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

[Luke <..hidden..>]

 On Tue, 10 Jun 2008, Chris Travers wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 8:36 AM,  <..hidden..> wrote:
> 
> > I believe the question comes down to who your customers are.  I can't tell
> > you what you should do because I don't know who your customers are, or the
> > type of customers you aspire to obtain.
> 
> I think I can provide some more insight into this issue.
> 
> Currently LSMB needs a lot of work to be a first-class accounting and
> ERP package.  We all know this.   For this reason, there is a sense
> that people who want to be running LSMB are already currently trying
> to run FOSS wherever possible.  This makes Josh's point currently
> valid.
> 
> However, the question is what happens as a lot of this work gets done.
>  As this happens, we will be expanding more into the smaller and the
> midrange markets, and here you have questions relating to "I don't
> want to learn another browser as well as a new accounting package" and
> "our IT department specifies IE only..."  I would prefer not to turn
> away these customers unless they are insistant on sticking with old,
> broken versions of IE.  If a new version of IE fixes the problems, I
> have no problem saying "upgrade or install Firefox."
> 
> Hence my view has generally been "I would like to think about IE
> support, but it isn't a pressing concern given the problems."  With
> IE8 fixing the showstoppers, I think we can move that up on the
> priority list.
> 
> Hope this helps,
> Chris Travers

This is one of the things I have been wanting to contribute to this 
conversation.  It's all well and good to say that people using Open source 
accounting software, are going to be using OS browsers as well.  I in fact 
made a similar argument regarding the move to PostGreSQL, over in the 
SQL-ledger list thread about LedgerSMB.

However, this is not really the same issue: the database thing is a 
radical back end case, whereas the browser is a UI case.  Once you decide 
that a web interface is your primary interface, standardizing on a single 
browser, or even a standard set of browsers, if that browser/those 
browsers is/are not the majority case (IE is the majority case), is 
sounding the death knell for the software in my opinion.

Yes, I dislike IE.  Yes, I get my customers to switch to FireFox when 
possible.  However, it isn't always possible or reasonable to request 
this, and in fact why should they?  They've got something their people 
know how to use, even if it isn't the best, which means that they are 
currently experiencing maximum efficiency as far as they know, and 
starting over with anything is going to impede in the moment, even if it 
speeds later.

Requiring a particular browser or set of browsers, has a certain feel of 
proprietary which I tend to associate with MicroSoft, not with OSS.

In fact, I would go as far on this, as to say that if IE required the 
implementation of a set of browser sensing routines, and a set of dynamic 
alterations to pages, we should do that extra work necessary to make the 
software work with it.

If we want to advance the cause of open source, by saying that "we are 
just as good as, if not better than, the big proprietary guys", then we 
have to make certain compromises.  We are trying to force a paradigm 
shift, and that means that some times we are going to have to bend now, in 
order to gain ground, knowing that the ends justify the means.

More later--I think that's a Stallmanian OSS purist hit squad at my door, 
to explain why compromising is a bad idea.

Luke

-- 
"Fiat money and sustainable society are not compatible." - Peter Cajander