ComputerWorld Article, Mentions OFBiz

[David E Jones]

Not a lot of detail on the project, nor terribly accurate on the ones  
it does have, but an interesting read with some good points anyway:

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?
command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9011649

-David

[davidnwelton]

Returns a 404 for me...

On 2/23/07, David E. Jones <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Not a lot of detail on the project, nor terribly accurate on the ones
> it does have, but an interesting read with some good points anyway:
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?
> command=viewArticleBasic&amp;articleId=9011649

Your URL didn't come through quite right:

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9011649

--
David N. Welton
 - http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/

Linux, Open Source Consulting
 - http://www.dedasys.com/

[Daniel Kunkel]

Hi

You gotta do some reworking of the url...  Namely combining both lines
and changing the &amp; to just a &

Try:

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?
command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9011649




On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 12:05 +0100, David Welton wrote:
> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?
> > command=viewArticleBasic&amp;articleId=9011649

[Jacques Le Roux]

This is good too http://tinyurl.com/26h7y7

Jacques

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Kunkel" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: ComputerWorld Article, Mentions OFBiz

> Hi
>
> You gotta do some reworking of the url...  Namely combining both lines
> and changing the &amp; to just a &
>
> Try:
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?
> command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9011649
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 12:05 +0100, David Welton wrote:
> > http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?
> > > command=viewArticleBasic&amp;articleId=9011649

[Shi Jinghai]

>From my view, OFBiz is much better than other open source ERP systems.

When I started my company 3 years ago, OFBiz was one of my choices to be
the core engine of our service basement. There was only one weakness
made me give up at that time: I was not sure whether the core developers
would stay long with OFBiz. Now this is not a problem any more, OFBiz is
Apache TLP, this is a very important promise to customers.

Personally I hope David can keep eyes on SAPs rather than other open
source ERPs. I'm sure in the next 3 years many top level service
companies will be in the SP list of OFBiz.

Regards,

Shi Jinghai/Beijing Langhua Ltd.


在 2007-02-23五的 15:49 -0700，David E. Jones写道：
> Not a lot of detail on the project, nor terribly accurate on the ones  
> it does have, but an interesting read with some good points anyway:
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?
> command=viewArticleBasic&amp;articleId=9011649
>
> -David

[David Shere]

What does this article mean when it says that OFBiz has no "services
division"?

David E. Jones wrote:
>
> Not a lot of detail on the project, nor terribly accurate on the ones it
> does have, but an interesting read with some good points anyway:
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&amp;articleId=9011649 
>
>
> -David

--
David Shere
Information Technology Services
Steele Rubber Products
www.SteeleRubber.com

[David Shere]

"So Rosa hired a consultant to customize the Apache Open For Business
open-source ERP software for his firm's distribution arm.

But the project management spun out of control, causing the effort to go
over budget. The first problem: The consultant had no experience with
Open For Business, and its learning curve was steeper than expected. The
second problem: Because Open For Business is very customizable, both
Prevention Partners and its consultant "got caught up" in much
customization, Rosa recalls. And Open For Business is based on Java,
which Rosa's developers aren't experienced in, so they couldn't take over."

This guy didn't ask his consultant if he had any experience with OFBiz?
  That's just that guy being stupid.

They're implying that OFBiz is "too customizable"... that sounds to me
like someone who marries his wife because she's great at conversation
and then divorces her because she talks too much.

That last sentence may as well say "OFBiz is based in Java, which is an
obscure programming language that no one knows and is a bitch to
learn"...  that just makes me laugh.

Yes, David, terribly inaccurate. :)

David E. Jones wrote:
>
> Not a lot of detail on the project, nor terribly accurate on the ones it
> does have, but an interesting read with some good points anyway:
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&amp;articleId=9011649 
>
>
> -David

--
David Shere
Information Technology Services
Steele Rubber Products
www.SteeleRubber.com

[David E Jones]

This is actually a very accurate part of the article. OFBiz is an  
open source project, with no commercial interests, so there really is  
no services division. In fact, there is no company.

In a way it seems another failure to distinguish between commercial  
and community driven open source projects. For open source business  
software projects like OFBiz are really rather rare, and don't get  
much press.

-David


On Mar 5, 2007, at 9:05 AM, David Shere wrote:

> What does this article mean when it says that OFBiz has no  
> "services division"?
>
> David E. Jones wrote:
>> Not a lot of detail on the project, nor terribly accurate on the  
>> ones it does have, but an interesting read with some good points  
>> anyway:
>> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?
>> command=viewArticleBasic&amp;articleId=9011649 -David
>
> --
> David Shere
> Information Technology Services
> Steele Rubber Products
> www.SteeleRubber.com
>

[Walter Vaughan]

David E. Jones wrote:

> For open source business  
> software projects like OFBiz are really rather rare, and don't get  much
> press.

