Slashdot Mirror
Replacing FileMaker with Free Software?
jhealy1024 asks: "I'm looking for a way to replace our FileMaker DB solution with an open-source RDBMS. Problem is, FileMaker's GUI and report design tools are pretty darn good, and I can't find a suitable replacement. Anybody out there have a solution that doesn't require me to take a year off to hand-code a replacement solution?"
"I'm the netadmin for a small private school. Since we're Mac-based, we've grown up storing all our data in FileMaker, including student information, grades, class assignments, gifts, inventory tracking, and just about anything else you can think of.
FileMaker is coming out with version 7, which is going to require us to tear all our databases to pieces and build them up again from scratch. While the new FileMaker is an improvement, it's still a toy as far as "real" databases go. (The latest update just introduced relational tables, for example). Also, data lock-in is becoming a problem; I'd like to have access to all our data from non-FileMaker interfaces (to populate our LDAP directory, for example). While we can work an export from FileMaker, it would be much better if the data were available in an open, standard database instead.
I figure, so long as we're rebuilding everything from scratch for version 7, why not use a "real" RDBMS (no flames about which, please). Problem is, FileMaker does two things very well:
Thus far, the only solution I've found is to use some kind of SQL access plug-in for FileMaker. This way, I get to keep the FileMaker interface but ditch its lousy relational model. Unfortunately, I'd still have to pay for FileMaker, and the SQL plug-in requires tons of extra coding to pass the data from FileMaker to SQL and back again.
I know other people have had to move from small, proprietary systems (FileMaker, Access, etc) before; what have you done to keep the simple user interface alive?"
FileMaker is coming out with version 7, which is going to require us to tear all our databases to pieces and build them up again from scratch. While the new FileMaker is an improvement, it's still a toy as far as "real" databases go. (The latest update just introduced relational tables, for example). Also, data lock-in is becoming a problem; I'd like to have access to all our data from non-FileMaker interfaces (to populate our LDAP directory, for example). While we can work an export from FileMaker, it would be much better if the data were available in an open, standard database instead.
I figure, so long as we're rebuilding everything from scratch for version 7, why not use a "real" RDBMS (no flames about which, please). Problem is, FileMaker does two things very well:
- Rapid development of front-end data entry screens (using a GUI for layout)
- Ability to create printable layouts for reporting (mail merges, report cards, etc)
Thus far, the only solution I've found is to use some kind of SQL access plug-in for FileMaker. This way, I get to keep the FileMaker interface but ditch its lousy relational model. Unfortunately, I'd still have to pay for FileMaker, and the SQL plug-in requires tons of extra coding to pass the data from FileMaker to SQL and back again.
I know other people have had to move from small, proprietary systems (FileMaker, Access, etc) before; what have you done to keep the simple user interface alive?"
Let me be the first to suggest FileMaker Pro Migrator by .com Solutions. I mucked about with the trial version of the program and it does look like it accomplishes quite a bit. And I guess that once you've got the data moved over, you could use a program like Dreamweaver to tweak the web-based interface.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
I think you'd be best off writing your own stuff. MySQL + PHP.
If you ask me, recoding the database for Filemaker 7 would be much easier
than going to another system/platform/application.
The improvements in Filemaker 7 are vast, and much needed. It's a great platform, and unbeatable unless you move to a PostgreSQL&Web platform, which would require a lot more re-tooling.
Look into a possible Filemaker 6 to Filemaker 7 conversion tool.
In the future, if you truly need to use a different interface, such as the web, Filemaker is very capable of supporting that on its own, when placed on a server, without a SQL-access plug-in.
http://cocoamysql.sourceforge.net/
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If FileMaker has been good for your school, don't worry about replacing it with a "real" database. Many people don't need all the features of a "real" database, and all they'd get is more complexity and possibility of failure.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Web based really is the way to go. The tools are there for it (PHP for interface, MySQL or PostGres for the database, PDFLib or something free for reports). I don't know of any packages that already do that though. At work we are replacing our contact management system (in Filemaker presently) with one built in JSP with an Oracle backend. That same app is being sold to clients as well.
Is create an Access Data Project that links to the OLEDB/ODBC data source, thus pulling in the tables and keeping the Access interface. This works because we're already paying for Access anyway as part of our standard office build. I'm kind of surprised that File Maker doesn't offer something similar- Access has *so* many ways of doing this in comparison.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
How about some details about why you need it replaced(unless price is the only problem ?) Because you just gave us the points that make FileMaker good...what's wrong with it ?
Servoy is from the creators of the Filemaker SQL plugin. It uses ANY sql backend but provides a gui front end (100% java) just like filemaker. Real easy to setup and use. www.servoy.com
Been using FileMaker for our office for six years. Easy learning curve, easy (more or less) to use web interface. Tried MySQL and PHP but the learning curve was too steep for now. Not sure how 7 will be, but on 6 now and its working great. Now does anyone out there want to help me enter 500 city contacts? Whatever you use, you still have to do data entry.
I'll agree with the PHP/MySQL option. Our University did everything using ColdFusion against an oracle db, php/mysql is actually better to script in (if you dont need the scalability of oracle) and we already had an oracle db for other things anyway.
Anybody out there have a solution that doesn't require me to take a year off to hand-code a replacement solution
You know, if you work twice as hard it will only take you 6 months to create your own homegrown solution.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
In spite of the fact that Filemaker Pro isn't a 'real database' - it's developed a well-earned reputation for being a quick & effective tool.
I'd stick with it unless you've got some genuine objectives/requirements that exceed its capabilities.
If you can't afford the licensing costs (which are modest), and have quite a lot of time on your hands - then there are a wealth of options. I personally like php/python + postgresql. But none of these options will match the development ease of filemaker pro. You'll be kissing that goodbye.
I have had good luck using MicroOLAP Database Designer for MySQL. Granted its not opensource, but its super easy to use. One quirk that I haven't sorted out with it is proper quotation of 'enum' and 'set' fields in its generated SQL. But, that being said, its still a slick interface.
"You say self-important egomaniac like its a bad thing?!?"
How about Glom?
It has a nice, clean GTK interface, and uses PostgreSQL for its backend.
Good luck!
The Free desktop that Just Works
The meat of the article's question, which hasn't been addressed in the replies yet at least: is there an open source tool that makes generating forms (web based I would hope) as easy as you can do this in formmaker or access? For instance, is there a tool I can use to rapidly create data input screens with data validation or quickly throw together some screens that run queries with screen formatted results? The backend shouldn't matter too much, there are plenty of great open source tools to store and query data, but what about the user interface side? So far I haven't found a good solution that doesn't require manual html/php/perl/etc coding. (Not that I won't do that if I have too, but I'd rather have something more like ms access if it exists in open source, even if it's not as polished). any ideas?
-Lod
I've worked with Filemaker a fair amount, and moved apps over to web based systems with other databases.
The most recent versions of Filemaker, when treated just right, may be a blessing, but in my experience Filemaker just doesn't scale well. After you've started really putting a lot of data in there it creeps. It is it's own thing, too, so you can't use standard database modeling, reporting, etc. And hosting is an issue.
The impending new version might just be your occasion to stop, drop Filemaker, and roll your own.
Finding a tool to move the data and structure over is tempting, but consider whether the database structure you have is a good one, and if all your data is normalized. This would be a good opportunity to work on that, if you'd be moving to another system anyway.
And try thinking using the Unix philosophy. Use differnt tools. Use a database to store the data, use an off the shelf reporting tool (ie crystal reports) if you want, use Access or Filemaker to allow clients to make custom views, use modeling tools, etc.
Contact me if you want sympathy or some help.
Hammer meet Nail. But sir, I'm Screw.
Overkill isn't necessary, a quick, stable, and workable solution is.
Also I'd be inclined to know the posters skill level. Simply saying "I'm going to re-implement this system" is vastly different than saying "I know how to re-implement this in a better manner, any suggestions?". I get the feeling the poster may not have the necessary understanding of moving a simple project to a significantly more sophisticated design.
Or I could be completely wrong as my wife frequently points out.
FileMaker is coming out with version 7, which is going to require us to tear all our databases to pieces and build them up again from scratch.
While any new features may be a bonus, if a program makes it so difficult to switch, and the current version does the job well (as you seem to suggest) I have to ask, why bother?
Look for the answer that's the least hassle...
Rekall Revealed (GPL verson of thekompany's rekall product) can do all that, connect to PgSQL and MySQL, while using python as the language backend. Very nice, *and* Free Software.
Access Professional also comes bundled with a tool to create a stand-alone executable for use with the databases. You don't have to pay for licensing on this executable. The database design also cannot be modified using it, and for a deployment situation that's probably a good thing.
We're working with a client who has set up a pretty good system using Filemaker. This works great until they want to communicate with other databases (like MS SQL, MySQL etc) - which works, but is a pain.
FMP is a good product though, and you should really think twice about moving from the technology. Do you really have to?
If you really have to, I would recommend using PostgreSQL or another database which uses more of the SQL-standard than MySQL. Of course it is easy to create some kind of solution with PHP/MySQL, but consider other technologies too. And especially - can other technologies offer the ease of use for development and user that FMP do? If so, and you see that you have a real need for migration - go ahead. But plan ahead, because some of the things which is FMP's strengths could be hard to do with other technologies.
