I want to ask one question to all readers, Will the end-user ever care
if we have postgresql or mysql at the back-end unless he is a programmer or a techno person?
The objections were raised by a programmer cum hacker and his opinion does carry weight if it helps improvise and simplify the target software.
End Users indeed are concerned. May be not with the name, rather with the deployment. When we build and distribute Desktop Applications, end users assume that they can just install the application through a setup file and its done. When they want a backup, they just need to click on a "Backup Menu Item" and enter the "Save As" file name.
These are the perspectives of end users. Now it doesnt matter if we use My-SQl or any other DB, the users are concerned with ease to deploy....
Bye Regards
On Thursday 21 May 2009 12:12:29 Pravin Dhayfule wrote:
The objections were raised by a programmer cum hacker and his opinion does carry weight if it helps improvise and simplify the target software.
End Users indeed are concerned. May be not with the name, rather with the deployment. When we build and distribute Desktop Applications, end users assume that they can just install the application through a setup file and its done. When they want a backup, they just need to click on a "Backup Menu Item" and enter the "Save As" file name.
These are the perspectives of end users. Now it doesnt matter if we use My-SQl or any other DB, the users are concerned with ease to deploy....
I am an end user of a lot of software. I do not care how difficult it is to deploy. My criterion is that it should work and work well. That is, it should do what I want it to do.
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Thursday 21 May 2009 12:12:29 Pravin Dhayfule wrote:
The objections were raised by a programmer cum hacker and his opinion does carry weight if it helps improvise and simplify the target software.
End Users indeed are concerned. May be not with the name, rather with the deployment. When we build and distribute Desktop Applications, end users assume that they can just install the application through a setup file and its done. When they want a backup, they just need to click on a "Backup Menu Item" and enter the "Save As" file name.
These are the perspectives of end users. Now it doesnt matter if we use My-SQl or any other DB, the users are concerned with ease to deploy....
I am an end user of a lot of software. I do not care how difficult it is to deploy. My criterion is that it should work and work well. That is, it should do what I want it to do.
Difficulty in deployment gets prominent when recovering crashed systems or performing some rescue operation.
On Friday 22 May 2009 00:09:24 Rony wrote:
I am an end user of a lot of software. I do not care how difficult it is to deploy. My criterion is that it should work and work well. That is, it should do what I want it to do.
Difficulty in deployment gets prominent when recovering crashed systems or performing some rescue operation.
software that works and works well does not crash
I would like to make a quick announcement. We have now got our own mailing list server, thanks cis-india (sunil ) and thanks abhas for helping us out. the users mailing list is at http://lists.cis-india.org/mailman/listinfo/gnukhata-users and the developers list is gnukhata-devel on the same server.
happy hacking. Krishnakant.
On Sat, 2009-05-23 at 11:52 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Friday 22 May 2009 00:09:24 Rony wrote:
I am an end user of a lot of software. I do not care how difficult it is to deploy. My criterion is that it should work and work well. That is, it should do what I want it to do.
Difficulty in deployment gets prominent when recovering crashed systems or performing some rescue operation.
software that works and works well does not crash
regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Friday 22 May 2009 00:09:24 Rony wrote:
I am an end user of a lot of software. I do not care how difficult it is to deploy. My criterion is that it should work and work well. That is, it should do what I want it to do.
Difficulty in deployment gets prominent when recovering crashed systems or performing some rescue operation.
software that works and works well does not crash
Reminds me of one of Murphy's laws "Anyone who designs anything foolproof has obviously underestimated the ingenuity of fools" If I understand correctly, crashes and rescue operations are different from deployment in the simple sense that deployment deals with setup of the software and its environment, whereas crash recovery and rescue deals with data management. hence, deployment in case of crashed system will still be snapshotting the corrupted system for recovery and and factory reset of the software system. Import of base environment/user settings will be a boon in this scenario. just my peanut worth of thought ;) Regards Surya Pratap
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Friday 22 May 2009 00:09:24 Rony wrote:
I am an end user of a lot of software. I do not care how difficult it is to deploy. My criterion is that it should work and work well. That is, it should do what I want it to do.
Difficulty in deployment gets prominent when recovering crashed systems or performing some rescue operation.
software that works and works well does not crash
Software runs on an operating system. No software is un-crashable as it is also linked to hardware. No hardware is un-crashable.
On Saturday 23 May 2009 23:32:22 Rony wrote:
software that works and works well does not crash
Software runs on an operating system. No software is un-crashable as it is also linked to hardware. No hardware is un-crashable.
hardware crashes - a proper backup policy makes that irrelevant to the organisation. Software that crashes and destroys data is unacceptable.
