doubts about the future. Loosing freedom

rah · Post by **rah** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:53 pm

First of all, I would like to congratulate you for being so brave and smart of embracing Open Source.
Also, congratulate you for making such a brilliant and, at the same time, simple and intuitive software.

When I discovered it, I felt very excited about your great work: well done, GPL, suitable, and very concerned about the software vendors lock-in.

From your site: "Why is it open source?
Because we want this software to become the world standard dental software. We want to make it easy to access and share data. We are tired of the restrictive policies of the current dental software companies. We want the user to always have total control, not the software company. And most of all, we want software that just works well."

I'm really very interested to install this software to some of my clients. But I'm sorry to say that the more I learn about the project, the more I'm sad and disappointed.
Why? Because, in my opinion, that statement began to crumble the moment you forgot linux and bet on Microsoft.

I'm aware that Microsoft systems are the most installed, and also that they are more user friendly (partly because of the previous knowledge), but that shouldn't mean forget about other systems. Dealing with Microsoft means the opposite of what you primary intent: the user to always have total control. It's not a matter of money it's a matter of freedom. Microsoft goes its way, and users have to follow, there is no alternatives because we all become captives.

In the past, I followed the path you are now in. Using Microsoft's tools only leads to dependency. For sure, they can do the job, but the price is the freedom. Eventually you find yourself solving software problems or development tools limitations, with other complementary tools that bring new problems and limitations. Systems go complicated.

I really think using .net is a bad decision. I'm sure you were seduced by MS marketing and the easiness of making applications it provides. We all did it sometime, but eventually we regretted it. The deeper you get in .net the more difficult is to maintain Linux, Mac or any other system compatibility. First was Linux clients, now with asp server layer, Linux servers.

I now it is much time spent coding C#, but have you considered move to a real cross-platform and free language? There are plenty of them (an none from Microsoft), I personally like python (google and NASA does too), but maybe you'll find more comfortable with java. I think you will have to do it sooner or later, otherwise your great effort will turn into a mediocre project weighed down by Microsoft requirements, or just forgotten by the open source community.

Please don't take this as a personal attack neither a negative criticism. I love your work, and you have got success where I didn't, so I admire you. In fact I have great desire to spread your software and even make some improvements to it, but I can see the future for me in it.

Please, let me know your opinion.

Kind regards

Post by **jordansparks** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 6:19 pm

We've been really happy with our decision to go with dot net. In fact, we continue to move away from Linux in other areas as well. We just purchased a file server computer for $2000. Did we use Linux? No. we are using Windows Storage Server, an OEM product that powers file servers and does not require CALs. In fact, my only complaint with MS all along has been with the use of CALs. So we just avoid server versions that require CALs.

rah · Post by **rah** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:51 pm

Jordan;
I'm sorry to hear that. That means that Linux (and Mac) support are virtually dead. Could OD run in a system different from Microsoft's? Maybe, but the problems and difficulties will discourage the users to do it.

So I decided to abandon dealing with your software. Lately, for quite some time, a great part of my efforts is running away from Microsoft's. It's a hard work, not because the lack of software to do the same tasks, but for the traps Microsoft and other proprietary vendors put along the way. You'll discover this later, when you were fed up and tried to change to a non Microsoft product.

I see your point, but it is not about paying fees (CALS). It's about have the freedom to choice what software or provider to choose. What will be the next decision? Replacing mysql with MS SQLServer for some reason brought by MS. Then your software will increase the dependency to the users. They will have to spend amounts of money buying all necessary MS software, that will have to upgrade (paying) continually every time a new version arrives.

Good luck, then.

Whenever you have a minute, think a bit about this.

Regards

Post by **jordansparks** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 2:54 pm

We will not be switching to MS-SQL, because as you said, it requires paying for a license. I would like to point out that we did try to use Linux for a number of years. We found it very difficult to manage, difficult to upgrade, and just really really annoying. Using Windows saves us much frustration and time; therefore it saves us money. The consideration of which database to use is an entirely different decision. MySQL is great.

mowgli · Post by **mowgli** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:31 pm

Besides the problems Dr. Sparks mentioned, there's the issue of clinical integration (such as digital radiography), and a variety of software that runs on Windows, much of which bridges to practice management software. In other words, Open Dental doesn't run in a vacuum. Like it or not, Microsoft has approximately 92% of the operating system market share, followed by Mac at about 5% and Linux at a mere 1%. Within that 1%, you have various distributions that don't standardize important tasks, limiting widespread adoption by non-technical users.

drtech · Post by **drtech** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:38 pm

there is little doubt in my mind as much as I dislike Microsoft in some ways, Windows (or Mac) is the only way to go in the dental office with digital radiography, scanners, other technical stuff that runs on windows. Linux is great for servers. The desktop is still dominated by windows. But with finally a good product in Win7, I am more inclined than ever to go with windows for desktops. I just upgraded all our computers to windows 7 home edition with the 3 for 1 family pack (only $50 each) and it has been working great. No slowdowns like before in xp and (gasp Vista) so far...we shall see however after a year or two of use....will the inevitable slow down that has plagued windows still live on?.....

rah · Post by **rah** » Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:54 am

That is a good point mowgli. However the one doesn't rule out the other.