Note that I don't really like FMP, just recognizes that it - at times, is a good technology.
The real problem this user has is one I have had. There is no suitable replacement for Access, FileMaker, or dBase. An open-source portable replacement would be a killer app for the open source community, but it just isn't there.
Thus far, the only solution I've found [...] Unfortunately, I'd still have to pay for FileMaker,
You must either be paid exceptionally badly or deploying a huge number of FileMaker licenses if a year of your salary is a realistic alternative to upgrading to FM7.
This is not a complicated decision. Millions of businesses make similar decisions every day. Consider:
1. Do I need to upgrade at all ?
2. If so, WHY. (Answer this question, and you are done.)
- Do you need new features offered by FM7.
- Do you need features offered by some other database.
- Do I just need a major migration project in order to justify my salary and my department's budget.
Really, if your FM6 solution works today - why bother ? Every other choice, including the Open Source ones, come at a cost. If it does not work then you need to do a cost/benefit analysis of the alternatives and explain to your managers why FM6 was chosen in the first place.
-S
It may be a while before a project is available that can replace FileMaker or Access.
= 9J =
If you read the linked article on FileMaker's website, it says:
I've been using FileMaker at home since it was made by Claris, back at version 3.0. It's always been relational. You build relations between files--one file is one table. Now you can have multiple tables in one file. And you can still build a relation to a table in another file, so you've got the best of both.
In fact, using the free demo of 3.0, I built a database with about 25 relations in it, entirely without the manual. Consequently, I was out to the store the next day and bought the real thing. I've upgraded to 5.0 and 7.0 since.
I'm not sure how much "re-writing" is required to upgrade, I just load all my databases from the old version into the new one and let it create new files in the current format. I've never had to change the database definitions.
(It would be nice to turn a couple of my DBs into a "single file with multiple tables", but hey, it works fine in multiple file mode, so like others say, why break it?)
There are times when it Would Be Nice to throw some really grotty SQL into the system. But they're fairly rare.
Tables are but a visual, partial, inacurate representation of relations. Tables aren't relational. A DBMS that implements tables as primary objects instead of as simple representations of relations isn't relational: case in point, SQL and therefore FileMaker.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
I think Knoda sounds like an exact match. Feature list:
* define and delete databases;
* create, alter and delete tables and indices;
* add, change and delete data in tables;
* define, execute and store sql queries;
* define, execute and store queries with a "query by example" GUI;
* import and export CSV data;
* define and use forms;
* define and print reports; and
* write your own extensions using the integrated Python interpreter as scripting language
This is the Open Source equivalent of MS Access and Filemaker, except that it can use any database backend (native MySQL, PostgreSQL and SQLite support, plus ODBC). The report and form designers are full WYSIWYG GUIs, like the commercial counterparts.
Possible disadvantage? It requires KDE3, so it does require quite some extra bagage you don't normally find on a Mac OS X system, but it *should* work.
"The truth shall make ye fret" -- The Truth, Terry Pratchett
I've only dabbled with it a bit (and no doubt it is a little buggy) but dbdesiger4 (http://www.fabforce.net/dbdesigner4/features.php) has a plugin called simple web front. It generates the PHP code for you based on your tables / fields.
I've only toyed a bit and it worked - althought YMMV
A while back, Rekall - in conjunction with a sql database - looked like a potential open-source replacement for FileMaker and Access.
Has anyone here successfully ported a FMP database to Rekall + {MySQL|PostgreSQL|etc}?
Ref: http://www.rekallrevealed.org/
Gnu Enterprise might be just what you need.
It's not very 'complete', but very extensible.
Look at the pretty screenshots.
The path I walk alone is endlessly long.
30 minutes by bike, 15 by bus.
I use OpenOffice Databse User Tools. It doesn't have all the great features of FileMaker, but serves as a pretty good alternative to that and MS Access. I think the Form AutoPilot and Report AutoPilot address the problems you're facing.
Rekall (available in commercial or GPL licenses) is a MS-Access type thing -- it can hold a database in its own format and create forms and reports (like FileMaker) or you can connect it to an SQL server. Last time I tried it was in the v2.2x days, and it would crash just trying to open the demo database. That was on Linux, the Windows demo (NOT GPL) simply crashed before opening. Not good for a software that is supposed to be in its second major version. Maybe it has improved since, though. Not sure if there is a Mac version.
The other option is Openoffice. It has a database form and report mode, but you will need MySQL or PostgreSQL at the backend. Also, there is almost no documentation for it.
Glom looks like a good start, but it is not mature enough for critical systems. The biggest problems that I have had with Filemaker is that it cannot easily transfer Binary Large Objects, "BLOBs", to other databases. Think school ID photo. For this you need to use visual basic or other tools. Good luck
There are many open and closed source options. The two things I would recommend most on the commercial side are Servoy and WebObjects. WebObjects is, in my opinion, the best (and oldest) application server. Servoy, was designed to be what FileMaker Pro should be.
I used to be a FileMaker Pro developer. I hated it because it was so hacked together (from a developer perspective). When I saw Servoy, at MacWorld in January, I was very impressed. I wish I had seen it while I was working with FileMaker.
We actually created something like that at my last company, though it's not an "off the shelf" product and probably much more than you need, and not Mac compatible.
Our system was a multi-tiered system using distributed objects and Oracle or MS SQL databases. You could easily design forms and connect them to the database, and then there was an easy-to-use report builder.
It was actually a pretty amazing product. It had a bunch of other features, including really advanced security and validation, scripting, and so forth.
It's been several years since I worked for them and I've considered doing an open source version of it at some point, but it's a hell of a lot of work. The great thing about it was that you could throw together a basic, but complete business app in a day with it. We used to it to create custom apps for a number of clients in a variety of businesses.
Our school Heritage Christian Academy (heritageweb.org) has been using SchoolMinder for several years. It was nice but I think we've outgrown it. We're currently installing PowerSchool, an Apple product. Mail me off-list and I can get you more info. Yes, I thought about writing our own (with PHP and Postgres, no flames please), but the number of tables, queries, dialogs, reports etc was quickly growing to be beyond what one person could support. It's not as simple as some would think when you add in grading, attendance, transcripts, class scheduling... for 500 students.
I am migrating some applications that I have created in Filemaker to MySQL/PHP, because of the increased flexibility. Reporting has been a problem, but DataVision (datavision.sourceforge.net) is an excellent and easy to use tool. Runs in java, (1.4) so it works everywhere except MacOS 9. For that platform, I use an early version of Elixir Reports (www.elixirtech.com) Elixir Reports is not free and buggy, but usable.
http://www.rekallrevealed.org/o rg/
http://www.knoda.
Both free and both viable options imho.
Also keep an eye out for kexi:
http://www.kexi-project.org/
This looks like it will be really impressive. However, as it is still in early beta this probably isn't something for real world usage yet.
That's what PHP-GTK is for! :)
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
This is one of those big, gaping holes in open source software. I swear most open source programmers don't even understand the question. Let me try:
.net "way". Alice has to learn quite a lot to get there, though.
h tmlPythonCard, which is looking very nice: Python is a very newbie friendly language. If you use this, then ReportLab (http://www.reportlab.org/) might be a good choice for reporting tools.
Alice is an expert in some area of business. She can even wrap her head around simple databases. How can she write database apps without having to call Bob, the resident Unix hacker who doesn't want to waste his time coding simple data entry screens.
What tools can Alice use? Open Office is workable now, and although pretty clumsy, compares to the VB
There's http://pythoncard.sourceforge.net/samples/custdb.
There's Rekall, I've not used it at all, although it looks pretty good.
And then there is GNU Enterprise http://gnue.org/. It is eventually supposed to be an ERP system, but currently the project team is working on what appears to be a very sweet set of db app development tools. Rumor is that it's at a usable point, but I've never been able to crawl through the install process (even on Debian).
There are more, but I haven't found any really good ones.
Well if you go the php/mysql route you might take a look at Sysbotz Enterprise Platform. Its a php program that uses xml files to define forms and allows you to plug in php script to accomplish additional tasks. It also features a report engine which also takes xml files and creates pdf documents out of them.
School Tool is a system specifically designed for running a school. It's written in Python, and it's free, open-source software.
http://www.schooltool.org/
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Ironically I am sitting on the conference floor of DevCon in Phoenix. For those of you who don't know that is the FileMaker conference. I am afraid that based on your comments and critiques you have not actually understood just how much has imporved in 7. It is FAR from a mere upgrade and constitutes a major leap forward. If you wish to convert your solution simply purchase FMROBOT. this will move up your solution with some minor touch ups. As far as lack of xDBC and SQL type connectivity, that has been addressed with Server7advanced. As far as the cost compared to a free open source solution is concerned. Not only is FMP not cost prohibitive but you will pay for the alternative 100 fold in dev time.
when there really should be:
Not to mention the "RTFS" answers in "TFM" for questions very frequently asked by beginners:
Other than that I would say that PostgreSQL is definitely the way to go today. Once you get used to reading the source code as documentation (it is actually very clean and properly commented, so that's not such a big deal), you will really love it. And you will have the most important thing: ACID features. I hope it helps, I wish you the best luck.
