[CS-FSLUG] Church Management Software

[Fred A. Miller]

EnzoAeneas wrote:
> I fell that that is akin to using Access database forms: good enough
> for most smaller and short term uses, but severely lacking when it
> comes to proper applications. And while some of that changed with .NET
> integration and Office 2007, how does one implement truly platform
> transparency? OO uses ODF  for its document encoding, which while an
> open format, is not very human readable.
> But OO does make forms, reporting, and data conversion simpler tasks.
> It is accessible from C/C++, java, and technically that can run inside
> of those or that they can access.
> 
> I would think that it would give us greater control if they OO were
> used at the framework level rather than sitting directly on top of the
> suite.
> Changes to the underlying code-based could break our forms, while
> using it at the framework-level allows us to pick and choose what
> changes we want to incorporate. Similar to using Gecko/XULRunner
> instead of Firefox.
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 11:10 PM, Fred A. Miller <fmiller at lightlink.com> wrote:
>> EnzoAeneas wrote:
>>  > I think I replied earlier, but using parts of OO is not a bad idea.
>>  > OpenOffice.org is shipped with HSQLDB as it's native database.
>>  > It is java-based, but quite versatile (it can even use text files for
>>  > storage). Another bonus is that OO Base can technically load its data
>>  > from any databse with a JDBC driver.
>>  > Using OO for report designing would save alot of time. I just don't
>>  > have any experience hacking OpenOffice, but am willing to learn.
>>  > What does everyone else think?
>> 
>>  [snip]
>>
>>  'Don't have to "hack" it. ;) You use forms creation right in base.....I
>>  can't see it being all that difficult.

True. But, upgrading from one version to another is a no-brainer for the 
users. The whole thing is simplistic, works, and isn't on the Net. With 
encouragement for those who insist on using MickySoft instead of Linux, 
they'll not have the box exposed to the Net., which adds another level 
of security.

I'm just thinking simplicity, based on all the comments I've heard over 
the years. And, once again, a LOT of these churches don't have Net. 
access and if they do, it's dial-up.

-- 
Fred  "Molon Labe"

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?