PCLaw software - Makes the wrong move

[coffee]

In my business I handle a few Law firms that use the software PCLaw. Its very interesting software from a maintainers stand point. Currently they are trying to get version 16 out the door but are having issues with the database functionality. Therefore, Since 2015 they have been telling everyone that is on version 14 to just sit where they are.

Currently with version 14 you have two ways to handle the database. You can use Microsoft's DB software which requires a M$ server or you can use their built in C-Tree database which is a collection of files basically. Using the M$ database server means maintaining a M$ server. Using the C-Tree database as my clients do you can just host the database on a share from any linux flavor using samba. The costs of doing that compared to a M$ database in a small business are night and day. It works.

However, Back in 2015 they decided that version 16 will now only run on a M$ database. They will be dropping their own built in C-Tree database and everything will have to run off a M$ server. They do comment that M$ does make a database version for linux. However, The question arises - Why are you basically trying to reinvent the wheel with M$?

Linux Server instances come with the well maintained and popular mysql database software and their is even a fork called Mariadb. All the major flavors of linux are switching to Mariadb - Redhat ect... For some reason PCLaw has decided to forgo this option and instead only work with an M$ option. Therefore, If your using a linux based server and want to run pclaw you are going to be forced to use an unproven database project from M$ on linux instead of the tried and true mysql or Mariadb. This is quite odd. The M$ version of their db software will no doubt be closed sourced and also cost some amount.

Usually when you cannot find a logical answer then it comes down to money and greed.

In addition, One has to ask - "Why has it already taken them almost 4 years to fix the problems with version 16 and get it out the door?". The answer to that came after some digging - They are having issues with the database solution from M$ - lol. Four years of an ongoing issue with M$.

PCLaw is owned by LexisNexis software.

Next, One can argue that well, Linux is not really main stream as much as M$ server is for our product. In a phone conversation this morning I was given such an excuse and then I asked them "Then why does M$ feel the need to provide a linux version of their database program?" Also, Do you realize that the large majority of servers on the internet run linux? There was a bit of a dramatic pause from LexisNexis as the representative was no doubt looking for an answer - He did it though. He came up with the correct answer - "I do not know. I will ask the higher ups. In fact, I m glad you emailed us about this. You have raised some very valid questions and I am going to push this up the ladder and see if I can get some answers for you".

I do want to say that overall, PCLaw is good software. Their support is also top notch. I recently had to repair a database corruption issue and I was escalated to tier 2 support. I got a call from T2 support within 2 hours of it being escalated. I went to explain the issue and the tech didnt want to hear it (politely) and just wanted access to the database. He had it fixed within a half hour. He was very personable and even shared some short comings on SMB2 protocal problems and solutions. So, They most definitely support the end user extremely well.

PCLaw should use the MariaDB along with the M$ solution for M$ servers. There is no need to use a db software solution with little history to it - especially from M$. The best tool for linux servers is already out there and has been faithfully doing its job for many years.

 

[fencepost]

eClinicalWorks is or was built around MySQL, though I believe they also had an option to use MSSQL. Not sure of the current status, the direction now is much more that they'll host it - we no longer even have any clients running self-hosted versions.

 

[HCHTech]

PCLaw is owned by LexisNexis software.

Say no more, son, say no more.

From their perspective, this is undoubtedly revenue-driven. Fewer databases to develop and support would clearly be more economical for them. Look on the bright side, maybe you'll get to sell them a server!

 

[trevm999]

First off, what about Postgres?

The decision to use MS SQL Server probably goes down to that's what their Devs already have experience with, and is seen as easier since it might be easier to have it integrated with their development environment.

However, MS SQL Server is expensive. And Devs don't get to see this side of it. MS SQL on Linux is less expensive, because you don't need a Windows Server Licence, and if you are running a web service for clients - probably won't need an External Connector Licence (which I believe is just for the OS and not needed for the SQL product)

If they have a web portal (or want to add one to their product in the future) and are running on Windows Server (Windows 10 isn't licences to run as a server except in specific use cases). You have the cost of Windows Server, internal user CALs (if they don't have these already), an External Connector Licence, plus MS SQL licenced as PER CORE (if they can't use SQL Express, and it doesn't make sense to buy SQL CALs for each of their clients)

Once your DB hits over 10GB or really need to use more than 1GB for your cache and thus can't use SQL Express anymore, the cost can really soar. And multiplexing provisions in the SQL licence means there's not really a way around it.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Yeah I remember PCLaw on C-Tree waaaaay back then. I think even going back to the NT 4 server days. That C-Tree was very testy when a server or workstation had a rude shutdown...very prone to corruption and needing the database integrity/repair utility run on it.

I think their decision to stick to SQL is based on costs of support on their end. Majority of small businesses like law firms run on Windows. To have to have in-house staff to support a tweaked for like MariaDB....is costly to the software house, especially if they can count the amount of law firm clients in the US with a linux server in 30 seconds (meaning..it's probably a very short list.). Add to that...they're pushing for their clients to move to the cloud hosted version.

The "dedicated workstation" at a small law firm, or "dedicated server" at a larger law firm, likely already has SQL Express installed for some other apps..so firing up another SQL instance is easy. Only have to go full blown SQL server is the size of the database dictates that. So many law firms can run on the free version of baby SQL.

 

[fencepost]

@trevm999 probably has a big chunk of it in terms of what the devs are familiar with, particularly with a traditional fat client implementation. If they're working on shifting it to a hosted service, that's likely to be a completely new implementation with a much lighter browser-based front end, and a lot more logic built into the server and storage levels. That's also where they'll shift internally to using MariaDB or PostGres, because then they're going to be paying for the cost of those licenses instead of it being an external cost that their customers are paying.

I'm not so sure about the cost of support, because many of their clients aren't going to have anyone on-staff to deal with anything database related and probably won't know that the product includes/links to a database at all. As far as the server capabilities, all the open source databases will run pretty solidly on Windows though there may still be licensing costs to MS, or it'd be surprisingly easy to distribute a preconfigured appliance box or VM - kind of like what Solarwinds does with N-Central.

 

[Markverhyden]

And let's not forget all of the free support M$ provides to companies developing software exclusively for their ecosystem.

 

[coffee]

Seems to me that if you needed support on a MS database instance then what are they going to do? Tell you to call M$ ?
"Its not our database software. You have to call support at M$ for that".

It just seems to me that they could offer it with mariadb under the same thinking above. I realize that support is a different animal all together with opensource but they could at least offer it with the exception that support is only offered by the Operating System Vendor (i.e. Redhat or other pay for support flavors).

From my last experience with M$ servers I prefer not to walk thru that mess again. I guess I will begin looking for alternative software for them. Although this might be difficult, Its possible and should be explored.

 

[coffee]

First off, what about Postgres?

Hey, Ive done Postgres too. I like it. Its just mariadb comes standard in linux pretty much across the board. But they do not support that either.

I realize Im running a losing position here but they should at least hear what their client base is doing with their software.