See also:
(Please forgive me if I repeat anything which has already been said. I started to write it as a first post but it took some time and I am sure that other
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Great point! I would even extend the original post to say is there ANY other cross platform tool that's quick and easy to update that compares to Filemaker? We also need to have control of printing, and it can't be a web interface. We did a study on going to a web interface, and those seconds end up. If we switched our system over to a web based interface we were looking at almost 5 hours per week of lost productivity just because we had to hit submit so many times, and wait for the screen to draw, not to mention lost data, more complicated list views, etc.
There is a way to display your filemaker info out on a php page. The php library is called FX and it is a wonderful tool that will allow you to code in selects on a filemaker db along w/ selects on other dbs...
perhaps you could look at the new alpha5 version 6.0 that's coming out, they seem to be touting it as a sort of filemaker-meets-dbase-meets mysql-backend type of hybrid relational model with an easier to use interface. My impression of their press release is that they're offering a type of "dbase for local, mysql for web" filemaker pro replacement.
We looked at precisely this and decided to use FM7 as an intermediary decision point.
FM7 allows full data/interface separation so our systems are being reworked in this manner. This allows us to later decide if FM7 should serve as an ODBC source to PHP, or as a front-end to MySQL, or what.
Servoy is on our radar, but once you leave FM, you might find that your clients really hate all of the other solutions. FM is really exceptional at quickly putting a solid client/server solution on users desks that is usable.
It looks to me (but I have no experience with it) that SQLite is part of an excellent replacement for Access, FileMaker, dBase, and FoxPro.
From the look of the web site, SQLite is VERY impressive. Now we need a GUI form designer.
Something like this?
I'm currently attending the annual FileMaker DevCon and just finished a session on the new SQL, ODBC, and JDBC connectivity features of FM Pro 7 and the just released FM Server Advanced. You can now access FM data from most 3rd party applications and also access 3rd pary data from FM. You might want to investigate that further.
Plus it uses Python. Yeeeeeeeeechhh.
Access is horribly slow for any real database usage (i.e. more than a few dozen people). Before you mod me down as flamebait, you should realize the company I work for uses ODBC for all of the database needs, and uses ASP/JSP as the interface. The performance sucks. Get anything more than 20-30 people using it at once and the server comes to a crawl. FYI, the setup is used about 70% for data retrieval, and about 30% for data entry. And, for some reason the coders decided it would be good to use IBM WebSphere for the new interface, but still keep the ODBC server.
Agata is a PHP-GTK report generation tool, with versions available for Linux and Windows. It still doesn't come close to being easy to use for non-technical (or even technical) users - unlike FileMaker. There is an API available, so after you've spent 2 months replacing all your Filemaker forms with PHP pages, it will only take another few weeks to convert your current reports.
Thus far, the only solution I've found is to use some kind of SQL access plug-in for FileMaker. This way, I get to keep the FileMaker interface but ditch its lousy relational model. Unfortunately, I'd still have to pay for FileMaker, and the SQL plug-in requires tons of extra coding to pass the data from FileMaker to SQL and back again.
I think you're on the right track with this. Yes, it will take time and effort to build the FileMaker to SQL bridge. However, once that's in place, you've got your raw SQL access for the other apps you mentioned. Plus, you can start turning out reports directly from SQL, and create apps to enter data directly to SQL as needed. If you make them prettier/faster/easier than the "native" FileMaker interfaces, people will start using them instead. Before you know it, you've weaned everyone!
Short-term, you may or may not need the new FileMaker licenses (can you stick with the current version?), you will need the SQL plugin licenses, and you'll have to spend some time coding the SQL/FileMaker bridge.
Long-term, you've gained the raw DB access you need, provided an alternate means of both data entry and access, and released your data from proprietary lockin.
1) Put together your project plan and budget,
2) Compute the project's ROI,
3) Run it all by the comptroller,
4) ???
5) Profit!
Yes, its a SQL front end but its also a framework with which you can build apps using InterfaceBuilder/Cocoa with MySQL or Postgres on the backend.
see http://www.runtimelabs.com/
Depending on what you are really looking for and the size of your school there are some good web based one is called Sips it runs from PostgreSQL and can run on Winbloze, MacOSX, Redhat 7 or higher.. might be worth looking into since you are talking about redoing your current Dbase from the ground up.. I'm sure the company that just bought it (Pearson) may even help convert the data for you.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" -- Albert Einstein
You should have waited until the filemaker developer conference is over (aug 29-sept 1) before submitting the story It would have made for much more interesting slashdotting and probably some more informed opinions as the whole slew of FM/database geeks are away from slashdot.
I have been in the same boat many a time. I remember one time some brainchild tried rolling out an Access app across three sites spread out across the country. He kept on saying, "It seems fast to me. What are you guys complaining about??" Not realizing he was looking at the LAN end of the app. The rest of us were many a hop away.
Then this genius figured that if the WAN response time for these huge chunks of data was too slow perhaps he could force some Access database replication scheme. Nice try.
And the people who put these projects together sometime fail to grasp the difference between OLE DB, ODBC, native SQL, etc. connection methods. They think because ODBC is so easy it must be the best, fastest connection method. Right!
I would place Access in the same realm as some small homegrown app that relies on an MSDE back-end. Take it beyond a handful of concurrent users and you're out of your realm.
I'm the IT Manager at a small company. I do a lot of custom PHP/MySQL programming. Another person does FileMaker development. What I've found is that PHP/MySQL is superior in almost every way. The biggest problem with FileMaker is that it's a fat client architecture. We have 180MB of contact information that takes a long time to move to the client BEFORE a search/filter is even performed. The server sends EVERYTHING to the client no matter what subset you're interested in - the client does almost all the processing. Of course, this annoys the heck out of users, especially those outside our network (making it pretty much unusable outside our network). FileMaker and PHP both require a fair amount of proprietary knowledge to get them going. My opintion: toss out FileMaker until it's a true SQL-enabled RDBMS. Right now I think it's garbage. PHP/MySQL isn't perfect, but it's far superior.
The state of graphical FOSS being what it is, I think there's a giant hardon for web-based solutions because the browsers are the most useable FOSS gui apps.... and because, ultimately, things are slowly drifting back to the mainframe model. All the data on the server, manipulated from a client/terminal.
:)
Web "terminal" frontends happen to be (bar none) the easiest to develop. Target Mozilla and suddenly just about every operating system in the world can be considered an option for data input.
You obviously have no clue what you are talking about.
FileMaker Pro has been relationnal since version 3. Even worse, the migration from any 3.X, 4.X, 5.X, 6.X to version 7 is handled by FileMaker itself. You even have a 190 pages document describing all the changes and the tweak needed in case of something goes wrong.
I'm not saying the problem is painless, it all depends on the level on complexity you have in your current system. I just migrated a _very_ complex solution (80 tables, over 120 links, 1900 fields, 600 Scripts) to version 7 from 5.5. It's all documented on one A4 sheet.
DUH.
We like to make web-based applications for several reasons.
1. No license fees to worry about ont he server or my clients.
2. I can control the web/database server. (I can't and don't need to control your computer.)
3. If I make my application compliant with Netscape 3.0, it WILL WORK on ALL BROWSERS.
4. I can easily design to minimize trips to the server, maximize data throughput, AND take care of concurrency issues.
5. My application will work on ALL browsers for ALL operating systems (OKAY not the Lynx browser).
6. No license fees to worry about ont he server or my clients.
The list goes on...
You said "No license fees twice!"
I LIKE no license fees.
I live the greatest adventure anyone could wish for. - Tosk the Hunted
- I live the greatest adventure anyone could possibly desire. - Tosk the Hunted
we at the UCI computer store, wrote a java GUI system for mysql backend... it contains some stuff that might help you, should you choose java as your path. replaced out filemaker with it, and never looked back. it has one feature you might be interested in: a module to parse filemaker-exported XML and import into mysql. everything's GPL, but i dont really want to post on a slashdot thread for security reasons. drop me a line if you're interested in obtaining the source: munsonm at uci dot edu --m
It's not free, but Servoy (http://www.servoy.com/) is a very nice cross-platform "Filemaker clone" (in terms of GUI and some functionality) which will sit on top of any SQL database, and offers *far* superior (Java/Javascript-based) scripting and plugin functionality.
Can you explain to us why exactly it is you need to upgrade? If your solution is in FM6, and works fine, why upgrade?
I work for a major database developer in the Rochester area. Our largest example is a manufacturing plant that's running entirely on Macs and Filemaker. The entire plant is on FM3/4, running on 6100s, 7100s, some 8500-era w/G3 upgrade cards, and a few G5/G4s for people who need them. At any given point in time there will be 30 people working in the database at once. The entire business has been running on FM for over 15 years.
You know what? Thing works fine. We just upgraded from an older G3/733 to a dual processor 1Ghz machine and run FileMaker Server 3 in Classic.
So upgrade if you must, but first make sure it's actually justified. Remember, not all proprietary software is bad - if the only reason you want to use open source is because it's open source, that's one of the worst reasons I could possibly think of. Pick the right tool for the right job. If you need to get data out, look into FM6 Unlimited and using XML/XSLT transforms, or web formats that a script could process - FileMaker's not a dead-end format by any means. Also check into FX.php - once you get stuff into PHP there's almost no limit to what you can do.
My English teacher once told me that two positives don't make a negative. Two words for her: Yeah, right.
Rekall is in fact free now.
