[PLUG] GnuCash

[Roderick A. Anderson]

Kris wrote:
> Rich Shepard wrote:
>>    I strongly recommend SQL-Ledger <http://www.sql-ledger.com/>. While it has
>> more bells and whistles than many of us need, it includes everything that we
>> do need. It can appear overwhelming at first because it's designed for
>> manufacturing->distribution->retailing (including POS), but it's used by a
>> very broad range of product- and service-providing businesses employing 1 to
>> many people.
> 
> Though I wouldn't give as strong a recommendation, I use SQL-Ledger for
> my company (16 person software dev/IT services).
> 
> Web based is nice as I can give our accountants/tax-people remote access
>  and is OS agnostic for the end user.
> 
> We are soon going to be using the check printing feature.
> 
> A group of people were not happy with the way the project was being run
> and forked it into LedgerSMB (http://www.ledgersmb.org/).  I have no
> experience with this and looking at the website shows the latest release
> dated 5 days ago.

LedgerSMB is sponsored (?) by Command Prompt Inc.  I talked to Josh 
Drake at the Postgresql Conference last month about LedgerSMB.  The 
community had, interestingly enough, the same concerns that I had years 
ago when I used SQL-Ledger.  These were mostly about the model.  I.e. 
money was stored as floats, no real referential integrity, etc.  The 
change log for LedgerSMB indicates even some logic/coding issues but I 
suspect they are in both SQL-Ledger and LedgerSMB.
    This is not to 'dis' Dieter.  At the time I used SQL-Ledger I had a 
payed support contact and even though I posted questions to the main 
mailing list I usually got replies from Dieter before the post had made 
it back to me.
    That is service.

I suggest you look at both.  Neither are trivial to install.


Rod
-- 
> 
> We were originally drawn to it (3 years ago) due to it being one of the
> few FOSS accounting packages out there, and it's backend was originally
> based on PostgreSQL (which were big fans of).
> 
>