On Sunday 24 May 2009, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Saturday 23 May 2009 23:32:22 Rony wrote:
software that works and works well does not crash
Software runs on an operating system. No software is un-crashable as it is also linked to hardware. No hardware is un-crashable.
hardware crashes - a proper backup policy makes that irrelevant to the organisation.
hardware failures != hardware crashes.
Failure of devices is an accepted fact of life - and is well quantified (or atleast supposed to be). But crashes due to buggy hardware is equally unacceptable.
Software that crashes and destroys data is unacceptable.
regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
hi Pravin, On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 12:12 +0530, Pravin Dhayfule wrote:
End Users indeed are concerned. May be not with the name, rather with the deployment. When we build and distribute Desktop Applications, end users assume that they can just install the application through a setup file and its done. When they want a backup, they just need to click on a "Backup Menu Item" and enter the "Save As" file name.
But how does that relate to having or not having a certain software component which the user would never go and see? As you rightly said, all that users want is a button to back up, button to restore, may be a button to change the server location etc.
These are the perspectives of end users. Now it doesnt matter if we use My-SQl or any other DB, the users are concerned with ease to deploy....
And performance, which is the responsibility of the developer. And I am dead sure a toy database for personal level data is never going to be choice for a big accounting software. Again end-users are if different types. A sysadmin is an end user and a data entry person is an enduser as well.
happy hacking. Krishnakant.
Bye Regards
Pravin Dhayfule wrote:
I want to ask one question to all readers, Will the end-user ever care
if we have postgresql or mysql at the back-end unless he is a programmer or a techno person?
The objections were raised by a programmer cum hacker and his opinion does carry weight if it helps improvise and simplify the target software.
End Users indeed are concerned. May be not with the name, rather with the deployment. When we build and distribute Desktop Applications, end users assume that they can just install the application through a setup file and its done. When they want a backup, they just need to click on a "Backup Menu Item" and enter the "Save As" file name.
These are the perspectives of end users. Now it doesnt matter if we use My-SQl or any other DB, the users are concerned with ease to deploy....
Given a choice between different software, companies will choose software that is easier to deploy and maintain. Of course price is an important factor too.
On Friday 22 May 2009 00:19:05 Rony wrote:
These are the perspectives of end users. Now it doesnt matter if we use My-SQl or any other DB, the users are concerned with ease to deploy....
Given a choice between different software, companies will choose software that is easier to deploy and maintain
some companies
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Friday 22 May 2009 00:19:05 Rony wrote:
These are the perspectives of end users. Now it doesnt matter if we use My-SQl or any other DB, the users are concerned with ease to deploy....
Given a choice between different software, companies will choose software that is easier to deploy and maintain
some companies
many companies.
Most companies want software that works well, is easy to recover but most importantly flexible enough that almost every time it has the features direct or indirect to do what the management and data entry people want to do including analyst and others. If this is provided they will bare with a little bit of learning curve but not a very steep one. happy hacking. Krishnakant
On Sat, 2009-05-23 at 23:37 +0530, Rony wrote:
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Friday 22 May 2009 00:19:05 Rony wrote:
These are the perspectives of end users. Now it doesnt matter if we use My-SQl or any other DB, the users are concerned with ease to deploy....
Given a choice between different software, companies will choose software that is easier to deploy and maintain
some companies
many companies.
-- Regards,
Rony.
GNU/Linux ! No Viruses No Spyware Only Freedom.
Krishnakant wrote:
Most companies want software that works well, is easy to recover but most importantly flexible enough that almost every time it has the features direct or indirect to do what the management and data entry people want to do including analyst and others. If this is provided they will bare with a little bit of learning curve but not a very steep one.
Exactly my point.
Krishnakant wrote:
Most companies want software that works well, is easy to recover but most importantly flexible enough that almost every time it has the features direct or indirect to do what the management and data entry people want to do including analyst and others. If this is provided they will bare with a little bit of learning curve but not a very steep one. happy hacking. Krishnakant
Has top posting been accepted as proper in this mailing list ?? there seems to be some kind of a surge in the number of top posted messages in this group.
Regards
Surya
On Sun, 2009-05-24 at 13:33 +0530, Surya Pratap wrote:
Has top posting been accepted as proper in this mailing list ?? there seems to be some kind of a surge in the number of top posted messages in this group.
While this might be a issue for debait, I think generaly a quick comment is good at the top because then people don't have to scroll the entire message just to see "I agree but just that this might not work in some situations ".
May be many of us now a days are too busy to write or scroll long messages. For example I am not top posting to this message because what ever I am writing is not a "short quick comment ". So I think it depends. Again, this is my personal view and since there are a few who top post quick comments, I believe they might be having a similar thinking.
happy hacking. Krishnakant.
Krishnakant wrote:
On Sun, 2009-05-24 at 13:33 +0530, Surya Pratap wrote:
Has top posting been accepted as proper in this mailing list ?? there seems to be some kind of a surge in the number of top posted messages in this group.