Or visiblity at trade shows. I'm getting two or three marketing pieces a week
from the NCOF (National Conference on Operations & Fulfillment), and all I can
think is that there is a bunch of companies that could come into the family and
help sponsor pieces of ofBiz/openTaps.

I gave two seminars ("Data Standards" and "Marketing your small business on the
internet") this past weekend a the HotRod & Restoration Trade show in
Indianapolis. I did get ofBiz worked into the bio that was read by the person
introducing me, but I didn't get to spend much time talking about ofBiz during
the seminars.

I'm guessing in 2008 I'll make the push to give presentations on open source ERP
  /MRP/E-commerce systems [with a emphasis on ofBiz of course] at SEMA
(http://www.semashow.com), Automotive eForum (http://www.aftermarketeforum.com),
HRR (http://www.hotrodshow.com), and maybe even the Sema National Education
Conference.

--
Walter

[jonwimp]

David (Jones),

What about those open source projects that are polished for OOTB convenience and experience? Even
Apache (httpd) and Tomcat (both under Apache Licence 2.0?) have better OOTB "operational
readiness" than OFBiz. Ie, they work well OOTB and they have very good and widely published docs
to further fuel explosive rate of community development. (I understand you believe that approach
won't benefit OFBiz; I don't know so I can't say.)

I still maintain that there are 2 sections to OFBiz --- core and ERP. And I'd say the core
certainly works very well OOTB (like Springs, Freemarker, Apache, Tomcat, Mantis, PHP, etc).

Maybe we make that clear to new users?

Imagine if Tomcat was advertised as a shopping cart software, and the shopping cart software built
on top of the webserver was incomplete (or "almost ready to fly, but not quite"). There'd be
complaints, even though Tomcat is really a solid webserver and not a shopping cart.

But of course, I understand you may want OFBiz to stand for an ERP solution, not just an entity
engine (which as many had said is the "jewel in the crown"). I think if you work at things the way
you do now, we'd probably have a solid ERP solution in a few years' time.

There are "services divisions" for open source projects. That's the community itself! Nobody would
pick up an open source project for use or solutioning if it lacks this "services division". In
many companys' open source adoption policies, wide adoption aka community support aka "services
division" is the TOP concern. This "services division" counterpart in open source projects is what
gives them the decided edge over commercial projects with paid and comparatively limited (not
world-wide and free flow) REAL services division.

I don't know if the ML knows this, but the ML is often the first channel to be watched in
assessing the project's "services division". The quality and demographics (techie to hobbyist
spectrum) of the "services division" makes or breaks the open source projects.

But still, I do admit it probably makes more sense (and cents) to advertise "My ERP consulting
company" rather than advertise OFBiz itself. I'd say I'd have more success promoting "My ERP
consulting company" than OFBiz, as things are now. OFBiz core is a solid product, and that's not ERP.

By the way, I'm getting real good at taking apart my RC helicopter. The major diff between RC
helicopters and RC planes is that helicopters need major calibration (more moving parts). So, what
is advertised as "Ready-To-Fly (RTF)" for helicopters really means "Almost-Ready-to-Fly (ARF)"
(one notch down). More people buy planes than helicopters; those who give up on helicopters (steep
learning curve) just go for planes or cars thereafter.

I like OFBiz. :)

Jonathon

David E. Jones wrote:

>
> This is actually a very accurate part of the article. OFBiz is an open
> source project, with no commercial interests, so there really is no
> services division. In fact, there is no company.
>
> In a way it seems another failure to distinguish between commercial and
> community driven open source projects. For open source business software
> projects like OFBiz are really rather rare, and don't get much press.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Mar 5, 2007, at 9:05 AM, David Shere wrote:
>
>> What does this article mean when it says that OFBiz has no "services
>> division"?
>>
>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>> Not a lot of detail on the project, nor terribly accurate on the ones
>>> it does have, but an interesting read with some good points anyway:
>>> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&amp;articleId=9011649 
>>> -David
>>
>> --David Shere
>> Information Technology Services
>> Steele Rubber Products
>> www.SteeleRubber.com
>>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato]

Jonathon, all,

Jonathon -- Improov wrote:

> David (Jones),
>
> What about those open source projects that are polished for OOTB
> convenience and experience? Even Apache (httpd) and Tomcat (both under
> Apache Licence 2.0?) have better OOTB "operational readiness" than
> OFBiz. Ie, they work well OOTB and they have very good and widely
> published docs to further fuel explosive rate of community development.
> (I understand you believe that approach won't benefit OFBiz; I don't
> know so I can't say.)
> ...

