2007/1/17, Kenneth Gonsalves [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
not necessary - call it what you feel like calling it. Who made those
two organisations the sole arbiters of what is what?
Agreed, but those are the two organisations who defined these two terms
Open Source and Free Software so if they accept
2007/1/17, Vihan Pandey [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Very true, but i guess FSF is probably(correct me if i'm wrong) the only
organisation which keeps a track of GPL violations and does something
about
it.
No, Harald Welte and http://gpl-violations.org/ also keeps track of
gplviolations
Anyone is
2007/1/17, Vihan Pandey [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Sounds logical, but i haven't seen any individual(again to the best of my
knowledge) doing a solo defense of his GPL'd code.
As mentioned earlier - Harald Welte defend GPL and has won cases in court
upholding GPL's validity in court.
Very true, but i guess FSF is probably(correct me if i'm wrong) the only
organisation which keeps a track of GPL violations and does something
about
it.
No, Harald Welte and http://gpl-violations.org/ also keeps track of
gplviolations
thanks for the info :-)
Only if one has chosen one
On 17-Jan-07, at 1:21 PM, Vihan Pandey wrote:
i think all stake holders involved will keep track.
Sounds logical, but i haven't seen any individual(again to the best
of my
knowledge) doing a solo defense of his GPL'd code.
harald welte
--
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate,
cool - draft your own license and release it
And if you want to call it as Open Source Software get it aproved
by the
Open Source Initiative and if you want to call it as Free Software
get it
accepted by Free Software Foundation.
not necessary - call it what you feel like calling it. Who
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:02:31 +0530, Vihan Pandey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
cool - draft your own license and release it
- call it what you feel like calling it. Who made those
two organisations the sole arbiters of what is what?
makes sense!
Very true, but i guess FSF is
i think all stake holders involved will keep track.
Sounds logical, but i haven't seen any individual(again to the best of my
knowledge) doing a solo defense of his GPL'd code.
If a competitor of X
is violating GPL, X would mostly definitely be on to him!
Perhaps point it out and inititate
On Monday 15 January 2007 11:20, jtd wrote:
On Sunday 14 January 2007 19:40, Aseem Rane wrote:
The society without any constitution and laws is more free than a
society having various laws and rules preventing certain behavior.
Popular misconception. Society which permits exploitative and
Agreed. I guess a lot of people are currently using Aseems argument or
similar ones to criminalize FSF or OSS philosophy. Aseem has
presented it in a more civil manner. Most people dont do it.
Laws are in place to check exploitation and to guard the freedoms that
we have. Without these laws
On Monday 15 January 2007 15:20, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
Agreed. I guess a lot of people are currently using Aseems
argument or similar ones to criminalize FSF or OSS philosophy.
Aseem has presented it in a more civil manner. Most people dont
do it.
Laws are in place to check
On Saturday 06 January 2007 00:53, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
Requirements:
Tally software
Autocad/Studioworks or any other as good opensource/linux variant.
At the free map workshop I happened to interact with a participant Who
is the HOD of civil engineering in a Ludhiana college.
He has
Bottom line - rethink your business model - based on unlimited
availabilty and creation of knowledge rather than brain dead methods
of coercion, packaging and distribution.
business models change as the markets force it to. Not really dependent on
any singular individual i.e. assuming
At the free map workshop I happened to interact with a participant Who
is the HOD of civil engineering in a Ludhiana college.
He has already evaluated brl cad and qcad.
Qcad does not have 3d and the free version does not have pline
dimensioning. The paid version costs Rs.800/- which is
On 14-Jan-07, at 8:01 PM, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
nobody said am not ready to give my software out. it was about free
distribution. if i write something i allow you to change, modify
and do as you wish just dont release a variant using my code and
after appending you code. i would
nobody said am not ready to give my software out. it was about free
distribution. if i write something i allow you to change, modify
and do as you wish just dont release a variant using my code and
after appending you code. i would ofcourse extend the same respect
to the code from the
On Monday 15 January 2007 16:08, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
Bottom line - rethink your business model - based on unlimited
availabilty and creation of knowledge rather than brain dead
methods of coercion, packaging and distribution.
business models change as the markets force it to. Not
On 1/15/07, Dinesh Joshi wrote:
On Monday 15 January 2007 11:20, jtd wrote:
On Sunday 14 January 2007 19:40, Aseem Rane wrote:
The society without any constitution and laws is more free than a
society having various laws and rules preventing certain behavior.
