Tom Shelton wrote:
On Apr 15, 11:39 am, Maverick <S...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
In article <dL6dnfO4kbGrr7zbnZ2dnUVZ_rDin...@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Maverick <S...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Show me where he stated this?
"Company Dumps .NET Software". Right there in the "Subject" line.
Written by Roy.
And also in the article.
Where is it in the article? Since you apparently haven't actually READ
the article, allow me to quote the whole thing for you:
Open source SplendidCRM a sweet alternative for ".Net-centric" SAAS provider
April 06, 2007 (8:01:00 PM)
By: Tina Gasperson
A "Microsoft-centric" call center solution provider called Promero worked
mostly with proprietary applications, offering them as hosted
software-as-a-service products. When it decided to create a custom
replacement by cobbling together an existing CRM package and its own
lead-generating application, CTO Roman Schepis quickly discovered that the
only way to go was to use an open source CRM application.
Promero calls itself an on-demand provider of customer relationship
management software, which is hosted on its own servers. Users can log on
from anywhere in the world, using any kind of platform. The custom software
includes a virtual call center and autodialer from Oracle, Promero's ProStar
CRM, which is a spin-off of SplendidCRM, and Promero's own iLeadMachine,
which manages leads and provides analysis and reports. Promero uses this
software internally to generate and manage leads, and it also sells the
software to other companies that operate on a telemarketing model.
Originally, Promero tried using proprietary CRMs such as Onyx. "It was a nice
product," Schepis says, "but it was kind of heavy lifting to get it deployed
for each client." Because the code wasn't open, Promero had to rely on the
vendor for changes.
In order to make the customization process more flexible, and save money on
licensing fees, Schepis decided to take a look at open source. "In 2006 we
implemented SugarCRM and we tested that for about six months," he says. But
Sugar didn't go over well with Promero's .Net-experienced team of developers.
"It was a challenge doing PHP," Schepis says. "It was more difficult for our
developers; we had to go out and buy PHP for Dummies and start from scratch.
Even though there are a lot of support groups out there, because of the
learning curve our cycle to get things done was extended. It wasn't a good
fit."
Still, the fact that Schepis' team wasn't comfortable with the new
development environment wasn't a deal breaker. "We were almost OK to live
with the learning curve," he says, but the real problem was that Sugar's
native PHP code didn't run well on Promero's server platform. "We were
receiving leads and doing sales activities. We probably could have thrown
lots of hardware at it and made it run faster, but it was just too sluggish
in a hosted environment."
Schepis was determined to find an open source product suited to his purposes,
"because we wanted to use it for the integration. We had a need to integrate
the on-demand product in a way that wasn't exorbitantly expensive." The next
product Schepis tried was the SplendidCRM. He was pleased. "It has additional
features and some higher level functions than Sugar," he says. "And it is
.Net-centric, so it is a clean fit."
Schepis says that Splendid's focus on Microsoft platforms made it simple to
deploy and maintain. "It runs a lot faster on the same hardware," he says.
"All of our users were very excited to see that performance increase. And
because it is a .Net and SQL Server back end, we can do native integration,
where with Sugar we had to do some middleware stuff."
Schepis says he learned a valuable lesson during this process. "The alignment
of the underlying technology with your company's internal strengths and
knowledge is the most important thing. We tried using PHP and MySQL and
Apache -- it was pretty much foreign to us. We found success with open source
by using what our guys know how to use."
Now that he's gained some practical experience with an open source
application, Schepis says he'd use it again. "So long as there's existing
knowledge, or an easy way to get up to speed, there's no difference between
using open source and commercial. Actually, there's an additional benefit,
because you have access to the source and the licensing fees are much lower.
Just make sure you set your expectations in line with the experience level of
the people who are going to implement it for you."
They did not dump .NET software. In fact, they evaluated non-.NET
software, and decided to go with .NET software. This is the *opposite*
of what Roy's headline claims.
They used "OPEN SOURCE"!!!!!
Hmmm? What does that have to do with anything.
A lot. It means that they don't have to pay the M$ tax er... license
fees. This saves them money, which OpenSource will do.
For christ sake, Timmy, go learn how to read.
Tom and I have already figured it out, but you and the rest of the
wintrolls haven't. You continue with your pointless and lowlife attacks.
Hold on... I haven't agreed with you on anything except that 1) that
licensing cost was a part of the decision to use OSS and 2) that they
used OSS. You are wrong on every other point. The fact is that the
company did not dump .net software. They just ended up with .net open
source software - still .net. That makes the "Company Dumps .NET
Software" part of Roy's title inaccurate... If anything Roy should
have made the title - "Company Dumps non-.NET software, finds
happiness in open source". Like I said, I'm not sure I would go as
far as to call that a "lie" - but a basic reading of the article does
highlight the fact that Roy isn't very accurate in his reporting.
You mean that the author isn't very good at writing up the article.
Like I said, it is vaguely written and jumps around like a hot jumping bean.
I'd like to see anybody here post that many articles to your so called
standards of accuracy everyday. Once in a while he will make a mistake.
Who knows,... maybe he is working his way to a career in journalism.
Even the big time newspapers on many occasions make errors. All I see
is timmy and erik do a lot of ankle biting trying to defend MS and
anything to do with their product line.
Roy didn't make it up, nor did he deliberately lied. If anything he got
duped by a poorly written article.
|
|
