[asterisk-users] SugarCRM, NO!, Foxpro, SI?

[Richard Lyman]

Paul wrote:
> Joe acquisto wrote:
>
>   
>> Paul <ast2005 at 9ux.com> Wrote: 4/30/2007 8:53 AM:
>>  
>>
>>     
>>> Joe acquisto wrote:
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>>       
>>>> I have dual posted this to the user and biz lists.
>>>>
>>>> Has anyone ever heard of someone running an Asterisk based system, yet 
>>>> Has abandoning SugarCRM, and opting to develop their own Visual FoxPro 
>>>> Has database/CRM?
>>>>
>>>> Please don't dump on me now, this is not my idea, I am just asking for 
>>>> Please comments, to see if my own initial thoughts are reasonably accurate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> I'll answer it on the user list. I don't think the idea is developed
>>> enough to discuss on biz.
>>>
>>> First - vtiger is available for those who don't like the SugarCRM 
>>> licensing.
>>>    
>>>
>>>       
>> It's not a licensing complaint.  At least that has not surfaced.  It is more that the 
>> programmer does not seem to be comfortable with SugarCRM, MySQL and php.
>> Biggest compliant about sugar is - hard to configure, does not work with latest
>> php. 
>>
>>  
>>
>>     
>>> Second -  developing your own CRM is an ambitious undertaking.  You need
>>> good reasons to go in that direction.
>>>
>>> Third -  I have enough exposure to  Visual FoxPro to quickly rule it out
>>> as  a choice for anything new. The fact that somebody is proposing to
>>> use it might give you the idea that they don't know what they are
>>> talking about at all. BTW - my exposure to it did include things like
>>> access from linux apps using ODBC so I know enough to hate the product.
>>>    
>>>
>>>       
> It still makes me wonder why the programmer chooses Visual Foxpro.
> Sounds like he also rejects many other language and database options.
>   

original poster didn't say it was 'visual foxpro'.

who knows, maybe this is that guy that wrote that http server in foxpro 
dos years ago. <G>

as for the topic, most people tend to use what they know or *feel* will 
be easiest to integrate.
(it is that simple)