Popular misconception.
On Monday 15 January 2007 20:25, Aseem Rane wrote:
Ooooppps. There is a BIG misinterpretation here.
Be more verbose the next time and make your point clear.
While writing that I thought I was supporting Free software and GPL.
Let me clarify.
BSD license puts lesser restrictions on what you
Forwarding my bigger mail after ruthlessly trimming it
welcome to the club.
The FOSS philosophy DOES NOT say that you should distribute the software
free of charge.
Remember Free as in Beer Vs Free as in Freedom??
Interesting point,
in which case i am inclined to ask - Sachin are you
in which case i am inclined to ask - Sachin are you opposed to
distribution
as a whole or gratis distribution only?
did not intend to reply anymore..since you asked ..distribution only.
Sachin G.
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
On Monday 15 January 2007 22:03, Aseem Rane wrote:
I did read my post many times after your reply.
But unfortunately I am still unable to understand where I
criminalized FSF.
I should've written a more detailed reply. I did not mean that YOU
criminalized FOSS. I should've said that the people
On 15-Jan-07, at 8:25 PM, Aseem Rane wrote:
BSD license puts lesser restrictions on what you can do with the
software.
I wanted to say that even though GPL puts more restrictions, it is
better.
it is? Depends on the context and the reason why the software is
being released. I would
lets not take things out of context
i believe we context switched - READ to your statements and all the WRITE(S)
have been happening since then.
and be snide about it shall we?
When you make provocative statements based on a complete lack of
understanding of FOSS on a GNU/Linux users
2007/1/14, Sachin G Nambiar [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I create X. I want to use a retail business model(whether it works or does
not work is out of the question) but as a proprietor i have a right to
choose my business model! [point 1]
You are thinking in terms of the proprietory business model.
2007/1/14, Sachin G Nambiar [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
When i buy a software i have a right to use it in any way i wish.
That is Freedom 0. If you buy a non-free software you don't have these
rights.period.
But when
i distribute it as if it were my own(even with modifications), iam
basically
2007/1/14, Sachin G Nambiar [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If FOSS philosphy says explicitly that every software should be freely
distributable, then it is infringing upon the fundamental right of the
creator.
Nobody compels you to release it as Free Software, but don't insist you want
to call it Free
On 14-Jan-07, at 3:57 PM, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
I create X. I want to use a retail business model(whether it works
or does not work is out of the question) but as a proprietor i have
a right to choose my business model! [point 1]
yes
If a person buys mp3 of a shakira song (who i
On 14-Jan-07, at 6:40 PM, പ്രവീണ്|Praveen wrote:
This much is enough to qualify it as Free Software, See BSD, MIT, X
all are
Free Software.
w00t
--
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
--
The aim of the copyright law is not to protect originator but to promote
progress of science and useful arts. Get your basics right.
So don't think authors have any natural right to their work. It is
granted
by the goverment so as to benefit the public.
Now is that fair? That the
2007/1/14, Kenneth Gonsalves [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 14-Jan-07, at 1:45 AM, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
Without any Regards to you, and with Regards to the List,
- vihan
lets not take things out fo context and be snide about it shall we?
I wondered aloud, some people have kindly given me some
here starts the confusion. copyright != patent. Please find out the
difference.
no confusion .. everything in it's place as long as the message has gone
across even if not in agreement.
no - when you 'buy' doze, you have practically no rights whatsover -
check the EULA
who said
On 1/14/07, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
your problem is that you belong to the OSS school and not the FOSS
school - nothing wrong in that. It is actually more free than the
FOSS school which puts some restrictions on the redistribution of
software.
