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

["Joshua D. Drake" <..hidden..>]

On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 13:41 -0700, Chris Travers wrote:
> 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 see the browser issue as a potential problem, I however do not see the
database as a potential problem. The idea that you can build a good
application that is database agnostic (assuming a database is required)
is a myth. One that I can attest to making many a dollar off of, fixing
various broken components on thousands of "We need to be multi-database
to appeal to a larger audience" applications over the years.


>  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.

Right, they are after a particular feature set, supportability and an
ecosystem (commercial or not) that can help sustain their needs.

> 
> 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

Its more than that, learning curve goes up for the major contributors
and you increase the burden of testing, debugging, bug fixing etc...

> 
> 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.

Let me be real blunt. I quit if we support MySQL. I have zero desire to
go down that path (or Oracle or otherwise). The only way I would
consider it, would be if there was a valid technological reason to
reconsider PostgreSQL as our platform. MySQL does not equate and neither
does Oracle. People running LedgerSMB don't need RAC :)


> 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

But what about plperl :)... We need to focus on one set of core talents.
Do that right. If people don't like the fact that we don't run on MySQL,
then let them fork us. Seriously, that is what FOSS is all about. I
applaud anyone who wants to take the energy to do such a thing.

> There is some good news about IE support, BTW.
> 

Right.

> 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.

> >  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.
> 

Actually I don't agree with this. People that are going to really want
to run LSMB are already running FireFox. There are of course the
exceptions but Firefox (which is actually set to hit 20%) is the FOSS
browser of choice. 

Not to mention, its all about killing the fly with a cannon. Oh, you
hate quickbooks? Oh you like LedgerSMB? Well you need Firefox... 6 weeks
later...

 "" Wow, I really like this Firefox thing..."

Bingo!


> 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. 

If you encounter that, I would invite you to speak up, loudly. This
community is governed under the following:

http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct

I admit that I can be a little rough sometimes but we try very, very
hard to make everyone be heard and know that they have a place here.


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

I concur.

Joshua D. Drake