Dismiss Notice
Welcome to Our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.

Small Business Accounting Software For Linux

Discussion in 'General Marketing' started by Alexandru Ungur, Jan 4, 2005.

  1. Alexandru Ungur

    Alexandru Ungur New Member Webmaster

    Choosing small business or personal accounting software seems relatively simple: evaluate features, ease of use, price, support--the usual things. The one factor that can really drive you nuts is migrating away from an existing installation.

    Intuit dominates the small business/personal finance market with Quicken and QuickBooks, and for good reasons. They have short learning curves, nice clean interfaces, and they allow people who are not accountants to manage their own finances. And, unlike so much accounting software, they are reasonably priced. It is not uncommon to find hard-core Linux users keeping a Windows box just to run Quicken or QuickBooks.

    So why should anyone even consider migrating away from Quicken/QuickBooks (or other Windows accounting program) to a Linux accounting program?

    * Using Linux equals greater stability and security. Given Windows' worsening security record, this is a primary consideration.
    * Standardize on a single platform for lower licensing costs and simpler administration.
    * Data are not held hostage to a closed, proprietary format. Quicken uses the QIF (Quicken Interchange Format) format, which is widely supported, so migrating Quicken data is usually simple. QuickBooks is another story- it supports only its own QBB and IIF formats. Users who want to export their QuickBooks data must use a third-party conversion utility.
    * Preference for Free/Open Source code. (Note that not all Linux accounting software is F/OSS.)

    Read the full story:
  2. temi

    temi Facilitator Webmaster

    I'm really pleased that Linux continues its march to becoming a regular desktop software. Only a few years ago you cannot get application like this on Linux which is one of the reasons Linux was not enjoying a faster take up that it deserves
  3. Alexandru Ungur

    Alexandru Ungur New Member Webmaster

    Well it couldn't have been done all at once. First there was needed a solid foundation, which Linux is quite for a while. It's only after that that good application start to flow in... and they sure are flowin' now... :) Success stories are everywhere about Linux... I mean even Bill Gates started to mimic some of Open Source ideas :) :) :) which is rather funny considering what he feels for Open Source.... I refer here to the "Shared Source" original (yeah, as original as their GUI is....) Bill Gates concept, which is a poor replica of Open Source concept...
    But let's just forget about Bill, this is a Linux forum after all :)

    I started today to post success stories about people using Linux.... and I'll definitely continue doing that, so everyone will finally see what Linux means, not just to me, but to people everywhere.


    P.S. On one server I manage I just got 10,000 Zafi.D virused emails in the past 30 days... now those people are really happy there's a Linux box in front of their LAN... So in the end, installing Linux is all about making people... happy :)
  4. temi

    temi Facilitator Webmaster

    Well, you wouldn't expect Bill gates to admin that one of its companies major competition is better would you :)
  5. Alexandru Ungur

    Alexandru Ungur New Member Webmaster

    I dunno, maybe... maybe not. You see, throwing with dirt on competition - as Bill does - is not the only way of dealing with it, and most probably, not the best...
    Take IBM for example: they did have (and still do) their own OS, applications they were selling, etc. but that did NOT stop them from embracing Open Source movement. Not they did not try to make harder for the two OSs to coexist, but they actually did put a lot of work to make them run toghether as smooth as possible. You can run Linux together with AIX on IBM servers like it was born there...
    And the last step they did, is quite impressive:
    They turned their patent portofolio to Open Source!
    source: sourcelicense.com/?q=node/9

    Maybe they are stupid... stupid enough to believe that cooperation is better than a marketing war bullshit... or maybe not... ?

    Vision... is something Bill DID have, back in the days when he started out in a garage...... but now, that garage where the future of IT is beeing written is called Open Source, and Bill... is definitely not on that garage.
  6. Paul_KY

    Paul_KY New Member Webmaster

    Right, Alex, Bill did have vision. And, again, you are correct in your assessment, he's promoting his vision to this very day, still.

    You're starting to come around, Alex. What a fine young recruit we have, indeed.
  7. Alexandru Ungur

    Alexandru Ungur New Member Webmaster

    I don't have anything against Bill as a person, and I do know a little computer history... :) However I do have something against his practices... Don't get me wrong, making money is good, making billions is even better, but...