The society without any constitution and
2007/1/14, Sachin G Nambiar [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
no - when you 'buy' doze, you have practically no rights whatsover -
check the EULA
who said anything about doze? i was talking about my rights.
Rights to what software ypu were talking about?
I can choose to modify a particular software
Nobody compels you to release it as Free Software, but don't insist you
want
to call it Free Software and still being able to restrict the user of the
fundamantal Freedoms. Is anyone infringing upon Microsoft's moral rights
because they release non-free software. We said we will show you
Rights to what software ypu were talking about?
lets liken the software to a tangible product. If i buy it don't i have a
right to do whatever i choose to with it. i think i have that right with
windows too but MS denies me the right! :/
I can choose to modify a particular software
and
Seige Heil mien furherer.
your spelling sux - es ist 'sieg heil mein Fuehrer'
Error acknowledged. Apologies (for the spelling)
Regards,
- vihan
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
On Friday 12 January 2007 22:08, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
My intention was not to insult, just a disagreement thats all. We
only differ on our thoughts as to what extent of freedom we are
talking about.
You are not talking about freedom at all. You are talking about
exploitation.
And your
Sometime Today, SGN cobbled together some glyphs to say:
AS i mentioned before, IF .. .. i was just wondering for a sec if
FOSS said anything about not being able to distribute. :)
These are easily verifiable facts. You don't need to speculate out
loud. It would have been less effort for
Sometime Today, SGN cobbled together some glyphs to say:
If Kcalculate provides the code along with the software it's FOSS
alright. Freedom to change code, need not be to distribute.
Where did you learn that?
--
I know not how I came into this, shall I call it a dying life or a
living death?
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:59:09 +0530, Philip Tellis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Sometime Today, SGN cobbled together some glyphs to say:
If Kcalculate provides the code along with the software it's FOSS
alright. Freedom to change code, need not be to distribute.
Where did you learn that?
I
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:01:52 +0530, Philip Tellis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Sometime Today, SGN cobbled together some glyphs to say:
AS i mentioned before, IF .. .. i was just wondering for a sec if
FOSS said anything about not being able to distribute. :)
These are easily verifiable
On 1/12/07, Sachin G Nambiar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am not a subscriber to FOSS philosophy in whole. I like some parts, but
not others. I dont like the idea of collectivism where everyone shares
whatever they have made with everyone else. Sure it's your right if you
want to, but don't
On Friday 12 January 2007 20:42, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:01:52 +0530, Philip Tellis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Sometime Today, SGN cobbled together some glyphs to say:
AS i mentioned before, IF .. .. i was just wondering for a sec if
FOSS said anything about not
On 1/12/07, Sachin G Nambiar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am not a subscriber to FOSS philosophy in whole. I like some parts, but
not others. I dont like the idea of collectivism where everyone shares
whatever they have made with everyone else. Sure it's your right if you
want to, but don't
So the brickbats roll in my turn to *sigh*. I have clarified my stand in
another mail under the same head! I disagree on some points but i also
agree on others ..
Sachin G.
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
LOL! So nice of you and hats off to your attitude! Nobody says you
shouldn't keep things to yourself and not share, but for such a great
attitude FOSS is not your base and we are not your brethren.
Here the rule is simple, you get the freedom if you are ready to give
the same to others,
If you are not a subscriber to FOSS philosophy then why talk about it
and the freedom what we all think as our life-breath. You are talking to
a community which thrives for Freedom. Please don't insult our passion
with such comments.
My intention was not to insult, just a disagreement
Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
My apologies for ruffling feathers which i evidently have! We disagree
on what freedom is here, my point i reiterate, i like the idea of
opening up source to the end user because it's the end users right if he
has paid for it. But it's also the givers right to restrict
Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
My apologies for ruffling feathers which i evidently have! We disagree
on what freedom is here, my point i reiterate, i like the idea of
opening up source to the end user because it's the end users right if he
has paid for it. But it's also the givers right to
Please note that
the FOSS ideology does not work out economically with retail software.