While this might be a issue for debait, I think generaly a quick comment is good at the top because then people don't have to scroll the entire message just to see "I agree but just that this might not work in some situations ".
May be many of us now a days are too busy to write or scroll long messages. For example I am not top posting to this message because what ever I am writing is not a "short quick comment ". So I think it depends. Again, this is my personal view and since there are a few who top post quick comments, I believe they might be having a similar thinking.
have you tried replying to mails from mobiles ? Doing a scroll down and inserting the reply is not feasible. Also in many of the mobile email software, the reader is not able to figure what is being inserted by the poster.
happy hacking. Krishnakant.
On Saturday 23 May 2009 23:37:58 Rony wrote:
Given a choice between different software, companies will choose software that is easier to deploy and maintain
some companies
many companies.
badly run companies.
On Sunday 24 May 2009, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Saturday 23 May 2009 23:37:58 Rony wrote:
Given a choice between different software, companies will choose software that is easier to deploy and maintain
some companies
many companies.
badly run companies.
I would not term them "badly" run - more like not IT savvy. Their core competencies are elsewhere and very many are excellent in their arenas. But not knowing facts about FLOSS makes them very vulnerable. Many try very hard to plug in the gaping holes with all sorts of hardware and software.
-- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
jtd wrote:
On Sunday 24 May 2009, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Saturday 23 May 2009 23:37:58 Rony wrote:
Given a choice between different software, companies will choose software that is easier to deploy and maintain
some companies
many companies.
badly run companies.
I would not term them "badly" run - more like not IT savvy. Their core competencies are elsewhere and very many are excellent in their arenas. But not knowing facts about FLOSS makes them very vulnerable. Many try very hard to plug in the gaping holes with all sorts of hardware and software.
Its not about FLOSS or closed software but the ease at which the software can be installed and maintained by the user company. A developer cannot force a complex installation on the target company simply because a simpler method was not developed. The one who develops a simpler method will get more preference.
On Sunday 24 May 2009, Rony wrote:
jtd wrote:
On Sunday 24 May 2009, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Saturday 23 May 2009 23:37:58 Rony wrote:
Given a choice between different software, companies will choose software that is easier to deploy and maintain
some companies
many companies.
badly run companies.
I would not term them "badly" run - more like not IT savvy. Their core competencies are elsewhere and very many are excellent in their arenas. But not knowing facts about FLOSS makes them very vulnerable. Many try very hard to plug in the gaping holes with all sorts of hardware and software.
Its not about FLOSS or closed software but the ease at which the software can be installed and maintained by the user company.
Closed software is an absolute nightmare to maintain.. Even installation of something like AV is a major hassle (as witnessed by me, as a spectator). Reinstall - clash with another AV - uninstall both - reinstall, no go - call up vendor - appear mumbling idiot - uninstall - reinstall - ....... 2 days to install AV. AND in the end problems with ERP. BTW the first AV was a licenced version which failed to prevent some worm or the other. And (funnily) an older employee remembered that the 2nd one (now reincarnated) was dumped because of the same reason.
A developer cannot force a complex installation on the target company simply because a simpler method was not developed. The one who develops a simpler method will get more preference.
True. But "simpler" is a very relative term even within an os's reference frame. What matters more than anything else is stability.
Even if you had a one click install on doze, the OS limitations would trump any easy installation procedure.
-- Regards,
Rony.
GNU/Linux ! No Viruses No Spyware Only Freedom.
On Tuesday 26 May 2009 22:34:55 jtd wrote:
Its not about FLOSS or closed software but the ease at which the software can be installed and maintained by the user company.
Closed software is an absolute nightmare to maintain.. Even installation of something like AV is a major hassle (as witnessed by me, as a spectator). Reinstall - clash with another AV - uninstall both - reinstall, no go - call up vendor - appear mumbling idiot - uninstall - reinstall - ....... 2 days to install AV. AND in the end problems with ERP. BTW the first AV was a licenced version which failed to prevent some worm or the other. And (funnily) an older employee remembered that the 2nd one (now reincarnated) was dumped because of the same reason.
what is AV? and how is your installation of AVsap going?
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Tuesday 26 May 2009 22:34:55 jtd wrote:
Its not about FLOSS or closed software but the ease at which the software can be installed and maintained by the user company.
Closed software is an absolute nightmare to maintain.. Even installation of something like AV is a major hassle (as witnessed by me, as a spectator). Reinstall - clash with another AV - uninstall both - reinstall, no go - call up vendor - appear mumbling idiot - uninstall - reinstall - ....... 2 days to install AV. AND in the end problems with ERP. BTW the first AV was a licenced version which failed to prevent some worm or the other. And (funnily) an older employee remembered that the 2nd one (now reincarnated) was dumped because of the same reason.
what is AV? and how is your installation of AVsap goinga?