I'm sorry to interfere with a mail addressed to David Jones (via the
mailing list), but I think that my comments (not specifically addressed
to this Jonathon's mail) are worth of consideration:

1) if it's not really necessary, I would not want to see David Jones
time wasted reading/answering this kind of long messages about a subject
discussed at least 1000 times; David is one of the best
architects/developers in the project and we should all do our best to
leave him concentrated in the most critical tasks that can make the
project grow; in the last months I've noticed the bad habit to attempt
to attract David (and other core developers as well) in long and
unnecessary discussions

2) another very bad habit is to attribute to others your personal
re-elaboration of what others said: in this way, if the concept is
reported in an incomplete or incorrect way, you can create confusion to
new users and oblige the person to jump in and correct it. As a general
rule, never try to restate what you think that other said, just express
your thoughts (if they are of interest for the project).
For example, Jonathon said: "I understand you (David) believe that
approach won't benefit OFBiz"
I really don't think that David ever said something like this; the main
point here is that OFBiz and Tomcat are totally different products (as
discussed 10000 times).

In general #1, #2 are harmful habits for a project and we should avoid them.

Jacopo

[Scott Gray]

+1

Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> Jonathon, all,
>
> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>> David (Jones),
>>
>> What about those open source projects that are polished for OOTB
>> convenience and experience? Even Apache (httpd) and Tomcat (both
>> under Apache Licence 2.0?) have better OOTB "operational readiness"
>> than OFBiz. Ie, they work well OOTB and they have very good and
>> widely published docs to further fuel explosive rate of community
>> development. (I understand you believe that approach won't benefit
>> OFBiz; I don't know so I can't say.)
>> ...
>
> I'm sorry to interfere with a mail addressed to David Jones (via the
> mailing list), but I think that my comments (not specifically
> addressed to this Jonathon's mail) are worth of consideration:
>
> 1) if it's not really necessary, I would not want to see David Jones
> time wasted reading/answering this kind of long messages about a
> subject discussed at least 1000 times; David is one of the best
> architects/developers in the project and we should all do our best to
> leave him concentrated in the most critical tasks that can make the
> project grow; in the last months I've noticed the bad habit to attempt
> to attract David (and other core developers as well) in long and
> unnecessary discussions
>
> 2) another very bad habit is to attribute to others your personal
> re-elaboration of what others said: in this way, if the concept is
> reported in an incomplete or incorrect way, you can create confusion
> to new users and oblige the person to jump in and correct it. As a
> general rule, never try to restate what you think that other said,
> just express your thoughts (if they are of interest for the project).
> For example, Jonathon said: "I understand you (David) believe that
> approach won't benefit OFBiz"
> I really don't think that David ever said something like this; the
> main point here is that OFBiz and Tomcat are totally different
> products (as discussed 10000 times).
>
> In general #1, #2 are harmful habits for a project and we should avoid
> them.
>
> Jacopo
>
>
>

[Shi Jinghai]

I don't think so.

In Chinese, 兼听则明, which means you hear more on a thing's good and
bad, you see more on what the thing really is.

Time will show its justice.

在 2007-03-06二的 06:49 +0100，Jacopo Cappellato写道：

> Jonathon, all,
>
> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> > David (Jones),
> >
> > What about those open source projects that are polished for OOTB
> > convenience and experience? Even Apache (httpd) and Tomcat (both under
> > Apache Licence 2.0?) have better OOTB "operational readiness" than
> > OFBiz. Ie, they work well OOTB and they have very good and widely
> > published docs to further fuel explosive rate of community development.
> > (I understand you believe that approach won't benefit OFBiz; I don't
> > know so I can't say.)
> > ...
>
> I'm sorry to interfere with a mail addressed to David Jones (via the
> mailing list), but I think that my comments (not specifically addressed
> to this Jonathon's mail) are worth of consideration:
>
> 1) if it's not really necessary, I would not want to see David Jones
> time wasted reading/answering this kind of long messages about a subject
> discussed at least 1000 times; David is one of the best
> architects/developers in the project and we should all do our best to
> leave him concentrated in the most critical tasks that can make the
> project grow; in the last months I've noticed the bad habit to attempt
> to attract David (and other core developers as well) in long and
> unnecessary discussions
>
> 2) another very bad habit is to attribute to others your personal
> re-elaboration of what others said: in this way, if the concept is
> reported in an incomplete or incorrect way, you can create confusion to
> new users and oblige the person to jump in and correct it. As a general
> rule, never try to restate what you think that other said, just express
> your thoughts (if they are of interest for the project).
> For example, Jonathon said: "I understand you (David) believe that
> approach won't benefit OFBiz"
> I really don't think that David ever said something like this; the main
> point here is that OFBiz and Tomcat are totally different products (as
> discussed 10000 times).
>
> In general #1, #2 are harmful habits for a project and we should avoid them.
>
> Jacopo
>
>

[jonwimp]

Hi Shi Jinghai,

Yes, time will tell. Over the history of open source projects, there's been many forks that
supersede other "less favored" ones. Natural selection.

