OFBiz › OFBiz - User

OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

124 messages Options

1 ... 34567

Jacques Le Roux

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

Administrator

Andrew,

From: "Andrew Ballantine" <[hidden email]>

> David,
>
> This is so difficult because I know you care passionately about OFBiz and
> have put a huge amount of effort into both the code and the documentation
> and I am not forgetting the contribution made by Andy and all the rest of
> the community.
>
> I am also deeply aware that OFBiz is a truly open source project and that we
> should be grateful for all the contributions that have been received. Having
> said that I think we can help make it even better by giving our input which
> should be seen as constructive.
>
> So I dutifully followed your link:
>
> 1. The list is in alpha order. I think it should be in read order. (i.e. the
> order it is recommended to read the items)

Yes that's true, please consider that it's still a work in progress. And this progress depends of community good will...

> 2. Guessing that Home might be the place to start I clicked that. Then chose
> "About OFBiz" only to get

Same comment than above

> "This page is for background information about the OFBiz project.
>
> OFBiz Committers Roles and Responsbilities
> Best Practices for Contributors"
>
> What no description as to what OFBiz is, how it came to be, what businesses
> it is designed to service?

You may find this kinf of information in OFBiz official site : http://www.ofbiz.org/. IMO the wiki is more intended to coordonate
community work and to documen OFBiz from technical and functionnal POC.

> 3. Back to Home. Ah reference to OLD wiki. Click "here". Now this looks more
> like a wiki.
> Nice list of topics on the left and page text on the right and I can see
> where to click to make contributions at the bottom of the page. The new wiki
> doesn't seem to have and edit to click.

You may have already discover that only the 'The Open For Business Project Wik" part of the dashboard
(http://docs.ofbiz.org/dashboard.action) is *open to edit*. To edit you only have to register.

We experienced some problems with the *completly open* old Wiki : lack of organisation, redundancy, update problem, open to
spammners, etc.

> I am guessing that Confluence has placed some restrictions on how the wiki
> is presented.
> I find the new wiki, um, rather dry.

It's new, well will surely look better in some months...

> I hope you get my drift.
>
> Please can we have a wiki that looks like a wiki. Does the wiki have to be
> on Apache?

It depends on community, petition David with prayers will not do a lot here...

One more time this reflects only my opinion and I'm not speaking for community...

Thanks for your interest in OFBiz :o)

Jacques

> Kind regards,
>
> Andrew.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David E. Jones [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: 20 January 2007 08:18
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
>
>
>
> Is there something wrong with the current OFBiz wiki linked to below?
>
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBIZ
>
> -David
>
>
> On Jan 18, 2007, at 1:23 PM, Leon Torres wrote:
>
> > I also believe it would be worthwhile to experiment with an open
> > ofbiz wiki. As the ofbiz community continues to grow, we will
> > certainly attain the critical mass necessary to make such a thing
> > work.
> >
> > For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks in .txt format
> > about specific tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:
> >
> > http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php
> >
> > Unfortunately contributing to those is hard because it takes an
> > investment in time to read, verify, and update the documents on our
> > end. If they were in the form of an open wiki, it would be far
> > easier to expand on them.
> >
> > - Leon
> >
> >
> > Florin Jurcovici wrote:
> >> IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even if I had some
> >> experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki is closed or
> >> restricted, I cannot. Some maintainers should review docs
> >> occasionally and correct or delete them if they are not OK, maybe
> >> draw an outline of the documentation at the beginning then let
> >> whoever is willing to fill the pages. But IMO a closed/restricted
> >> wiki is not the way to go.
> >> --Florin Jurcovici
> >> ------------------
> >> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?

Ian McNulty

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

In reply to this post by Andrew Ballantine

Andrew,

I agree with absolutely every point you make here - with knobs on :)

I guess they must have had these kind of arguments in places like Boeing
in the early days.

Ask an engineer to design documentation for pilots and the first thing
they'll want to start with is diagrams of the wiring harness, fuel
system and hydraulics. Why would a pilot not need to understand such
fundamental and crucial things?

I guess there's no way engineers will ever understand that the only time
pilots finds this kind of documentation on their laps on top of the
flight plan is when they're in very serious trouble indeed.

I guess that's why they get pilots to train pilots. Not engineers. And
vica versa.

Two entirely different breeds of people. And never the twain shall meet.
But they do need to work together - from opposite ends of the hanger.

I don't think we need any kind of fork. We all want to work on the same
plane. But if we want to keep the coffee in the cups I do think we could
do with some kind of dividing line in the canteen.

Ian

Andrew Ballantine wrote:

> We seem to be making heavy weather of this.
>
> A road map is a list of recommended action in a suggested order of
> implementation. It can have notes that say "if you are and experienced
> programmer, go to section x".
>
> What Ian and I are suggesting is a roadmap for the un-initiated starter who
> may know very little about Linux or programming, but has heard so much about
> OFBiz that they want to try this baby out (well more of a teenager really
> ;-) ).
>
> I would also suggest that we have some simple documents which suggest things
> to try after OFBiz is installed that show off its talents.
>
> Just simple stuff like creating a product with variants, ordering it,
> processing the order, making sure it's in stock, picking it, shipping it and
> telling the customer what you have done.
>
> Use of day-to-day language is important too. Using terms like entity, tuple
> and other DBMS terms are too confusing for the beginner. Likewise
> assumptions that the reader knows what an environmental variable is and how
> to set on permanently, should be avoided.
>
> It's always the little things that get forgotten that cause confusion and
> frustration.
>
> I would even go so far as to suggest that there should be a section that
> instructs the reader on HOW to download the file, which of course the
> experienced reader can skip past unless there is a label in red saying read
> this because it is non-standard.
>
> Hope this clarifies.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Andrew Ballantine.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian McNulty [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: 18 January 2007 21:00
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
>
>
>
> Andrew Sykes wrote:
>
>> As with everything OfBiz, progress is dictated by demand. With adoptees
>> coming from such varied backgrounds and with such disparate
>> requirements. It would be hard to create such a roadmap that would be
>> relevant to all.
>>
>>
>
> Absolutely true. But imo current adoptees mostly seem to fit into a
> similar mould. Rocket scientists with high-end clients and very
> idiosyncratic niches to fulfil. I'm not knocking that. I count myself as
> one of that breed. But there is a lowest common denominator which
> everybody seems determined to ignore. Some maps you have to be a rocket
> scientist to read. But road maps are accessible to everyone. I don't see
> a problem in creating such a thing, providing we start off with an
> attitude which - as I think Leo Szilard once said - "Assumes infinite
> ignorance and unlimited intelligence."
>
> That's why I'm determined to play the ignoramus around here. Assuming I
> do have the intelligence to crack the code if I wanted to, why should I?
> There are plenty of others who are better suited than I. I just want to
> climb in, turn the key and get out on the road. Why should the only way
> forward be for me to have to learn how to reinvent the wheel?
>
>
>> Given that problem the obvious solution is to create free-standing
>> documents that allow people the entry point of their choice.
>>
>>
>
> Absolutely true for all free-thinking souls who like to think outside
> the box. But, unfortunately, this is a very small minority. There's a
> body of psychological research that shows that most people can only cope
> with 7 choices in one go. That's why, for a long time, telephone numbers
> were limited to just 7 digits. Faced with more choices than that, most
> people just roll-over and give-up. Supermarkets apparently work on this
> principle. Offer more than 7 choices and punters don't know what to do.
> Stick a big sign in the middle saying this is the way to go and most
> will follow that.
>
>
>> The key to success isn't where you enter, or how you progress, but
>> rather that you do it in a thorough manner.
>>
>
> That's crucial for any engineer. But exactly not what most everybody
> else can deal with. Why else are they prepared to pay us so well? My
> mother would take a dozen balls of wool and work thoroughly night after
> night to produce the most beautiful sweaters. Now, the supermarket shelf
> is as far as most are prepared to go. And only then, if they can see
> less than 7 in one go :-\
>
>
>> So take a part of the code
>> that is of interest to you (you'll need relevance to stay motivated) and
>> then work through artifact by artifact making sure you read all the
>> free-standing documents you can lay your hands on as you go of course!
>>
>>
>
> That's absolutely crucial. You do need relevance to stay motivated. If I
> have to spend 3 months studying textbooks before I can fill in my VAT
> returns how relevant is that? Especially when I can install entry-level
> Intuit, Sage or Microsoft to do it for me OOB in just a few clicks for
> less than the cost of a decent restaurant meal for 2!
>
>
>> I hope that helps...
>>
>>
>
> I think it does. Socratic dialogue... Arguing things through and
> balancing the ratio of points for and against is the only way to
> discover the rational way forward and what might be able to fly.
>
> Hope that's OK with you too :)
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
>
>> - Andrew (Sykes)
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 16:34 +0000, Andrew Ballantine wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Chris Howe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> There's a funny point in learning OFBiz. You start
>>>> out looking at it as this huge monstrosity that's just
>>>> too much to figure out and you get frustrated with the
>>>> lack of documentation available (even given the sites
>>>> linked off of ofbiz.apache.org and the tens of
>>>> thousands of mailing list posts available and the
>>>> number of video tutorials available). But you start
>>>> playing with it a bit, and you pass an "aha" moment.
>>>> You don't realize the moment that you pass it but when
>>>> you look back and think "how can I make the learning
>>>> curve easier for the next guy", you realize everything
>>>> was there, and it's difficult to figure out what you
>>>> can add to those websites that could make it any
>>>> clearer.
>>>>
>>>>