AV = Anti Virus AVsap = Anti virus for sap ? (sorry, couldnt resist that one)
On Wednesday 27 May 2009, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Tuesday 26 May 2009 22:34:55 jtd wrote:
BTW the first AV was a licenced version which failed to prevent some worm or the other. And (funnily) an older employee remembered that the 2nd one (now reincarnated) was dumped because of the same reason.
what is AV? and how is your installation of AVsap going?
Havent started as yet. In the middle of shifting office premises. Hope to start testing both by the weekend. BTW I had tried to check out GNU-khata a few months back, but could not find the code or licence afair. Afair i thought it was a "closed" software being developed "secretly".
On Wednesday 27 May 2009 08:15:10 jtd wrote:
BTW the first AV was a licenced version which failed to prevent some worm or the other. And (funnily) an older employee remembered that the 2nd one (now reincarnated) was dumped because of the same reason.
what is AV? and how is your installation of AVsap going?
Havent started as yet. In the middle of shifting office premises. Hope to start testing both by the weekend. BTW I had tried to check out GNU-khata a few months back, but could not find the code or licence afair. Afair i thought it was a "closed" software being developed "secretly".
even now it is open software being developed in a closed manner. I see a lot of this going on - the idea of commit early commit often and of having the bleeding edge stuff in trunk (even if half of it is not working) is foreign to a lot of people. They want to release only when it is 'perfect' or 'complete'. Forgetting that no software is ever perfect or complete.
The advantage of the open manner of development is that one gets feedback on every change made - rather than feedback when it is too late to make changes.
On Wednesday 27 May 2009, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Wednesday 27 May 2009 08:15:10 jtd wrote:
Havent started as yet. In the middle of shifting office premises. Hope to start testing both by the weekend. BTW I had tried to check out GNU-khata a few months back, but could not find the code or licence afair. Afair i thought it was a "closed" software being developed "secretly".
even now it is open software being developed in a closed manner. I see a lot of this going on - the idea of commit early commit often and of having the bleeding edge stuff in trunk (even if half of it is not working) is foreign to a lot of people. They want to release only when it is 'perfect' or 'complete'. Forgetting that no software is ever perfect or complete.
The advantage of the open manner of development is that one gets feedback on every change made - rather than feedback when it is too late to make changes. --
+1
Hope the developers do seriously reconsider. It just doesnt make sense to be gpld without the FLOSS dev process.
On Wednesday 27 May 2009 11:59:10 jtd wrote:
even now it is open software being developed in a closed manner. I see a lot of this going on - the idea of commit early commit often and of having the bleeding edge stuff in trunk (even if half of it is not working) is foreign to a lot of people. They want to release only when it is 'perfect' or 'complete'. Forgetting that no software is ever perfect or complete.
The advantage of the open manner of development is that one gets feedback on every change made - rather than feedback when it is too late to make changes. --
+1
Hope the developers do seriously reconsider. It just doesnt make sense to be gpld without the FLOSS dev process.
one problem is that the developers are probably all sitting in the same room. The have to get out of the habit of talking to each other and into the habit of communicating through the mailing list and sharing their code through the repository. It is very important to discuss *every* issue on the mailing list or on the wiki, otherwise it is not documented. A couple of us are developing an application under pressure, and we have made something like 30 commits in the last 2 days. I think this link should be compulsory reading for all would- be foss developers:
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 12:30 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
one problem is that the developers are probably all sitting in the same room. The have to get out of the habit of talking to each other and into the habit of communicating through the mailing list and sharing their code through the repository. It is very important to discuss *every* issue on the mailing list
I have the list of members on the mailing list and your email is not amongst them. So it would be a good idea to first join the mailing list and then judge on the asumtions.
I had posted a mail both on the old googlegroups mailing list and this mailing list about the 2 new mailing lists and discussions have since then moved to that server. regarding the code, Every change is committed and the details of the commit are posted to the mailing list (that is if one sees the mailing list ). Regarding the svn server, it has been pritty unstable these days and we are looking for another good server. Never the less it is working good now. So people who want check the source code. happy hacking. Krishnakant.
On Wednesday 27 May 2009, Krishnakant wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 12:30 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
one problem is that the developers are probably all sitting in the same room. The have to get out of the habit of talking to each other and into the habit of communicating through the mailing list and sharing their code through the repository. It is very important to discuss *every* issue on the mailing list
I have the list of members on the mailing list and your email is not amongst them. So it would be a good idea to first join the mailing list and then judge on the asumtions.
I had posted a mail both on the old googlegroups mailing list and this mailing list about the 2 new mailing lists and discussions have since then moved to that server.