Time doesn't wait for anyone. I can create the best open source ERP in the world today, and still
get superseded later on.

Actually, you don't need to "hear" about OFBiz to know what it really is. OFBiz is open source.
You know what it really is just by reading the source codes (plus the SVN commit logs).

Glad you're keeping your mind and eyes open. :) As always, "see for yourself", don't just take
anybody's word for it.

As for Jacopo's comment, the topic he may have forgotten was about "services division", a very
pertinent factor in both open source and commercial projects. As for Jacopo's comments about "I
really don't think that David ever said something like this", we'll have to ask David himself (and
also look at past posts on the ML). I could have remembered wrong.

As for Jacopo's comment "I've noticed the bad habit to attempt to attract David", I don't
particularly see this habit being rampant among posters (again, look through past posts), so this
ML is clean and lean enough. There are some outright inflammatory posts/posters, but those are
rare, and please understand personalities and language barriers in play here. But I do admit, I
see some rare posts directed at David to elicit very philosophical responses, though I can't say
those philosophical discussions are unnecessary since I don't understand/read quite a bit of those
myself. I also see David trying to "contain" certain wrong/hasty directions in OFBiz development;
those would certainly "attract David". IMHO, David seems to be becoming a stronger "benevolent
dictator" (more free time now? terminology related to some past posts) for OFBiz, which is great
for OFBiz.

As usual, to cut the discussion short and clean, I'll not respond to this thread anymore. I just
wanted to mention that it's good you're "seeing for yourself" over time. That's what we should all
do, including/especially OFBiz core team, be objective. Though "the people" do make "the project",
it's often useful to look to the leader in predicting future directions than to look to the
members (like myself!).

Time will tell, and I'm placing my bets on OFBiz for now.

 >> As a general rule, never try to restate what you think that other said, just
 >> express your thoughts (if they are of interest for the project)

Jacopo is right here. But more specifically, we should not assume or second-guess intent of
posters; quoting other posters in order to respond to them is more grounded and less risky.

Jonathon

Shi Jinghai wrote:

> I don't think so.
>
> In Chinese, 兼听则明, which means you hear more on a thing's good and
> bad, you see more on what the thing really is.
>
> Time will show its justice.
>
> 在 2007-03-06二的 06:49 +0100，Jacopo Cappellato写道：
>> Jonathon, all,
>>
>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>> David (Jones),
>>>
>>> What about those open source projects that are polished for OOTB
>>> convenience and experience? Even Apache (httpd) and Tomcat (both under
>>> Apache Licence 2.0?) have better OOTB "operational readiness" than
>>> OFBiz. Ie, they work well OOTB and they have very good and widely
>>> published docs to further fuel explosive rate of community development.
>>> (I understand you believe that approach won't benefit OFBiz; I don't
>>> know so I can't say.)
>>> ...
>> I'm sorry to interfere with a mail addressed to David Jones (via the
>> mailing list), but I think that my comments (not specifically addressed
>> to this Jonathon's mail) are worth of consideration:
>>
>> 1) if it's not really necessary, I would not want to see David Jones
>> time wasted reading/answering this kind of long messages about a subject
>> discussed at least 1000 times; David is one of the best
>> architects/developers in the project and we should all do our best to
>> leave him concentrated in the most critical tasks that can make the
>> project grow; in the last months I've noticed the bad habit to attempt
>> to attract David (and other core developers as well) in long and
>> unnecessary discussions
>>
>> 2) another very bad habit is to attribute to others your personal
>> re-elaboration of what others said: in this way, if the concept is
>> reported in an incomplete or incorrect way, you can create confusion to
>> new users and oblige the person to jump in and correct it. As a general
>> rule, never try to restate what you think that other said, just express
>> your thoughts (if they are of interest for the project).
>> For example, Jonathon said: "I understand you (David) believe that
>> approach won't benefit OFBiz"
>> I really don't think that David ever said something like this; the main
>> point here is that OFBiz and Tomcat are totally different products (as
>> discussed 10000 times).
>>
>> In general #1, #2 are harmful habits for a project and we should avoid them.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>
>

[David E Jones]

On Mar 5, 2007, at 6:57 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:

> David (Jones),
>
> What about those open source projects that are polished for OOTB  
> convenience and experience? Even Apache (httpd) and Tomcat (both  
> under Apache Licence 2.0?) have better OOTB "operational readiness"  
> than OFBiz. Ie, they work well OOTB and they have very good and  
> widely published docs to further fuel explosive rate of community  
> development. (I understand you believe that approach won't benefit  
> OFBiz; I don't know so I can't say.)

