Chris Travers wrote:
Just would like to add my 6 bits. I have a grain/hay merchandising business which requires almost the entire gamut of accounting processes. I have explored tens of open source and closed source accounting options over the last 4 years (I even currently customize for Sage MAS products). I am sticking with LedgerSMB and I'll tell you why.The thread is at: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=1314.76.95.44.123.1212947229.squirrel%40www.clustersolutions.net&forum_name=sql-ledger-users I wanted to go ahead and open the discussion over here on a few relevant points. The first one has to do with my complaints about SQL-Ledger's database structure. In general, my concerns have been:
FIRSTLSMB has some serious accounting processes shortcomings right now and some aggravating user interface issues...BUT is going the right direction with right guys. I have communicated with the LSMB developers over the last year, particularly Chris Travers. (you won't find a more courteous and helpful person).
If (and they will) the developers do what they have planned, I consider the user interface issue (firefox, IE, etc.) to be a non-issue.....other user interfaces will surface (from third parties) and the existing one will improve. My experience with Firefox is the same as what I heard mentioned previously. "Wow, this is cool!" It is a far superior browser. I think its OK to 'recommend firefox' as the browser to use with LSMB
Regarding PostgreSQL. You can't find a better, more capable, more versatile, or more documented DB. This DB will allow LSMB to accomplish its objectives. Supporting other DBs will only hinder LSMB's progress.
Yes, currently, you have to have some serious determination and technical know how to make LSMB work for your company. But that too will change over time as the base is developed and refined and the objectives are accomplished.
SECONDThe second reason, I'm sticking with it......is its versatility/expandability.
I know the code base and the data base inside out and backwards (no person should have to do that). I know the problems and existing design issues Chris is talking about. However setting all that aside.....I have modified LSMB (the DB design, pl code and perl code, etc, etc) to suit our needs, incorporated contract management, incorporated special/custom accounting processes, improved both the browser and the PDF reports/views dramatically, changed the UI, insured database integrity, and etc. etc. It is now extremely easy and efficient (and reliable) to use. This couldn't be done with any other accounting package that I've seen. Its all right there. There is nothing high tech about it. (And I am still very upward compatible. 1.3 will require some adaptations but they will be minimal in scope. In some cases, the needs will have been met by the new release and the modifications no longer necessary.)
As the LSMB project moves forward the foregoing will become 1) less needed and 2) easier to do.
In short, I CAN DO/ACCOMPLISH WHAT I WANT &/OR NEED WITH LSMB. It is amazing.
THIRDLedgerSMB can be used from anywhere! This is really cool. And, it is multi-user. My guys use it out on the road for our contract management needs. Access can be tailored to however you want it! I can provide access to who ever needs it where ever they are and for just the items/functions they need.
FORTHIt's affordable. I could not possibly afford the database and server license and maintenance fees required for other multi-user, client-server, applications. It is appalling what is charged.
IN SUMMARYLSMB is a very good accounting application. I recommend that you stay with PostgreSQL. LSMB is going the right direction. It is modifiable and integrateable. For all its current shortcomings (which won't last forever), I can't find a better accounting package which has more current and future value and potential in my opinion.
Trevor