General Journal

[cgw993 at aol.com]

If by professional software, you mean software that does not follow standard bookkeeping practices and the user has no hope of understanding their own books, then yes Peachtree is proffessional, second only to quickbooks.

 

From: Buddha Buck [mailto:blaisepascal at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 9:33 AM
To: cgw993
Cc: Ian Konen; GnuCash Users List
Subject: Re: General Journal

 

 

On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 11:52 AM, <cgw993 at aol.com> wrote:

Stating that the journal is equivalent to the ledger makes no sense. This is
how the quickbooks and peachtree message boards sound.    This really means
that and on the 2nd Tuesday of every 3rd moon you do this to achieve that.
They cannot possibly be equivalent.  What GC has done is to create a clone
of some proprietary software that also did it wrong on purpose.   That was
probably the correct choice for GC because they needed to provide something
for people to switch to that was similar to what they were already using,
but that was free software.

 

When banks offer downloads in Quicken format (or derivatives thereof), GnuCash (or any other software which wants to import this data from banks) must use what information is available in that format.

 

Personally, I do not see GnuCash as similar to Quicken.  If anything, I see it as similar to Peachtree, or other professional DE-accounting packages I've used.  Guess what: they didn't use a General Journal as the main data-entry tool either.  I learned DE-bookkeeping long before Quicken was released; heck, I wrote DE-bookkeeping software before Quicken was released.  From the beginning, I knew Quicken got it wrong, in terms of artificially simplifying the DE process to make it easier for non-bookkeepers to keep books.  I use GnuCash because GnuCash gets it right, and is not a Quicken clone.