Subscribed to the users list. Dev list is still not setup.
regarding the code, Every change is committed and the details of the commit are posted to the mailing list (that is if one sees the mailing list ). Regarding the svn server, it has been pritty unstable these days and we are looking for another good server. Never the less it is working good now. So people who want check the source code. happy hacking. Krishnakant.
On Wednesday 27 May 2009, jtd wrote:
On Wednesday 27 May 2009, Krishnakant wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 12:30 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
one problem is that the developers are probably all sitting in the same room. The have to get out of the habit of talking to each other and into the habit of communicating through the mailing list and sharing their code through the repository. It is very important to discuss *every* issue on the mailing list
I have the list of members on the mailing list and your email is not amongst them. So it would be a good idea to first join the mailing list and then judge on the asumtions.
I had posted a mail both on the old googlegroups mailing list and this mailing list about the 2 new mailing lists and discussions have since then moved to that server.
Subscribed to the users list. Dev list is still not setup.
Sorry. dev list is up. Subscribed.
-- Rgds JTD
jtd, You need not be sorry. It is my mistake that I did not announce this on the users mailing list. happy hacking. Krishnakant.
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 14:26 +0530, jtd wrote:
On Wednesday 27 May 2009, jtd wrote:
On Wednesday 27 May 2009, Krishnakant wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 12:30 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
one problem is that the developers are probably all sitting in the same room. The have to get out of the habit of talking to each other and into the habit of communicating through the mailing list and sharing their code through the repository. It is very important to discuss *every* issue on the mailing list
I have the list of members on the mailing list and your email is not amongst them. So it would be a good idea to first join the mailing list and then judge on the asumtions.
I had posted a mail both on the old googlegroups mailing list and this mailing list about the 2 new mailing lists and discussions have since then moved to that server.
Subscribed to the users list. Dev list is still not setup.
Sorry. dev list is up. Subscribed.
-- Rgds JTD
-- Rgds JTD
On Wednesday 27 May 2009, Krishnakant wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 12:30 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
one problem is that the developers are probably all sitting in the same room. The have to get out of the habit of talking to each other and into the habit of communicating through the mailing list and sharing their code through the repository. It is very important to discuss *every* issue on the mailing list
I have the list of members on the mailing list and your email is not amongst them. So it would be a good idea to first join the mailing list and then judge on the asumtions.
Totally agree with this.
On Thursday 28 May 2009 08:13:55 Arun Khan wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 12:30 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
one problem is that the developers are probably all sitting in the same room. The have to get out of the habit of talking to each other and into the habit of communicating through the mailing list and sharing their code through the repository. It is very important to discuss *every* issue on the mailing list
I have the list of members on the mailing list and your email is not amongst them. So it would be a good idea to first join the mailing list and then judge on the asumtions.
Totally agree with this.
totally disagree with this. My point is that this software has been under development for a year or so - and has been developed using the proprietary model. I looked at the mailing list archives and do not see one year's discussion there. The strength of free software is not that the code is released, rather it is the fact that the *full* development takes place transparently in public and the public can share in it from the word go.
On Thursday 28 May 2009, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Thursday 28 May 2009 08:13:55 Arun Khan wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 12:30 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
one problem is that the developers are probably all sitting in the same room. The have to get out of the habit of talking to each other and into the habit of communicating through the mailing list and sharing their code through the repository. It is very important to discuss *every* issue on the mailing list
I have the list of members on the mailing list and your email is not amongst them. So it would be a good idea to first join the mailing list and then judge on the asumtions.
Totally agree with this.
totally disagree with this. My point is that this software has been under development for a year or so - and has been developed using the proprietary model. I looked at the mailing list archives and do not see one year's discussion there. The strength of free software is not that the code is released, rather it is the fact that the *full* development takes place transparently in public and the public can share in it from the word go. --
Right and IIRC, the point had been made earlier in the discussion. The project's developer mailing list is the forum; what is there or not there is water under the bridge.
Moving on, one can either keep viewing the "half glass of water" as half empty or as half full and an opportunity to fill it with one's experience and mentoring.
On Sunday 31 May 2009 18:22:08 Arun Khan wrote:
totally disagree with this. My point is that this software has been under development for a year or so - and has been developed using the proprietary model. I looked at the mailing list archives and do not see one year's discussion there. The strength of free software is not that the code is released, rather it is the fact that the *full* development takes place transparently in public and the public can share in it from the word go. --
Right and IIRC, the point had been made earlier in the discussion. Â The project's developer mailing list is the forum; what is there or not there is water under the bridge.
Moving on, one can either keep viewing the "half glass of water" as half empty or as half full and an opportunity to fill it with one's experience and mentoring.
I wonder why Indians tend to get defensive when faced with constructive criticism? You would think I am an enemy of the project.