/. article, IIRC.
http://www.totalrekall.co.uk/
theKompany GPL'd it some time ago. There was even a
http://www.chancery.com
they do k-12 solutions.
not affiliated with them, don't even know what their products look like. i just know a few current and ex employees.
... ever consider Sybase's SQL Anywhere Studio? The suite costs $400 USD, and comes with a database engine (and other programs to help you create forms, etc.). Some alternate links here and here.
The Adaptive Server Anywhere RDBMS is rock-solid and fast, and runs under Linux. It integrates nicely with any ODBC-based (or JDBC-based) front-end application, and offers true SQL99 compliance. It also has Java support built into it, so you could actually run a web server from within the DB engine. I've been using it quite happily for a few years.
Just a thought.
I have been a sysadmin in a school myself for 3 years... hating MsWindows and all the big "problems" that come with it... dreaming of turning the school into a real playground with Linux etc... So I tried my best to solve this problem too...
There are no GUI frontends to any linux-based DB system, no matter what they tell you. MySQL has the most attempts to build one, but all of them in the alpha development stage. MySQLCC is the best (from my point of view) but still too many mistakes to make it useful for someone who is just a "user".
There are no alternatives. Sorry to say that, use Access on Mac, and you'll have a nice GUI with anything you would expect from a nice modern database.
http://www.automatiq.se
Ah, the horrors of FileMaker 5. We're currently using it to enable a WWW content manager to update the product catalog for a B2B sales site. The manager makes her changes in FileMaker, exports to flat files and then I work my Perl and Oracle magic on it to populate the production database.
The only problem with this setup is that the developer that originally wrote the FileMaker database left the company and he provided absolutely zero documentation for the rest of us to follow. Trying to figure out just what each action does (I forget the name of the menu item) is next to impossible and the workflow for creating a new action is completely non-intuitive and cumbersome. I've also had weird problems where type declarations regarding exported data would cause certain information to just not make it into the resulting flat files. Just using the database that's been setup is easy as pie, it's when you start trying to make changes that things get confusing.
Our migration solution was to write a proper 3-tier web based application that housed the product data. The developer in charge of this project happened to use C# and .Net, but it should be a simple matter to create something with Apache, CGI, Perl and a RDBMS like mySQL or PostgreSQL.
I know you were looking for a different solution, but for us, a rewrite was the way to go.
It is an issue. SQLite is much easier to install and begin using than the big RDBMs. The small database on each computer market is where dBase, FoxPro, Access, and FileMaker compete. PostgeSQL is for enterprises with many clients.
I agree, form design is the most important issue.
A few suggestion that aren't exactly free as in beer - as the development environments are commercial. But they'll let you put together a nice, freely redistributable interface to a good, solid backend RDBMS such as PostgreSQL and the effort you'll likely save will be worth more than the sub-$1000 price tags
WebObjects will let you generate most of the view, edit, insert, delete functionality you need with minimal effort. It can be used to generate a standalone java application or a web-based interface. It'll talk to anything with JDBC - including PostgreSQL.
There are a few open-source workalikes of WebObjects too, that you may want to look at.
Another option is Qt. It has a fairly easy RAD environment for developing cross-platform apps in C++, and pretty solid SQL support, including database connected widgets for fairly easy quick-and-dirty view, insert, edit, delete functionality. Free for GPL code on Mac, Linux etc. Commercial, but reasonably priced, for Windows.
Report generation sucks. If you don't want to write your own, and can't live with the generally poor level of open source reporting engines, look at Crystal Reports - which sucks too, but sorta works. I've looked at most of the open source / free reporting engines. They may be usable if your standards are very low, but they're pretty nasty.
I think this parent post makes a valid point. There are so many posts thrown around in many story comments that suggest reinventing the wheel just so that apps are written in the latest scripting language and using the latest IDE toolset. Sure you can improve things or migrate things. But totally scrap something and start all over again from scratch? That's a pretty desparate measure. If I was the boss I certainly would want a detailed explanation supporting why someone would need to tank so much of their time.
filemaker seriously, seriously sucks. It's even worse then 4D.
get rid of it
Before you set out to blindly replicate the current functionality with a new custom solution, you really should ask yourself "who else has had this problem and how have they solved it?" I'm not talking about the "porting problem" here, I'm talking about the overall "problem" that your current filemaker s/w handles.
If you can identify similar organizations with similar problems, you might find an existing program (hopefully OSS) that you can just start using. If you need to customize it a bit, that will be a whole lot easier and cheaper than trying to roll your own solution, and the changes you make might be used and appreciated by others who use the program.
There is a lot of existing work that is being wasted because we start off assuming our solution is too highly customized to be changed. You might pick up enough shiny new features you never had before to make your users willing to put up with a few tradeoffs.
Maybe you will look and not find anything useful, but do look really hard before you just port your existing code.
Part of the problem, that I (and many techs) have is that we want it all. In the case of any technical infrastructure discussion, it is rarely possible to "have it all." (aka: Fast! Good! Cheap! You can have two of 'em, but not all three.)
In this case, having it all entails migrating to a solution that replicates/improves upon the existing solution without having to do a lot of programming.
Forget it. It'll never happen. If you migrate out of FM, you WILL have a ton of coding to do to replicate the existing functionality, and you'll be employing a hodgepodge of technologies that may work, but will take time to develop, learn, troubleshoot, and maintain. (Take your 6 mos and double it...) Plus you might not be able to come close to the things fm does really well: interface and printing.
Although FM7 is different, many solutions can be imported with minimal changes. It might make some sense to recode your system from the ground up, but you might be able to import with some minor mods. (If you have a number of FM Pro licenses, use that to your advantage-- get your FM sales rep involved and get them do some work for you.)
There are advantages and disadvantages to both sticking with FileMaker or migrating to SQL. (Migrating out MIGHT be the best choice for you...) However, certainly look before you leap, and compare the advantages/disadvantages of both systems before deciding.
Just shop around for one that is well-designed and uses technologies you're ready to support in-house. PHP or Java or .NET or whatever hitting MySQL or Oracle or SQL Server on Windows or Unix. Ask the company how the application is designed. Is it uncoupled from the database? Does it require queuing? Is it a SOA design that can be extended easily? Does it have desktop and web clients? Is it based on one of the open source or commercial portals, like Plone or Content Management Server?
I'd say it's a good bet that you'll find something out there that fits the bill. If anything at least you'll be able to justify writing one because you did your homework.
This could be a good place to start.
Hi, do you understand how http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/links.html#h-12. 1Links in HTML documents work?
omnis has been out longer than filemaker. i've been using it to develop multiuser multiplatform applications since the 1980s.
it can be a front end to just about any SQL database product, and has its own proprietary file management system as well.
the report writer and screen generation facilties are excellent, and it also allows web interface development, and the basic development system is only $249
www.omnis.net
Ask Me About... The 80's!
If FM wasn't slow and clumsy enough let's offload the GUI to Java! There's a real racehorse for ya! Those lovely AWT widgets and Swing components are just the thing...BWAHAHAHA!!!
To all you out there saying a php/mysql solution would take months to roll out obviously haven't started using the pear libraries to your advantage. I develop custom CMSes all day long for different clients each wanting to do many different things, and can finish a complex one in a matter of 4 - 6 weeks. Its simple, Html_Quickform can easily in a OOP way handle your form creation and validation. Within an hour of reading the simple documentation i was coding my own. Template_IT also handles templating, so i can make standard templates for commonly used things. If i'm going to use a chunk of html more than 2 times i'll make it into a template. This speeds updates and changes, make it once, changes on all 100+ pages. Same goes for your front end and report, there are pear libraries for pdf generation which can easily handle report generation, you can also use php to generate csv's ppl should already know how to use excel, they can format the data themselves. On my cms i will provide only a couple simple ways to display and output data, but then give them access to the data in a raw format so if they need to analyze it or rearrange it for display to someone else they easily can.
A full cms w/ the proper tools and understanding of OOP programing (how to use an object and how to use a class) can make this easier, of course a lot of this would take into account you know how to run standard db queries.
Filemaker 7 CAN smoothly migrate from 6.
You do NOT have to start over again from scratch.
As with most filemaker upgrades, the changes mostly effect the creation of new things and not the previous version's databases. So to take advantage of all the new features, you sometimes have to remake stuff; otherwise, you can just keep things the way they were.
Filemaker hardly ever forces you to update your databases for them to function. (other than a simple file convertion)
I thought Filemaker 7 was proof they are moving in the right direction.
I have experience in what school systems do, and I do not see a benefit for you to switch out from filemaker. Unless someone makes you a full blown system to do everything you need and open sources that, building it yourself is going to cost you much more time and trouble.
Perhaps you should gather the FUNDS and work with other schools to develop and open source a replacement for your custom solution. Only then, will the open source benefit you, because the work will be distributed between multiple school systems and lower the high cost of an open source alternative. (don't get me wrong, open source stuff is cool, but what you need is quite vertical.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I've sense moved on to bigger challenges outside of that company. But from my contacts there they have grow a lot in size and still use it today. I hope my design will last at least as long as their last solution, and hopefully will be a lot more flexable.
The point of my babbling is that their is really no better solution then a custom one if you have the time. If I was still employed there with what I know today, that application could of grew to be much much more for that company. Plus, based on my salary at the time, they saved way more money then buying a good pre-built solution.
P.S. I'm sorry who ever took my job if you had to read my comments.
It's not free, but Omnis Studio is an extremely capable tool for building front ends and reports for client server DBMSs. It is capable of connecting to most databases out there; through either native connections or JDBC and ODBC. An Omnis application can be run on the Mac, Linux, Windows, and Solaris with little or no code changes. It even has a web client plugin that allows you to embed a GUI application into a browser window.
Not if you go to a java type solution like oracle did with their Application Server. Very nice and very fast. Not free but there might be something out there like Oracle Forms?
As for FMP 7: you simply open your old files in FMP 7, it converts them, then you continue using your same application as before. That's right, you can use the same application with little or no disruption. Of course, there's no point in even upgrading if you are not going to take advantages of the major changes in 7. Study the advantages of 7 carefully, and see if you might not want to rewrite it in 7 -- while still using your current solution.
You may want to look into Progress. I has its own relational database, but can use Oracle, DB/2, MS-SQL, ... Its 4GL is powerful, and you can use its user interface builder to make data entry screens very quickly.
Its printing capabilities are moderate, not good, not bad. I don't know the price though.
Unfortunately it is mostly geared toward business and is a bit pricey. But who knows - maybe they are hungry and willing to cut a deal?
To easily generate web forms from any database, we are using PHP with the help of some powerful framework like Smarty and the ones coming from PEAR.
.
:m l
In particular, have a look to QuickForm or to DB_DataObject_FormBuilder
You can find nice tutorials on these technologies
http://www.thelinuxconsultancy.co.uk/quickform.ht
http://www.sklar.com/talks/quickform-oscon2004
http://www.21st.de/downloads/rapidprototyping.pdf
With these frameworks, you begin to reach the productivity of RAD tools "à la" MS-Access PowerBuilder, FrameBuilder, and co . But still keeping the advantages of a web deploiement and the avantage of OSS.
Hope this helps.
I work as a consultant for several fortune 500 companies, and I think I can shed a little light on the climate of the open source RDBMS community at the moment. I believe that part of the reason that open source based startups are failing left and right is not an issue of marketing as it's commonly believed but more of an issue of the underlying technology.
I know that that's a strong statement to make, but I have evidence to back it up! At one of the major corps(5000+ employees) that I consult for, we wanted to integrate the shareware version of Postgersql into our server pool. The allure of not having to pay any restrictive licensing fees was too great to ignore. I reccomended the installation of several boxes running the new 7.2.5, and my hopes were high that it would perform up to snuff with the SQL 2000 servers which were(and still are!) doing an AMAZING job at their respective tasks.
I consider myself to be very technically inclined having programmed web frontends for SQL 7 and SQL 2000 for 8 plus years. I don't believe in "big iron" apps like oracle or ingres because, contrary to popular belief, SQL 2000 is just as scalable and enterprise-ready. Plus, now that Ingres is shareware GPL any apps you wrote querying the database would have to be GPL also, and our proprietary content-management and human resources systems are just too valuable for that!
So I set up Postgersql on a Linux mainframe running the new 2.4.22 kernel (I had optimized it myself with gcc 3.1). I knew Postgersql was not remotely ready for true enterprise-level applications, but I thought it would be good for the intranet this division was running. Sadly, I was disappointed.
First off, Postgersql requires that it be run as root. This is a definite security problem, and I'm not sure why it's set up this way; MS SQL has been able to run as a less priviledged account for more than a decade now. What's worse, postgersql requires a full reboot of the server just to do something simple like alter a table.
Once we had that figured out, I was surprised at how slow and non-responsive postgers was. After only a few minutes with only one database added, the server started swapping and ground to a halt. I had to log on from a serial console and kill all the processes by hand. When I started it back up (very cautiously), it turns out that postgersql does no transaction look-aheads, so all the data we had entered was lost!
As things stand now, I can understand using Postgersql in academia to run simple "SELECT * FROM 'employees'" style queries, but I'm afraid that for anything more than a hobby RDBMS, SQL 2000 is your only choice.
All's true that is mistrusted
Sounds like something you might want to do with OpenOffice.org. It's quite capable of using data directly from a PostgreSQL (or other) database, and performing mail merges with it, which should enable you to create pretty much any sort of form you need.
\\'
WebObjects, while not free, will get you a really easy way to build a GUI for accessing your data in a relational database.
Demo developer version available from connect.apple.com with a free ADC account.
Direct2Web is one of the easiest ways to do your RAD and get clients or yourself up and running.
I have the same problem - the FM solution won't work anymore.
I had to ask myself what I liked about FM, and it wasn't really the vaunted "ease of use", not with all the work arounds. I liked it because it was familiar.
Jump in and learn Java, throw together a front end that you and your staff can live with (and afford) and I will promise you will never look back.
That's exactly what I did, since I already have a slew of web apps set up for handling other administrative tasks for my boss & coworkers. I just added a menu option and and wrote an include which handled the relatively simple inventory tracking/reporting tasks which the filemaker solution handled. It generates reports in an excel file as per accounting's specs with a simple click. I also addressed their longstanding complaints with the Filemaker interface, and they love how much easier the new interface is to use. Also, now when their leased machines turn over, there's no need to reinstall filemaker again and again. IMHO, web apps rule.
Given that, if one is not already running web apps, there is more of a learning curve. But I started out using access & filemaker, and I find apache/php/mysql to be much simpler and more powerful than either of those two, especially if you are doing more sophisticated stuff.
As an aside, IANAMU (yet), but I have heard that OSX has some type of integrated support for apache, so I think that one in the mac camp would do well to look into that. I am personally very curious to see the OSX take on Apache.
I agree with your observation. That's why we have been working on a free (GPL) project for the past 5 years to fill this gap.
Our project is called OIO and implemented using Zope/Python. You can either use PostgreSQL or Oracle as the DBMS backend. By creating web-forms through browser-based wizards, the OIO system builds the database tables for you. There are also data mining and report-generation modules. Screenshots [ OIO Reporting module | screenshots OIO forms editor ]
My guess is that you're referring to the fact that FMP 7 introduced multiple tables per file. FileMaker has been a relational database since version 3, but prior to 7 each "table" was a separate file.
Those who can't, post on Slashdot.
Sorry to miss the first three hours of comments, but I was dealing with some network disasters here. I'll try to clarify a few things:
1) I'm not trying to get away from FM just because I'm a DB snob; I know FM7 will scale better than FM6 and will generally do away with the major limitations we have right now. I also know there's a FM6->FM7 conversion tool, but our databases are pretty zany, and all the experts we've talked to have recommended re-structuring the data. That's why we're moving off of FM6.
2) As for why I want to go to FOSS, it's so I can get to the data for other applications without having to export it to TDV or XML and massage it. FM does a great job of holding all our data and making it easy to enter, change, and view. Alas, that doesn't help me for my LDAP database (which needs to be kept in sync), library patrons catalog, and other network-related user information systems. Hence, if it were possible to use an open (e.g., SQL) backend with FM's great front end, I'd be happy.
3) I know FM has a JDBC/ODBC feature to allow external queries, but it doesn't support many facets of SQL (doh), and it doesn't currently work with the Mac version of FM7 (crap -- we're an all-mac shop). Hence another reason why I'd like to keep the backend open; I'm not waiting on FileMaker to "get around" to implementing key features on the Mac.
4) UI is key, however. We have about 20 people who enter data regularly, and they aren't DB admins, so it needs to be simple and painless to enter, search, and report on data. To support that level of user-friendliness would be difficult to acheive in a custom web-based solution. Hence, any pointers on hooking up FM's great UI to a FOSS DB would be great.
5) I have several years of Java, Perl, and PHP programming experience, so I could code this myself, and I fully understand the difficulties of doing so. That's why I was hoping for an off-the-shelf solution; my school simply doesn't have the budget to have me do it, nor to pay someone else to do it.
Thanks for all the feedback so far; I'll post more later.
Putting aside the issue of whether or not you really need to upgrade, which others have addressed, the RAD tool that does what you want is RealBasic. It's not OSS or free-beer free, but you only asked for compatibility with free stuff. Caveat: I only goofed around with the demo, but I've never heard anything but good stuff about RealBasic.
Holy cow, thanks, I'm going to warn Yahoo that they've been using a toy all these years!
With regards to your specific situ, it's probably the 70% slowing you down to a crawl, and it's probably due to lots poorly designed queries.
Not defending ODBC, but merely recognizing that report retreival/querying is a different beast than transactional querying. Your fundamental goals are different and should be focused on reducing query times and minimizing large data retreivals. Let the server do the work and just respond with the needed data.
But hey, you probably already knew that and designed your ASP/JSP hybrid interface to deal with that already, right? ;)
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Not sure if this will help....
But it's a reporting tool that allows you to use Access reports to publish them to the web in Adobe PDF format.
http://www.access2pdf.com
You could use PostgreSQL or MySQL as the database server and then do the typical LAMP Linux/Apache/MySQL or Postgres/Perl or PHP solution.
Or replace Linux with Mac OS/X if you want. The forms could be make into webpages and you would half half of your solution. Where you will have issues is with printing reports. You could use Perl to generate the reports but at least under Linux you will have issues with printing out fancy reports. You could also write the program in Java. MacOS/X is a great platform for Java.
