So Long Sugar, and thanks for all the fish

[alsutton]

After over a year waiting for SugarCRM to meet our needs the end has now come and Sages' ACT! 2007 has now been earmarked for purchase.

I think SugarCRM has a lot of potential, but is let down by poor QA and a focus on shiny things rather than the basics (such as a working, reliable, Email client with a sort order that is retained). Unfortunatley these problems have been all too evident and caused a number of user complaints which in turn caused a review of our CRM activites. The final nail in the coffin has been a fix to the XSS vulnerability in the email reader for 4.5 but nothing for 4.2.1.

So the end result, what could have been a great product will now be considered as a failure to meet our needs. ACT! is a lot simpler, but the decision was made that extra functionality could be sacrificed in favour of stability.

To the forum posters: I've had some great conversations with some bright people here, keep it up, hopefully Sugar will meet your needs.

To the Sugar guys: Good luck, I think you're going to need it.

[kirkland]

We're still slogging through 4.5.0d upgrade from 4.2.1a, but there is a lot of truth to his notice that people are doing all sorts of "snazzy" stuff like Dashlets, but since the upgrade we've had the following issues that make the CRM seem unstable, and that makes the sales folks uneasy because the data and functionality is a rather critical issue for them (unsurprisingly!).

Since the upgrade:
1) We had problems with MySQL collation errors that caused rollbacks earlier.
2) We cannot create a new Lead assigned to another or assign a Lead to another user.
3) We cannot download Documents using IE, but we can using Firefox. Too bad much of the world uses IE!
4) The My Calls dashlet does not show calls that are not assigned to me, but I'm listed as a User in the call. There's also no way to accept/decline the call as far as we can tell.
5) The calendar on the Home tab is now gone and is not replaced by a Dashlet.

This is too bad because SugarCRM has a lot of potential, but the focus seems more on cute stuff than the critical meat!

[chrisky]

In life, we get what we pay for, though most people seem to find this concept un-fair and unnacceptable..

Sugar is NOT for the [individual] end computer user whom wants a free CRM..
(I'll save explanations for another post one day, maybe.)

Sugar really is meant for (my opinions; and the best words that came mind when typing this):

a) a multi-user deployment (more sugar users than just a single individual so to say);
b) commercial use (use and deployment by business's, companies, organizations, etc.);
c) installation and continued maitenance by a fairly experienced and competant network/internet server admin; and
d) having at least one experienced/competant PHP programmer in the picture.

You mentioned, scratching sugar and purchasing ACT.. and to each their own..
I know (believe) that this is the wrong/bad and more costly path to go down
(note that this is assuming you fall into the 'multi-user'/business type of user I mention herein; opposed to the single individual end user).

If you are a single end user, then your choice to go with ACT and scratch Sugar for the time,
is a very good decision and the most beneficial to you.

Though ACT/GM are far more featured and stable, they're also very costly and closed source with essentially no room for molding to your organizations imagination (features, functions, desired integration, etc.)

At least in regards to GM, we weren't able to even dream of any type of web deployment (only fairly recently did FrontRange come out with a 'web based' edition), and eventually it did become an option (from FrontRange) but at the expense of purchasing MORE software, and more licenses, and paying more money..

With Sugar being essentially 'free', it is in actuality a 'foundation' as I would describe it..
Not a all-in-one, ready-to-go out of the box, solution that meets every imaginable users need.

What is the solution to each of our Sugar woes?
The solution is to HIRE a programmer if not a couple, in which not only correct bugs/problems but also customize and build onto Sugar so as to meet the users & organizations needs.

A business/company/organization should have no problem doing such, and in actuality is far better off and at a likely far less cost (over the long term) opposed to any crm software purchase out there..

Those whom won't employ such solution are the single individual end users..
Sugar wasn't, well, at least has yet to be made for the single individual end user..
I do concede that the Sugarteam is definately going that direction towards a Sugar
for the single individual end user (the WAMP/Bitrock distributions examplify this)..

Said 'sngl ind. end users', are not actually in NEED of a web based & multi-user deployable crm system, and this is the foundation of my next comment..
Those users would be far happier, better off, and enjoy much greater results & use from ACT or GM. Those users really should just go purchase a copy of ACT or GM.