On Monday 01 Jun 2009, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Sunday 31 May 2009 18:22:08 Arun Khan wrote:
totally disagree with this. My point is that this software has been under development for a year or so - and has been developed using the proprietary model. I looked at the mailing list archives and do not see one year's discussion there. The strength of free software is not that the code is released, rather it is the fact that the *full* development takes place transparently in public and the public can share in it from the word go. --
Right and IIRC, the point had been made earlier in the discussion. Â The project's developer mailing list is the forum; what is there or not there is water under the bridge.
Moving on, one can either keep viewing the "half glass of water" as half empty or as half full and an opportunity to fill it with one's experience and mentoring.
I wonder why Indians tend to get defensive when faced with constructive criticism? You would think I am an enemy of the project.
What is so defensive about asking you to join the developer's mailing list?
I would not classify your comments "as an enemy" of the project but your criticism do come across as inordinate.
Nobody is perfect. IYO, there may have been short comings but that is water under the bridge.
Please get involved in the project if you are serious about helping this project.
hello just a few points and I won't like to repeat this again and again for waisting bandwidth of the members of this list. 1, such discussions should move to the gnukhata mailing lists. 2, Please look at the source code and look at the copyright notices. Also look at the official web site and Please make a judgement whether the software is free or not. I mean does it hert to make a software GPL v3? 3, We did not have a mail server for a long time and now we have it. So just for keeping with the rules of free software and *not* proprietory, we had to start a mailing list any ways and we used googlegroups and most of the interesting stuff is lying there. We have off late good constructive feedback from testers (Thanks Mehul and others).
and last point, I believe those of you who are really serious about the project's success, Please help us out with the things needed such as helping to build packages in deb and rpm and provide some accounting domain for more severe testing. Again the source code is GPL V3 so feel free to download and check it.
happy hacking. Krishnakant.
On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 13:27 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Sunday 31 May 2009 18:22:08 Arun Khan wrote:
totally disagree with this. My point is that this software has been under development for a year or so - and has been developed using the proprietary model. I looked at the mailing list archives and do not see one year's discussion there. The strength of free software is not that the code is released, rather it is the fact that the *full* development takes place transparently in public and the public can share in it from the word go. --
Right and IIRC, the point had been made earlier in the discussion. The project's developer mailing list is the forum; what is there or not there is water under the bridge.
Moving on, one can either keep viewing the "half glass of water" as half empty or as half full and an opportunity to fill it with one's experience and mentoring.
I wonder why Indians tend to get defensive when faced with constructive criticism? You would think I am an enemy of the project. -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
On Tuesday 02 June 2009, Krishnakant wrote:
hello just a few points and I won't like to repeat this again and again for waisting bandwidth of the members of this list. 1, such discussions should move to the gnukhata mailing lists.
Your mail to 'Gnukhata-devel' with the subject
Nightly builds
Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.
The reason it is being held:
Post by non-member to a members-only list
I subscribed and received a confirm subscription mail,
On Wednesday 27 May 2009, gnukhata-devel-request@cis-india.org wrote:
Mailing list subscription confirmation notice for mailing list Gnukhata-devel
We have received a request from 121.245.161.9 for subscription of your email address, "jtd@mtnl.net.in", to the gnukhata-devel@cis-india.org mailing list. To confirm that you want to be added to this mailing list, simply reply to this message, keeping the Subject: header intact. Or visit this web page:
To which i duly replied.
Re: confirm c8f44272ae7dd0f9e09fd98b68fef8db74c6febc From: jtd jtd@sparc.net To: gnukhata-devel-request@cis-india.org
However i did not receive a welcome or refused mail.
Something is borked.
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 09:22 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
even now it is open software being developed in a closed manner. I see a lot of this going on - the idea of commit early commit often and of having the bleeding edge stuff in trunk (even if half of it is not working) is foreign to a lot of people. They want to release only when it is 'perfect' or 'complete'. Forgetting that no software is ever perfect or complete.
I think judgements of these types can be only made after realling testing the source code as per the directions given by the developres for downloading and installation. if the above asumtion was right, then one would not see more than a couple of commits (that too small ones ) every few hours on the svn repo.
Also if the source code was supposed to be close, we would never let people test the code. And not to forget that the code commits are followed up with posting on the mailing list and many-a-times followed with a list of errors. It is just the matter of really following the mailing list which is one important part of "foss " development.
The advantage of the open manner of development is that one gets feedback on every change made - rather than feedback when it is too late to make changes.
WE do get feedback and I would like to again remind "follow the mailing list". happy hacking. Krishnakant.
-- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 08:15 +0530, jtd wrote:
Havent started as yet. In the middle of shifting office premises. Hope to start testing both by the weekend. BTW I had tried to check out GNU-khata a few months back, but could not find the code or licence afair. Afair i thought it was a "closed" software being developed "secretly".
go to http://gnukhata.gnulinux.in and your misunderstandings will be cleared. Secondly checkout the source code and look at the top of every file. happy hacking. Krishnakant.