Ian McNulty

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

In reply to this post by Andrew Ballantine

Andrew,

That would be an Ahaaaaaa from me on that too.

Except, if OFBiz ever ends up in my delete bucket it's more likely to be
with an Ahhggggrrrrr!!!$&?£??rrr than an Eh! ;)

Ian

Andrew Ballantine wrote:

> Chris,
>
> I would be impossible to back with statistics, but in the history of OFBiz
> and there are many downloads that ended up in the delete bucket because they
> never reached your AHA moment.
>
> Ian and I are trying to change the Eh! into Ahaaaaaa
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Andrew Ballantine.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Howe [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: 20 January 2007 09:44
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
>
>
> Ian,
>
> While I certainly enjoy the analogies, who are you
> ultimately suggesting create these lowest common
> denominator (LCD) documents?
>
> As has already been mentioned, once you pass that
> "aha" moment in OFBiz, it's difficult to understand
> why the engineering documentation didn't make sense
> the first time around. 3D vector calculus, as you put
> it, seems so elementary obvious at that point that
> it's difficult to convey it in simpler terms; even
> though you remember it not being obvious when you
> started. I don't think it's very time/quality
> productive for someone who's passed that "aha" moment
> to produce this documentation; at least not without
> the aid of an "uninitiated".
>
> If you'd like to be that test subject, I'm sure there
> are a mess of people, including myself, that would be
> willing to help explain things to you as you make your
> way through the concepts, documenting as you go. But
> the POV of the documentation cannot be from someone
> who's already gotten the bird off the ground, because
> they're not really sure which button they pressed to
> make it all seem second nature.
>
>
> --- Ian McNulty <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>> David,
>>
>> I don't get the proposition that there are 100
>> different pilot roles.
>>
>> There are many 1,000s of different destinations.
>> Maybe more than a
>> dozen different pilot roles (commercial, fighter,
>> bomber, spotter,
>> etc.). But but there IS a lowest common denominator.
>> They all fly
>> planes. They all start off on fixed wing, single
>> engine props. They all
>> need to understand basic navigation, aerodynamics,
>> flight-engineering etc.
>>
>> But it is very basic. The need to understand lift,
>> drag, how to
>> calculate take off velocities etc. But I doubt if
>> they start of with 3D
>> vector calculus or need to know what a Reynold's
>> number is.
>>
>> So why can't the target be whatever denominators are
>> common to all pilots?
>>
>> How to find the door handle and the start button
>> would be top of my
>> list. If they can't find those then they ain't never
>> gonna fly.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> David,
>>>>
>>>> I can see where you're coming from on this. This
>>>>
>> project is better
>>
>>>> documented than anything else I've seen in the
>>>>
>> field.You yourself
>>
>>>> have produced a truly awesome amount of
>>>>
>> documentation. I don't know
>>
>>>> where you find the time. All are extremely well
>>>>
>> written, very clear,
>>
>>>> very well laid out. A model of their kind. (No
>>>>
>> I'm not sucking up - I
>>
>>>> mean it :) So what could possibly be the problem.
>>>>
>>>> I found the Introduction Videos and Diagrams page
>>>>
>> you link to here a
>>
>>>> couple of days ago myself.
>>>>
>>>> It was whilst working through these videos that
>>>>
>> the light bulb went off.
>>
>>>> What you're talking us through is a diagram of
>>>>
>> the wiring harness of
>>
>>>> a jumbo jet.
>>>>
>>>> Essential for the engineers who need to service
>>>>
>> it.
>>
>>>> Absolutely the last kind of map a pilot wants to
>>>>
>> find on his lap.
>>
>>>> Know what I mean?
>>>>
>>> Uh, yeah, that's because it is meant to cover the
>>>
>> framework, not the
>>
>>> applications. The two are very different, change
>>>
>> very differently,
>>
>>> need to be understood by different people in
>>>
>> different ways, etc. My
>>
>>> current estimate is that to produce something
>>>
>> adequate for a "pilot",
>>
>>> given that there are about 100 different "pilot"
>>>
>> roles in OFBiz, would
>>
>>> require many times the effort to produce that the
>>>
>> framework videos
>>
>>> with their diagrams, reference materials,
>>>
>> transcriptions, etc. Right
>>
>>> now I don't have the $500k to get into that... and
>>>
>> the $40k already
>>
>>> spent on the documents which are now PDF-dumped
>>>
>> into the
>>
>>> docs.ofbiz.org site was clearly inadequate,
>>>
>> especially as it is mostly
>>
>>> reference materials (which is why you won't find
>>>
>> how-to stuff in the
>>
>>> reference guides, they are references after all,
>>>
>> just for reference
>>
>>> purposes). The Application Overview for Users is
>>>
>> probably more of what
>>
>>> you're looking for, though that section only
>>>
>> represents maybe 3-5% of
>>
>>> what is in OFBiz right now.
>>>
>>> Of course, that's assuming such documents could
>>>
>> even be written in a
>>
>>> way that is close to generally useful. How do I
>>>
>> use it? Well, that
>>
>>> depends on what you want to do... and
>>>
>> unfortunately across a few
>>
>>> different industries that list grows into hundreds
>>>
>> of thousands of
>>
>>> activities...
>>>
>>> So, that's the big question with any document: who
>>>
>> is the target
>>
>>> audience? The more specific the answer, the better
>>>
>> the document will
>>
>>> address their needs. But who is the target
>>>
>> audience for OFBiz? ... ?
>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>> --
>>
>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
>
>> mcnultyMEDIA
>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>> Durham
>> DH1 2UL
>>
>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>> e: [hidden email]
>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>
>>
> ============================================================================
> ==================
>
>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the
>> intended recipient(s) named above and is
>> confidential. Any form of distribution, copying,
>> discussion or use of this communication, its
>> contents, or any information contained herein
>> without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you
>> receive this communication in error, please notify
>> the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191
>> 384 4736
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we
>> cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of
>> software viruses and would recommend that you carry
>> out your own virus checks before opening any
>> attachment.
>>
>>
> ============================================================================
> ==================
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
> 03:36
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
> 03:36
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
> 03:36
>
>
>
> *****************************************************************
> This email has been checked by the altohiway Mailcontroller Service
> *****************************************************************
>
>
>

