[Ldsoss] Scout Tracking

[Tom Welch]

I've been using Derby but have recently switched to H2 Database (http://www.h2database.com).  I've found it to be easy to work with, administer and since it can run in either embedded or client/server mode, it allows for scalability.  Also, and as important, it supports hibernate which if you write to hibernate instead of the DB directly, allows you to switch DB's under the hood very easily.  Derby's support for Hibernate is not certified. 
 
Tom 
>>>Steven H. McCown <smccown at earthlink.net> 07/08/06 8:08 am >>> 
 
Since I didn't state my preferred opinion, you don't really know whether the 
 
stated tools are or are not my favorite.  I intentionally didn't discuss 
 
that, because I didn't want to have a 'personal favorites' discussion. 
 
 
The real point of my post was that the #1 requirement stated for this type 
 
of project is that it be open source.  The proposed solution fully meets the 
 
requirement.  
 
 
The #2 requirement stated was that the application be accessible to 
 
everyone.  That's the whole point of my post.  In choosing the 
 
tools/environment that were chosen, this requirement was completely set 
 
aside. 
 
 
An estimated 90% of home users do not use Linux.  Even though MySQL is 
 
available under Windows, most users will not want to install and maintain 
 
it.  Someone recommended an embedded database such as Derby.  That would 
 
take away the need for the user to be aware of and run database system 
 
software.  Someone else mentioned that Java was supporting embedded 
 
databases natively in the upcoming version.  
 
 
So why does any of this matter?  OSS'ers typically write code out of 
 
personal interest or a hobby.  This is wonderful.  They also use the tools 
 
that they know or more likely *prefer*.  
 
 
Since the requirement/goal/whatever was that the software be accessible to 
 
all church users and non-church users, shouldn't the platform and tools 
 
choice reflect *their preferences*???  Shouldn't we go where the users are? 
 
Where they are likely to be?  What are they more likely to use?  What are 
 
their tolerances? 
 
 
There's a tired old cliché about a guy who lost some money and was looking 
 
for it under a lamp post instead of where he lost it, as it was easier to 
 
see under the light.  It seems to me that if the goal is to reach all 
 
potential users, then the choice of tools and platform should consider their 
 
needs and preferences -- not, necessarily, the developers.  
 
 
If the goal is to fulfill personal satisfaction through completing a project 
 
and hopefully help a few others in the process, then choosing whatever 
 
method is great.  If the goal is to reach the largest number of Scout 
 
Leaders, then perhaps their needs should be considered a bit.  
 
 
The 'best' technology isn't always the best for the user... 
 
 
Steve 
 
 
 
-----Original Message----- 
 
From: Charles Fry [mailto:ldsoss at frogcircus.org] 
 
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 8:33 AM 
 
To: smccown at earthlink.net; LDS Open Source Software 
 
Subject: Re: [Ldsoss] Scout Tracking 
 
 
But why does any of this matter, Steven? I don't see why so many get so 
 
blocked up at the prospect of a project that doesn't conform to their 
 
personal preferences. Even if you are right (which is irrelevant for 
 
this argument), what will it hurt for this project to be pushed to 
 
completion? That would certainly be better than the current state where 
 
all that has happened is talk about perfect solutions. If someone wants 
 
a Windows app, they should go write one. If they want a web app, they 
 
should go write one. One doesn't preclude the other. In the end they 
 
might even find ways to get along. If anyone has sufficient desire and 
 
energy to create it, that is already justification enough to move 
 
forward. 
 
 
And who doesn't benefit from some healthy competition? We already have 
 
both PAF and PhpGedView; Linux, BSD, and Hurd; Thunderbird, Evolution, 
 
and SquirrelMail; mutt and pine; vi and emacs (cringe); Eclipse and 
 
NetBeans. The list goes on and on and on. 
 
 
I welcome diversity in LDS software. I think we need a lot more of it, 
 
even if it isn't perfect. Even if it doesn't meet everyone's needs. With 
 
time some projects may become more dominant than others, some may 
 
attract more developers, and some may become officially sanctioned by 
 
the Church. But while we wait to see what happens, we should be 
 
littering the web with projects, rather than waiting for the millennium 
 
before we finally start our first one. 
 
 
Charles 
 
 
 
 
Ldsoss mailing list 
 
Ldsoss at lists.ldsoss.org 
 
http://lists.ldsoss.org/mailman/listinfo/ldsoss 
 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the
 intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
 privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
 disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
 intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email
 and destroy all copies of the original message.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ldsoss.org/pipermail/ldsoss/attachments/20060709/58c8b324/attachment.html