One weakness I feel that Linux has is printing. Althought I have to admit I have not played around with CUPs
Good luck
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Ha, I never said I designed it. I do know the programmers used Microsoft's ASP GUI tool to create the pages in the original software, then IBM WebSphere to create the new software. While the old software seemed primitive, it is faster and more stable than the new software.
1) No, PostgreSQL doesn't require you run it as root. The install file (you did read it, right?) tells you to create a postgres user to own all the PostgreSQL files.
You have to start it as root, so that it can take it's port and change userid to postgres, but it doesn't run as root - do a
ps -axw | grep post
on a machine with PostgreSQL, and you'll see what I mean.
2) No, you don't need to reboot the whole machine to alter tables. If you read the documentation, you'll find out how to do that from the psql client.
And even if you do need to restart PostgreSQL, you can restart just PostgreSQL - this is unix software, not Microsoft crapware.
= 9J =
So you'll never have a great port, particularly if you try and leverage the same database backend.
I could be WAY OFF on what Websphere even is, as I've never used it and have only had it on my resume as an expert for a few months.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
There is PHPMyEdit and its derivatives. It is nowhere near as comfortable as some of the Windows GUI apps, but it covers some of the same ground: it makes it easy to put together simple database apps quickly.
iList Studio is a graphical front end to MySQL. It supports forms, reports, all in a Macintosh application (no, I have no relation with them). Reading between the lines of the web site, it looks like they were doing their own DB and then switched to using MySQL as the back end. Because of that, they've added some "meta types" to MySQL, including calculation fields and images. It isn't free, but it is less expensive than the FileMaker 7 upgrade.
It's not free, but it is extremely good, and cheap compared to FileMaker. It's java based, so runs on Win/Mac/Lin/BSD/Solaris... though we're just using it on linux.
It's a Dutch product called Servoy. There's a demo available, a very helpful community (the CEO, Jan Aleman (jaleman) posts a lot), and the manuals and other materials are also available online for free. It comes with a Sybase iAnywhere licence out of the box (if it came in a box) but uses JDBC, and has PostgreSQL and MySQL support right off.
As you'll find out when you read the site, there is no file format; the solution is kept in a database. It also uses javascript as it's scripting language.
All in all, a very nifty product. And I'm not just saying that because we spent $6k on licences (previously we spent $3k on FMPro 5 licences, which were never used due to the product being inferior), I really do love working with it.
... or instead, you could get it from totalrekall.co.uk. The developers Open Sourced the product. The Kompany no longer control it.
"The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
Last time I checked, XDoclet generated _some_ forms... with validation, etc. Never actually used'em though.
"If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy
Check out AthenaRMS. It is a request management system but has very flexible form creation abilities and custom reporting. It can hook in to MySQL, PostGRES, and Oracle. AthenaRMS 5.0 is Open Source and listed on SourceForge. 5.1 is done and the forms customization is much better but that hasn't been Open Sourced yet because we're still researching licensing. For more information check out the AthenaRMS website.
Heres the idea:
- Have your students do it
- Have someones else's students do it
- Have a subcontractor do it. Note: See pts 1 and 2
Its a private school. Have the students/parents/endowment pay for the privilege. Its good for the economy.http://www.pdcware.com It does 95% of what most people need to do without the bullshit of access etc
I have done this using LaTeX. I write the app as an Apache CGI in Perl. I use an HTML form to set up the query specs, send that to the Postgresql (MySQL is another good solution) via Perl's DBI module, and read back the results row by row. I send the output to a temp file on the server (careful, security issues here), formatting cells with LaTeX commands. The tex file gets pushed through pdflatex to produce a pdf file, which is sent back to the browser. PDF files print real nice, and not just on Windows.
The only problem I've had so far is knowing exactly what row I'm on, to get page breaks in the right place.
Now, for the form layout tool. A GUI is nice, so I use Lyx. Lay out the report headers and page headers however you want them. Most report data will go in a table -- make up a few rows of dummy data. When it prints the way you want it, export as a LaTeX file, and use that as the basis for the Perl code. I tried to include sample code but the /. lameness filter got in the way.
Gary Dunn
Open Slate Project
what we're doing right now where I work. Our solution: Apache 2 + mod_python + mysql. It's been working pretty slick for two years so far. Pretty much everything is migrated from the Filemaker databases now--everything runs through the webserver.
'Phone-jacking: Give someone a ring, they'll have to answer to find out who it is!' - Threni
In the past year or so, I've built both a Filemaker database and PHP/MySQL-based solution while working for a small non-profit educational organization. While my own preference is the web-based (PHP,MySQL,XHTML,CSS) solution, I'd highly recommend going with Filemaker as most organizations of this nature can't afford to train/employ PHP-savvy developers. Filemaker isn't the greatest as a database solution, I actually prefer the usability I can create with a web interface to it. But Filemaker is easy to learn & develop in - it's certainly a confidence builder, and this may be its most important feature for small organizations with limited budgets when it comes to employing dedicated techies.
guys.. anyone of you know what Open Source equivalents have for Sybase-Powerbuilder ??
Fear is the path to the dark side.
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate.
Hate, leads to suffering.
Download the demo and try the conversion, just to see.
The consultants are going to make you spend more $$ than you need, because, well, they're consultants.
Filemaker generally has been pretty good about backwards compatibility. Try it, and if it works, no hassles!
It's go a steep learning curve but the view from the top is just fantastic. There are many vendors of which Cincom is probably the best known. It has a superb data-entry form generator and several database interfaces. PostgreSQL is one. Also SmalltalkX offers a very good free (beer) implementation.
Hmmm we were talking about databases. I was referring to Yahoo using a "toy" (MySQL) as a humorous way of making a point that MySQL is used in rather large-scale operations. Doggone it, I was on topic, and I was robbed the karma of my 'funny' rating.
In the name of justice, metamoderate!
Let me explain:
.NET). Yeah, all that's currently available in FMP7. ODBC, XML, and JDBC has been available in FM since version 4.1 (ODBC), 5.0 (XML/JDBC). I can only conclude you have a pre-4.0 version, and since you don't use relationships, a pre-3.0 version. Blaming a 10+ year old piece of software for the shortfalls of modern technology is being unreasonable.
"FileMaker is coming out with version 7, which is going to require us to tear all our databases to pieces and build them up again from scratch.
No, it doesn't if you don't want to. You can just convert, but you won't take advantage of more than the software performance/structure benifits, until you actually change how your databases are built.
While the new FileMaker is an improvement, it's still a toy as far as "real" databases go. (The latest update just introduced relational tables, for example)
At about this point I'm wondering what version of FMP you're using right now. It has to be pre 3.0, because that's when FileMaker went relational. Well over 10 years ago. I wouldn't consider it a toy at all. I would consider Access a toy compared to FMP7 (Not that Access sucks, quite the opposite, it's just that FMP7 has far far more capabilities than you seem to be giving it credit for)
Also, data lock-in is becoming a problem; I'd like to have access to all our data from non-FileMaker interfaces (to populate our LDAP directory, for example). While we can work an export from FileMaker, it would be much better if the data were available in an open, standard database instead.
Like ODBC? XML? JDBC? XML/XSLT (For
I'm not sure how to respond to the rest of your article. You act as if FileMaker is the worst database program in the world, and has no scaleability (Not true, filesizes are at 4+Terrabytes, with 1GB of text per field, per record, with indexing services that scale perfectly fine whether you're at 40kb, or 3.5 terrabytes worth of data.). So my only conclusion is that you just flat out don't care to learn the benifits or functionality of using all the capabilities of FileMaker. That's fine, but don't poison the slashdotters minds with your lie based propaganda.
If you really want to start learning FMP7 and what it's capable of, check out some of the tech articles on the support section of the www.filemaker.com website. They should give you the general overviews of what you're missing, and the details are in a pretty robust help system within the application (Or server disk).
First off it should be noted that you can not use ODBC, OLE, or any else besides XML to access a Filemaker database.This means that you can't integrate Filemaker with outside applications programmed in an multitude of languages without building your own wrapper or obtaining a wrapper from someone else. Some people will say hey wait I saw in the docs that it supports ODBC. Look a little further into it and you will find that the client for Filemaker supports querying ODBC mounted db's but not the other way around.
1.)Absolutely 100% wrong here. It uses ODBC (Pretty much every SQL command including table creation), JDBC, and yes, it uses DDE too. Has just upgraded to a very robust XML system, which I'll cover in a second.
The multi language thing is total BS as well. It's completely unicode compliant.
2.)For your #2, I just don't want to copy the entire text you wrote out, it's all crap. XML can be queryed from the server engine now. That pretty much defeats your entire rant there. Oh, and it's incredibly fast, especially with Web Services enabled to take advantage of caching features.
3.) THe secutiry method is about as granular as it gets now. It has external authentication, an extremely powerfull pessimistic security model, and as much of a lockdown as you can possibly wish for.
4.)Again, totally off base. It's incredibly compliant, and is ansi SQL-92 compliant as a matter of fact.
I'm still trying to figure out what the point of your post was other than showing how little you truly know about FileMaker and spreading your single minded cynacism to uninformed readers. Get some facts, research the product you're bitching about.
I'm at the annual FM developer's conference right now, and they just released FM Server advanced, which is ANSI SQL compliant with ODBC/JDBC, directly ports XML in and out and parses XML using the XALAN engine, and does lots of other groovy stuff. A single field can hold 2 GB of text, the container field type holds any binary data now, and the new relational model allows you to hold "joins" as stateful objects which display live data via the relationship.