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mcnultyMEDIA
60 Birkdale Gardens
Durham
DH1 2UL

t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
e: [hidden email]
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736

This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of software viruses and would recommend that you carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
==============================================================================================

Ian McNulty

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

In reply to this post by Jacques Le Roux

Jacques,

Just one question... well three actually?

Who does speak for the community?

How does the community decide?

Is there some kind of vote or what?

Ian

Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> From: "Andrew Ballantine" <[hidden email]>
>
>> David,
>>
>> This is so difficult because I know you care passionately about OFBiz and
>> have put a huge amount of effort into both the code and the documentation
>> and I am not forgetting the contribution made by Andy and all the rest of
>> the community.
>>
>> I am also deeply aware that OFBiz is a truly open source project and that we
>> should be grateful for all the contributions that have been received. Having
>> said that I think we can help make it even better by giving our input which
>> should be seen as constructive.
>>
>> So I dutifully followed your link:
>>
>> 1. The list is in alpha order. I think it should be in read order. (i.e. the
>> order it is recommended to read the items)
>>
>
> Yes that's true, please consider that it's still a work in progress. And this progress depends of community good will...
>
>
>> 2. Guessing that Home might be the place to start I clicked that. Then chose
>> "About OFBiz" only to get
>>
>
> Same comment than above
>
>
>> "This page is for background information about the OFBiz project.
>>
>> OFBiz Committers Roles and Responsbilities
>> Best Practices for Contributors"
>>
>> What no description as to what OFBiz is, how it came to be, what businesses
>> it is designed to service?
>>
>
> You may find this kinf of information in OFBiz official site : http://www.ofbiz.org/. IMO the wiki is more intended to coordonate
> community work and to documen OFBiz from technical and functionnal POC.
>
>
>> 3. Back to Home. Ah reference to OLD wiki. Click "here". Now this looks more
>> like a wiki.
>> Nice list of topics on the left and page text on the right and I can see
>> where to click to make contributions at the bottom of the page. The new wiki
>> doesn't seem to have and edit to click.
>>
>
> You may have already discover that only the 'The Open For Business Project Wik" part of the dashboard
> (http://docs.ofbiz.org/dashboard.action) is *open to edit*. To edit you only have to register.
>
> We experienced some problems with the *completly open* old Wiki : lack of organisation, redundancy, update problem, open to
> spammners, etc.
>
>
>> I am guessing that Confluence has placed some restrictions on how the wiki
>> is presented.
>> I find the new wiki, um, rather dry.
>>
>
> It's new, well will surely look better in some months...
>
>
>> I hope you get my drift.
>>
>> Please can we have a wiki that looks like a wiki. Does the wiki have to be
>> on Apache?
>>
>
> It depends on community, petition David with prayers will not do a lot here...
>
> One more time this reflects only my opinion and I'm not speaking for community...
>
> Thanks for your interest in OFBiz :o)
>
> Jacques
>
>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Andrew.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David E. Jones [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: 20 January 2007 08:18
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
>>
>>
>>
>> Is there something wrong with the current OFBiz wiki linked to below?
>>
>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBIZ
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Jan 18, 2007, at 1:23 PM, Leon Torres wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I also believe it would be worthwhile to experiment with an open
>>> ofbiz wiki. As the ofbiz community continues to grow, we will
>>> certainly attain the critical mass necessary to make such a thing
>>> work.
>>>
>>> For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks in .txt format
>>> about specific tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:
>>>
>>> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php
>>>
>>> Unfortunately contributing to those is hard because it takes an
>>> investment in time to read, verify, and update the documents on our
>>> end. If they were in the form of an open wiki, it would be far
>>> easier to expand on them.
>>>
>>> - Leon
>>>
>>>
>>> Florin Jurcovici wrote:
>>>
>>>> IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even if I had some
>>>> experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki is closed or
>>>> restricted, I cannot. Some maintainers should review docs
>>>> occasionally and correct or delete them if they are not OK, maybe
>>>> draw an outline of the documentation at the beginning then let
>>>> whoever is willing to fill the pages. But IMO a closed/restricted
>>>> wiki is not the way to go.
>>>> --Florin Jurcovici
>>>> ------------------
>>>> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
>>>>
>
>
>
>

cjhowe

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

In reply to this post by Ian McNulty

This thread has gone on for a while now, and has become unproductive
for many. Is there a point of action at some point or is everyone just
waiting around for someone else to do the work?

I'll say it again, hopefully a little more clearly this time. If you
are unhappy with the state of the current documentation and feel it
could be better explained, please do so. The wiki is available for
you. The mailing list is here if you need any clarification in your
efforts. Your efforts will be much appreciated.

To answer Ian's three questions without boring with another post...
>Who does speak for the community?
Those that are doing at the time a decision is to be made. Absent that
no one speaks for the community, they only speak for themselves.

>How does the community decide?
By having someone do. And critiquing what has been done.

>Is there some kind of vote or what?
There can be to coordinate efforts, but most of the time someone just
does something.