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 6:10 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
and how is your installation of AVsap going?
I have checked out the source and installed avsap but haven't installed psycopg1. Any plans of moving it to psycopg2 anytime soon?
On Wednesday 27 May 2009 08:18:01 Mehul Ved wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 6:10 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org
wrote:
and how is your installation of AVsap going?
I have checked out the source and installed avsap but haven't installed psycopg1. Any plans of moving it to psycopg2 anytime soon?
no - it would take less than a minute to install psycopg1.
let alone psycopg1, even psycopg2 is having problems and we have already burnt our fingers with it. pygresql is a very good module for postgresql. happy hacking. Krishnakant.
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 09:22 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Wednesday 27 May 2009 08:18:01 Mehul Ved wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 6:10 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org
wrote:
and how is your installation of AVsap going?
I have checked out the source and installed avsap but haven't installed psycopg1. Any plans of moving it to psycopg2 anytime soon?
no - it would take less than a minute to install psycopg1.
regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
On Wednesday 27 May 2009 13:11:17 Krishnakant wrote:
let alone psycopg1, even psycopg2 is having problems and we have already burnt our fingers with it. pygresql is a very good module for postgresql.
pyscopg1.x is ok and stable - that is why I never shifted to psycopg2
jtd wrote:
On Sunday 24 May 2009, Rony wrote:
jtd wrote:
On Sunday 24 May 2009, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Saturday 23 May 2009 23:37:58 Rony wrote:
> Given a choice between different software, companies will choose > software that is easier to deploy and maintain > some companies
many companies.
badly run companies.
I would not term them "badly" run - more like not IT savvy. Their core competencies are elsewhere and very many are excellent in their arenas. But not knowing facts about FLOSS makes them very vulnerable. Many try very hard to plug in the gaping holes with all sorts of hardware and software.
Its not about FLOSS or closed software but the ease at which the software can be installed and maintained by the user company.
Closed software is an absolute nightmare to maintain.. Even installation of something like AV is a major hassle (as witnessed by me, as a spectator). Reinstall - clash with another AV - uninstall both - reinstall, no go - call up vendor - appear mumbling idiot - uninstall - reinstall - ....... 2 days to install AV. AND in the end problems with ERP. BTW the first AV was a licenced version which failed to prevent some worm or the other. And (funnily) an older employee remembered that the 2nd one (now reincarnated) was dumped because of the same reason.
True. If an AV is compared to a security guard and the pc is the home, the older guards stood outside the house guarding it. Now the new ones want to enter every room, even the bedroom and God only know where else. ;-)
A developer cannot force a complex installation on the target company simply because a simpler method was not developed. The one who develops a simpler method will get more preference.
True. But "simpler" is a very relative term even within an os's reference frame. What matters more than anything else is stability.
Even if you had a one click install on doze, the OS limitations would trump any easy installation procedure.
Why should FOSS always get associated with something that is not easy to setup whereas doze automatically is assumed to be one touch? Why not have one touch installation in FOSS?
On Wednesday 27 May 2009, Rony wrote:
jtd wrote:
On Sunday 24 May 2009, Rony wrote:
jtd wrote:
On Sunday 24 May 2009, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Saturday 23 May 2009 23:37:58 Rony wrote:
>> Given a choice between different software, companies will choose >> software that is easier to deploy and maintain > > some companies
many companies.
badly run companies.
I would not term them "badly" run - more like not IT savvy. Their core competencies are elsewhere and very many are excellent in their arenas. But not knowing facts about FLOSS makes them very vulnerable. Many try very hard to plug in the gaping holes with all sorts of hardware and software.
Its not about FLOSS or closed software but the ease at which the software can be installed and maintained by the user company.
Closed software is an absolute nightmare to maintain.. Even installation of something like AV is a major hassle (as witnessed by me, as a spectator). Reinstall - clash with another AV - uninstall both - reinstall, no go - call up vendor - appear mumbling idiot - uninstall - reinstall - ....... 2 days to install AV. AND in the end problems with ERP. BTW the first AV was a licenced version which failed to prevent some worm or the other. And (funnily) an older employee remembered that the 2nd one (now reincarnated) was dumped because of the same reason.
True. If an AV is compared to a security guard and the pc is the home, the older guards stood outside the house guarding it. Now the new ones want to enter every room, even the bedroom and God only know where else. ;-)
A developer cannot force a complex installation on the target company simply because a simpler method was not developed. The one who develops a simpler method will get more preference.
True. But "simpler" is a very relative term even within an os's reference frame. What matters more than anything else is stability.
Even if you had a one click install on doze, the OS limitations would trump any easy installation procedure.
