time griping about not being able to cut and paste between KDE and Gnome apps, and complaining about the fact that the latest wireless card doesn't have a driver in Debian Unstable, etc, but let's take a moment to think about how awesome this is, thank those who made it happen (Linus and a cast of millions) and also think about what we are doing as part of it. Writing a new device driver? Helping a friend set it up? Or posting as AC on /.? Whatever it is, we have to give back to it somehow.

The only thing they need to know...

[rock_climbing_guy]

I wonder what Clippy would think about them considering Linux. When they try to delete him, we might try to shut down the ICU just to remind 3v3ry1 that bi11 0wnz j00.

Standardising the NHS OS

[mr_lithic]

Hopefully this will bring some standardised OS to the NHS, currently Britain's biggest employer 1.2 Million.

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.

Re:umm, why pay for sun when you can get linux fre

[upside]

Lemme guess...
-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

Don't forget!

[xintegerx]

Without viruses, many Hospital employees would be obsolete!

I know Microsoft is expensive, but...

[DeathPenguin]

Wait a second, they're turning to Sun to save money? *Scratches head*

Re:Quick he's crashing!`

[Barbarian]

It's because when he pressed the wrong key, he got dumped into vi and couldn't get out.

I'm all for this!

[robjs]

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

Re:Sigh...

[Usquebaugh]

MRSA is a problem precisely becsuse of the sterility in a hospital. Hospitals word wide have this problem.

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.

Eat lots of fish and swim in cold water once a day

[hughk]

is exactly what the peguin recommends!!!!

Citrix??? What about X?

[tonywestonuk]

If you were using unix/linux, then there would be no market for Citrix..... X is network aware, so you could use remote apps, as if they were local. Citrix is just a hack to attempt to bring the same functionality to windows.

Re:Citrix??? What about X?

[IM6100]

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.

Re:Citrix??? What about X?

[cscx]

Citrix is just a hack to attempt to bring the same functionality to windows

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.

Not a hope in hell

[sane?]

They have just finished arranging the contract with big consulting concerns for new IT for everyone. Those offerings are significantly predicated on Microsoft. Plus there are old DOS apps still in use.

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?

[EvilNutSack]

Having to work alongside NHS IT Support, I would have to say it's rather unlikely that there will be a mass migration to Linux. Firstly, they are still moving onto Win2K and many machines are on 95/98 ( a) they won't ditch years of work even for savings and b) to do so would be to admit that they made a costly error). Secondly, do you know how hard it is to get hold of medical staff in the first place? It's unfeasible to just walk in and upgrade them to a completely different system; the support calls will go through the roof. The staff will need to be kept in the 'loop' during the whole process. Finally, the 'culture' of the users in the NHS is that they are pretty resistant to change, even upgrading their browser from IE5 to 6 can take weeks! Some are still using Eudora 3.0!

Re:Realistically?

[vidarh]

On the other hand, this resistance to change is a major plus for Sun in this case. With Microsoft agressively end-of-life'ing their products faster and faster, they are now in a position where they either go onto a perpetual upgrade carousel where they'll find it difficult to even complete one upgrade cycle before having to start the next, or they make one painful transition, which they can stage over time, and then they can set their own pace.

Re:umm, why pay for sun when you can get linux fre

[TiggsPanther]

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

its about time too! (computer virus problems)

[Anonymous Coward]

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..

personally I think this is brill...

[advocate_one]

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...

HR system may be locked into IE

[markxsd]

I know the NHS recently agreed a $465 million contract to roll out Oracle HR. If I remember rightly, Oracle HR uses Oracle Forms and Oracle (web) Forms needs JInitiator. Not sure what the current state is, but JInitiator did not used to be supported on Linux... This might mean lock into IE - although I'm sure Larry would offer an alternative if this were ever to become a serious proposition.

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...

NHS and MS are well suited

[Bertie]

They're both enormously bloated and inefficient, plagued by hard-to-stop bugs and apt to absorb gigantic amounts of money in return for very little...

Many Info Systems are Unix based

[plcurechax]

Many of the patient electronic records information systems are already Unix based (Data General's Unix DG/UX, Solaris, SunOS, Digital Unix/Tru64, SCO UnixWare, HP/UX, and I think we few others I forgot). I use to develop one of the major ones.

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

[plcurechax]

More on that custom software, it was a windows program to generate content for the NHS Trust intranet site that they were required (by NHS IA and the UK govt's e-Envoy) to have.

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 they had an intranet and windows software, but mostly dumb terminals with no web client.

One hospitial I visited had a Wireless Access Point (likely with no security enabled) but not any laptops. It was purchased for when the NHS executives visited the site, which is about once a year.

The NHS is a shining example of how IT projects should not be run.

Britain changes it's IT buying policy - at last

[abritisher]

From A British Taxpayer. The British government has been taken for a ride so many times by IT companies promising the earth but building systems which don't work properly. The taxpayer generally picks up the additional costs of getting it right. With this new round of major NHS projects someone in government - don't know who - was inspired. They employed Richard Granger to oversee the process. The man's a rottweiller. At the start of the bidding round he told the consortia that thing would be different now. They would not get paid for failure, the NHS would not pay for systems until they were proven in practice. If they didn't like the new terms of trade they should get out. Already one consortium has dropped out of bidding, whining that they would have to pay large penalty payments if their systems did not work. What did they expect? Did they have no confidence in their abilities? They screamed that it was not a proper partnership, they would have to take the risk of failure. Of course it is not a partnership. The company bids to supply a product or service; if that service fails it should be entirely at their own risk. That's what capitalism is all about; not the taxpayer subsidising their development work. Granger's obviously going to give Microsoft a hard time, he's got his teeth into their ankles and frankly I hope he bites their leg off. It would be of great benefit to the NHS and the British taxpayer in the long run. It would also demonstrate an alternative to the many in the British Government -Tony Blair are you listening - who think the sun shines out of Bill Gates arse (sorry-brit spelling).

It can happen

[grundie]

I work for a large British railway infrastrucure provider, i.e. Network Rail!

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!

Bullshit.

[jotaeleemeese]

I have been treated for eyes probelms with state of the art computing equipment handled by older doctors and nurses.

Your sterotyping is grotesque and revelas only your very particular anecdotal experience.