Generally you'll find a few options in the non-profit sector:
Targeted, high priced systems
Things like Blackbaud's Raiser's Edge have been around for years, are very full featured, and are often expensive. They run locally on Oracle or SQLServer (maybe others?) They make most of their money off of extensions, upgrades, and service contracts, so be aware that it's going to be well into the 6 figures before your done with them. Same downsides as other locally installed database systems (upgrades, etc).
Targeted, Locally installable
A number of products in the past 15 years have come out for non-profits to download, install locally, and use. Of note, eBase (based on FilemakerPro), and a few others. Recent ones are CiviCRM, and the downloadable SugarCRM. The biggest challenge with these is that you need a geek to install them (yes, you really do), AND a geek to upgrade it three years down the road after your last geek left. Upgrades generally make that harder. These are often free to obtain, but you need to pay someone to install them successfully, or pray that you can find volunteers who know what a command prompt is.
Targeted SaaS systems
More recently SaaS systems dedicated to the nonprofit and organizing community have started to become the norm. Generally cheaper in the end (as are most SaaS systems), most large and midsize groups are moving this way.
Of note: DemocracyInAction, running on the Salsa platform -- ~$100/month +, depending on which pieces you want (I'm associated with DIA)
Convio: Higher priced, but similar -- starts around $2,000/month
Blackbaud new offering: Word is that Blackbaud has something else coming out, but the price will likely be along the same lines as their Raiser's Edge product
Non targeted SaaS systems
Some larger companies (Salesforce, Microsoft, etc) have a version of their software targeted at nonprofits. While capable of some basics, for real organizing and donor management they fall short, unless you pay for a significantly customized version of them. You get the advantage of a big name, but sacrifice lots of useful features. Prices vary -- usually depends on how much customization you want, and if you can find an implementor.
AAAA! -- seen too many posts of "Move Along, it was his personal computer". But the point is that it is getting easier and easier to get this info from ISP's, including Google. In this case, a subpoena to Google for this same information (presuming they have it) would be just as easy if the hard drive were not available.
Preventing ISP's from keeping this much information is a GOOD thing. This gentleman is still presumed to be innocent by our laws, yet the accumulation of knowledge about a person -- that is not within that person's control -- often leads to an incorrect and dangerous a priori conviction of them in the minds of the public, or the eyes of a jury. Whether it's on his machine or Google's, the point remains the same, and the danger lies in the volume of available information to a subpoena, which can then be cherry picked to suit the prosecutor's particular daily whims. Better hope he had his coffee.
I'd like to clear not just my cache, but Google's, and Yahoo's, and Microsoft's.
Hey all --
as one of the developers on this project, and a rabid privacy freak, this thing is a good idea in a poor package.
The best way to think of it is like a DNS system, but for individuals. You can buy an iName at any one of a hundred places (iBrokers) that you trust, similar to GoDaddy or NetworkSolutions in DNS space. That broker has information about you, but it is private. That broker has the responsibility to maintain your information, and handle requests for that information from groups that want your info. You set who gets your information. Just like DNS brokers, there's good ones with good servers and services, there's bad ones, etc, but like DNS, you can ALWAYS change brokers. (iname portability)
It's not controlled by one group, it's an open standard that's been around for a while, and groups are signing up right now as completely independent iBrokers. Right now there's only one (which is clearly a problem), but it's similar to the beginning of DNS. YOU could be an iBroker, if you ascribed to the standards --
People much brighter than I have been thinking hard about this, and individuals whose privacy is very critical have been working on this --
there is a profit motive to get companies interested -- but hopefully that won't be confused with a desire to screw people out of money then bolt with the check -- there's good folks working on this.
Paul Graham makes many many excellent points, but I feel that his focus on speed and efficiency may not be the guiding force for language evolution. So far, languages have only become larger, and more feature oriented. This 'feature-creep' is bad in a lot of cases, but in many cases it allows programmers to develop powerful applications very quickly.
I believe the hundred year language will allow developers to create applications(or whatever they will be called) by listing member components (I'll take a web server, two databasii, and a slice of cheese, please).
The details will slowly be standardized out, much as the TCP/IP stack has been. This will cause development to be much more artistic, which I am scared to death of. This slow removal of detail will not hinder the specificity of the application, but will just make it easier to not think about the details.