Why should FOSS always get associated with something that is not easy to setup whereas doze automatically is assumed to be one touch? Why not have one touch installation in FOSS?
there are innumerable one touch installs. But there are many which require complex decisions, and making assumptions about a users wants results in mayhem. Eg. the "stupid" changing of eth number if the nic is changed. Which results in the nic not getting an ip and writing or removing dev rules.
On Wednesday 27 May 2009 22:16:17 Rony wrote:
Even if you had a one click install on doze, the OS limitations would trump any easy installation procedure.
Why should FOSS always get associated with something that is not easy to setup whereas doze automatically is assumed to be one touch? Why not have one touch installation in FOSS?
just a question of priorities. We are more interested in getting the software to work - and work properly than in one-touch installs. However there are tools like urpmi and apt-get and yum and emerge which are all one-touch install tools. You will find however that it is very rare for the authors of the software to maintain these - packaging is usually done by 3rd parties. You could try out these tools - many of them have graphical interfaces which makes the installs for the vast majority of FOSS software one-click installs. It is very rare that one has to go through the './configure - make - make install route'.
I hear rumours that the latest versions of urpmi and apt-get and yum even list out and install dependencies. I know it is difficult to believe, but I have been informed of this fact by usually reliable people. Perhaps you could investigate and confirm or deny these rumours?
On Thursday 28 May 2009, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Wednesday 27 May 2009 22:16:17 Rony wrote:
Even if you had a one click install on doze, the OS limitations would trump any easy installation procedure.
Why should FOSS always get associated with something that is not easy to setup whereas doze automatically is assumed to be one touch? Why not have one touch installation in FOSS?
just a question of priorities. We are more interested in getting the software to work - and work properly than in one-touch installs. However there are tools like urpmi and apt-get and yum and emerge which are all one-touch install tools. You will find however that it is very rare for the authors of the software to maintain these - packaging is usually done by 3rd parties. You could try out these tools - many of them have graphical interfaces which makes the installs for the vast majority of FOSS software one-click installs. It is very rare that one has to go through the './configure - make - make install route'.
I hear rumours that the latest versions of urpmi and apt-get and yum even list out and install dependencies. I know it is difficult to believe, but I have been informed of this fact by usually reliable people. Perhaps you could investigate and confirm or deny these rumours?
Apt always listed and installed dependencies. Of course one can always force an install if one is ready for a herculean fight.
Also as you point out packaging is the distro maintainers responsibility.
In the case of khata given it's target audience, a simple install would be ideal. Since the app is beta at this stage, hence unlikely to be included in any distro, and the people who could contribute (accountants) anything but tech savvy, the dev team will have to take the onus and release official betas. Something like automated nightly builds would be in order.
Which brings up the issue of available infrastructure. What is the available infrastructure?
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Rony gnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
Why should FOSS always get associated with something that is not easy to setup whereas doze automatically is assumed to be one touch? Why not have one touch installation in FOSS?
http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/software-installation-in-linux-is-diffic...
On Thu, May 28, 2009 8:31 am, Mehul Ved wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Rony gnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
Why should FOSS always get associated with something that is not easy to setup whereas doze automatically is assumed to be one touch? Why not have one touch installation in FOSS?
http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/software-installation-in-linux-is-diffic...
+1 :D Was just going to reply to this thread with verbal diarrhea and abuse - recalling the days of downloading .exe files, running 5 virus scans on them, praying to Bill Gates before installing, etc.. but the link puts it quite well :-) And really, ./configure make make install even, imo, is not nearly half as bad as the ugly feeling in the pit of your stomach when you double-click something and have no idea what code you're running on your machine. Anyways - my two bits, Sanjay
--
Push where it gives and scratch where it itches. - http://kingsly.net/tmp/fortune.php/1243419108 -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Mehul Ved wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Rony gnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
Why should FOSS always get associated with something that is not easy to setup whereas doze automatically is assumed to be one touch? Why not have one touch installation in FOSS?
http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/software-installation-in-linux-is-diffic...
Ask the author to install Firefox 3 in Kubuntu 7.X or 8.x series or in Etch KDE. Or let him install OpenOffice 3 in Ubuntu 8.04. Let him try to install software and higher versions that are not included in the apt repo.
By one touch install I don't mean that no choices will be given along the way or no questions will be asked. By one touch I mean not having to tinker around with various libraries or support software before installing the main one. Upgrading from OpenOffice 2.x to 3.x is easy in Windows XP (2002 version) which is much older than Ubuntu 8.04 but try doing the same in Ubuntu 8.04. If anyone can accept the challenge, please post the procedure for me as it will save me from having to remove all the existing 8.04s on 7 machines and 5 laptops at an office and installing Ubuntu 9.04 which comes with OOo3.x.
-
Arun Khan -
jtd -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
Krishnakant -
Mehul Ved -
Pravin Dhayfule -
Rony -
Sanjay B -
scrapo -
Surya Pratap