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. The reason for
using Open Source was so that they could customize it to fit their
specific needs... Did you read the article Mavrick? It was about
flexability, not cost. 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. 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:
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.
3) it blew the doors of sugar on performance.
> 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.
> 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?
> 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?
> 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"
--
Tom Shelton
|
|
