[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: New Accounting Project Was: Debian GnuCash packages orphaned



On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 03:14:10PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [John Hasler]
> > I consider SQL-Ledger superior, but that isn't saying much either.
> 
> Thank you, as one of the sql-ledger maintainers. :)
> 
> > There is a new Alioth project called Advacs to produce an accounting
> > system suitable for small business.  It will not be a Quickbooks
> > clone.
> 
> It would be interesting if there were a scanner and OCR system
> connected to it, for document storage (think invoices) and retrieval.
> 
> One would scan all incoming mail, detect invoices and run OCR on them
> to locate vendor and amount, and make the transaction available for
> the accountant for assigning of the right account and approval of the
> right people.  If it in addition could connect semi-automatically to
> the electronic bank to schedule the payment, it would save me a lot of
> work. :)
> 
> SQL-Ledger is not quite there yet. :)

I'm doing this.  I have some bash scripts which call xsane and I just 
scan in stacks of bills, statements, receipts as files 0000.png, 
0001.png, &c.  I've written but not yet released a GTK app which allows 
me to quickly rename and move the files to a form such as:

/x/p/d4/PGE/40810/01.png
/x/p/d4/Bank/Slips/Cash/40801-McDonalds.png
&c.

As I previously mentioned, I use my released tool
http://sourceforge.net/projects/pim-tb
to display downloaded bank statements.  A feature I plan to add is the 
ability to link a filename to the transaction, but that's a lot of 
unecessary work, since using my directory schema I can pretty quickly 
find a document.

I think people tend to over-construct such systems; you end more being a 
user of the system than a manager of your own data.  I get a lot more 
done with my little hackish things and bits of perl glue.

In particular I hate organizing my schemas according to someone else's 
tastes.  My schemas suit me perfectly; but you'd hate them!



Reply to: