Accounting systems: a rant and a quest
Accounting systems: a rant and a quest
Posted May 9, 2012 5:36 UTC (Wed) by jcm (subscriber, #18262)Parent article: Accounting systems: a rant and a quest
Posted May 10, 2012 8:15 UTC (Thu)
by cmccabe (guest, #60281)
[Link] (8 responses)
Well, if you check out the QuickBooks EULA, you quickly find that it includes this little gem:
> TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL
So if you paid $50 for the software, that's the exact amount QuickBooks will owe you if it turns out to corrupt your files, cause the IRS to audit you, and kick your dog. See for yourself at http://www.software112.com/products/quickbooks-key+eula.html
The moral of the story is that you don't get enterprise-level support by buying shrink-wrapped software. You get enterprise-level support by paying enterprise-level prices.
Posted May 10, 2012 12:14 UTC (Thu)
by ekj (guest, #1524)
[Link] (7 responses)
Even a $10000/year license for Visma Global, will not give you a single cent from Visma if their software causes you to violate some tax-code or other law.
Yet you hear all the time that "you need proprietary software to be safe", when the reality is that paying trough the nose for proprietary stuff guarantees no such things.
Posted May 10, 2012 17:24 UTC (Thu)
by jcm (subscriber, #18262)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted May 10, 2012 19:29 UTC (Thu)
by ekj (guest, #1524)
[Link]
Software-contracts where somebody actually promises to fix things if they break, costs *MUCH* more than off-the-shelf software. Typically orders of magnitude more.
Posted May 13, 2012 18:56 UTC (Sun)
by cmccabe (guest, #60281)
[Link]
Accounting and tax software needs to be very bug-free, due to how mission-critical it is for enterprises. Commercial vendors have an incentive to make their software bug-free because otherwise their reputations are tarnished. What kind of similar incentive can we produce for open source developers of accounting and tax software?
If Red Hat or someone else were to offer a commercial support contract for some open source accounting software, Red Hat would have an obvious financial incentive to keep things working. However, support contracts only really make sense for big companies, not for small organizations like LWN.net. This would also tend to drive the developers towards implementing complex features needed by large organizations, not simple things needed by a smaller operation.
Joel Sposky wrote a pretty interesting article about the pricing of software over here: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuc.... Software offered with a proper support contract clearly falls into what he would call the expensive category.
In the end, I think that we could probably create a good open-source accounting package. It would have to be extensively unit tested, and the development paradigm might have to be a little more restrained than the usual rapid-release strategy. It might also be a good idea for some organization to hold a trademark on the actual name, sort of like how Mozilla holds the trademark to Firefox.
In contrast, I have a hard time imagining open source tax software coming to pass any time soon. It's just not a very rewarding thing to develop-- it doesn't scratch anyone's itch, and the rules change every year in subtle and complex ways. Perhaps the best thing we can hope for is that there will be an open standard for storing tax data. Unfortunately, the IRS's e-file standard seems to fall far short in this regard.
Posted May 17, 2012 4:00 UTC (Thu)
by fest3er (guest, #60379)
[Link] (3 responses)
Money is the lifeblood of every business; without it, the business dies. The purpose of accounting is to know where your money is coming from and where it is going. And, at times, how fast the flow is changing. Satisfying the tax man is secondary.
The basis of any accounting system must be the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). While there are localized variances, GAAP is almost as universally used as is the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
I've worked, on and off, for a small accountant for 15 years. He spent the previous 17 years building a fairly complete accounting system (general ledger for client data, time & billing for his work with clients, phone logging, lead tracking, etc.) His programmer essentially wrote 2½ programs a week for 17 years, on average; she did use sound practices, such as code-reuse and good structures. But it's still ISAM-based, business BASIC, one-letter variable names, and almost uncommented (to be expected; disk space was at a premium then: it started on an early BASIC system, moved to a DG NOVA, and finally to Unibasic on SCO UNIX).
If I were to build a small business accounting system, I'd start with his and re-implement it using modern languages and a modern UI. And the first premise of the database system would be as already mentioned: every record inserted must include a record insertion date/time, the record this one retired (or null if it's new), a record retirement date/time, the record that retired this one (or null if it's current) and who did each deed. Nothing is ever deleted from the database or updated in it: 'DELETE' and 'UPDATE' don't exist. Call it 40 bytes per record; in 100M records, that's all of 4GB: mice nuts compared to the bit trail you'd get. And accounting is all about traceability.
Posted May 20, 2012 19:31 UTC (Sun)
by renszarv (guest, #84721)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted May 20, 2012 21:12 UTC (Sun)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link]
Instead you create a _new_ record pointing to the old record as the predecessor. So that all new documents from that point on would use the retiree's record, not the old ones.
Posted May 21, 2012 5:32 UTC (Mon)
by jackb (guest, #41909)
[Link]
Accounting systems: a rant and a quest
> against going for an entirely free (of charge) solution in the process of
> going to an Open Source accounting solution. You not only really want an
> open alternative, but you need to (I would say - but my opinion only) get
> it from a company that is willing to stand by the numbers through
> indemnification or at least be accountable (no pun intended). My concern
> is that otherwise you'll run the risk of getting into hot water later with
> various end of year filings. So, I wouldn't expect an open solution to
> necessarily cost less (and in fact, I'd expect it to cost a lot more -
> simply due to the relatively smaller market for a new offering).
> PASSWARE OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT,
> OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION,
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF BUSINESS PROFITS, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, LOSS OF
> BUSINESS INFORMATION, OR ANY OTHER PECUNIARY LOSS) ARISING OUT OF THE USE
> OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT OR THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE
> TO PROVIDE SUPPORT SERVICES, EVEN IF PASSWARE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
> POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. IN ANY CASE, PASSWARE'S ENTIRE LIABILITY
> UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS SLA SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE GREATER OF THE
> AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID BY YOU FOR THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT OR U.S.$5.00.
Accounting systems: a rant and a quest
Accounting systems: a rant and a quest
Accounting systems: a rant and a quest
Accounting systems: a rant and a quest
Accounting systems: a rant and a quest
Accounting systems: a rant and a quest
Accounting systems: a rant and a quest
A bitemporal data model works like that. Information is only added to the database, never deleted or changed.
Accounting systems: a rant and a quest