    Let me just show you a little story, it goes like this:
    Windows Workstation:
    OS = 100$
    AV = 50$
    Office = 300$
    Total = 450$ from the start
    now add to this the cost of updates (which excuse me... but.... is outrageous!! I mean, I make a crap OS, instable, insecure and everything, and THEN, I ask even more money from people from patching, what I should have done better in the first place?!?)
    and tell me where you get.
    Now, don't get me wrong again, it's nothing wrong in paying for an OS... that actually works. :)

    Now the:
    Linux Workstation :)
    OS = free
    AV = not needed
    Office = free, included in most distributions by default
    updates for a lifetime = free
    firewall = free
    secure = yes
    can run for years without being stopped = yes

    Now multiply both figures with the size of a small to medium company... let's say 100 PCs?
    you get:
    Windows licenses cost: 45,000$
    Linux licenses cost: 0$

    hmm, I wonder what could a company do with extra 45,000$ on the IT budget.... maybe buy better hardware? or maybe save them... ? :)

    Now, in all this time, Microsoft's ads around the net, tell you that: LINUX COSTS MORE. Maybe they use a different math at Redmond, but in Romania, we still use the old math, where 1+1=2 ...

    Let me tell you another story... :)
    I went the other day to a friend of mine. He was complaining his PC is too slow, bla bla. He has a Intel Celeron at 1,7GHz with 256RAM with Windows on it, of course. I looked at it, tryied it a bit, and indeed it was kind of slow given the hardware. I have a Intel Celeron at 600MHz with 256RAM with Linux of course :), and is a damn rocket. I even ran on it 3 OSs **on the same time** once, using a virtual machine, playing with various networking configurations on it. It handled the extra load quite nice.

    Want more stories?
    Stay tuned
  8. Paul_KY

    Paul_KY New Member Webmaster

    "Want more stories?
    Stay tuned"

    Sure! Tell all the stories you like. And to be honest, they appear to be factual.

    I'm just curious though... if their product was so superior, why aren't they marketing it? And I mean, "REALLY" marketing it? Are they waiting for the good ol, "Word of Mouth" Google miracle? Waiting for others to, "Speard the good word", making them BILLIONS in stock options? Big difference between typing in a recommended search engine and switching your OS. I assume we can agree on that, correct?
  9. Alexandru Ungur

    Alexandru Ungur New Member Webmaster

    ok, here is the calculation again, remember the example with the
    45,000 cost of licenses for proprietary sowtware vs. 0.00 cost of Open Source Software/Free software. ?

    Now look at it from the other direction:

    The ones that sold 45,000 worth of software have quite some money to put back on marketing & co. while the one that gave it away for free, how much can invest back into marketing from 0,00 ?

    This is why it is not "REALLY" marketed by the "producers". The fact that still, against the ods it survived, "even without marketing" (I bet you find that a paradox :) don't you?) should tell you something...

    But real marketing is starting to happen. Companies like IBM, Novell, Oracle, HP, not to mention Red Hat and SuSE and many others are actively marketing it.

    You know what makes Open Source technology simply better?
    1. The wheel is not reinvented!
    Once a software is written everybody can have access to its source, thus deiscovering the bugs, and giving developers a chance to correct them, many are actively implying into projects offering themselves correction, etc. The software just gets better and better with the time. Now on closed source, the wheel is reinvented many times resulting in a stupid waste of resources... Programs once written are closed to the public, nobody can actually see the bugs, only 'feel' them, cannot propose suggestions, corrections, pieces of code.... The further development of closed source software depends on a handfull of people that may or may not be payed to improve it...

    2. Passion :)
    I don't know about you, but the things I do with passion, I do best...
    Open Source projects are not assigned. People choose to do what they like, and thus, they generally do what they know best. Moreover, the code HAS to be excellent since it will be seen by a lot of eyes. On the programmers world, writting an ugly/bad program and releasing it to the public it would be like going to an important negotiation, without your suit, bare naked.... :)

    So the algorythm is good, the passion is even better. It's a winner solution I'd say.

    I'm afraid my english skills are getting a bit rusty. I did not catch the sense of the above mentioned sentence... could you explain it to me please. Thanks.

    Can I ask you a question:
    How would you market Open Source/Linux ?

Featured Resources (View All)

Share This Page