However, between Sugars lack of features, bugs/problems, etc.. the few bucks spent purchasing ACT/GM would far outweight the frustration, time spent, lack of a usable CRM, lack of features/abilities, etc. in regards to Sugar.

And I'm sure that this post will upset a few people; however, I want to emphasize that my purpose behind it is that I'm trying to HELP both those individual end users & business users.

a) those said end users would be far happier and benefit far more, using a product like Act or GM

b) to business users, my opinion is that it's a bad decision to scratch sugar because of its failings and/or bugs and replaced with expensive [and only partial] solutions like Act/GM.
Like everything, Sugar isn't free, and in this case the expense and [my] suggestion is to hire programmer(s) to fix, maintain, and customize Sugar to your organizations needs.

Take it as you will... I only hope that you'll step back and analyze what's ultimately best for you in your own situation..

and Best of Wishes to All!

[longreach]

I must say I cannot agre with the above analysis. Whether for one user or many, a given CRM system has to work. And whether free (OS) or commercial (Pro, Ent) all the Sugar versions share mostly the same code. So if there is a bug in OS, it is almost certainly in Pro and Ent as well. Therefore, if we were to follow the logic of the previous post, users of Pro and Ent would also be called upon to hire a couple of PHP developers.

As well - by far the bulk of businesses want to spend their time running their business, not tinkering aorund with some software product. So - OS, Pro or Ent - any business that adopts them should only adopt them if they find them to be reliable in their application. Of course - these are CRMs, and each implementation can expect to need to do some customization - but this is not the same as having to fix up bugs in the basic application.

That being said - I do not agree that the Sugar code is unduly buggy - other than perhaps the email module. People's experience with 4.5.x is simply a function of a new release that needs to settle down before it should be commercially implemented. And we see a focus within Sugar at fixing up their email module, and have every reason to expect that a 4.5.1f, or later release, will be a good solid commercial version of SugarCRM.

[chrisky]

P.S.

In regards to my suggesting that some (I'm sure a good handful/percentage of this forums users/viewers/members) scratch Sugar for now and go with ACT or GM ...

To Andy and the SugarTeam, I want to share some of my reasoning..

Firstoff, I'm sure that most of those users are using the OS editions, and with that there is only a minimal if any monetary loss for Sugar.

Secondly, the only thing resulting from those users and my previous posts comments, is the user essentially coming to a 'it doesn't work' conclusion regarding Sugar and alot of negative feelings, comments, reputation associated with Sugar from those users..

Neither the user, not Sugar benefits in such situations..
In actuality, both are losing and suffering..

So, a major purpose behind my post was not only to help some users get into something that works for them, but also to prevent against unneccessary negative reputation regarding SugarCRM..

[chrisky]

I must say I cannot agre with the above analysis. Whether for one user or many, a given CRM system has to work. And whether free (OS) or commercial (Pro, Ent) all the Sugar versions share mostly the same code. So if there is a bug in OS, it is almost certainly in Pro and Ent as well. Therefore, if we were to follow the logic of the previous post, users of Pro and Ent would also be called upon to hire a couple of PHP developers.

As well - by far the bulk of businesses want to spend their time running their business, not tinkering aorund with some software product. So - OS, Pro or Ent - any business that adopts them should only adopt them if they find them to be reliable in their application. Of course - these are CRMs, and each implementation can expect to need to do some customization - but this is not the same as having to fix up bugs in the basic application.

That being said - I do not agree that the Sugar code is unduly buggy - other than perhaps the email module. People's experience with 4.5.x is simply a function of a new release that needs to settle down before it should be commercially implemented. And we see a focus within Sugar at fixing up their email module, and have every reason to expect that a 4.5.1f, or later release, will be a good solid commercial version of SugarCRM.

I'm just out the door now, so only a brief reply to the first paragraph..

My mindset/opinion is that Sugar is a 'work in progress'...
That phrase combined with others such as 'beta' 'release candidate', 'development', etc.. should be worked into ones thought..

Simply said, Sugar is not yet to a point of effectively being usable by individual end users..
This is a fact.. Even the most recent 'd' update, is full of bugs/issues, and essentially results in a non-effectively usable/deployable crm system.

Yes I agree with you, and you are right, however I differ in that saying Sugar is not yet to that point.. It will be [hopefully soon] down the road, but isn't at this moment, imho.