One example.Internet Browsing:
You can use Firefox for years in Windows, but you can tomorrow start using it on Linux or Mac if you wish. But if you only use IE, and everybody expects you to that, websites will not for sure follow standards at 100%. So you'll cannot use any other OS different from Microsoft because sites will only work well with IE and there's no IE for other than MS windows.

There are cross platform technologies that helps you to avoid this lock-in. For example software developed in Java can run in any system with JRE: Windows, Linux, OSX, Solaris, Symbian, Android, etc. And yes, maybe you are not interested in running Open Dental in your cellphone, but that is not a reason to prevent it. If there are many a possibilities, why remove them? you can continue running it in windows anyway. Maybe someone could get benefit in using cellphone in his business.

What I'm saying is that the original Jordan's goal was avoid the lock-in (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in) from dental software, but I think he is underestimating operative system lock-in.

Regards

Rickliftig · Post by **Rickliftig** » Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:44 am

IMHO -

Stability of the core program and feature incorporation is what it is all about. I do not want Jordan and his staff to be side-tracked by OS compatibility issues when my main concern is my data and my ease of use. OD is stable as "all get out" and I like it that way.

Plus, like it or hate it, MS Windows is a standard and well-defined. Linux is anything you want it to be and almost anything you want to incorporate into it. Perhaps it's not unlike the Mac vs. PC debate of about five to ten years ago. The Mac hardware is a well-defined and stable platform, but a PC can be almost any combination of video/processor/i/o chips, etc. and creating a universal operating system is a lot harder task. Interestingly, I think that we are finally at parity with teh introduction of Windows 7.0 and the thorough de-bugging of Windows XP.

Yes, I agree with you, an open source program with open source OS is ideal, but sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good.

drtech · Post by **drtech** » Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:25 am

I agree with rah above.

SmilingPatient · Post by **SmilingPatient** » Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:54 am

What is the point of this argument? Is the argument 'I want a Choice of OS's' or 'I want Linux only'?

There are a limited amount of resources to any project. Focusing on Windows leaves more resources to develop functionality, integration, and features for EXISTING CUSTOMERS.

Like me.

If Jordan one day says, 'Hey guys, we're moving to Linux only'... I think that would be an incredibly stupid decision. But until the resources are available to make a Linux version fully functional, it's very smart not to deploy a solution that has to be managed for multiple OS's.

Why don't you yell at the various other vendors for locking in users to their software, hardware, os, and platform. Oh wait, you can't. There's no forum for that. You can try at dentaltown, but it would fall on deaf ears anyway and you won't have direct interface with the developer of the software.

wjstarck · Post by **wjstarck** » Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:18 pm

rah wrote: I'm really very interested to install this software to some of my clients. But I'm sorry to say that the more I learn about the project, the more I'm sad and disappointed.
Why? Because, in my opinion, that statement began to crumble the moment you forgot linux and bet on Microsoft.

I think you are mischaracterizing the decision as a "bet on Microsoft".

I have written code for and managed Mac, BeOS, Linux and Windows servers for over 12 years now. At the outset, I was vehemently anti-Microsoft, but over time I had the opportunity to work with all four platforms. What I learned was that all of them have strengths and weaknesses, and none of them, quite frankly, is any better or worse than any of the others.

Jordan is highly logical and pragmatic, so these decisions are not made flippantly. It simply isn't practical at this juncture to support Linux, because that depends on Mono (and a ton of dependencies), which naturally lags deployment of .NET functionality. Furthermore, as hard as it is to believe, Microsoft is making some pretty damn good software these days. And don't forget that all of it has to be supported, which greatly increases overhead and strains resources. So, it seems to me the choice is between rapid deployment of features/bug fixes for a single platform versus a longer release schedule for multiple platforms. I'll take the former...

Personally, I prefer Linux for servers, but as a desktop platform it still lacks polish. While Ubuntu 9.10 is a really smooth release, I still prefer Windows for desktops. At any rate, you have the source code at your disposal to do what you wish with it

. What other dental practice management software affords you the same opportunity?

rah · Post by **rah** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:54 am

Maybe I haven't explain quite well my point.

I don't think Jordan should spent his time, efforts and resources in maintaining different versions for different OS. I was just talking about making right decisions when choosing technologies.