There are a beautiful set of classes in PHP to build web pages via XML interchange at iviking.org. These are open source.
OTOH, I have also spent some time with the servoy guys www.servoy.com which is an amazingly worthy SQL front end gui building tool; I am absolutely blown away by this product. So take your pick, FM is great, servoy is great, PHP as a web app front end to PostgreSQL would be great, it depends on time, budget, concurrent users, dataset sizes, etc.
I've tried using it. Major pain in the ass, hardly any features, damn near impossible to fight with the program long enough to create a form that you could slap together in fifteen minutes with Access. You can't beat the price, but no way in hell is it an Access replacement. I'm surprised theKompany even thought they could make money off it.
Your solution the problem you describe is a bit like cutting off your legs because you want to avoid ingrown toenails. Would you really bar anyone from making any sort of small scale solution until they pair up with a programmer? First off, few organizations have an IT department large enough where you could meet the demand (this is one of the reasons why people make apps in MS Access... they can't get a resource in IT). Furthermore, when you're designing at the MS Access level, you can change your application at the speed of whim, so you can figure out what you want while in design mode. Do you really want to tie up a developer in this cycle? And please resist saying "hey, these business users need to figure out what they want first!". Sorry, not realistic. You use a rapid prototyping environment like MS Access / Filemaker because you want something *now*.
by working 69 times as hard!
Say it right: "Nuc-le-ah Powah".
Have a look at moodle. Its cross platform/open source designed for the education community and comes with optional comercial assistance.
Their recent promotions are interesting:
Alpha Five makes it easy to access your data from the Web, from your desktop, or even via email, no matter where you are, no matter what format your data is in.
Build web applications easily and quickly using the Alpha Five .dbf engine, or with live data from MySQL, Oracle, MS SQL Server, DB2 or even MS Access.
Any authorized user can access your Web database thanks to the built-in Web Application Server.
Create powerful applications without having to write tedious and intricate code.
Step-by-step genies assist in creating scripts without knowledge of programming.
We give you the tools to build sophisticated applications quickly and easily.
I used it a few years back, and was impressed then. I think I may go ahead and get the latest version. There is a free trial.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
First off I'd like to offer some of my background in using databases to help illistrate my point. I used FileMaker for a number of years, but as our databases required more and more perfromance we had to move on. First off we used 4D which has many of ease of development pros of FileMaker, but still isn't as high perfromance as offerings like MySQL... which is what we use now.
I love the power and simplicity of MySQL in many areas, but when it comes to wiping out a user friendly entry form (esp when related tables, data entry checking, and etc) FileMaker is a far quicker enviroment to work with.
Yes you can do everything for an entry/edit form in PHP or Lasso, you can't make the entry forms nearly as quickly if there is any level of customization involved.
I think this illistrates a whole in open source offerings... it would be great if there was a easy to use, and quick to emplement database front end for the likes of MySQL
I'm in a similar situation, but am forced to start from scratch (I got hired by a new company that has nothing pre-exising, so I can choose my front- and back-end weapons but cannot bring along my FM6 databases from my old company). My twist is that I require support for formatted text (sub/superscript, italics, preferably ability to mix in Symbol-font chars). Any solutions other than FileMaker?
Try pronouncing "labtop" with a northern European accent (Teutonic, not Slavic) and you might just understand the confusion some people experience.
But in the case of native English speakers, it's just weird.
Ahh - My eye!
The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
I wonder how long before it supports other database engines (MySQL, etc)? Then you'd probably be able to layout your forms in Interface Builder and bind the controls to the database... We can wish for it, anyway :-)
he's faced with spending a lot of his time any way he goes, stay, upgrade or convert. He said that moving to 7 would require him to rebuild all of his databases. So he and others will spend plenty of time on the upgrade train and it might add up to more than one man year of effort.
The reason he's bothering is the binary blues. Sooner or later, the equipment that runs his current version will die as will his binary install media and then the conversion will be harder.
There are obvious benefits to using a free database, so he's looking for advice.
This is not a complicated decision. Millions of businesses make similar decisions every day.
That's what makes investment so difficult. What you said sounds reasonable but it's dead wrong. I've had PHBs like that, yuck, who don't know shit and then make you explain why they did things to begin with. Companies with too many people like that are a bad bet.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The comment you're replying to is a troll - it's cut-and-pasted from a template.
/var/lib/pgsql/"
But I'd like to correct one part of your post anyway.
You have to start it as root, so that it can take it's port and change userid to postgres
This is incorrect. You don't need to start it as root - you can run the entire program as an unprivileged user.
By default Postgres uses port 5432, which doesn't require root privs to listen on. If you start it as postgres, then it doesn't have to change UIDs either.
The command I use to start postgres is as follows:
su pgsql -c "/usr/bin/postmaster -i -S -D
If FileMaker 6 works for you then don't upgrade, at least not yet. Sure, 7 is much better, but for existing systems it doesn't really offer any benefits unless you feel something is missing. (If it ain't broke, don't fix it)
I am feeling fat and sassy
My company was in the same boat, but coming from Access. Oracle can be really affordable, and if you are coming from Filemaker, you are already used to paying license costs. UIX in JDeveloper makes drag and drop, full featured database forms & applications pretty easy once the initial curve is done. We've found it as fast as Access to develop in. You can deploy to Tomcat on whatever machine you want, and pay only for a JDeveloper license. You could even use Mysql (supported) or Postgresql (a few gotchas) as your backend, this is what we did for a few test applications. We moved to Oracle Standard Edition One, which is 5k per processor, for up to 2 processors. Since the java web frontend caches all the tables and queries, you hardly hit the database backend at all, so it can support a LOT more users.
I am the tech director for a K-12 public school in Kansas. We are in the same boat. We have a lot of filemaker databases and again because of its cross platform, rapid dev, and reporting features. We went with FM 5.5 server thinking that with its odbc, etc connectivity features we could do some real automation/integration with our other systems. But it hasn't worked out that way.
Our "solution"/replacement to the problem thus far is to use phpMyAdmin to get a similar quick/easy database schema entered. Then use Dreamweaver to create the front ends rapidly. It is a very similar experience to using Filemaker. It is a little harder (esp when editing already created aps), but we have been able to teach our 8th grade students to create databases for us.
The weak leg is still reporting. We are a mixed platform district so we plan to use a variety of options to report depending on the need. You can pull the data out of mysql with an odbc driver back into your old FM clients (unfortunately it seems to forget the database schema each time and I don't know if it will work with Macs limited odbc). Or on PC us access which does a much better job of discovering schema. Ultimately though we are going to use the php builtin support for creating pdf files to solve the reporting issue. There will be some time effort on our side but I don't have a big need for add hoc reports, so creating the basic reports with the pdf lib should cover it. The other option for mailing labels is to just create a simple export to screen, or save to file and then run the mailmerge from your office suite. Unless you are constantly runninng tons of labels (or lots of ad hoc reports) this should be a relatively easy option.
Labels are probably the worst problem for reporting from the web. If you don't need the exact layout placement for labels, I can normally just throw the report together in Dreamweaver in a few minutes with a very similar process to Dreamweaver -- drag and drop.
We assume that we don't want everyone created databases so assumption this has been a good and more open option for us than FM even though Dreamweaver isn't free. It is cheaper to buy a few copies of it than a few hundred filemaker clients and we get all kinds of flexibility in automating the backend and connecting to other systems.
Speaking as someone who is working on a similar product, I would suggest this:
Yes this means having your data in two seperate places, but it also means you get to keep the frontend capabilities of FileMaker and if and you don't have to do any major recoding (other than a couple pretty simple shell scripts).
If you want to go super fancy and not have to export the files manually, make use of the SOAP capabilities in FileMaker Server Advanced (when it comes out, which should be soon -- Server might do this, but I'm not sure). The script could use a web service to check for any changes in the data and then procede to sync.
It's not FileMaker, but it looks pretty good, is cross platform, plays well with others, and seems to have the major features required.
From the link above:
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
What you need is an ODBC plugin that works on Mac and works with the Filemaker Runtime. The developer edition of Filemaker costs maybe twice as much as a single user license and allows you to make standalone Filemaker runtime databases, which you can distribute freely.
n .htm lets you do ODBC with Mac OS9/OSX or Windows. They don't say if the plugin will work with a filemaker runtime. I'm betting it does.
This product: http://www.frontbase.fi/products/fbsql/index.php4
allows you to use a runtime as a frontend to an SQL database. Unfortunately, it only runs on Windows.
This product:
http://www.clickware.com/products_plugi
So pull out your data and import it into an SQL database and build that front end.
The closest fit filemaker has in the main stream is access. Both are slow, and poor excuses for databases. Problem is neither are marketed as databases. Well somepeople would argue that filemaker does, but having had lunch with one of the lead developers on the new filemaker version this summer I would say you will see a shift even farther away from being a 'database' and more for a data tool.
The guy put it like this: With MySQL I can input millions of rows, querry them and puke them out about 7-10 times faster than I can with FileMaker. However that is because it is just raw data and I am smatter than 99.9% of the people dealing with data. Want to get particular reports and other things from them and FileMaker trounces any Database People want the ease of use and reporting tools, and most people already using our product love that. Why train soccer moms to know SQL, PL/SQL and JAVA just so you can have a real Database.