Have you as well put any thought into; or have any knowledge of the Sugarteams business plans, goals, etc. and just where they're going with Sugar or want to go?
Sadly, it isn't my place to share my 'opinions' and I will continue to try to maintain a great level of respect for them, because I do respect them greatly..

got to run, but please enlighten me if I'm really way off base...

[sankar]

Many of you might know, I have been working on the electronic medical records application using sugar OS as the base. I have been using this for almost 11 months. Being in health area, clients won't accept buggy system. It might be okay in CRM world, because the consequences may not be bad. But in Health it is not.

Having said that, this application actually rocks. I haven't found any major bugs and we also don't use majority of sugar modules. We can serve million records with a beat. No problem.

We don't use any modules other than Calendar and Contacts. I created so many health related modules (including internal messaging). We also created templates.

The problems I have are simple, namely
1. Graphs for analyzing child growth ...like you would seen for your child. If you guys know a good package, please let me know.
2. Checkboxes in the subpanels to select and make a word document or a RTF wherein the checked items will be copied in the RTF including the descriptions.
3. Display a known set of Images (image maps) for annotations and document them in the editview fields. ie when a physician clicks some portions of the images, the associated text is copied in a texfield.

But I will get it going slowly.

Moreover, Clinics and Hospitals will benefit immensively by this rock solid application.

Thanks guys.

-Sankar

[rickcrites]

I want to add to the thread in defense of Sugar.

As frustrated as I get sometimes with some of the shortcomings (email and a few more minor things), I have to say that Sugar is a good product. Especially for a free, open source program. I have looked at several of the other offerings out there in the OS world, and have not been positively impressed by anything except Sugar.

I hope you guys at SugarCRM will quote this post to me next time I get frustrated and grumpy. You really have produced a nice product here, and continue to improve it for us. Please, keep it up.

Thanks for everything (not just "the fish").

Best,

[Angel]

Boy, this thread brings back memories. LOL

I worked at GoldMine (then FrontRange) during GoldMine's much more luster filled days and was often on the receiving end of messages such as Al's. While there is validity to some of the points raised by him and others, years later, I continue to fail to see the need to deliver it in the manner he chose. "See you later ...btw, you guys suck."

I could go on for ages on this topic, but I won't, because eventually I'll say something that'll set someone off on a flame war (another equally productive activity).

Suffice it to say, the most striking comment made was the point that it took him a year to realize that the better option was ACT2007. It sticks out in my mind because I've had countless interactions with individuals with similar experiences that I would argue didn't know what they wanted out of the system in the first place and were hoping the software would somehow compensate for this lack of discovery/planning. Lest we forget he is comparing a product that is about 2 years old to one that is over 15 years old.

In any case, what annoys me about this type of message within the Sugar community is that the spirit of open source is to better things one perceives as bad/lacking and then share those improvements with everyone else. The collective input will provide a much greater result than any one individual or group could have ever envisioned. This is what immediately appealed to me about open source in general when I first started using Linux years ago.

I find Al's message to be mildly rude/offensive to the community, which is all of us, not just the Sugar folks. Not everyone has to like the end result/product, but one could at least be polite or constructive in their criticism.

[Proware]

Hi Angel,

What section did you work in at GoldMine? I have been to 5 GoldMine conferences in Vail, Colorado, San Diego etc and wonder if I have met you.

You might remember the Aussie TSM Service Manager stand - one year we handed out little Koalas.

If not, don;'t mind.

I concur with your sentiment - negative attitudes are more destructive than constructive in an open source world. Perhaps more jsutified in a proprietary world if they were bagging GM or Act!.

btw - I spoke to a colleague who put on Act in the last few months - he was complaining bitterly how slow it was, not only on his machine abut also slowing down other applications on his machine as well. He was wishing he never went down that path - the consultant never told him this would happen. I told him about Sugar - he was really interested but perhaps too late to help him.

You mentioned that Open Source "share those improvements with everyone else" . The only criticism I can think of here (more of a suggestion) is that Sugar them selves should have a formal process of having Open Source modifications incorporated in future versions of Sugar as standard modules rather than reinventing the wheel themselves all the time. Perhaps there can be a Users Choice awards or something where users vote on the mods they want incorporated in Sugar (copyright and developer permissions issues covered of course).