From: Gary Britt 

He should have just set up a windows server running in a VM on the Linux
servers and used the Linux servers for everything else except the
accounting software.  Further, just because he has to put the accounting
data on a windows server doesn't mean that has to be the server for
everything else and the server exposed to the internet.

I think the guy has a legitimate gripe, but you've got to expect this crap
from Microsoft and Sage and Quickbooks.  Peachtree and Quickbooks aren't
the bargains they used to be since consolidation among the suppliers has
resulted in a substantial increase in prices.  There is an opening in this
market for accounting software that isn't so expensive, and there are
companies that are beginning to come out with such software.

I wonder if crossover office would allow the accounting software to run? 
Do all .net applications fail to run on Linux?

Gary

Rich Gauszka wrote:
> MS conspiracy or idiotic accounting vendors? I vote for the latter
>
> http://weblog.infoworld.com/gripeline/archives/2007/01/accounting_vend.html
>
>
>
>
>  "I have two clients using multi-user network accounting
packages," the
> reader wrote. "One uses Quickbooks, the other uses Peachtree. In both cases
> upgrades to newer versions of each accounting package required I set up
> either a peer system or a dedicated server with Windows, and move away from
> the Linux servers I'd set up for both. The reason? Both Intuit and Sage
> Software now use .NET to develop these applications, and both are, according
> to their support staff, complying with Microsoft standards for their backend
> database components -- components which won't work on non-Microsoft network
> servers."
>
>
>
> The reader first became aware of the problem when Intuit's sunset policies
> forced one of his customers to upgrade their version of Quickbooks. "One
> client had been using Quickbooks Pro 2003 for 5 users when they started
> having problems with database corruption," the reader wrote.
"When I called
> tech support for them, I was told Intuit no longer supports QB Pro 2003. In
> order to get the accounting database back up, my client would have to
> upgrade to QB Pro 2006. Initially I didn't see a problem with this. Their
> 2003 worked fine with the data on the Linux server (SUSE 9.3). However, when
> I started installing 2006, I saw the new requirements on the side of the box
> stating the data now had to reside on a Windows server, either a
> peer-to-peer arrangement, or a dedicated Windows 2003 Server system. In this
> case, I had to install the software on the newest system and reconfigure the
> network mappings accordingly."
>
>
>
> Another of the reader's customers was using Sage's Peachtree. "The client
> was told by Peachtree that the new payroll software wouldn't work with
> Peachtree Complete Accounting 2004," the reader wrote. " So,
they purchased
> the upgrade to 2007. Again, the previous version had no problems with the
> data on their Linux server (SUSE 9.1), but now require a Windows server,
> either peer-to-peer or a dedicated Windows server 2003. It also uses .NET
> technology and must install server components on the machine where the data
> will reside. This client had to purchase a new system -- it was less
> expensive to buy a new system than to buy a copy of Windows XP Pro and have
> me install and configure it on the Linux box. And since the Linux box's
> major purpose was to provide file services for their accounting package and
> documents, there really isn't a reason to maintain two servers."
>
>
>
> The upshot is the reader's clients first had to upgrade their accounting
> package and then had to spend extra money to continue using it. "In both
> cases the software developers are forcing my clients to use server software
> we had decided would be unnecessary and would add to their costs," the
> reader wrote. "In both cases my clients had to pay additional
billable hours
> to my company to handle the additional time spent to setup and configure new
> servers and either remove or re-task the perfectly good Linux servers. Both
> companies needed little maintenance on the Linux server boxes. Further, the
> servers didn't need the additional expenditures for security software for
> virus and spyware attacks. So, in addition to needing these new systems,
> they need to acquire, install, configure, and maintain security software,
> and maintenance will go up as Windows requires more maintenance than does
> the Linux OS. This means more billable hours for me, but unhappy clients."
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5