Menu
▾
▴
sql-ledger-users
|
From: Caffeinate T. W. <moc...@ya...> - 2002-01-01 12:31:17
|
just want to let you guys know that i've spent the last two days really using Sql-Ledger. The more I use it, the more I like it. I think it's a wonderful application, and really easy to use, once you get the hang of how things work. Very well thought out in the coding structure too. as I'm slowly learning Sql-Ledger, I'm also writing documents for it at the same time. I don't see much of any documents for it. I think it would have helped me much to learn it with some sort of tutorial, even an intro to accounting. I'll try to write it as I do my accounting with Sql-ledger. I've written some stuff, but not much. If you want to see it: http://www.minnesota.com/sql-ledger/glossary.html I will most likely slowly port it to PHP, as most of what I have done is in PHP and would be nice to integrate with the rest of my other stuff. Things like shopping cart integration, customer viewing their bills (integrate with my login system in PHP), bill their CC each month automatically, i.e. recurring invoice (cron job would do in perl too). Just want to thank all those who helped develop Sql-ledger to what it is today. Thanks! Happy New Year. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com |
|
From: David A. B. <da...@pa...> - 2002-01-01 15:29:46
|
On Tue, 1 Jan 2002 04:31:16 -0800 (PST) Caffeinate The World <moc...@ya...> spewed into the bitstream: Apart from adding "me too" (Tm AOLusers), I'd like to add that the only "problem" I see with using SQL-Ledger, at least for US businesses, is that you can delete transactions. I don't know about Canada, but at least in the US, GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Practice) is (or at least was) that you don't delete transactions, you create reversing entries. I will admit, it's been a long time since I looked at GAAP, so apart from that I have no idea how far from accepted practice SQL-Ledger strays. Fortunately, my accountant is just happy I'm using something other than a shoe box with receipts thrown in it. Ciao, David A. Bandel -- Focus on the dream, not the competition. -- Nemesis Racing Team motto Internet (H323) phone: 206.28.187.30 |
|
From: Dieter S. <dsi...@sq...> - 2002-01-01 20:56:54
|
David! Before making any false statements read the documentation, see the FAQ for a solution about audit control. Dieter Simader http://www.sql-ledger.org (780) 472-8161 DWS Systems Inc. Accounting Software Fax: 478-5281 =========== On a clear disk you can seek forever =========== On Tue, 1 Jan 2002, David A. Bandel wrote: > On Tue, 1 Jan 2002 04:31:16 -0800 (PST) > Caffeinate The World <moc...@ya...> spewed into the bitstream: > > Apart from adding "me too" (Tm AOLusers), I'd like to add that the only > "problem" I see with using SQL-Ledger, at least for US businesses, is that > you can delete transactions. I don't know about Canada, but at least in > the US, GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Practice) is (or at least was) > that you don't delete transactions, you create reversing entries. I will > admit, it's been a long time since I looked at GAAP, so apart from that I > have no idea how far from accepted practice SQL-Ledger strays. > Fortunately, my accountant is just happy I'm using something other than a > shoe box with receipts thrown in it. > > Ciao, > > David A. Bandel > |
|
From: <ke...@dk...> - 2002-01-01 21:56:23
|
Happy new year all! Yes, it is documented in the faq, but I would rather that it was an integrated feature of the system. It is an accountant-level requirement, and what is documented in the FAQ is a systems administrators solution. An accountant cannot call on a system administrator, that has the appropiate systems accessabilities, and knowledge of sql database handling, every time the locking needs to be done. The locking must in principle be done for every transaction! But there is also a need for functionality to only do it when requested, eg every quarter. As far as I understand it, the requirement is considered "good accountant practice" in most countries. At least this was what was reported earlier on this list by a number of people. Kind regards Keld On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 01:56:43PM -0700, Dieter Simader wrote: > David! > > Before making any false statements read the documentation, see the FAQ for > a solution about audit control. > > > Dieter Simader http://www.sql-ledger.org (780) 472-8161 > DWS Systems Inc. Accounting Software Fax: 478-5281 > =========== On a clear disk you can seek forever =========== > > On Tue, 1 Jan 2002, David A. Bandel wrote: > > > On Tue, 1 Jan 2002 04:31:16 -0800 (PST) > > Caffeinate The World <moc...@ya...> spewed into the bitstream: > > > > Apart from adding "me too" (Tm AOLusers), I'd like to add that the only > > "problem" I see with using SQL-Ledger, at least for US businesses, is that > > you can delete transactions. I don't know about Canada, but at least in > > the US, GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Practice) is (or at least was) > > that you don't delete transactions, you create reversing entries. I will > > admit, it's been a long time since I looked at GAAP, so apart from that I > > have no idea how far from accepted practice SQL-Ledger strays. > > Fortunately, my accountant is just happy I'm using something other than a > > shoe box with receipts thrown in it. > > > > Ciao, > > > > David A. Bandel > > > > |
|
From: Richard L. <ri...@th...> - 2002-01-02 13:08:53
|