Object oriented is on the main trunk of the evolutionary tree, although Java may or may not be.
Slashdot Mirror
Generally you'll find a few options in the non-profit sector:
Targeted, high priced systems
Things like Blackbaud's Raiser's Edge have been around for years, are very full featured, and are often expensive. They run locally on Oracle or SQLServer (maybe others?) They make most of their money off of extensions, upgrades, and service contracts, so be aware that it's going to be well into the 6 figures before your done with them. Same downsides as other locally installed database systems (upgrades, etc).
Targeted, Locally installable
A number of products in the past 15 years have come out for non-profits to download, install locally, and use. Of note, eBase (based on FilemakerPro), and a few others. Recent ones are CiviCRM, and the downloadable SugarCRM. The biggest challenge with these is that you need a geek to install them (yes, you really do), AND a geek to upgrade it three years down the road after your last geek left. Upgrades generally make that harder. These are often free to obtain, but you need to pay someone to install them successfully, or pray that you can find volunteers who know what a command prompt is.
Targeted SaaS systems
More recently SaaS systems dedicated to the nonprofit and organizing community have started to become the norm. Generally cheaper in the end (as are most SaaS systems), most large and midsize groups are moving this way. Of note: DemocracyInAction, running on the Salsa platform -- ~$100/month +, depending on which pieces you want (I'm associated with DIA) Convio: Higher priced, but similar -- starts around $2,000/month Blackbaud new offering: Word is that Blackbaud has something else coming out, but the price will likely be along the same lines as their Raiser's Edge product
Non targeted SaaS systems
Some larger companies (Salesforce, Microsoft, etc) have a version of their software targeted at nonprofits. While capable of some basics, for real organizing and donor management they fall short, unless you pay for a significantly customized version of them. You get the advantage of a big name, but sacrifice lots of useful features. Prices vary -- usually depends on how much customization you want, and if you can find an implementor.
Preventing ISP's from keeping this much information is a GOOD thing. This gentleman is still presumed to be innocent by our laws, yet the accumulation of knowledge about a person -- that is not within that person's control -- often leads to an incorrect and dangerous a priori conviction of them in the minds of the public, or the eyes of a jury. Whether it's on his machine or Google's, the point remains the same, and the danger lies in the volume of available information to a subpoena, which can then be cherry picked to suit the prosecutor's particular daily whims. Better hope he had his coffee.
I'd like to clear not just my cache, but Google's, and Yahoo's, and Microsoft's.
Hey all -- as one of the developers on this project, and a rabid privacy freak, this thing is a good idea in a poor package. The best way to think of it is like a DNS system, but for individuals. You can buy an iName at any one of a hundred places (iBrokers) that you trust, similar to GoDaddy or NetworkSolutions in DNS space. That broker has information about you, but it is private. That broker has the responsibility to maintain your information, and handle requests for that information from groups that want your info. You set who gets your information. Just like DNS brokers, there's good ones with good servers and services, there's bad ones, etc, but like DNS, you can ALWAYS change brokers. (iname portability) It's not controlled by one group, it's an open standard that's been around for a while, and groups are signing up right now as completely independent iBrokers. Right now there's only one (which is clearly a problem), but it's similar to the beginning of DNS. YOU could be an iBroker, if you ascribed to the standards -- People much brighter than I have been thinking hard about this, and individuals whose privacy is very critical have been working on this -- there is a profit motive to get companies interested -- but hopefully that won't be confused with a desire to screw people out of money then bolt with the check -- there's good folks working on this.
Paul Graham makes many many excellent points, but I feel that his focus on speed and efficiency may not be the guiding force for language evolution. So far, languages have only become larger, and more feature oriented. This 'feature-creep' is bad in a lot of cases, but in many cases it allows programmers to develop powerful applications very quickly. I believe the hundred year language will allow developers to create applications(or whatever they will be called) by listing member components (I'll take a web server, two databasii, and a slice of cheese, please). The details will slowly be standardized out, much as the TCP/IP stack has been. This will cause development to be much more artistic, which I am scared to death of. This slow removal of detail will not hinder the specificity of the application, but will just make it easier to not think about the details. Object oriented is on the main trunk of the evolutionary tree, although Java may or may not be.