He made a great decision choosing MySQL as database, its efficient, quick, free, open source and it runs in different operative systems. He could have chosen MS SQLServer that could bring some advantages and some disadvantages but also would lock to windows platform as there is only version for windows.
Now he has improved the program with a web service based on asp.net. For me this is wrong decision because it locks to windows servers.

A simple decision can change the future of the software. It can lock-in to windows or it can give it opportunities to spread out.

As I said, there is no need to maintain versions for every single OS. He made it GPL, source code is available and can it be compiled for different architectures. Also it can be modified to fix bugs, add more features or simple to adapt to a specific situation. That was Jordan's idea from the beginning.
I'm not worry at all for the lack of Linux (or other OS) support, because I know that some people are interested on that and we all can make it work on Linux, Mac or what we think is more favorable like it just has happened in the past. But to make it happen it needs a little help just avoiding lock-ins. With an open development platform you can build code safe from lock-ins. In other type of development platform you need to be very careful to avoid traps that lead to lock-ins.

As sources are available and free, people can make OD run in other OS but they will fail and desist if there are a lot obstacles to save.

Regards

Hersheydmd · Post by **Hersheydmd** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 5:12 pm

We've been really happy with our decision to go with dot net. In fact, we continue to move away from Linux in other areas as well. We just purchased a file server computer for $2000. Did we use Linux? No. we are using Windows Storage Server, an OEM product that powers file servers and does not require CALs. In fact, my only complaint with MS all along has been with the use of CALs. So we just avoid server versions that require CALs.

Jordan,
Can the MySQL database be put on a Windows Storage Server?

Post by **jordansparks** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 8:21 pm

No, but it can be put on any ordinary Windows version and there will be unlimited connections because ports are not included in the 10 connection limit. So a Windows XP workstation could act as the MySQL server for an office with 40 workstations in it. A different solution would be needed for the AtoZ folder, or you would run into the 10 connection limit. That's where Windows Storage Server is handy. No connection limit.

Hersheydmd · Post by **Hersheydmd** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 11:39 pm

I am not worried about the 10 connection limit. I only have 6 workstations and only room for one more.
The way I understand it. I could put all my office data, including the AtoZ folder on a Windows Storage Server, but I would have to keep the MySQL folder (with the OD database) on one of the workstations. Do I have it right?

Post by **jordansparks** » Sun Dec 20, 2009 7:48 am

Well no. If you have less than 10 computers, then why are you even considering Windows Storage Server? The whole point of that platform is to try to get around the 10 connection limit. In your situation, MySQL and the AtoZ folder should both be on the same computer, most likely a rarely-used and fairly new workstation.

Hersheydmd · Post by **Hersheydmd** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:53 am

jordansparks wrote:Well no. If you have less than 10 computers, then why are you even considering Windows Storage Server? The whole point of that platform is to try to get around the 10 connection limit. In your situation, MySQL and the AtoZ folder should both be on the same computer, most likely a rarely-used and fairly new workstation.

Jordan,
I like your approach. All the "experts" recommend having a fully robust SERVER. They say for the reliability, security, and recoverability it provides. I just don't see the necessity in a small office, as long as you are careful about backing up daily.
Rather than getting a server, I think I will replace one of my operatory workstations with an Optiplex 960 with two hard drives and RAID 1, and use that as my "server"

SmilingPatient · Post by **SmilingPatient** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 10:07 am

Yikes!! Keep the server out of the op! Minimize who touches the server. It's got your business critical data. Why knowingly put it in harms way.

Also, Raid is NOT backup.

wjstarck · Post by **wjstarck** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 10:11 am

The idea is quite sufficient as you describe, as long as you are fanatical about backups as you said. I tend to like servers with RAID 5 because I find that they run like workhorses and very rarely need intervention. Ours are rackmounted so everything is in one convenient place, in a locked room that only I have access to. Our RAID is an old Apple XServe RAID with 7 drives that has run nonstop since 2002. I've had to replace one failed drive in the XServe about 6 months ago. The XServe is connected to an Ubuntu Linux Dual Processor Xeon box. Inside we run Windows Server 2008 as a VmWare virtual machine.

Windows Server 2008 is very robust and fast, even running inside a VM. It's a huge improvement over Windows 2003 Server. So the only difference might be that tasks happen a little zippier.

Now the "experts" will tell you that drives fail frequently enough to be a certifiable worry. I've never had it happen on any of my workstations, in well over 12 years. I tend to only buy HP Pavilions or Sony Vaios, and I prefer Seagates or Western Digital Raptors, but maybe I'm just lucky. But, like you, I just don't see it as a pressing problem for most dental offices.

