Re: Interesting coverage of our project on the SQL-Ledger-users list

["Chris Travers" <..hidden..>]

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 1:08 PM,  <..hidden..> wrote:

> I would just add my two cents regarding Postgresql.  For our particular
> business, I am satisfied using Postgresql.  I also don't have an issue
> using Mozilla Firefox as our browser.  That being said, experience has
> shown me that having an application that will only run on a particular
> database server (in our case Postgresql) and/or a specific browser (i.e.
> Firefox and not IE) really limits your attractiveness.  I have seen many
> companies, especially the larger ones, who will not consider a particular
> application because it doesn't support a particular database or a
> particular browser.

A large part of the problem here is that most RDBMS's require
licensing fees.  If you start requiring multiple RDBMS's, costs go way
up

I don't think there has ever been a willingness on the part of the
core team to support MySQL-- that raises data integrity issues we
don't even want to try to address.

This means basically the question as to whether or not to try to run
on Oracle, DB2, and MS SQL.  In general, I think that porting to
Oracle would be remarkably easy because of the fact that the stored
procedures are largely in PL/PGSQL which is very similar to Oracle's
PL/SQL (both are hybrids of PL/1 and SQL, and if someone wanted to do
this, I would be willing to give high-level assistance).  However,
beyond this, I think that it will become more difficult.  However,
nobody took me up on my offer to provide such assistance for 7.4
support back in 1.0 or 1.1, so I don't see this happening in the
future unless someone really, really wants it.

In general businesses which have standardized on Oracle, DB2, and MS
SQL server are less likely to consider a FOSS application for their
most critical ERP/Financial data than those who are willing to rely on
FOSS RDBMS's as well.  You have to remember that these are two of the
most business-critical applications in terms of long-term data value.

>  For me personally, being short staffed when it comes
> to IT help, I prefer to standardized on one particular database for
> example because it is easier to be more efficient when it comes to
> learning one RDBMS than it is to learn several.  I am running into this
> issue right now as I work on an implementation of SugarCRM which runs on
> MySQL.  In my case I had to sacrifice and implement MySQL also because
> that is what SugarCRM currently runs on.  Unless you live in the database
> environment every day, it takes too much time to do such things as grant
> privileges for example since they are done differently in PostgreSQL
> compared to MySQL and always having to pull out the database admin manual
> and look it up takes time.  I would prefer becoming an expert in one RDBMS
> than trying to be mediocre in several.  My comments naturally apply to
> SugarCRM also and I believe they will quickly realize, as they try to grow
> into bigger customers, that their product won't get into many
> organizations because of this limitation.  I mentioned IE support earlier.

There is some good news about IE support, BTW.

The major issue with running IE and LSMB is the broken handling of the
<button> tag.  This area has been receiving attention from Microsoft
in the last few versions and, according to a blog on MSDN, IE8 will
properly sumbit button.value instead of button.innerText when the
browser is in standards mode.

This is a good thing and something I have pushed my contacts at
Microsoft ot make a priority.  Evidently I haven't been the only one
and Microsoft has heard the pleas.  This means that LSMB should
support IE8 in standards mode (not emulate IE7 mode though) and that
any problems with IE8 in standards mode should be seen as bugs and
reported appropriately.

>  I like Firefox and that is my preferred browser, but with IE currently
> holding something like 85% of the market you will cut off a large
> percentage of your potential customers who won't consider moving to
> Firefox due to the impact it will have on their user base who would need
> to learn a new browser that is different than what they are used to using
> both at work and at home.

Agreed, but we can't really compete with Quickbooks for small
businesses at the moment.  I suspect IE8 will be out, and possibly
even IE7 support may be ending, before we are to that point.

> One last point.  I just recently moved from SQL-Ledger to LedgerSMB.  A
> major reason was 1) LedgerSMBs desire to address security, address APIs to
> allow for better integration, etc., and 2) a more community model which I
> just didn't see with SQL-Ledger.  Setting up LedgerSMB was much more
> difficult than I recall setting up SQL-Ledger and I mention this to the
> development team that this is an area that needs much more focus either
> via the installation scripts, or via documentation.

Especially on the POS side this is quite a valid point.

> In addition, berating a customer or potential customer (as I have seen
> Dieter do on some of his posts in the past) because they are not as up to
> speed or tech savvy in the tools that the LedgerSMB team uses is a huge
> no-no.  I am not speaking about Chris, but I must say that I was seconds
> away from trashing LedgerSMB and going to an alternative due to this type
> of treatment from one particular person.  I moved away from SQL-Ledger in
> part because I saw this there.  Seeing this Dieter-like treatment here
> just makes for bad business and very unprofessional.  I almost moved to
> OpenBravo originally, but chose not too because the move from SQL-Ledger
> to LedgerSMB just appeared to be an easier transition.  I for one would
> not tolerate one of my employees berating a customer for any reason, and I
> sure as heck won't tolerate it from someone here who is unprofessional and
> lacks an understanding of the food chain in the business world.  Once
> again, I am not referring to Chris and frankly his helpfulness in
> troubleshooting my issues is why I am still here.

I am wondering if we shouldn't have a canned response to the specific
issues which occurred here.   I will follow up with you off-list on
this matter.

>  But it is important to
> understand that if LedgerSMB personnel are disrespectful to their user
> base, there are plenty of other options including Quickbooks, Compiere,
> OpenBravo, etc.  I recently referred a friend of mine to LedgerSMB as a
> potential solution for his business.  Only time will tell if LedgerSMB is
> a fit for him, but it should be obvious that I and/or many others will be
> reluctant to refer business LedgerSMB's way if there is this type of
> disrespectful behavior.  I realize I haven't purchased the software,
> although I hope to be able to contribute in some way in the future as we
> grow, but that doesn't excuse this type of behavior.  I hope you keep my
> comments in mind as you grow.  I am sure this was just an isolated case
> and I am sure the leaders of this project have taken this person to the
> side and explained it.

Your comments are generally helpful, constructive, and are appreciated.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

>
> Best Regards,
> Steven Marshall
>
> Taty Lee Boutique
> 11705 Jones Bridge Rd., B206
> Alpharetta, GA 30005
> 770-410-6964
>
> "Once you experience the stylish comfort of Brazilian-cut jeans, you will demand nothing less!"
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
> It's the best place to buy or sell services for
> just about anything Open Source.
> http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
> _______________________________________________
> Ledger-smb-users mailing list
> ..hidden..
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ledger-smb-users
>