Thanks!
Chris

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

> Andrew,
>
> That would be an Ahaaaaaa from me on that too.
>
> Except, if OFBiz ever ends up in my delete bucket it's more likely to
> be
> with an Ahhggggrrrrr!!!$&?£??rrr than an Eh! ;)
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> Andrew Ballantine wrote:
> > Chris,
> >
> > I would be impossible to back with statistics, but in the history
> of OFBiz
> > and there are many downloads that ended up in the delete bucket
> because they
> > never reached your AHA moment.
> >
> > Ian and I are trying to change the Eh! into Ahaaaaaa
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Andrew Ballantine.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Howe [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > Sent: 20 January 2007 09:44
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
> >
> >
> > Ian,
> >
> > While I certainly enjoy the analogies, who are you
> > ultimately suggesting create these lowest common
> > denominator (LCD) documents?
> >
> > As has already been mentioned, once you pass that
> > "aha" moment in OFBiz, it's difficult to understand
> > why the engineering documentation didn't make sense
> > the first time around. 3D vector calculus, as you put
> > it, seems so elementary obvious at that point that
> > it's difficult to convey it in simpler terms; even
> > though you remember it not being obvious when you
> > started. I don't think it's very time/quality
> > productive for someone who's passed that "aha" moment
> > to produce this documentation; at least not without
> > the aid of an "uninitiated".
> >
> > If you'd like to be that test subject, I'm sure there
> > are a mess of people, including myself, that would be
> > willing to help explain things to you as you make your
> > way through the concepts, documenting as you go. But
> > the POV of the documentation cannot be from someone
> > who's already gotten the bird off the ground, because
> > they're not really sure which button they pressed to
> > make it all seem second nature.
> >
> >
> > --- Ian McNulty <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> David,
> >>
> >> I don't get the proposition that there are 100
> >> different pilot roles.
> >>
> >> There are many 1,000s of different destinations.
> >> Maybe more than a
> >> dozen different pilot roles (commercial, fighter,
> >> bomber, spotter,
> >> etc.). But but there IS a lowest common denominator.
> >> They all fly
> >> planes. They all start off on fixed wing, single
> >> engine props. They all
> >> need to understand basic navigation, aerodynamics,
> >> flight-engineering etc.
> >>
> >> But it is very basic. The need to understand lift,
> >> drag, how to
> >> calculate take off velocities etc. But I doubt if
> >> they start of with 3D
> >> vector calculus or need to know what a Reynold's
> >> number is.
> >>
> >> So why can't the target be whatever denominators are
> >> common to all pilots?
> >>
> >> How to find the door handle and the start button
> >> would be top of my
> >> list. If they can't find those then they ain't never
> >> gonna fly.
> >>
> >> Ian
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> David E. Jones wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> David,
> >>>>
> >>>> I can see where you're coming from on this. This
> >>>>
> >> project is better
> >>
> >>>> documented than anything else I've seen in the
> >>>>
> >> field.You yourself
> >>
> >>>> have produced a truly awesome amount of
> >>>>
> >> documentation. I don't know
> >>
> >>>> where you find the time. All are extremely well
> >>>>
> >> written, very clear,
> >>
> >>>> very well laid out. A model of their kind. (No
> >>>>
> >> I'm not sucking up - I
> >>
> >>>> mean it :) So what could possibly be the problem.
> >>>>
> >>>> I found the Introduction Videos and Diagrams page
> >>>>
> >> you link to here a
> >>
> >>>> couple of days ago myself.
> >>>>
> >>>> It was whilst working through these videos that
> >>>>
> >> the light bulb went off.
> >>
> >>>> What you're talking us through is a diagram of
> >>>>
> >> the wiring harness of
> >>
> >>>> a jumbo jet.
> >>>>
> >>>> Essential for the engineers who need to service
> >>>>
> >> it.
> >>
> >>>> Absolutely the last kind of map a pilot wants to
> >>>>
> >> find on his lap.
> >>
> >>>> Know what I mean?
> >>>>
> >>> Uh, yeah, that's because it is meant to cover the
> >>>
> >> framework, not the
> >>
> >>> applications. The two are very different, change
> >>>
> >> very differently,
> >>
> >>> need to be understood by different people in
> >>>
> >> different ways, etc. My
> >>
> >>> current estimate is that to produce something
> >>>
> >> adequate for a "pilot",
> >>
> >>> given that there are about 100 different "pilot"
> >>>
> >> roles in OFBiz, would
> >>
> >>> require many times the effort to produce that the
> >>>
> >> framework videos
> >>
> >>> with their diagrams, reference materials,
> >>>
> >> transcriptions, etc. Right
> >>
> >>> now I don't have the $500k to get into that... and
> >>>
> >> the $40k already
> >>
> >>> spent on the documents which are now PDF-dumped
> >>>
> >> into the
> >>
> >>> docs.ofbiz.org site was clearly inadequate,
> >>>
> >> especially as it is mostly
> >>
> >>> reference materials (which is why you won't find
> >>>
> >> how-to stuff in the
> >>
> >>> reference guides, they are references after all,
>

=== message truncated ===

Jacques Le Roux

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

Administrator

In reply to this post by Ian McNulty

Ian,

From: "Ian McNulty" <[hidden email]>
> Jacques,
>
> Just one question... well three actually?

Hu ?

> Who does speak for the community?

Community :o). But as you know OFBiz is a now Top Level Apache Project (TLP) and in fact even when it was in incubator it had
already a PMC, this may interest and explain this to you : http://incubator.apache.org/guides/pmc.html. FYI I'm not in OFBiz PMC :
the 1st 6 commiters on this list are : http://incubator.apache.org/projects/ofbiz.html
All this it has some clicks of : http://ofbiz.apache.org/

> How does the community decide?
> Is there some kind of vote or what?

By vote. You may be interested by this also : http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html

Jacques

>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> > Andrew,
> >
> > From: "Andrew Ballantine" <[hidden email]>
> >
> >> David,
> >>
> >> This is so difficult because I know you care passionately about OFBiz and
> >> have put a huge amount of effort into both the code and the documentation
> >> and I am not forgetting the contribution made by Andy and all the rest of
> >> the community.
> >>
> >> I am also deeply aware that OFBiz is a truly open source project and that we
> >> should be grateful for all the contributions that have been received. Having
> >> said that I think we can help make it even better by giving our input which
> >> should be seen as constructive.
> >>
> >> So I dutifully followed your link:
> >>
> >> 1. The list is in alpha order. I think it should be in read order. (i.e. the
> >> order it is recommended to read the items)
> >>
> >
> > Yes that's true, please consider that it's still a work in progress. And this progress depends of community good will...
> >
> >
> >> 2. Guessing that Home might be the place to start I clicked that. Then chose
> >> "About OFBiz" only to get
> >>
> >
> > Same comment than above
> >
> >
> >> "This page is for background information about the OFBiz project.
> >>
> >> OFBiz Committers Roles and Responsbilities
> >> Best Practices for Contributors"
> >>
> >> What no description as to what OFBiz is, how it came to be, what businesses
> >> it is designed to service?
> >>
> >
> > You may find this kinf of information in OFBiz official site : http://www.ofbiz.org/. IMO the wiki is more intended to

coordonate

> > community work and to documen OFBiz from technical and functionnal POC.
> >
> >
> >> 3. Back to Home. Ah reference to OLD wiki. Click "here". Now this looks more
> >> like a wiki.
> >> Nice list of topics on the left and page text on the right and I can see
> >> where to click to make contributions at the bottom of the page. The new wiki
> >> doesn't seem to have and edit to click.
> >>
> >
> > You may have already discover that only the 'The Open For Business Project Wik" part of the dashboard
> > (http://docs.ofbiz.org/dashboard.action) is *open to edit*. To edit you only have to register.
> >
> > We experienced some problems with the *completly open* old Wiki : lack of organisation, redundancy, update problem, open to
> > spammners, etc.
> >
> >
> >> I am guessing that Confluence has placed some restrictions on how the wiki
> >> is presented.
> >> I find the new wiki, um, rather dry.
> >>
> >
> > It's new, well will surely look better in some months...
> >
> >
> >> I hope you get my drift.
> >>
> >> Please can we have a wiki that looks like a wiki. Does the wiki have to be
> >> on Apache?
> >>
> >
> > It depends on community, petition David with prayers will not do a lot here...
> >
> > One more time this reflects only my opinion and I'm not speaking for community...
> >
> > Thanks for your interest in OFBiz :o)
> >
> > Jacques
> >
> >
> >> Kind regards,
> >>
> >> Andrew.
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: David E. Jones [mailto:[hidden email]]
> >> Sent: 20 January 2007 08:18
> >> To: [hidden email]
> >> Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Is there something wrong with the current OFBiz wiki linked to below?
> >>
> >> http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBIZ
> >>
> >> -David
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jan 18, 2007, at 1:23 PM, Leon Torres wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> I also believe it would be worthwhile to experiment with an open
> >>> ofbiz wiki. As the ofbiz community continues to grow, we will
> >>> certainly attain the critical mass necessary to make such a thing
> >>> work.
> >>>
> >>> For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks in .txt format
> >>> about specific tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php
> >>>
> >>> Unfortunately contributing to those is hard because it takes an
> >>> investment in time to read, verify, and update the documents on our
> >>> end. If they were in the form of an open wiki, it would be far
> >>> easier to expand on them.
> >>>
> >>> - Leon
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Florin Jurcovici wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even if I had some
> >>>> experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki is closed or
> >>>> restricted, I cannot. Some maintainers should review docs
> >>>> occasionally and correct or delete them if they are not OK, maybe
> >>>> draw an outline of the documentation at the beginning then let
> >>>> whoever is willing to fill the pages. But IMO a closed/restricted
> >>>> wiki is not the way to go.
> >>>> --Florin Jurcovici
> >>>> ------------------
> >>>> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
> >>>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> mcnultyMEDIA
> 60 Birkdale Gardens
> Durham
> DH1 2UL
>
> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
> e: [hidden email]
> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
> ==============================================================================================
> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of

distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior
consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44
(0)191 384 4736
>
> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of software viruses and
would recommend that you carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
> ==============================================================================================

David E Jones

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

In reply to this post by Ian McNulty

On Jan 23, 2007, at 4:17 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:

> Let's try a slightly different tack. Tailor-made is what we're
> talking about here.
>
> Tailor-made suits fit like a glove and cost more than most of us
> can afford.
>
> There was a time when that was all there was, and tailor shops on
> street corner were as common as greengrocers. But tailor-made suits
> were so expensive that most ordinary working people bought only
> one of two in a lifetime. Sunday-Best they used to call it.
> Preserved in mothballs in the wardrobe and only ever worn for
> church. Of course for top-drawer executives it was different. But
> then it always is.
>
> When the first off-the peg chain stores started appearing on the
> High Street, almost everybody was appalled. First into battle were
> the tailors in their corner shops.
>
> How can one size fit everybody?
>
> Well, of course it can't.
>
> The great leap forward - the Blue Ocean thinking outside the box -
> was to produce a carefully banded range of sizes, to fit most of
> the people most of the time.
>
> "But then no size will ever fit anybody," was the next outraged cry.
>
> Well of course they can't. Never could. Never would. And still don't!
>
> The trick was to produce suit designs where it doesn't really
> matter. Pile them high and bang them out at prices everyone could
> afford. Making the leap from fitting some of the people all of the
> time to fitting most of the people most of the time was all it took
> to turn a whole industry completely upside down.
>
> The average tailor on the average corner quickly lost the plot. The
> master tailors in Saville Row upped their prices even more.
>
> Personally I thing that's all very sad. But you can't stop
> progress. That's the way all technology goes. One-off automobiles
> for the aristos give way to Model T Ford's for the masses, putting
> average tailor-made manufacturers out of business and leaving a
> small niche of master-tailors servicing the extremely well-off who
> would never be caught dead in anything off-the-peg.
>
> If David is saying is that he wants to stay tailoring for the
> executives and is appalled at the idea of selling ill-fitting suits
> to the masses then no way would I want to knock that.

Except I didn't say that. Suits and software are a bit different.

What I said is that whatever we try to do, there has to be a model
for it and a plan to make it work.

I think it would be cool to go after the end-user who would never
think of customizing OFBiz or paying for it. The question is, how do
we get people to work on this as a derivative of OFBiz? What will be
the incentive for analysts, developers, documentation writers,
support personnel, etc?

Not that it's impossible either. There are a few open source groups
doing packages oriented this way. Their funding model is usually
similar to commercial software though, which is why they like the GPL
license, or even worse the HPL, (onerous enough that some will need/
want to buy a commercial license).

So, in a community driven project that as the target audience how do
we get people interested enough in working on it to design it, build
it, document it, maintain it, and support it? On top of all of that,
if we really want a lot of users we'll probably need to market it a
bit too.

I never said I want to stay doing what I am. It's really not that
great. I'm certainly not appalled at doing something different,
though I do appreciate the dramatic effect of the phrase-ology. I did
say that I don't know how to do that, especially in a community-
driven project.

-David

smime.p7s (3K) Download Attachment

David Goodenough

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

On Tuesday 23 January 2007 18:36, David E. Jones wrote:

> On Jan 23, 2007, at 4:17 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
> > Let's try a slightly different tack. Tailor-made is what we're
> > talking about here.
> >
> > Tailor-made suits fit like a glove and cost more than most of us
> > can afford.
> >
> > There was a time when that was all there was, and tailor shops on
> > street corner were as common as greengrocers. But tailor-made suits
> > were so expensive that most ordinary working people bought only
> > one of two in a lifetime. Sunday-Best they used to call it.
> > Preserved in mothballs in the wardrobe and only ever worn for
> > church. Of course for top-drawer executives it was different. But
> > then it always is.
> >
> > When the first off-the peg chain stores started appearing on the
> > High Street, almost everybody was appalled. First into battle were
> > the tailors in their corner shops.
> >
> > How can one size fit everybody?
> >
> > Well, of course it can't.
> >
> > The great leap forward - the Blue Ocean thinking outside the box -
> > was to produce a carefully banded range of sizes, to fit most of
> > the people most of the time.
> >
> > "But then no size will ever fit anybody," was the next outraged cry.
> >
> > Well of course they can't. Never could. Never would. And still don't!
> >
> > The trick was to produce suit designs where it doesn't really
> > matter. Pile them high and bang them out at prices everyone could
> > afford. Making the leap from fitting some of the people all of the
> > time to fitting most of the people most of the time was all it took
> > to turn a whole industry completely upside down.
> >
> > The average tailor on the average corner quickly lost the plot. The
> > master tailors in Saville Row upped their prices even more.
> >
> > Personally I thing that's all very sad. But you can't stop
> > progress. That's the way all technology goes. One-off automobiles
> > for the aristos give way to Model T Ford's for the masses, putting
> > average tailor-made manufacturers out of business and leaving a
> > small niche of master-tailors servicing the extremely well-off who
> > would never be caught dead in anything off-the-peg.
> >
> > If David is saying is that he wants to stay tailoring for the
> > executives and is appalled at the idea of selling ill-fitting suits
> > to the masses then no way would I want to knock that.
>
> Except I didn't say that. Suits and software are a bit different.
>
> What I said is that whatever we try to do, there has to be a model
> for it and a plan to make it work.
>
> I think it would be cool to go after the end-user who would never
> think of customizing OFBiz or paying for it. The question is, how do
> we get people to work on this as a derivative of OFBiz? What will be
> the incentive for analysts, developers, documentation writers,
> support personnel, etc?

One possible motive it to get people started on a convertion, and then
when they discover how wonderful it is, AND that it is very customisable
they will start to pay for work.