Yeah, I guess I like Jacopo's point that it would be better to quite  
me than speak for me. In this I don't believe I even said/wrote  
anything like that.

Having a large OOTB end-user community would certainly benefit the  
project, in really major ways too. The problem is that the current  
contributing community does not have sufficient resources to create  
and maintain what would be needed to satisfy this sort of user.  
Hopefully that will change in the future. In the mean time, the  
project is self-sustaining and growing based on use by non-OOTB users  
and contributors (or those that are OOTB users, but just extremely  
patient... ;) ).

-David

[Ian McNulty]

David,

I'm getting really confused here.

David E. Jones wrote:
> Having a large OOTB end-user community would certainly benefit the
> project, in really major ways too. The problem is that the current
> contributing community does not have sufficient resources to create
> and maintain what would be needed to satisfy this sort of user.

It is generally accepted that one of the main things all OOTB end-users
need is accessible end-user documentation.

In OFBiz End-User Documentation >  OFBiz End User Docs Home > Areas
Being Worked On, David E. Jones wrote:

> There is a lot of work to be done on editing and structuring and
> reformatting the OFBiz documentation. In short, we need your help!
>
> You can find the PDF exports from the Undersun end-user documentation
> site here
> <http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBENDUSER/Undersun+Doc+Site+PDF+Exports>.
>

As far as I can tell, half-completed fragments of various attempts to
translate the Manager Reference PDFs are currently scattered over at
least 6 other locations in the Wiki (for details see my comments at
http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBENDUSER/Areas+Being+Worked+On ). There
can be no doubt that most end-users will find this very confusing and
frustrating indeed.

To help address the problem of the lack of resources in the current
contributing community, I decided to commit a considerable amount of my
own time to answering David's request for help by translating all 12 of
the Manager References in their entirety to Wiki format in one location.

This work has now been completed. I was not given access to the end User
Docs space so have put them in my personal Confluence space at
http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/~ian@.../Manager+References

I posted news of this on the ML on the 3 March with a request that they
might now be transferred out of my to the End User Docs space - but had
absolutely no response whatsoever!

I reposted this request under a new thread again on the 5 March - and
had absolutely no response again!

I understand that most of the core team is currently engaged in the
Developer's Hackathon in Ephraim. But they are still posting here on a
raft of other issues. What am I to make of what would appear to be their
complete lack of interest in this one?

BTW. Just to be clear on this, I am not looking for any thanks or
brownie points or engaging in any other kind of attention seeking
whatsoever. I understand that other members of this community have
committed considerably more to this project than I have and that my
contribution is very minor in comparison.

What I am looking for is:

1) some kind of acknowledgement that the translated Manager Reference
PDFs can, at some time in the future, be transferred to a more public
section of the Wiki where they can be more easily accessed by end-users
and further amended and developed by those more qualified than myself

2) some kind of solution to the cloud of confusion currently existing in
the user documentation, with half-completed fragments of various
attempts to translate the Manager Reference PDFs currently scattered
over at least 6 other locations in the Wiki.

How unreasonable a request is that?

Ian




David E. Jones wrote:

>
> On Mar 5, 2007, at 6:57 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>
>> David (Jones),
>>
>> What about those open source projects that are polished for OOTB
>> convenience and experience? Even Apache (httpd) and Tomcat (both
>> under Apache Licence 2.0?) have better OOTB "operational readiness"
>> than OFBiz. Ie, they work well OOTB and they have very good and
>> widely published docs to further fuel explosive rate of community
>> development. (I understand you believe that approach won't benefit
>> OFBiz; I don't know so I can't say.)
>
> Yeah, I guess I like Jacopo's point that it would be better to quite
> me than speak for me. In this I don't believe I even said/wrote
> anything like that.
>
> Having a large OOTB end-user community would certainly benefit the
> project, in really major ways too. The problem is that the current
> contributing community does not have sufficient resources to create
> and maintain what would be needed to satisfy this sort of user.
> Hopefully that will change in the future. In the mean time, the
> project is self-sustaining and growing based on use by non-OOTB users
> and contributors (or those that are OOTB users, but just extremely
> patient... ;) ).
>
> -David
>

[Scott Gray]

Ian,

Jacopo and myself have replied to your second posting within the last
few hours, please check the mailing list and we can continue any
discussions on that thread.  Please don't feel frustrated, we do
appreciate your work.

