[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnumed-devel] GNUmed brochures (was When will GNUmed be ready)

From: Hilmar Berger
Subject: Re: [Gnumed-devel] GNUmed brochures (was When will GNUmed be ready)
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:45:13 +0100


I would emphasize the long-time goals more than what GNUmed can do today. After 
we are at v0.2 and a lot of parts are still missing. 
You should say that GNUmed one day is planned to be a complete EMR with possibe 
integration of other software (billing etc.). 

Don't tell the world that we already have four walls, tell them we want to 
build a house.


On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 20:02:23 -0800
J Busser <address@hidden> wrote:

> At 6:12 PM +0100 12/9/05, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> >I think there's need for two versions of "each". One for the
> >innocent bystander who displays a passing interest for the
> >project. That one needs to answer "what is this", "why would
> >I want this" plus a *few* pointers.
> Following minor editing, here is what I had written on that draft 
> brochure. Feel free to suggest any improvements for the "innocent 
> bystanders".
> GNUmed: Working internationally for patients' and doctors' benefit as 
> a free EMR
> GNUmed - The EMR to consider
> Why use GNUmed?
> GNUmed can already
> - allow your existing software to co-operate
> - allow you to keep ownership and control of your patients' data
> - allow you to change support companies without fear of "lock-in"
> GNUmed is an "Open Source" project, which means it is built on the 
> efforts of people with the best intentions for patients and doctors.
> Its developers are a tiny army. Your participation will help it to 
> grow faster and better.
> Visit our web site. Ask any thing you like. Be brave, try it. GNUmed 
> will always be free.
> GNUmed requirements:
> * one or more Linux or Windows computers
> * multiple-user setup requires a network
> * train and manage it yourself, or hire someone to help you
> Like to know more? - Just ask us!
> >The other is more concrete and enlarges the pointers/data points 
> >part and shortens the what/why part.
> Which do people think - more like
> or more like the roadmap, with some extra explanation of limitations?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]