David

>
> Not that it's impossible either. There are a few open source groups
> doing packages oriented this way. Their funding model is usually
> similar to commercial software though, which is why they like the GPL
> license, or even worse the HPL, (onerous enough that some will need/
> want to buy a commercial license).
>
> So, in a community driven project that as the target audience how do
> we get people interested enough in working on it to design it, build
> it, document it, maintain it, and support it? On top of all of that,
> if we really want a lot of users we'll probably need to market it a
> bit too.
>
> I never said I want to stay doing what I am. It's really not that
> great. I'm certainly not appalled at doing something different,
> though I do appreciate the dramatic effect of the phrase-ology. I did
> say that I don't know how to do that, especially in a community-
> driven project.
>
> -David

Ian McNulty

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

In reply to this post by David E Jones

David E. Jones wrote:
>
> On Jan 23, 2007, at 4:17 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>
>>
>> If David is saying is that he wants to stay tailoring for the
>> executives and is appalled at the idea of selling ill-fitting suits
>> to the masses then no way would I want to knock that.
>
> Except I didn't say that.

I accept you didn't say that. That's why I started with an "If"

> Suits and software are a bit different.

Also accepted. No model is a perfect representation of the real thing.

Working through this logically...

If the differences are significant, then the model must be rejected.

If trivial, we can accept it and move on.

>
> What I said is that whatever we try to do, there has to be a model for
> it and a plan to make it work.
>

1) Models put forward to date would include:

1.1) The clothing industry
1.2) The automobile industry
1.3) The aircraft industry
1.4) Some other industry we haven't thought of yet.

Until sound reasons arise to show the differences are significant, there
is no reason to reject any one out-of-hand.

2) The plan to make it work would be:

2.1) State strategic objective

2.2) Implement Deming Quality Circle
2.2.1) Design tactics for achieving strategic objective
2.2.2) Implement tactics
2.2.3) Assess outcomes
2.2.4) Modify tactics
2.2.5) Re-design plans
2.2.6) Implement new plans
2.2.7) Assess new outcomes
2.2.8) Modify tactics
2.2.9) Re-design plans
2.2.10) Implement new plans

2.3) Iterate process until strategic objective is achieved.

> I think it would be cool to go after the end-user who would never
> think of customizing OFBiz or paying for it. The question is, how do
> we get people to work on this as a derivative of OFBiz?

At last count, I would say you already had about half a dozen volunteers.

The seeds are planted. All they need is the space to grow.

> What will be the incentive for analysts, developers, documentation
> writers, support personnel, etc?

Same as it is at the moment.

To create work for themselves and be in at the start of a sustainable
and growing industry.

>
> Not that it's impossible either. There are a few open source groups
> doing packages oriented this way. Their funding model is usually
> similar to commercial software though, which is why they like the GPL
> license, or even worse the HPL, (onerous enough that some will
> need/want to buy a commercial license).
>

The Apache model has worked well for Apache. If I'm not mistaken, 60% of
the internet at the last count. Why not just run with that?

> On top of all of that, if we really want a lot of users we'll probably
> need to market it a bit too.
>

Possibly. But imho that's quite a few steps down the line.

First step would be to clear away obstacles.

Then send envoys onto other forums. Give word-of-mouth and viral
marketing it's head.

Then assess the outcomes.

If the bandwagon looks good there'll be marketeers who want to jump on it.

If not I'll eat my (Red) hat.

> I never said I want to stay doing what I am. It's really not that
> great. I'm certainly not appalled at doing something different,

That's certainly a good place to start.

> though I do appreciate the dramatic effect of the phrase-ology.

Got no idea what you mean by that. Please expand.

> I did say that I don't know how to do that, especially in a
> community-driven project.

Anybody who claims they know exactly how to do it is a liar. There are
no such certainties in this life.

It's the will that creates the way.

Ian

Ian McNulty

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

In reply to this post by Jacques Le Roux

Thanks Jacques. Right on the nose as always. Will study and absorb.

Re. the 1 question turning into 3. It's a Monty Python thing. "Nobody
expects the Spanish Inquisition." No worries. Just a sad old bloke
showing his age :-()

Ian

Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Ian,
>
> From: "Ian McNulty" <[hidden email]>
>
>> Jacques,
>>
>> Just one question... well three actually?
>>
>
> Hu ?
>
>
>> Who does speak for the community?
>>
>
> Community :o). But as you know OFBiz is a now Top Level Apache Project (TLP) and in fact even when it was in incubator it had
> already a PMC, this may interest and explain this to you : http://incubator.apache.org/guides/pmc.html. FYI I'm not in OFBiz PMC :
> the 1st 6 commiters on this list are : http://incubator.apache.org/projects/ofbiz.html
> All this it has some clicks of : http://ofbiz.apache.org/
>
>
>> How does the community decide?
>> Is there some kind of vote or what?
>>
>
> By vote. You may be interested by this also : http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html
>
> Jacques
>
>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew,
>>>
>>> From: "Andrew Ballantine" <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>>
>>>> David,
>>>>
>>>> This is so difficult because I know you care passionately about OFBiz and
>>>> have put a huge amount of effort into both the code and the documentation
>>>> and I am not forgetting the contribution made by Andy and all the rest of
>>>> the community.
>>>>
>>>> I am also deeply aware that OFBiz is a truly open source project and that we
>>>> should be grateful for all the contributions that have been received. Having
>>>> said that I think we can help make it even better by giving our input which
>>>> should be seen as constructive.
>>>>
>>>> So I dutifully followed your link:
>>>>
>>>> 1. The list is in alpha order. I think it should be in read order. (i.e. the
>>>> order it is recommended to read the items)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yes that's true, please consider that it's still a work in progress. And this progress depends of community good will...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 2. Guessing that Home might be the place to start I clicked that. Then chose
>>>> "About OFBiz" only to get
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Same comment than above
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> "This page is for background information about the OFBiz project.
>>>>
>>>> OFBiz Committers Roles and Responsbilities
>>>> Best Practices for Contributors"
>>>>
>>>> What no description as to what OFBiz is, how it came to be, what businesses
>>>> it is designed to service?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You may find this kinf of information in OFBiz official site : http://www.ofbiz.org/. IMO the wiki is more intended to
>>>
> coordonate
>
>>> community work and to documen OFBiz from technical and functionnal POC.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 3. Back to Home. Ah reference to OLD wiki. Click "here". Now this looks more
>>>> like a wiki.
>>>> Nice list of topics on the left and page text on the right and I can see
>>>> where to click to make contributions at the bottom of the page. The new wiki
>>>> doesn't seem to have and edit to click.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You may have already discover that only the 'The Open For Business Project Wik" part of the dashboard
>>> (http://docs.ofbiz.org/dashboard.action) is *open to edit*. To edit you only have to register.
>>>
>>> We experienced some problems with the *completly open* old Wiki : lack of organisation, redundancy, update problem, open to
>>> spammners, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I am guessing that Confluence has placed some restrictions on how the wiki
>>>> is presented.
>>>> I find the new wiki, um, rather dry.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It's new, well will surely look better in some months...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I hope you get my drift.
>>>>
>>>> Please can we have a wiki that looks like a wiki. Does the wiki have to be
>>>> on Apache?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It depends on community, petition David with prayers will not do a lot here...
>>>
>>> One more time this reflects only my opinion and I'm not speaking for community...
>>>
>>> Thanks for your interest in OFBiz :o)
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Andrew.
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: David E. Jones [mailto:[hidden email]]
>>>> Sent: 20 January 2007 08:18
>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>> Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is there something wrong with the current OFBiz wiki linked to below?
>>>>
>>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBIZ
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 18, 2007, at 1:23 PM, Leon Torres wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I also believe it would be worthwhile to experiment with an open
>>>>> ofbiz wiki. As the ofbiz community continues to grow, we will
>>>>> certainly attain the critical mass necessary to make such a thing
>>>>> work.
>>>>>
>>>>> For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks in .txt format
>>>>> about specific tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately contributing to those is hard because it takes an
>>>>> investment in time to read, verify, and update the documents on our
>>>>> end. If they were in the form of an open wiki, it would be far
>>>>> easier to expand on them.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Leon
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Florin Jurcovici wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even if I had some
>>>>>> experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki is closed or
>>>>>> restricted, I cannot. Some maintainers should review docs
>>>>>> occasionally and correct or delete them if they are not OK, maybe
>>>>>> draw an outline of the documentation at the beginning then let
>>>>>> whoever is willing to fill the pages. But IMO a closed/restricted
>>>>>> wiki is not the way to go.
>>>>>> --Florin Jurcovici
>>>>>> ------------------
>>>>>> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> mcnultyMEDIA
>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>> Durham
>> DH1 2UL
>>
>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>> e: [hidden email]
>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>> ==============================================================================================
>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of
>>
> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior
> consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44
> (0)191 384 4736
>
>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of software viruses and
>>
> would recommend that you carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
>
>> ==============================================================================================
>>
>
>
>
>

Jacques Le Roux

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

Administrator

Ian,

> Re. the 1 question turning into 3. It's a Monty Python thing. "Nobody
> expects the Spanish Inquisition." No worries. Just a sad old bloke
> showing his age :-()
>
> Ian

Yes, I figured it out just after having sent my msg. I remember a Monty Python's scene in a restaurant about a dirty knife or
something. I never ever laugh more in my all life... creazy !

Jacques

David E Jones

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

In reply to this post by Ian McNulty

On Jan 23, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Ian McNulty wrote:

>> I think it would be cool to go after the end-user who would never
>> think of customizing OFBiz or paying for it. The question is, how
>> do we get people to work on this as a derivative of OFBiz?
>
> At last count, I would say you already had about half a dozen
> volunteers.
>
> The seeds are planted. All they need is the space to grow.

Great it sounds like we're good to go then. I guess that means the
patches should start rolling in soon to move in this direction.

If anyone considers themselves to be involved in this, or would like
to get involved with this, here is where to get started:

OFBiz Contributors Best Practices: http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/r

-David

smime.p7s (3K) Download Attachment

Ian McNulty

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

In reply to this post by Jacques Le Roux

Jacques,

Then there's the dead parrot sketch. About the only thing the Brits are
really any good at it if you ask me.... Being creazy! But then I am
really Irish !??%^?&<#!

Better go now before I get a kick up the pants for being as off-topic as
it's possible to be :o)

Ian

Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Ian,
>
>
>> Re. the 1 question turning into 3. It's a Monty Python thing. "Nobody
>> expects the Spanish Inquisition." No worries. Just a sad old bloke
>> showing his age :-()
>>
>> Ian
>>
>
> Yes, I figured it out just after having sent my msg. I remember a Monty Python's scene in a restaurant about a dirty knife or
> something. I never ever laugh more in my all life... creazy !
>
> Jacques
>
>
>
>

Ian McNulty

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

In reply to this post by David E Jones

Ooh Ehr... Looks like we've just been given enough rope to hang
ourselves then ;)

Will have a look at your link in the morning and figure out how to put
my money where my mouth is.

For now, got to get some sleep.

Sweet dreams to all.

Ian

David E. Jones wrote:

>
> On Jan 23, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>
>>> I think it would be cool to go after the end-user who would never
>>> think of customizing OFBiz or paying for it. The question is, how do
>>> we get people to work on this as a derivative of OFBiz?
>>
>> At last count, I would say you already had about half a dozen
>> volunteers.
>>
>> The seeds are planted. All they need is the space to grow.
>
> Great it sounds like we're good to go then. I guess that means the
> patches should start rolling in soon to move in this direction.
>
> If anyone considers themselves to be involved in this, or would like
> to get involved with this, here is where to get started:
>
> OFBiz Contributors Best Practices: http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/r
>
> -David
>
>
>

Andrew Ballantine

RE: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

In reply to this post by David E Jones

David E. Jones wrote:

>What I said is that whatever we try to do, there has to be a model
>for it and a plan to make it work.

Of course

>I think it would be cool to go after the end-user who would never
>think of customizing OFBiz or paying for it. The question is, how do
>we get people to work on this as a derivative of OFBiz? What will be
>the incentive for analysts, developers, documentation writers,
>support personnel, etc?

I'm a bit puzzled as to why as to why it has to be a derivative. I'll
explain.
The standard download of OFBiz provides a single package to demo what is
available. Surely we can add to that so that the demo and its features
improve and satisfy the basic needs of a business. However lets keep it
simple, which enables us to customise it further for clients who need
something more.

Let's cater for a business that that buys stuff, manufactures some stuff
both from the bought stuff and 3rd party services and the sells the finished
products. If we add POS, then they can sell on the premises as well as on
the web. Now apart from the manufacturing 3rd party part I was under the
assumption that most of this functionality is already present.

This would cater for a huge number of businesses.

So let's get this package downloading and installing as sweet as sweet can
be, and go from there.

I am very willing to contribute to this effort. Yes, there will be further
healthy discussion, but now we need to start it.

Some issues that need to be addressed in the main body of OFBiz, I believe,
as:

Different taxation methods
Different pricing methods
Variations in national regulations
Re-work of the presentation (look and feel)

As I have said before I believe that this can be catered for with
conditional code or plug-ins.

As I have now discovered that I can edit the wiki if I login (the edit
labels only appear if you are logged in), where do you want me to start
writing this up?

Kind regards,

Andrew.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.8/649 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
20:40

*****************************************************************
This email has been checked by the altohiway Mailcontroller Service
*****************************************************************

Andrew Ballantine

Wiki issue

In reply to this post by David E Jones

Hi,

I have noticed that quite a few of the wiki pages extend wider than the
browser page.

Is it not possible to set the wiki HTML so that it always proportions the
content to the current size of the window?

The reason for the request is that it quite difficult to read a long
document with having to constantly shift the window from side to side.

An example of this is:
http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Contributors+Best+Practices

I am using Firefox 2.0.0.1 on Windows2000 if that makes any difference.
Internet V6 does the same.

Kind regards,

Andrew Ballantine.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.8/649 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
20:40

*****************************************************************
This email has been checked by the altohiway Mailcontroller Service
*****************************************************************

Tim Ruppert

Re: Wiki issue

Andrew, I'm guessing hte problem that you're having with this is caused by two things:

1. You have quite a small viewable space in your browser

2. the svn diff of ShipmentServices is a bit wider than you have going on.

#1 we can't help you with :) - #2 is probably something more in the way Confluence handles verbatim text. In this particulart case, we would have a few options:

1. Make the example path shorter

2. See where & why Confluence handles these this way.

I'm guessing that it's easier to do #1, but maybe someone know why verbatim-esque things are handle this way. I checked a bunch of other wiki formats and they ALL pretty much handle them in a similar manner because it's just following what the user asked - to display something exactly the way that they see it.

Anyways, I hope this helps explain the mystery.

Cheers,

Tim

Tim Ruppert

HotWax Media

http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

o:801.649.6594

f:801.649.6595

On Jan 24, 2007, at 4:37 AM, Andrew Ballantine wrote:

Hi,

I have noticed that quite a few of the wiki pages extend wider than the
browser page.

