Tom Shelton wrote:
On Apr 12, 11:39 pm, Maverick <S...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tom Shelton wrote:
On Apr 11, 8:18 pm, Maverick <S...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tom Shelton wrote:
On Apr 10, 11:04 am, Maverick <S...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
On 2007-04-09, Maverick <S...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
The open
source version of SplendidCRM is written in C# using Microsoft .NET
Framework 2.0 and Microsoft SQL Server 2000.
The article never said it was... it just said that it was
".NET-centric". Which isn't what you seem to think. Reread the article.
A quote from the article (underlining added):
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."
And written using PHP. Not my choice... but again, you like to take
things out of context. READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE IN ITS ENTIRETY!
So typical of M$ apologists that can't stand open Source software.
No - Splendid is writen in C#. The CRM the replaced, Sugar, is
written in PHP. Basically, if you read the article they are saying
Sugar (a php/mysql app) sucked (for them) - so the replaced it with
a .net/sqlserver app (Splendid). How did you get that so backwards?
And after reading that, it is a trivial matter to check for sure by
going to Splendid's site.
Very trivial... written in PHP according to the article.
No. Written in C#. Sugar - the app they ditched was PHP.
Have you ever considered actually reading the stories that Roy links to?
I've read the story very closely, timmy.
Evidently not.
And evidently that fall on you head when you were born made you stupid too.
Ouch. Look Maverick - Tim is correct in this instance. I would stop
if I were you and carefully re-read the article, it's headline, and
then check out sugar and splendid's web sites.
Erm... look at the article a bit closer. Doesn't the title say "Open
source SplendidCRM"?
Yes, so? SplendidCRM is open source - but it is written in C#, using
SQLServer on the back end. Geeze, dude it would take you about 5
minutes to find this out if you would just visit the SplendidCRM site.
In this case they Promero (the .NET-centric saas provider), from
SugarCRM (an open source php based CRM), to SplendidCRM (an open
source .net based CRM).
They were looking to reduce license costs, and Open source software fits
the bill.
Licensing cost is NEVER mentioned in the article.
Yes it was. Go read it again. It was one of the items mentioned.
You are correct. I some how missed that. Sorry.
The reason for
using Open Source was so that they could customize it to fit their
specific needs... Did you read the article Mavrick?
Very thouroughly. I read the stupid thing 4 different times forwards
and backwards and sideways.
It was about
flexability, not cost.
You better read it again. Use your browsers "Find in this page" if you
have to.
They used Sugar (a php based crm) for six
months, and decided it was to slugish, and wasn't a good fit because
of the fact their developers were .NET guys.
Yes, that I got from it as well.
It was taking them time
to come up to speed on php. Then they found Splendid - also an open
source application, and switched to it because:
And that was what Roy was getting at -->"OPEN SOURCE SWITCH".
They had already switched to an open source product - sugar. Really,
they switched from one OSS to another.
That's what made the whole article really confusing. Maybe I should
have stayed in Boston and became a lawyer... but my conscience wouldn't
let me.
1) it was open source so it provided them the ability to customize it
to their specific needs (the primary reason they went with an open
source product).
2) it was .net, so they already had the in house experience.
Even tho it says it is .net , doesn't mean you have to use a Closed
source method to develop it that way. Correct?
I'm not sure what you mean? If you mean, that because you use C#/.NET
to develop an application that it has to be proprietary - then no.
Yes, that was my point.
I don't know what linux app can do that, as I don't do C# or .NET stuff.
You can do what ever you want with your source.
Yeup. :-)
3) it blew the doors of sugar on performance.
I saw that as well.
All minor details of the article in my opinion.
The main point was open source.
The article is poorly written and loaded with ambiguities and
just about takes a boston lawyer to ferret it out.
Actually, it is very clear and concise. I'm not sure why your having
so much difficulty.
No, it was a very poorly written article in that they didn't clarify the
open source aspect of the .net-centric application... this is what
caused Erik and Timmy to jump on Roy.
No - what caused them to jump on Roy was his "Company Dumps .NET
Software". That is not at all what happend.
I looked at post #1 again and the unquoted part should have been quoted.
The articles main title said it in a strange way.
Actually, the author wasn't concise and to the point.
The articles and news in general these days seems to be getting more and
more inaccurate. Quite frankly, I don't trust blogs or the news
anymore. Hard to tell if they are telling the truth or not.
It says one thing and yet says another.
No it doesn't. It says that they found a good fit in a .net based
open source product. What's the problem? Are you saying that .NET
applications can't be open source?
Nope. I didn't say that, but Erik and Timmy saw it that way. You and I
don't see it that way either. Just those two.
The only two things it did say directly was that
it was open source and that the cost is lower.
It NEVER mentions any cost. Did you read the article? really?
I quote: "In order to make the customization process more flexible, and
save money on licensing fees, Schepis decided to take a look at open
source."
Did you read it thouroughly as you think you did?
Apparently not :( I don't know how I missed that. Still, it seems
more of a secondary concern. The main reason they dumped the
propriatary products was their need to modify and customize them.
Oh, a secondary concern no doubt. Making things easier seems to have a
double edged sword these days. Make it too easy then the same people
trying to make changes don't seem to have the skills to do so.
I'm glad I retired from that field over a decade ago.
But no biggie.
It also said that the product better integrates with MS platforms.
Because it is a .NET application...
"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"
Of course... this is what threw Erik and Timmy. They claimed that
SplendidCRM was not open source.
What I think they were complaing about was that Roy's title is not a
reflection of reality. Yes, they found happiness in an open source
product - but they didn't dump .NET, they embraced it.
No, they didn't dump .NET, just tried to get an open source solution to
do the job that they wanted it to do. If they could've afforded it,
they'd have just used an all MS specific route instead.
I think that since Roy posts so many [news] articles that it sort of
gets their goat after a while. I just look for anything new that is
happening in general. The only thing really new is what Intel is now
doing with their new quad-core cpus and their own compilers in the realm
of parallelism to get the most out of the new quad-core cpus.
--
Tom Shelton
|
|