Our needs call for a bit more robust solution because we host all email/websites internally, plus do software development for OD and some other outside development, so we tend to gravitate to the massive overkill solution for scalablity purposes, and it makes deployment of Symantec Endpoint Security easier, for instance, because I can roll out installs to *all* the workstations from the server, without having to physically install on each workstation. That can be a pain when you have 11 or 12 (or more). I haven't looked at Windows 7 yet, but I'm hoping to I can install to workstations in a similar fashion. Otherwise, the whole process ties me up for an entire day or two, as opposed to and hour or two.

I hear Windows 7 is a major improvement over Vista, so I'm looking forward to getting it installed on some workstations. I have heard that a lot of the under the hood code in Windows 7 is based on Windows 2008 server, so if that's the case we should all be really pleased.

Post by **jordansparks** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:06 pm

There are many ways to accomplish the same task. If you have an expert who is working with you and they recommend a true server, it is probably a good idea to listen to them. They will want the management capabilities including backups. But like you said, if you're doing the IT yourself, using a workstation can also make sense. An operatory computer might make sense if you are not using it for any imaging functions. I think once you start using imaging heavily, it's time to step up the hardware.

Hersheydmd · Post by **Hersheydmd** » Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:35 am

Alex, of course I realize RAID is not backup. I backup every night to an external hard drive, and on weekends I dump it to my home computer.

Also, for the "server" workstation I would either use the one in my operatory, or one in a hygiene op that is rarely occupied (average 5 hours every other week).
Right now I am using my Front Desk workstation, but it gets much more use than the other workstations.

I don't know anyone using Windows 7 yet. Does anyone here know if you can mix Windows 7 workstations with Windows XP workstations in a peer to peer environment?

Another question. Can you print out your entire database in OD, for archiving purposes? (not necessarily to paper, probably to a pdf file)

Post by **jordansparks** » Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:04 pm

Hersheydmd wrote:Can you print out your entire database in OD, for archiving purposes? (not necessarily to paper, probably to a pdf file)

No

V Suite · Post by **V Suite** » Wed Dec 23, 2009 5:25 pm

Hersheydmd wrote: Does anyone here know if you can mix Windows 7 workstations with Windows XP workstations in a peer to peer environment?

I restore a backup of my database on another Windows XP machine (server), which is networked with a couple of Vista machines and Windows 7 machines. OpenDental runs fine on Vista, as well as Windows 7 RC. I intend to update my office workstations to Windows 7, but not necessarily the server right now.

Hersheydmd · Post by **Hersheydmd** » Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

V Suite wrote:I restore a backup of my database on another Windows XP machine (server), which is networked with a couple of Vista machines and Windows 7 machines. OpenDental runs fine on Vista, as well as Windows 7 RC. I intend to update my office workstations to Windows 7, but not necessarily the server right now.

Then I assume I could get a new Wnidows 7 workstation and use it as the OD "server", and keep my other workstations on XP.

V Suite · Post by **V Suite** » Sat Dec 26, 2009 2:36 pm

Not sure. Presumably, but it is the converse that can be assumed from my post. You can have a Windows XP workstation/machine as a server with Windows 7/Vista workstations.

Nevertheless, I believe a colleague of mine has a Windows 7 server with 2 Windows 7 workstations in his office, and that they work generally fine.

Post by **jordansparks** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 9:10 am

Yes, Windows 7 would make a great server. It has a 15 or 20 connection limit instead of 10.

richardwaite · Post by **richardwaite** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:43 am

The one thing that I always notice in flamewars like this is that people forget is that there is always lock in, in one way or another. Software written for Linux can depend on POSIX forking and pipe behavior and all sorts of Unixy weirdness.

Open Dental

doubts about the future. Loosing freedom

doubts about the future. Loosing freedom

Re: doubts about the future. Loosing freedom

Re: doubts about the future. Loosing freedom

Re: doubts about the future. Loosing freedom

Re: doubts about the future. Loosing freedom

Re: doubts about the future. Loosing freedom

Re: doubts about the future. Loosing freedom

Re: doubts about the future. Loosing freedom

Re: doubts about the future. Loosing freedom

Re: doubts about the future. Loosing freedom

Re: doubts about the future. Loosing freedom

Re: doubts about the future. Loosing freedom

Re: doubts about the future. Loosing freedom

Re: doubts about the future. Loosing freedom

Re: doubts about the future. Loosing freedom

Re: doubts about the future. Loosing freedom

Re: doubts about the future. Loosing freedom

Re: doubts about the future. Loosing freedom

Re: doubts about the future. Loosing freedom

Re: doubts about the future. Loosing freedom

Re: doubts about the future. Loosing freedom

Re: doubts about the future. Loosing freedom

Re: doubts about the future. Loosing freedom

Re: doubts about the future. Loosing freedom

Re: doubts about the future. Loosing freedom

Re: doubts about the future. Loosing freedom

Re: doubts about the future. Loosing freedom