On Tuesday 01 January 2002 21:56, Keld J=F8rn Simonsen wrote: <snip> > An accountant cannot call on a system administrator, that > has the appropiate systems accessabilities, and knowledge of sql=20 database > handling, every time the locking needs to be done. The locking > must in principle be done for every transaction! But there is also > a need for functionality to only do it when requested, eg > every quarter. As far as I understand it, the requirement is > considered "good accountant practice" in most countries.=20 Can I just put in a vote for flexibility. In an audited office=20 environment, with competent operators, the locking ought, of course, to=20 be automatic, and corrections would be made by contra journal entries=20 (of course it's then important that these contras are entered as=20 negative sums to the relevant debit and credit accounts, so that the=20 total statistics are not distorted in management reports, VAT returns,=20 etc.). BUT, for the small user doing his/her own bookkeeping,=20 mistakes, changes of heart about classification, etc. are common, and=20 the records would become a nightmare for the poor accountant who gets=20 the resultant output if the records cannot be simply amended. =20 Surely the right approach (in the spirit of open software, too!) is to=20 allow the locking to be switched on if so desired. The switch would=20 only be accessible to the accountant user, of course, so that strict=20 auditing could be enforced when required. -- richard |
|
From: Dieter S. <dsi...@sq...> - 2002-01-02 15:22:48
|
I think there is a bit of a misconception here. You do not need an administrator to prepare the database everytime. You do it once and you are done. When you lock the database and effectively create a WORM drive. You can only add transactions but not delete or change them. While the "Delete" button is still visible on screen it is just a simple case of adding a few lines of code to hide it. I can only do so much. Adding foreign currency and multiple payments took longer than expected and since I wanted to release 1.8 before years end, some of the minor things will just have to wait. Dieter Simader http://www.sql-ledger.org (780) 472-8161 DWS Systems Inc. Accounting Software Fax: 478-5281 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D On a clear disk you can seek forever =3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Richard Lyons wrote: > On Tuesday 01 January 2002 21:56, Keld J=F8rn Simonsen wrote: >=20 > <snip> >=20 > > An accountant cannot call on a system administrator, that > > has the appropiate systems accessabilities, and knowledge of sql=20 > database > > handling, every time the locking needs to be done. The locking > > must in principle be done for every transaction! But there is also > > a need for functionality to only do it when requested, eg > > every quarter. As far as I understand it, the requirement is > > considered "good accountant practice" in most countries.=20 >=20 > Can I just put in a vote for flexibility. In an audited office=20 > environment, with competent operators, the locking ought, of course, to= =20 > be automatic, and corrections would be made by contra journal entries=20 > (of course it's then important that these contras are entered as=20 > negative sums to the relevant debit and credit accounts, so that the=20 > total statistics are not distorted in management reports, VAT returns,=20 > etc.). BUT, for the small user doing his/her own bookkeeping,=20 > mistakes, changes of heart about classification, etc. are common, and=20 > the records would become a nightmare for the poor accountant who gets=20 > the resultant output if the records cannot be simply amended. =20 >=20 > Surely the right approach (in the spirit of open software, too!) is to=20 > allow the locking to be switched on if so desired. The switch would=20 > only be accessible to the accountant user, of course, so that strict=20 > auditing could be enforced when required. >=20 > -- > richard >=20 >=20 |
|
From: <ke...@dk...> - 2002-01-02 19:09:27
|
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 08:22:43AM -0700, Dieter Simader wrote: > I think there is a bit of a misconception here. You do not need an > administrator to prepare the database everytime. You do it once and you > are done. > > When you lock the database and effectively create a WORM drive. You can > only add transactions but not delete or change them. OK, Maybe I did not understand it fully. So the sql statements in the FAQ will also lock new transactions applied after the sql statements have been applied? Then I would miss some functionality, as I would like to do some draft transactions, and only fixate them once every year. I understood that others also wanted to do something like that, eg every quarter. > While the "Delete" button is still visible on screen it is just a simple > case of adding a few lines of code to hide it. I can only do so much. > Adding foreign currency and multiple payments took longer than expected > and since I wanted to release 1.8 before years end, some of the minor > things will just have to wait. So this is on your todo? I would really appreciate that. Kind regards Keld > > Dieter Simader http://www.sql-ledger.org (780) 472-8161 > DWS Systems Inc. Accounting Software Fax: 478-5281 > =========== On a clear disk you can seek forever =========== > > On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Richard Lyons wrote: > > > On Tuesday 01 January 2002 21:56, Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > An accountant cannot call on a system administrator, that > > > has the appropiate systems accessabilities, and knowledge of sql > > database > > > handling, every time the locking needs to be done. The locking > > > must in principle be done for every transaction! But there is also > > > a need for functionality to only do it when requested, eg > > > every quarter. As far as I understand it, the requirement is > > > considered "good accountant practice" in most countries. > > > > Can I just put in a vote for flexibility. In an audited office > > environment, with competent operators, the locking ought, of course, to > > be automatic, and corrections would be made by contra journal entries > > (of course it's then important that these contras are entered as > > negative sums to the relevant debit and credit accounts, so that the > > total statistics are not distorted in management reports, VAT returns, > > etc.). BUT, for the small user doing his/her own bookkeeping, > > mistakes, changes of heart about classification, etc. are common, and > > the records would become a nightmare for the poor accountant who gets > > the resultant output if the records cannot be simply amended. > > > > Surely the right approach (in the spirit of open software, too!) is to > > allow the locking to be switched on if so desired. The switch would > > only be accessible to the accountant user, of course, so that strict > > auditing could be enforced when required. > > > > -- > > richard > > > > > > |
|
From: John C. S. <js...@im...> - 2002-01-02 19:29:43
|
On Wed, 2002-01-02 at 15:09, Keld J=F8rn Simonsen wrote: >=20 > On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 08:22:43AM -0700, Dieter Simader wrote: > > I think there is a bit of a misconception here. You do not need an > > administrator to prepare the database everytime. You do it once and you > > are done. > >=20 > > When you lock the database and effectively create a WORM drive. You can > > only add transactions but not delete or change them. >=20 > OK, Maybe I did not understand it fully. So the sql statements in the FAQ > will also lock new transactions applied after the sql statements have > been applied? >=20 > Then I would miss some functionality, as I would like to do some draft > transactions, and only fixate them once every year. I understood > that others also wanted to do something like that, eg every quarter. Yup! You sure would. An *older* clipper-based application we used to use some time ago *closed the books* at the end of the fiscal year. In between, we used to enjoy the functionality that Keld has mentioned. I suppose it would be useful to some people to have a *stricter* criteria, more like what Dieter mentioned. Once again, it would be nice to be able to pick and choose what you want or need ;))). Right???? John Christian Stoddart Caracas - Venezuela |
|
From: David A. B. <da...@pa...> - 2002-01-01 22:23:53
|
On Tue, 1 Jan 2002 13:56:43 -0700 (MST) Dieter Simader <dsi...@sq...> spewed into the bitstream: > David! > > Before making any false statements read the documentation, see the FAQ for > a solution about audit control. Apologies. But it does come "out of the box" with delete buttons on accounts that shouldn't have them (at least according to my accountant). While I will look at the FAQ, I did read the documentation. I probably missed something (won't be the first time). Can the delete buttons be removed? If this is in the FAQ, sorry. Suggestion: a GAAP checkbox that changes the "Delete" buttons to "Reverse Entry" buttons and creates the reverse automagically. I'll shut up now. > > > Dieter Simader http://www.sql-ledger.org (780) 472-8161 > DWS Systems Inc. Accounting Software Fax: 478-5281 > =========== On a clear disk you can seek forever =========== > > On Tue, 1 Jan 2002, David A. Bandel wrote: > > > On Tue, 1 Jan 2002 04:31:16 -0800 (PST) > > Caffeinate The World <moc...@ya...> spewed into the bitstream: > > > > Apart from adding "me too" (Tm AOLusers), I'd like to add that the only > > "problem" I see with using SQL-Ledger, at least for US businesses, is that > > you can delete transactions. I don't know about Canada, but at least in > > the US, GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Practice) is (or at least was) > > that you don't delete transactions, you create reversing entries. I will > > admit, it's been a long time since I looked at GAAP, so apart from that I > > have no idea how far from accepted practice SQL-Ledger strays. > > Fortunately, my accountant is just happy I'm using something other than a > > shoe box with receipts thrown in it. > > > > Ciao, > > > > David A. Bandel > > > David A. Bandel -- Focus on the dream, not the competition. -- Nemesis Racing Team motto Internet (H323) phone: 206.28.187.30 |
|
From: Marvin D. <pe...@be...> - 2002-01-01 21:25:02
|
Hi David, If I am not mistaken, you can setup sql-ledger to force users to reverse entries (As opposed to the ability to delete entries) by issuing a REVOKE DELETE rights statement for users: GRANT SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE ON <all the SQL-Ledger tables> TO username REVOKE DELETE ON acc_trans FROM username Take it easy. PS: I didn't know you were on this list.... On Tuesday 01 January 2002 10:29, you wrote: > Apart from adding "me too" (Tm AOLusers), I'd like to add that the only > "problem" I see with using SQL-Ledger, at least for US businesses, is that > you can delete transactions. I don't know about Canada, but at least in > the US, GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Practice) is (or at least was) > that you don't delete transactions, you create reversing entries. > > Ciao, > > David A. Bandel |
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X