FOSS earns big/mega bucks through support and customization.
Yes i know and this was the only bone of contention. If i make a software
and sell it to you and also give you the source. Mere pet pe laath
On Friday 12 January 2007 23:29, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
I understand that if the license allows it it's fine,but my contention is
it's still free software even if it's not freely distributable, because i
allow you (as a maker) to use it in anyway you wish to change it in anyway
you wish and
Does that tell you something about FOSS? Its power to the USER.
As long as it does not take power away from the maker. Sure ... more power
to the user.
Sachin G.
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
On 12-Jan-07, at 10:05 PM, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
So the brickbats roll in my turn to *sigh*. I have clarified my
stand in another mail under the same head! I disagree on some
points but i also agree on others ..
you agree on all the points where you can profit from OSS, and
disagree
On 12-Jan-07, at 8:37 PM, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
Where did you learn that?
I easily understand my right to read the code of the product am
buying. I do not understand why this right extends to distribution?
It's akin to piracy in a loose sense!
what is piracy? stealing of software?
On 12-Jan-07, at 8:42 PM, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
Am not a subscriber to FOSS philosophy in whole. I like some parts,
but not others.
you have not even understood the FOSS philosophy
--
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
--
what is piracy? stealing of software? how can you steal software? can
you steal air that you breathe? is software property? If i have a dosai
and give you my dosai, now you have a dosai and i dont. If i have source
code and give it to you, we both have source code. Frankly I fail to see
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 08:06:16 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 12-Jan-07, at 10:05 PM, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
So the brickbats roll in my turn to *sigh*. I have clarified my stand
in another mail under the same head! I disagree on some points but i
also agree on
On 12-Jan-07, at 11:02 PM, Rony wrote:
You are confusing between open software that you publicly
distribute/sell to many and customized software made for an
individual company. FOS Software created and customized for a
company is anyway private and will not be distributed to others.
Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
I understand that if the license allows it it's fine,but my contention
is it's still free software even if it's not freely distributable,
Once you prevent the 'freedom to freely distribute', the existence of
the software as free software ends.
because i allow you
Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
Please note that
the FOSS ideology does not work out economically with retail software.
FOSS earns big/mega bucks through support and customization.
Yes i know and this was the only bone of contention. If i make a
software and sell it to you and also give you the
Autocad/Studioworks or any other as good opensource/linux variant.
http://brlcad.org/
The BRL-CAD package is a powerful Constructive Solid Geometry (CSG)
solid modeling system with over 20 years development and production
use by the U.S. military. BRL-CAD includes an interactive geometry
On 11-Jan-07, at 1:40 PM, Vihan Pandey wrote:
thing has been there for over 20 years and has been GPL(though i
don't know
since how long, but definitely 2004-04-27 14:22 or earlier, as
that's the
date timestamp of their first commit on sourceforge) then why are
people
still harping about
On Thursday 11 January 2007 14:15, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 11-Jan-07, at 1:40 PM, Vihan Pandey wrote:
thing has been there for over 20 years and has been GPL(though i
don't know
since how long, but definitely 2004-04-27 14:22 or earlier, as
that's the
date timestamp of their first
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:53:01 +0530, jtd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 06 January 2007 00:53, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
Autocad/Studioworks or any other as good opensource/linux variant.
http://brlcad.org/
Thank you very much.
Sachin G
--
On Thursday 11 January 2007 17:26, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
4) If your code is so shallow that copying and distributing by
college kids is going to put you on the streets, u are better off
searching for the best street corner than running a business.
I don't agree,
no point in disparaging
On Thursday 11 January 2007 17:30, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:53:01 +0530, jtd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 06 January 2007 00:53, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
Autocad/Studioworks or any other as good opensource/linux
variant.
http://brlcad.org/
Thank you very
2007/1/11, Sachin G Nambiar [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I dont care if college kids use it if they are not my customer, but why
screw up my business model becasue these college kids might just hand it
over to soene with enough money and resources to screw me up.