Thanks
Scott

Ian McNulty wrote:

> David,
>
> I'm getting really confused here.
>
> David E. Jones wrote:
>> Having a large OOTB end-user community would certainly benefit the
>> project, in really major ways too. The problem is that the current
>> contributing community does not have sufficient resources to create
>> and maintain what would be needed to satisfy this sort of user.
>
> It is generally accepted that one of the main things all OOTB
> end-users need is accessible end-user documentation.
>
> In OFBiz End-User Documentation >  OFBiz End User Docs Home > Areas
> Being Worked On, David E. Jones wrote:
>
>> There is a lot of work to be done on editing and structuring and
>> reformatting the OFBiz documentation. In short, we need your help!
>>
>> You can find the PDF exports from the Undersun end-user documentation
>> site here
>> <http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBENDUSER/Undersun+Doc+Site+PDF+Exports>.
>>
>
> As far as I can tell, half-completed fragments of various attempts to
> translate the Manager Reference PDFs are currently scattered over at
> least 6 other locations in the Wiki (for details see my comments at
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBENDUSER/Areas+Being+Worked+On ).
> There can be no doubt that most end-users will find this very
> confusing and frustrating indeed.
>
> To help address the problem of the lack of resources in the current
> contributing community, I decided to commit a considerable amount of
> my own time to answering David's request for help by translating all
> 12 of the Manager References in their entirety to Wiki format in one
> location.
>
> This work has now been completed. I was not given access to the end
> User Docs space so have put them in my personal Confluence space at
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/~ian@.../Manager+References
>
> I posted news of this on the ML on the 3 March with a request that
> they might now be transferred out of my to the End User Docs space -
> but had absolutely no response whatsoever!
>
> I reposted this request under a new thread again on the 5 March - and
> had absolutely no response again!
>
> I understand that most of the core team is currently engaged in the
> Developer's Hackathon in Ephraim. But they are still posting here on a
> raft of other issues. What am I to make of what would appear to be
> their complete lack of interest in this one?
>
> BTW. Just to be clear on this, I am not looking for any thanks or
> brownie points or engaging in any other kind of attention seeking
> whatsoever. I understand that other members of this community have
> committed considerably more to this project than I have and that my
> contribution is very minor in comparison.
>
> What I am looking for is:
>
> 1) some kind of acknowledgement that the translated Manager Reference
> PDFs can, at some time in the future, be transferred to a more public
> section of the Wiki where they can be more easily accessed by
> end-users and further amended and developed by those more qualified
> than myself
>
> 2) some kind of solution to the cloud of confusion currently existing
> in the user documentation, with half-completed fragments of various
> attempts to translate the Manager Reference PDFs currently scattered
> over at least 6 other locations in the Wiki.
>
> How unreasonable a request is that?
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> David E. Jones wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 5, 2007, at 6:57 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>
>>> David (Jones),
>>>
>>> What about those open source projects that are polished for OOTB
>>> convenience and experience? Even Apache (httpd) and Tomcat (both
>>> under Apache Licence 2.0?) have better OOTB "operational readiness"
>>> than OFBiz. Ie, they work well OOTB and they have very good and
>>> widely published docs to further fuel explosive rate of community
>>> development. (I understand you believe that approach won't benefit
>>> OFBiz; I don't know so I can't say.)
>>
>> Yeah, I guess I like Jacopo's point that it would be better to quite
>> me than speak for me. In this I don't believe I even said/wrote
>> anything like that.
>>
>> Having a large OOTB end-user community would certainly benefit the
>> project, in really major ways too. The problem is that the current
>> contributing community does not have sufficient resources to create
>> and maintain what would be needed to satisfy this sort of user.
>> Hopefully that will change in the future. In the mean time, the
>> project is self-sustaining and growing based on use by non-OOTB users
>> and contributors (or those that are OOTB users, but just extremely
>> patient... ;) ).
>>
>> -David
>>
>

[cjhowe]

Hey Ian,

I can understand your frustration, but Jacopo answered you February
23rd with how the process of having your work replace the current
protected documentation would likely go.
1. Create the ones you're interested in updating in your user account
space (BTW, great work on getting to all of them)
2. The community can then review, add to, clarify, rearrange your work
as needed.
3. Replace the current docs in the protected space with the community
reviewed docs to protect them from being edited by those who may not
understand how things do/will fit together.

You just finished step 1 within the week.  I know I personally schedule
things I want to look at in the community project at least a week or
two out (and still am only able to get around to about half of what I
want to look at/contribute to).  I can only imagine the timetable for
those that are doing OFBiz professionally would be even more drawn out
than that unless it was a pressing topic.  In addition, there are a few
things going on with UI refactoring and AJAX implementations that may
make many of the screens that are documented obsolete or not work in
the same fashion that the docs are describing.  This week's hackathon
should show a firmer direction here.

