Since I didn't state my preferred opinion, you don't really know whether the stated tools are or are not my favorite. I intentionally didn't discuss that, because I didn't want to have a 'personal favorites' discussion.
The real point of my post was that the #1 requirement stated for this type of project is that it be open source. The proposed solution fully meets the requirement. The #2 requirement stated was that the application be accessible to everyone. That's the whole point of my post. In choosing the tools/environment that were chosen, this requirement was completely set aside. An estimated 90% of home users do not use Linux. Even though MySQL is available under Windows, most users will not want to install and maintain it. Someone recommended an embedded database such as Derby. That would take away the need for the user to be aware of and run database system software. Someone else mentioned that Java was supporting embedded databases natively in the upcoming version. So why does any of this matter? OSS'ers typically write code out of personal interest or a hobby. This is wonderful. They also use the tools that they know or more likely *prefer*. Since the requirement/goal/whatever was that the software be accessible to all church users and non-church users, shouldn't the platform and tools choice reflect *their preferences*??? Shouldn't we go where the users are? Where they are likely to be? What are they more likely to use? What are their tolerances? There's a tired old cliché about a guy who lost some money and was looking for it under a lamp post instead of where he lost it, as it was easier to see under the light. It seems to me that if the goal is to reach all potential users, then the choice of tools and platform should consider their needs and preferences -- not, necessarily, the developers. If the goal is to fulfill personal satisfaction through completing a project and hopefully help a few others in the process, then choosing whatever method is great. If the goal is to reach the largest number of Scout Leaders, then perhaps their needs should be considered a bit. The 'best' technology isn't always the best for the user... Steve -----Original Message----- From: Charles Fry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 8:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; LDS Open Source Software Subject: Re: [Ldsoss] Scout Tracking But why does any of this matter, Steven? I don't see why so many get so blocked up at the prospect of a project that doesn't conform to their personal preferences. Even if you are right (which is irrelevant for this argument), what will it hurt for this project to be pushed to completion? That would certainly be better than the current state where all that has happened is talk about perfect solutions. If someone wants a Windows app, they should go write one. If they want a web app, they should go write one. One doesn't preclude the other. In the end they might even find ways to get along. If anyone has sufficient desire and energy to create it, that is already justification enough to move forward. And who doesn't benefit from some healthy competition? We already have both PAF and PhpGedView; Linux, BSD, and Hurd; Thunderbird, Evolution, and SquirrelMail; mutt and pine; vi and emacs (cringe); Eclipse and NetBeans. The list goes on and on and on. I welcome diversity in LDS software. I think we need a lot more of it, even if it isn't perfect. Even if it doesn't meet everyone's needs. With time some projects may become more dominant than others, some may attract more developers, and some may become officially sanctioned by the Church. But while we wait to see what happens, we should be littering the web with projects, rather than waiting for the millennium before we finally start our first one. Charles _______________________________________________ Ldsoss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ldsoss.org/mailman/listinfo/ldsoss
