[seagaia]

Would this kind of problem be less prevalent if everything was run on a linux-based OS? I feel Ubuntu's GUI is friendly enough for most people working in the hospital, and in general there wouldn't be as many viruses and the like.

Or are there lacks of software for the health industry when it comes to linux distros...? Or some sort of strange bureaucratic thing that stops this...

[PleaseStand]

1) Increase Linux's usage share, and we will see a greater share of Linux exploits and malware. Case in point: Mozilla Firefox.

2) New versions of Windows have long retained backward compatibility with older applications (the upgrade from 98/ME to XP an exception largely necessary for security).

Just as importantly, Microsoft supports their operating systems for at least ten years after their initial release dates. In contrast, Ubuntu LTS releases are only supported for five years (and until 12.04 comes out, only three years on the desktop).

Keep in mind that upgrading software costs a business money, and rewriting (parts of) it to run on a totally different OS costs even more. No wonder why Windows is the business OS of choice.

[afsina]

"Increase Linux's usage share, and we will see a greater share of Linux exploits and malware. Case in point: Mozilla Firefox."

Well, that is the main line a windows apologist would use. This does not make the main point invalid. Hospitals and such professional institutes can use a less known OS. Because what they mostly use is a dedicated crapy VB application. Yet, I think main problem here is not the OS but archaic Windows based Desktop applications.

I can offer one exit from this mess,

1- Switch all your apps to Browser only. 2- Use dumb terminals (dump windows OS and office if possible. too costly) 2- Use a cloud service or a browser based server application that has a web interface for your documentation needs.