Totally agree, nobody can manage that amount of containers, it doesn't mean if it was self-hosted would excuse the deployment is not necessary to be easy, always the deployment of self-hosted should be easy with sample CLIs. and also providing pre-configured instances on the most popular cloud services like on DigitalOcean to deploy the app with sample clicks (instead of CLIs) that would great additional for non-techincal people and that's what we're seeking for, in terms of 3 instance actually we used Mongo for Agenda.js but we want to get rid of it ASAP.
The deployment is really easy to do and well documented with some FAQs you may face, yes there were some issues in setup before couple of months ago but we fixed them even the database migration now is automated. that is acceptable especially when you use a new technology. you can join to our Discord and the team will help you to deploy it on your machine.
I mean, fwiw here's what we do to deploy QuickBooks: double click on image or CD, drag/double click icon, follow any prompts, now it's done. Click on icon in dock to launch QB thereafter. There was no need to read any FAQS, join a Discord or even send an email. That would be my definition of "easy". I suppose "here is a VM image ready to go, download and click button/run command" wouldn't be terrible though still already a massive leap in needs over QuickBooks.
>that is acceptable especially when you use a new technology
QuickBooks had its first release 31 years ago. Like others say I'm sure there are reasons for the explosion in nested stacks upon stacks of complexity, but I'll admit I still find myself pretty befuddled about how we ended up here. I guess it looks like from the docs the goal is exclusively compete with the QB Cloud Service specifically so that takes a bigger stack, like you're building for B2B. But kind of feels like it's an odd choice of targeting here. QB was always aimed heavily at small, and eventually medium-small businesses. Huge places used other stuff. Small end of the scale are also the ones who face the most pain from the shift to subscription-only if you didn't snag a last physical copy. The docs say
>Bigcapital is built with a multi-tenancy architecture that allows multiple organizations to use the same software while keeping their data separate from each other
Is this actually something in demand here? Why wouldn't each one run their own, or if not just pay Intuit? Is the idea that various companies will offer Bigcapital services for sale? And it says "keeping data separate" but I don't see anything about E2EE in the docs or FAQ, though maybe it's buried somewhere. If the data is only separate based on user permissions what orgs are going to trust something as sensitive as business financial data to a multi-tenant situation for something unproven? I don't find it promising that the (incredibly sparse) docs have this to say about signups:
>The environment variable SIGNUP_DISABLED should be set to true to disable the signing up of new users. When set, the following facts hold:
So, does that imply that by default it's just open to the world and anyone can sign up? In 2023?
I guess I'll watch the project if only because subscription-only for QB sucks and I'm sure will be a problem eventually, but... I dunno. This isn't what I would have immediately thought of for "An open-source alternative to QuickBooks" in terms of approach.
I would recommend trying to book 2 hours of an accountant's time (not a software dev) and seeing if they are able to install this during that time window. I suspect they would not be able to.