I surely appreciate the work you put into converting those docs over.
I might suggest making a JIRA issue in regards to this so that
discussion can be a bit more collected as interest in reviewing this is
likely to trickle in rather than come in waves.  In any event, have a
bit of patience and I'm certain it will work itself out :-)

,Chris


--- Ian McNulty <[hidden email]> wrote:

> David,
>
> I'm getting really confused here.
>
> David E. Jones wrote:
> > Having a large OOTB end-user community would certainly benefit the
> > project, in really major ways too. The problem is that the current
> > contributing community does not have sufficient resources to create
>
> > and maintain what would be needed to satisfy this sort of user.
>
> It is generally accepted that one of the main things all OOTB
> end-users
> need is accessible end-user documentation.
>
> In OFBiz End-User Documentation >  OFBiz End User Docs Home > Areas
> Being Worked On, David E. Jones wrote:
>
> > There is a lot of work to be done on editing and structuring and
> > reformatting the OFBiz documentation. In short, we need your help!
> >
> > You can find the PDF exports from the Undersun end-user
> documentation
> > site here
> >
>

<http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBENDUSER/Undersun+Doc+Site+PDF+Exports>.

>
> >
>
> As far as I can tell, half-completed fragments of various attempts to
>
> translate the Manager Reference PDFs are currently scattered over at
> least 6 other locations in the Wiki (for details see my comments at
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBENDUSER/Areas+Being+Worked+On ).
> There
> can be no doubt that most end-users will find this very confusing and
>
> frustrating indeed.
>
> To help address the problem of the lack of resources in the current
> contributing community, I decided to commit a considerable amount of
> my
> own time to answering David's request for help by translating all 12
> of
> the Manager References in their entirety to Wiki format in one
> location.
>
> This work has now been completed. I was not given access to the end
> User
> Docs space so have put them in my personal Confluence space at
>

http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/~ian@.../Manager+References

>
> I posted news of this on the ML on the 3 March with a request that
> they
> might now be transferred out of my to the End User Docs space - but
> had
> absolutely no response whatsoever!
>
> I reposted this request under a new thread again on the 5 March - and
>
> had absolutely no response again!
>
> I understand that most of the core team is currently engaged in the
> Developer's Hackathon in Ephraim. But they are still posting here on
> a
> raft of other issues. What am I to make of what would appear to be
> their
> complete lack of interest in this one?
>
> BTW. Just to be clear on this, I am not looking for any thanks or
> brownie points or engaging in any other kind of attention seeking
> whatsoever. I understand that other members of this community have
> committed considerably more to this project than I have and that my
> contribution is very minor in comparison.
>
> What I am looking for is:
>
> 1) some kind of acknowledgement that the translated Manager Reference
>
> PDFs can, at some time in the future, be transferred to a more public
>
> section of the Wiki where they can be more easily accessed by
> end-users
> and further amended and developed by those more qualified than myself
>
> 2) some kind of solution to the cloud of confusion currently existing
> in
> the user documentation, with half-completed fragments of various
> attempts to translate the Manager Reference PDFs currently scattered
> over at least 6 other locations in the Wiki.
>
> How unreasonable a request is that?
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> David E. Jones wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 5, 2007, at 6:57 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >
> >> David (Jones),
> >>
> >> What about those open source projects that are polished for OOTB
> >> convenience and experience? Even Apache (httpd) and Tomcat (both
> >> under Apache Licence 2.0?) have better OOTB "operational
> readiness"
> >> than OFBiz. Ie, they work well OOTB and they have very good and
> >> widely published docs to further fuel explosive rate of community
> >> development. (I understand you believe that approach won't benefit
>
> >> OFBiz; I don't know so I can't say.)
> >
> > Yeah, I guess I like Jacopo's point that it would be better to
> quite
> > me than speak for me. In this I don't believe I even said/wrote
> > anything like that.
> >
> > Having a large OOTB end-user community would certainly benefit the
> > project, in really major ways too. The problem is that the current
> > contributing community does not have sufficient resources to create
>
> > and maintain what would be needed to satisfy this sort of user.
> > Hopefully that will change in the future. In the mean time, the
> > project is self-sustaining and growing based on use by non-OOTB
> users
> > and contributors (or those that are OOTB users, but just extremely
> > patient... ;) ).
> >
> > -David
> >
>

[Tim Ruppert]

Ian, all I can say is that each day we've discussed trying to devote some resources the exercise you've teed up - and we're all interested in.  Things have been rather busy, as you can imagine, and we ask for a bit of patience.  

We see your work and are excited about incorporating it as has been described in the past.  Great stuff and thanks again.

Cheers,

Tim

--

Tim Ruppert

HotWax Media

http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

o:801.649.6594

f:801.649.6595

On Mar 7, 2007, at 12:11 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:

David,

I'm getting really confused here.

David E. Jones wrote:

Having a large OOTB end-user community would certainly benefit the project, in really major ways too. The problem is that the current contributing community does not have sufficient resources to create and maintain what would be needed to satisfy this sort of user.