However if the argument is free as in freedom or free as in beer you have Filemaker on that front, as well as Oracle, SQLServer and most of the popular DBs (I know MySQL and others out there are free but lets look at the headaches and hastle of that switch over)
Sorry, your best option is either stay with what you have or try and get the school to pay for the upgrade....
Just as a footnote, while it is technically possible to run an LDAP off of Filemaker (so sayeth Filemaker Developers) WTF, please tell me that I am just misunderstanding that.
Unfortunately it isn't applicable to your case, since this is a KDE application, but I believe Knoda, which works with MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQLite, and ODBC, and is scriptable with Python, sounds like it does much of what you need:
:-)
http://www.knoda.org/
It's a lot of work just to replace FileMaker (probably more work than upgrading, although you would get the desired SQL backend), but one possible option is to run X and KDE under OS X. I don't have a Mac and am not familiar with how well this would work (or not), so maybe you're sitting there right now and wondering what I'm on to suggest such a thing
Since you're in education -- you may take a look at .LRN over at OpenACS site. It is what MIT is using for open courseware, and so does Carnegie-Melon.
It is based Oracle or PostgreSQL backend, with AOLServer serving the content. AOLServer has a built-in Tcl interpreter that is used to build the whole solution (there is nice separatoin of logic and presentation built as ACS Templates package that makes build ing forms *really* easy).
--AP
If I were in your situation, I would come up with a solution by scratch. My solution would look like:
Web-based interface built upon ASP or PHP, using an SQL backend of some kind. Interface allows viewing, modifying, and saving records. Use HTTPS and MD5 hashed passwords for security, or something.
Ability to download files for offline viewing/editing - files would likely be in XML format or similar.
Small home-built GUI app for viewing/editing offline files. Allows ability to interface with web-database and upload/download updates to files.
Easter Egg. Include a small "Punch that annoying office paperclip" game when the user presses CTRL+ALT+SHIFT+1337
Frink: Nice try floyd, but you were designed for scrubbing, and scrubbing is what you shall do.
I'd just like say Thank You. It's about time that someone posted a decent question to askSlashdot. I don't just mean that it's a good technical question, but the fact that the author actually bothered to spend the time explain the question and to give the detail and background to the problem.
2 5234&tid=126&tid=215&tid=137&tid=4&tid=218
3 57212&tid=222&tid=4&tid=218
Most of the recent askSlashdots have just asked one line question that are left so open to interpretation that the answers people provide couldn't be any more unrelated! Many of the replies end up just asking for more detail about the question because the best solution to a problem relies on knowing some of the background information.
The other types of questions are either too specific, like the What is this Strange Gadget in My Car? article, that I really don't think this is the place for
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/25/0
or the answer seems so obvious that it's a waste of time, like How Do I Disable My Gadgets' LEDs?!
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/30/2
I hope to see more postings like this one in the future.
I'll tell you "what the fuck" version of the PostgreSQL docs I am looking at. It is 7.4. I'll even tell you "how the fuck" can you go there. Go to PostgreSQL official website at www.postgresql.org. Click Docs at the top of the page in the main menu. Select Static Documentation for the current version of PostgreSQL 7.4, right at the top of the page, the very first thing below bold and underlined "Official Documentation." In the Table of Contents skip Preface and go to the Part I of the documentation entitled Tutorial. Find the word "joins" in the Table of Contents for this part. There is only one instance, namely 2.6. Joins Between Tables. Voilà! Now search for the word "Exercise." There are two of them:
Are you "fucking" satisfied? Call me oldfashioned but in the official "tutorial" for the leading RDBMS I would expect a little bit more on outer joins than leaving them as a pathetic exercise for the reader. Next time before you start using vulgar language please do a little research and please at least try to stay calm. PostgreSQL is unquestionably the best free software RDBMS. It is clearly superior to most of proprietary systems as well. It has already singlehandedly beaten MS SQL Server and beating Oracle is only a matter of time. No question about that. But let us not forget about the documentation. Of course for you and me outer joins is something utterly obvious and intuitive, but remember that there are people who are beginners to computing and programming in general and set theory and relational model in particular. We should forget about our infantile "leetism" and doubtful "intellectual superiority" if we ever want PostgreSQL to be ready for the desktop. And most certainly starting our sentences with "what the fuck?!" does not make us look any more competent in the business and scientific community. Let this be an appeal to everyone who often forgets that cursing like a drunken sailor does not help the free software movement, myself included. Because if we continue looking like a bunch of simpletons in the eyes of businessmen and politicians, our products and our agenda will never dominate the market of profanum vulgus, notwithstanding the meritorious superiority thereof.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Changing to a "real database" and having to recode all the screens and reports sounds like way more work than upgrading to Filemaker 7.
After all you are not just changing databases you are changing forms management and report managing system.
I'm not sure about the LDAP comment because Filemaker 7 can directly synch with LDAP on Macs.
Having built big systems with "real databases" and
built systems with Filemaker I think you are really underestimating how much work it would take
to reproduce the Filemaker system.
How about GNU Enterprise?
OOo can access MySQL (or just any database) using ODBC or JDBC, creating the reports and mail merges is a breeze. With a bit of custom scripting, you can get even very advanced reports.
What a load of BS ! I hope you're trolling :)
Firts, postgresql does NOT need to be run as root. It will even display an error message if you try to do so !. The default is to run it as postgres.
Although I only use postgresql to host small databases and run simple queries, it works perfectly OK (and I'm a prof, and give my students access to my really crappy server (PII 400, 256 RAM), in which they run their toy databases too).
Now if you've told me it lacks things like distributed databases, ROLAP queries and such, that would be a decent criticism.
the best interface I've seen for PHP is: http://phplens.com/lens/ It's very nice for PHP database development, but it is not FileMaker. Good news is, since it's built w/ ADODB interface it'll hook up to a large number of popular databases, so maybe with a little bit of PHP work you can have your system moved to a more scalable environment. Overall a good question, and a surprisingly poor showing from the FOSS community! :P
http://protege.stanford.edu/
Use Protege-2000. It's functionality eclipses that of FM Pro. It is well-tested and in wide deployment. It is trivial to make UI plugins and other kinds of deep additions in Java, but hardly ever necessary. It is free and open source. It has a paid team of developer that fix problems proptly and provide support.
And it supports any SQL database as a backend, and inserts a "semantic data modeling" layer in between the DB and UI that allows you to do very sophisticated things in a common sense, non-db-nerd way.
I have about the same credentials as the parent AC, and I COMPLETELY agree.
I've seen just how happy people were to get their own PCs and declare independence from the priests of the mainframe. I've seen how happy business people were to use Lotus and later Excel to liberate themselves from what we now call the IT department.
Filemaker is in the same category as Excel or the PC itself. Its basic functionality is very empowering to ordinary business people and even consumers. People who aren't programmers or sysadmin types can whip up their own personal or departmental databases and do all sorts of useful things with surprising ease.
The fact that these PC or Excel or Filemaker projects occasionally evolve into something larger and need to be "repotted" is NO EXCUSE for disempowering the front line users.
We NEED a FOSS Filemaker equivalent in our FOSS Office suites.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
The September newsletter from Mysql AB has a timely article, and reference to a product, FmPro Migrator that may be useful in your endeavor.
Maybe they heard you callling, because the latest MySQL newsletter has just what you're looking for.
http://www.glom.org/
"mySQLcc ("control center") is no longer under development,"
.
In addition to MySQLGUI not being further developed.
I have used MySQL Administrator on my Mandrake boxes at home and on my W2KP box at work. I prefer the GUI/CS apps over the web-based controls.
Also I use or "play with" DBDesigner from www.fabforce.net as well as AquaData Studio from www.aquafold.com
For my development stuff for my hobby and for things which I hope to convert and sell in the near future, I use (have been since 1994 or so) Lotus Approach. THAT is a GUI to be rekoned with, for cubicle users.
Sadly, though I can export my fields (less picture and date/time fields (the D&T have to be converted to "text" first), I cannot get correct summary counts on detal tables. Lotus' reply is to bring the data back to the desktop. Since Approach is not a standalone app (as in runtime executable like ms access is/can be), this may not be much of a problem until data synchronization gets out of control when some fields change. They CAN be remapped, but you're likely better off locking the app so regular users cannot change the interface and start adding their own data. If they are privileged, then make them part of the development team's contacts.
What I do like about MySQL is that it will let me use Approach to export my various schemas/tables although my field names have spaces. A former director of mine suggested I "get used to" using underscores in field names and not use spaces. Well, I don't care for databases that cannot cope with HUMAN-FRIENDLY/readable field names. The technology should be smart enough to permit user-friendly field naming, even if the names still have to be truncated to 45 characters or so.
For the longest time, I did not get PostgreSQL to work distro after distro upgrade of Mandrake because I simply did not figure out the password was 'postgres' or 'postgresql'. Now that I've been on MySQL for a couple years or so, and found some nice GUI apps for it, and it has an ODBC (3.51 or 3.52) driver that lets me export and read my Lotus Approach data, I am happy, but not as happy as I'd be if IBM and Lotus dual-sourced or dual-licensed Approach and SmartSuite.
David Syes
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"