I think this is, to a great extent, a false dichotomy.
We (the community) have been discussing the need for a standard
installation pattern for years, perhaps even decades. So slow,
deliberate, repeated discussions actually do not work either.
The problem here is that it is entirely possible to fully understand
and respect an opponents opinion on VistA layout and still disagree.
As a result, this issue has been in continuous deadlock. Each
appliance or installer attempt has gone their own way.
Debian can afford to be differently laid out than Fedora, because both
projects have enormous resources and happily work in parallel. Not
being sure of "where things go" is an impediment to us collaborating
together, and while the WorldVistA community is pretty large it is not
so large that you can afford to have issues like this continue to
stand in the way of collaboration.
Ignacio must do something, he has something to build which relies on
this. He feels, even if the community does not, that it needs to be
built soon. I, and apparently Brian, agree on that point.
So far, repeated discussions have failed. We have tried the slow,
deliberate way and no good, thoughtful standards have appeared.
I think Ignacio can tolerate a Vista Standards Layout version .9 so
that we can officially acknowledge that the discussion is not over.
But we should continue to move at this pace. The choice is not between
slow and fast, it is between fast and not happening at all.
-FT
--
Fred Trotter
http://www.fredtrotter.com
Fred and assembled multitude;
I agree with you, Fred. We need a mark in the sand and try it. If it
works, we can build a trench. If it doesn't, then we move the mark.
This is in the time-honored tradition of the VA, "Ready, Fire!, Aim".
In these situations where we are majoring in the minors, we need to
just do it. Establish a standard, and sit back and collect the
impressions people have. Any really good reason may be enough to
change our minds, (but it has to be a good reason). We can always
modify the standard later. This is needed so that we can start
building tools that know where to get information about the
environment. Without the guide-lines, these tools become impossible to
build.
Larry, you have the Chief Technical Officer role. Make a decision and
publish. You now have input from a bunch of strong willed people. You
cannot please everyone, but you please most of them by making a
decision and publishing. Let's move on this. If we can stay
professional about this, we can move to a situation where everyone is
served by making the move.
Best wishes; Chris
We are reaching a consensus here.
Bhaskar, does the recent split between the "Enterprise" version of the
VSB and the small office setup make you more inclined to support the
overall design?
I have expended as much time and energy on this topic as I can spare at
this time. I respectfully withdraw from the discussion. I will update
my recommendations in the future based on my understanding of best
practices and I certainly will be looking for good ideas wherever they
may come from.
But for now, on this topic, this horse's bolt is shot.
Regards
-- Bhaskar
_____________
The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the
intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose,
distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition,
please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by
persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you.
_____________
I've given all the technical input that I can at the current time. As
with many standards, you won't know the problems with the standard until
you try implementing it. I'd suggest Ignacio move forward with the
tools he wants to write based on the input he's received on this list
and see where it goes. If the tools are compelling, people will have a
reason to follow the standard.
- Jon