It is generally accepted that one of the main things all OOTB end-users need is accessible end-user documentation.

In OFBiz End-User Documentation >  OFBiz End User Docs Home > Areas Being Worked On, David E. Jones wrote:

There is a lot of work to be done on editing and structuring and reformatting the OFBiz documentation. In short, we need your help!

You can find the PDF exports from the Undersun end-user documentation site here <http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBENDUSER/Undersun+Doc+Site+PDF+Exports>. 

As far as I can tell, half-completed fragments of various attempts to translate the Manager Reference PDFs are currently scattered over at least 6 other locations in the Wiki (for details see my comments at http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBENDUSER/Areas+Being+Worked+On ). There can be no doubt that most end-users will find this very confusing and frustrating indeed.

To help address the problem of the lack of resources in the current contributing community, I decided to commit a considerable amount of my own time to answering David's request for help by translating all 12 of the Manager References in their entirety to Wiki format in one location.

This work has now been completed. I was not given access to the end User Docs space so have put them in my personal Confluence space at http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/~ian@.../Manager+References

I posted news of this on the ML on the 3 March with a request that they might now be transferred out of my to the End User Docs space - but had absolutely no response whatsoever!

I reposted this request under a new thread again on the 5 March - and had absolutely no response again!

I understand that most of the core team is currently engaged in the Developer's Hackathon in Ephraim. But they are still posting here on a raft of other issues. What am I to make of what would appear to be their complete lack of interest in this one?

BTW. Just to be clear on this, I am not looking for any thanks or brownie points or engaging in any other kind of attention seeking whatsoever. I understand that other members of this community have committed considerably more to this project than I have and that my contribution is very minor in comparison.

What I am looking for is:

1) some kind of acknowledgement that the translated Manager Reference PDFs can, at some time in the future, be transferred to a more public section of the Wiki where they can be more easily accessed by end-users and further amended and developed by those more qualified than myself

2) some kind of solution to the cloud of confusion currently existing in the user documentation, with half-completed fragments of various attempts to translate the Manager Reference PDFs currently scattered over at least 6 other locations in the Wiki.

How unreasonable a request is that?

Ian

David E. Jones wrote:

On Mar 5, 2007, at 6:57 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:

David (Jones),

What about those open source projects that are polished for OOTB convenience and experience? Even Apache (httpd) and Tomcat (both under Apache Licence 2.0?) have better OOTB "operational readiness" than OFBiz. Ie, they work well OOTB and they have very good and widely published docs to further fuel explosive rate of community development. (I understand you believe that approach won't benefit OFBiz; I don't know so I can't say.)

Yeah, I guess I like Jacopo's point that it would be better to quite me than speak for me. In this I don't believe I even said/wrote anything like that.

Having a large OOTB end-user community would certainly benefit the project, in really major ways too. The problem is that the current contributing community does not have sufficient resources to create and maintain what would be needed to satisfy this sort of user. Hopefully that will change in the future. In the mean time, the project is self-sustaining and growing based on use by non-OOTB users and contributors (or those that are OOTB users, but just extremely patient... ;) ).

-David

[Chandresh Turakhia]

Give me a decent story. Promise shall try to keep nice coverage (
accurate ). Know few guys in media....

My new email : [hidden email]

Chand
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Shere" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: ComputerWorld Article, Mentions OFBiz

> "So Rosa hired a consultant to customize the Apache Open For Business
> open-source ERP software for his firm's distribution arm.
>
> But the project management spun out of control, causing the effort to go
> over budget. The first problem: The consultant had no experience with Open
> For Business, and its learning curve was steeper than expected. The second
> problem: Because Open For Business is very customizable, both Prevention
> Partners and its consultant "got caught up" in much customization, Rosa
> recalls. And Open For Business is based on Java, which Rosa's developers
> aren't experienced in, so they couldn't take over."
>
> This guy didn't ask his consultant if he had any experience with OFBiz?
> That's just that guy being stupid.
>
> They're implying that OFBiz is "too customizable"... that sounds to me
> like someone who marries his wife because she's great at conversation and
> then divorces her because she talks too much.
>
> That last sentence may as well say "OFBiz is based in Java, which is an
> obscure programming language that no one knows and is a bitch to learn"...
> that just makes me laugh.
>
> Yes, David, terribly inaccurate. :)
>
> David E. Jones wrote:
>>
>> Not a lot of detail on the project, nor terribly accurate on the ones it
>> does have, but an interesting read with some good points anyway:
>>
>> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&amp;articleId=9011649 -
>> David
>
> --
> David Shere
> Information Technology Services
> Steele Rubber Products
> www.SteeleRubber.com
>