Re: Future of LedgerSMB: Ideas and RFC

[o1bigtenor <..hidden..>]

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Luke <..hidden..> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2011, John Locke wrote:
>
>> Thank you for all your hard work on LedgerSMB, I really appreciate the
>> time and effort you continue to put into it.
>
> +1!
>
>> I hate to be a whiner here, but trying to work with LSMB 1.3 has been
>> frustrating. Stupid bugs on just about every action you try to do. Chris
>> does a great job of responding to them when you report them, and
>> accepting patches -- I see credits to half a dozen non-core contributors
>> in the commit log. But if Chris is doing all the work, it's hard to see
>> how this project is any more viable than SQL-Ledger, which I abandoned
>
> The most common complaint I see is about installation.  If the thing can
> not be installed smoothly in a variety of situations and configurations,
> nothing else matters.
> Sour the user experience out the door, and nothing else will be
> forgivable, and interest in even trying it will remain at a very low
> level.
> Installation issues should be priority #1 for the first new beta release.
>
I tried myself to get LSMB going - - no joy.
I hired someone to help me get it going - - still left with lots of
issues after 15 hours of work by said individual.

I don't think I want something that's only 60seconds of work but when
the learning curve is a vertical line and the instructions presuppose
mastery of ALL things Linux - - well you just left out 99.99999% of
your potential users.

Many years ago I actually had the author of SQL-Ledger install it for
me - - it took him over 4 hours at that time (2003 IIRC).

I would agree that this is a major area needing change!

Darald