Is it not possible to set the wiki HTML so that it always proportions the
content to the current size of the window?

The reason for the request is that it quite difficult to read a long
document with having to constantly shift the window from side to side.

An example of this is:
http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Contributors+Best+Practices

I am using Firefox 2.0.0.1 on Windows2000 if that makes any difference.
Internet V6 does the same.

Kind regards,

Andrew Ballantine.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.8/649 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
20:40

*****************************************************************
This email has been checked by the altohiway Mailcontroller Service
*****************************************************************

smime.p7s (3K) Download Attachment

Andrew Sykes

Re: Wiki issue

In reply to this post by Andrew Ballantine

Andrew, Tim,

The diff line definitely seems to be the problem, perhaps it would be a
good idea to have a best practise somewhere that asked for verbatim
lines to be split when they were in danger of causing this kind of
formatting problem, I see it too, and it definitely isn't too
pretty! :-)

e.g.
$ start of line
~\ continuation
~\ even more...

Is there any reason not to do this?

- Andrew

On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 07:01 -0700, Tim Ruppert wrote:

> Andrew, I'm guessing hte problem that you're having with this is
> caused by two things:
>
>
> 1. You have quite a small viewable space in your browser
> 2. the svn diff of ShipmentServices is a bit wider than you have going
> on.
>
>
> #1 we can't help you with :) - #2 is probably something more in the
> way Confluence handles verbatim text. In this particulart case, we
> would have a few options:
>
>
> 1. Make the example path shorter
> 2. See where & why Confluence handles these this way.
>
>
> I'm guessing that it's easier to do #1, but maybe someone know why
> verbatim-esque things are handle this way. I checked a bunch of other
> wiki formats and they ALL pretty much handle them in a similar manner
> because it's just following what the user asked - to display something
> exactly the way that they see it.
>
>
> Anyways, I hope this helps explain the mystery.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Tim
> --
> Tim Ruppert
> HotWax Media
> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>
>
> o:801.649.6594
> f:801.649.6595
>
>
>
> On Jan 24, 2007, at 4:37 AM, Andrew Ballantine wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > I have noticed that quite a few of the wiki pages extend wider than
> > the
> > browser page.
> >
> >
> > Is it not possible to set the wiki HTML so that it always
> > proportions the
> > content to the current size of the window?
> >
> >
> > The reason for the request is that it quite difficult to read a long
> > document with having to constantly shift the window from side to
> > side.
> >
> >
> > An example of this is:
> > http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Contributors+Best
> > +Practices
> >
> >
> > I am using Firefox 2.0.0.1 on Windows2000 if that makes any
> > difference.
> > Internet V6 does the same.
> >
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> >
> > Andrew Ballantine.
> > --
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.8/649 - Release Date:
> > 23/01/2007
> > 20:40
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *****************************************************************
> > This email has been checked by the altohiway Mailcontroller Service
> > *****************************************************************
>
>

--
Kind Regards
Andrew Sykes <[hidden email]>
Sykes Development Ltd
http://www.sykesdevelopment.com

Tim Ruppert

Re: Wiki issue

I think the biggest reason that I would see is that some things wrap and are fine contextually - much of the time . . . command lines do not fall into this category. My recommendation on this one would be to get a shorter example, but wrapping can be a good way to go for sure.

Cheers,

Tim

Tim Ruppert

HotWax Media

http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

o:801.649.6594

f:801.649.6595

On Jan 24, 2007, at 7:19 AM, Andrew Sykes wrote:

Andrew, Tim,

The diff line definitely seems to be the problem, perhaps it would be a
good idea to have a best practise somewhere that asked for verbatim
lines to be split when they were in danger of causing this kind of
formatting problem, I see it too, and it definitely isn't too
pretty! :-)

e.g.
$ start of line
~\ continuation
~\ even more...

Is there any reason not to do this?

- Andrew

On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 07:01 -0700, Tim Ruppert wrote:

Andrew, I'm guessing hte problem that you're having with this is
caused by two things:

1. You have quite a small viewable space in your browser
2. the svn diff of ShipmentServices is a bit wider than you have going
on.

#1 we can't help you with :) - #2 is probably something more in the
way Confluence handles verbatim text. In this particulart case, we
would have a few options:

1. Make the example path shorter
2. See where & why Confluence handles these this way.

I'm guessing that it's easier to do #1, but maybe someone know why
verbatim-esque things are handle this way. I checked a bunch of other
wiki formats and they ALL pretty much handle them in a similar manner
because it's just following what the user asked - to display something
exactly the way that they see it.

Anyways, I hope this helps explain the mystery.

Cheers,
Tim
--
Tim Ruppert
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

o:801.649.6594
f:801.649.6595

On Jan 24, 2007, at 4:37 AM, Andrew Ballantine wrote:

Hi,

I have noticed that quite a few of the wiki pages extend wider than
the
browser page.

Is it not possible to set the wiki HTML so that it always
proportions the
content to the current size of the window?

The reason for the request is that it quite difficult to read a long
document with having to constantly shift the window from side to
side.

An example of this is:
http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Contributors+Best
+Practices

I am using Firefox 2.0.0.1 on Windows2000 if that makes any
difference.
Internet V6 does the same.

Kind regards,

Andrew Ballantine.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.8/649 - Release Date:
23/01/2007
20:40

*****************************************************************
This email has been checked by the altohiway Mailcontroller Service
*****************************************************************

--
Kind Regards
Andrew Sykes <[hidden email]>
Sykes Development Ltd
http://www.sykesdevelopment.com

smime.p7s (3K) Download Attachment

Jacques Le Roux

Re: Wiki issue

Administrator

In reply to this post by Tim Ruppert

Andrew,

If Tim's guess is right as an awkward workaround you may try to reduce your font size when you encounter this peculiar problem (Ctrl + mouse wheel do that in a glance)

Jacques

----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Ruppert
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: Wiki issue

Andrew, I'm guessing hte problem that you're having with this is caused by two things:

1. You have quite a small viewable space in your browser
2. the svn diff of ShipmentServices is a bit wider than you have going on.

#1 we can't help you with :) - #2 is probably something more in the way Confluence handles verbatim text. In this particulart case, we would have a few options:

1. Make the example path shorter
2. See where & why Confluence handles these this way.

I'm guessing that it's easier to do #1, but maybe someone know why verbatim-esque things are handle this way. I checked a bunch of other wiki formats and they ALL pretty much handle them in a similar manner because it's just following what the user asked - to display something exactly the way that they see it.

Anyways, I hope this helps explain the mystery.

Cheers,
Tim
--
Tim Ruppert
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

o:801.649.6594
f:801.649.6595

On Jan 24, 2007, at 4:37 AM, Andrew Ballantine wrote:

Hi,

I have noticed that quite a few of the wiki pages extend wider than the
browser page.

Is it not possible to set the wiki HTML so that it always proportions the
content to the current size of the window?

The reason for the request is that it quite difficult to read a long
document with having to constantly shift the window from side to side.

An example of this is:
http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Contributors+Best+Practices

I am using Firefox 2.0.0.1 on Windows2000 if that makes any difference.
Internet V6 does the same.

Kind regards,

Andrew Ballantine.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.8/649 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
20:40

*****************************************************************
This email has been checked by the altohiway Mailcontroller Service
*****************************************************************

1 ... 34567