Hi Bob;
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Bob Miller <b...@computerisms.ca> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > Although I understand you're asking these questions, it'd be extremely
> > interesting to know why people choosing other solutions did *not*
> > choose LederSMB: after all, maybe their choices are based on missing
> > bits in our image / communication. The answers you're going to get
> > from this list are probably going to re-inforce the current
> > communication.
>
> I can answer this question, at least as it pertains to my customer base
> and geographic area. I have tried (mostly unsuccessfully) to sell this
> accounting system for a long time, and where I have succeeded, everybody
> has moved away from it afterwards. The base reason shows right here in
> this thread - none of the answers about why we use lsmb contain a
> "because it is simple and easy to use".
>
Just to be clear, one difficulty here is that such a criteria requires a
pretty clear target audience. What is simple for one business to use can
add needless complexity to another. This is a significant problem and it
is something that I think has to be tackled first by having a flexible
framework in place and then secondly working with customers to address
their issues. I think long-run we will beat them at this. Short run, it
is a challenge.
But there is another problem here you are right to bring up, which is that
usability requires a lot of thought as we redesign pieces of the system.
Additionally this means we may get something in which requires refinement.
But things are getting better, I think. The 1.3 reconciliation screen may
look more complex compared to 1.2 but it is a much better match for actual
reconciliation workflows. I think just about all aspects of the legacy
code need significant changes from this perspective, ranging from the menus
to the the actual data entry screens.
One of the real problems is that SQL-Ledger's approach was to try to be
everything to everybody, while our approach is to try to be anything to
anybody. Long run, I think one of the key expectations to set is that
customization pays off and it always will. Hopefully as we go further, it
will pay off more because costs for customization will go down and so it
will be possible to better match one's ideal business processes for less.
Short-run there are plenty of areas where it is more necessary.
>
> In my area, Sage Simply Accounting is probably in use by about 90% of
> the businesses (yes, 90%), of the remaining 10%, probably about half use
> quickbooks or other Intuit software, and the rest use industry-specific
> or mac-oriented software. Probably the biggest single reason for that
> is the accountants in this area; many of them won't look at your data if
> you don't give it to them in such a way they can drop it into simply
> accounting. If an accountant will take it, often you have to pay them
> to convert it, which usually means paying them to manually re-enter all
> the data into Simply - needlessly expensive.
>
That might be a good use case for hosted solutions, and an ability to grant
an accountant access for a period of time and then disable the user. Why
import when you can access and suggest adjustments (in a batch or other
unapproved transactions) live? Again though usability would be a key there.
>
> In addition to that, Simply Accounting just looks after so many things
> where in lsmb the workflow is complex. 1 example of many; charging
> interest on overdue accounts. in lsmb that is a prohibitively complex
> chore, in Simply Accounting it is ticking a box.
That has been on our todo list for a while. It is not a huge priority
absent paid work right now because it ill be simpler to do once we
re-engineer invoices.
> Simply Accounting also
> won't let you make an obvious mistake. If you try to do something
> stupid, it will stop you. As I am sure we have all dismayed at one
> moment or another, lsmb happily lets you do whatever stupid thing occurs
> to you at the moment. Several times in a row if you insist ;)
>
Could you give some specific examples? Defining "obvious mistake" is hard
and examples make it easier. Just to let you know we have tightened up
certain sorts of controls for certain kinds of obvious mistakes here during
1.3 and are working on tightening up some more, but examples are really
important to get so we can decide how to differentiate them from legitimate
but very similar workflows.
>
> I use lsmb for two reasons: 1. I am militantly open source - no
> proprietary software on my network. 2. ~5 years ago a customer needed a
> POS system, and lsmb was the best option at the time so I learned it
> well enough to deploy it, and now I am sticking with what I know - I
> haven't looked around or investigated changing in a long long time.
> Neither one of these reasons is valid to so much as one of my customers.
>
> My customers won't use lsmb for three reasons: 1. Why spend money and
> time learning to change when there is already a working system that just
> about anybody you hire is going to know because everybody around here
> uses it.
That's a big one and it is a very valid reason.
> 2. Their accountants will refuse them service or charge them
> unreasonable amounts of money if they don't use simply accounting.
We need to work with accountants then and reach out to them.
> 3.
> Simply Accounting is to dummy-proof and feature-rich not to use when
> compared to lsmb.
>
And we are missing important little things like payroll in 1.3.
>
> For your average business owner around here, it is just easier and
> cheaper to use Simply Accounting. They take the path of least
> resistance, and lsmb doesn't provide that. If lsmb did provide that,
> there would be incentive to change, and I think people would find other
> accountants, or pay their accountants the extra money to convert it, or
> the accountants themselves would start to take lsmb more seriously and
> support it.
>
> This said, I have been in this industry long enough and followed enough
> projects to know that software development is actually a very long-term
> process. Software usually requires a great deal of maturity before it
> becomes mainstream, sometimes it takes more than a decade before it can
> float to the top, and lsmb isn't there yet. Over the years I have seen
> lsmb gaining that maturity, for example this thread is contributing to
> it now. I have every confidence that over the next years, after the
> core is restructured how Chris and the other developers want it, lsmb
> will be middle-aged, and those features the end-customers require for
> adoption to be considered will rapidly start to surface. So I wait
> patiently and confident that one day lsmb will be an easy (or at least
> easier) sell to my market...
>
that's what we are shooting for.
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get your SQL database under version control now!
> Version control is standard for application code, but databases havent
> caught up. So what steps can you take to put your SQL databases under
> version control? Why should you start doing it? Read more to find out.
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=49501711&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Ledger-smb-users mailing list
> Ledger-smb-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ledger-smb-users
>
--
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more.shtml
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get your SQL database under version control now!
Version control is standard for application code, but databases havent
caught up. So what steps can you take to put your SQL databases under
version control? Why should you start doing it? Read more to find out.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=49501711&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Ledger-smb-users mailing list
Ledger-smb-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ledger-smb-users