FOSS business is Free and Open
Do keep us posted on any evaluations you may do.
I will but not sure if iam qualified for it but i know someone who is and
is currently using autocad in the unit.
Sachin G.
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
http://brlcad.org/
Thank you very much.
Do keep us posted on any evaluations you may do.
In fact some text of the evaluation and few screen shots could be added to
the Wiki :-)
Regards,
- vihan
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
people with enought money and resources do add a kick ass feature you
also
now would that be fair? I think using, changing is ok because it's my
right! Since iam concerned about my right am also concerned about the
right of the maker. There are just too many parasites out there in the
And how exactly do you propose to change that. U see the guys who are
attacking your business model dont care about your code. They want
the binary.
by not allowing sharing of the code but full rights to change and modify
it as they please.
If your business model is screwable rest assured
2007/1/11, Sachin G Nambiar [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
people with enought money and resources do add a kick ass feature you
also
now would that be fair? I think using, changing is ok because it's my
right! Since iam concerned about my right am also concerned about the
right of the maker. There are
On 11-Jan-07, at 5:53 PM, jtd wrote:
http://brlcad.org/
Thank you very much.
Do keep us posted on any evaluations you may do.
could it be that there is no gui?
--
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
--
http://brlcad.org/
The BRL-CAD package is a powerful Constructive Solid Geometry (CSG)
http://www.tech.oru.se/cad/varkon/
What about Varkon? If BRL-CAD is used by the US military, then Varkon
is used by SAAB, the Swedish automobile and aircraft maker.
Excerpts from the Varkon site:
VARKON
Vihan Pandey wrote:
http://brlcad.org/
Thank you very much.
Do keep us posted on any evaluations you may do.
In fact some text of the evaluation and few screen shots could be added to
the Wiki :-)
From its writeup, it looks like a 3D modeling software like 3DS Max,
not a drawing
jtd wrote:
It is. It says solid geometry. And absolutely beats me as to why the
hell it was hidden so long. How it compares to a drafting package
like ACAD i have no idea.
I am trying to get one user switch to QCad and Blender (For 3D). I have
installed Linux in one of his PCs and he
On Thursday 11 January 2007 18:28, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
Do keep us posted on any evaluations you may do.
I will but not sure if iam qualified for it but i know someone who
is and is currently using autocad in the unit.
Oh u are. As someone in close contact with enduser u will be loading
On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 06:30 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 08-Jan-07, at 11:07 PM, Devdas Bhagat wrote:
switch. Only problem is that there is no Indian Accounting
software that
is any better. So you are stuck.
Kalculate for Linux is very much there, giving you
So why not
On 10-Jan-07, at 1:32 PM, Sudhir Gandotra wrote:
is any better. So you are stuck.
Kalculate for Linux is very much there, giving you
not free
--
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
--
Kalculate for Linux is very much there, giving you
not free
i would say HIGHLY not FOSS. In fact their website has a wonderful
disclaimer :
quote
KalCulate is sold to its customer for their use as per the policy of each
version. This sale does not transfer the rights to\ software and/or
i would say HIGHLY not FOSS. In fact their website has a wonderful
disclaimer :
If Kcalculate provides the code along with the software it's FOSS alright.
Freedom to change code, need not be to distribute.
Sachin G
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
i would say HIGHLY not FOSS. In fact their website has a wonderful
disclaimer :
If Kcalculate provides the code along with the software it's FOSS alright.
Freedom to change code, need not be to distribute.
Mate, READ the disclaimer they have written on their website before quickly
Mate, READ the disclaimer they have written on their website before
quickly
defending them and quoting FOSS philosophy.
AS i mentioned before, IF .. .. i was just wondering for a sec if FOSS
said anything about not being able to distribute. :)
Sachin G
--
On 10/01/07 17:45 +0530, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
Mate, READ the disclaimer they have written on their website before
quickly
defending them and quoting FOSS philosophy.
AS i mentioned before, IF .. .. i was just wondering for a sec if FOSS
said anything about not being able to
FOSS actually does imply the right to modify and distribute.
Shouldn't the term freedom be restricted to modifying the code? If a coder
has to earn a living using principles of FOSS then the clause about free
to distribute should be removed don't you think?
Sachin G.
--
On Wednesday 10 January 2007 22:55, Devdas Bhagat wrote:
FOSS actually does imply the right to modify and distribute.
IIRC, the GPL ( I know we're not discussing GPL but it is a good license )
allows one to modify and NOT distribute the code as long as its for internal
use.
--
Regards,
On 10-Jan-07, at 5:45 PM, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
AS i mentioned before, IF .. .. i was just wondering for a sec
if FOSS said anything about not being able to distribute. :)
no distribute rights === not foss
--
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 10-Jan-07, at 11:52 PM, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
FOSS actually does imply the right to modify and distribute.
Shouldn't the term freedom be restricted to modifying the code? If
a coder has to earn a living using principles of FOSS then the
clause about free to distribute should be
On 11-Jan-07, at 12:23 AM, Dinesh Joshi wrote:
FOSS actually does imply the right to modify and distribute.
IIRC, the GPL ( I know we're not discussing GPL but it is a good
license )
allows one to modify and NOT distribute the code as long as its for
internal
use.
you have it ulta -
On Wednesday 10 January 2007 23:52, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
FOSS actually does imply the right to modify and distribute.
Shouldn't the term freedom be restricted to modifying the code? If
a coder has to earn a living using principles of FOSS then the
clause about free to distribute should be
On Saturday 06 January 2007 00:53, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
Autocad/Studioworks or any other as good opensource/linux variant.
http://brlcad.org/
The BRL-CAD package is a powerful Constructive Solid Geometry (CSG)
solid modeling system with over 20 years development and production
use by the
Devdas Bhagat wrote:
On 06/01/07 17:55 +0530, Saswata Banerjee Associates wrote:
snip
Huh ?
Tally works with double entry accounting.
Where did you get the idea that tally does not follow double entry
accounting ?
One of the few things about double entry accounting I remember is
On 08/01/07 22:07 +0530, Saswata Banerjee Associates wrote:
Devdas Bhagat wrote:
On 06/01/07 17:55 +0530, Saswata Banerjee Associates wrote:
snip
Huh ?
Tally works with double entry accounting.
Where did you get the idea that tally does not follow double entry
accounting ?
Devdas Bhagat wrote:
*deleted *
BTW, I am yet to see Tally Linux. I doubt if the dealers or even Tally
customer support would have heard of it. It is a statement that they
have been making for a lng time and can be classified with vaporware.
Is that Tally on Linux, or a
On 08-Jan-07, at 11:07 PM, Devdas Bhagat wrote:
switch. Only problem is that there is no Indian Accounting
software that
is any better. So you are stuck.
So why not contribute to AVSAP?
good question - in fact I have finally found a person who knows
accounts and willing to be a mentor
Thank you for all your replies,
I will check out all the accounting software mentioned but the decision is
ofcourse in the end with the company heads. If tally is available for
linux then i would presume they would go head with it so that there is
minimal learning curve to be negotiated.
On Sunday 07 January 2007 02:54, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
How many clients are there in total? Using thin clients will be a
good option for the users.
Also, the users can be trained on the use of Open Office and
Linux based e-mail clients.
Training in my own experience has been very
On Saturday 06 January 2007 00:53, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
Hi,
Am going to work in a small manufacturing unit with a T.O. of
around 9cr. Currently they do have a few desktops(un-networked)
with pirated copies(based on discussions i doubt they know the
difference and i want to change that) of
On 05/01/07 21:48 -0800, Koustubha Kale wrote:
--- Laxminarayan G Kamath A
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Requirements:
Tally software
Tally is available on Linux. Also your accountants and
Auditors will be really happy if they have tally. Its
a sound investment for a company of any
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
