OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
Locked
1234567
1234567
Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
 
|
Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
|
|
Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
|
|
Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
|
|
Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
|
|
Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
|
|
Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
|
|
Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
|
|
Ian, About this question: > In my ignorance I kind of assumed that once I had a stable version > running it would - like my old QuickBooks 3 - keep on going without > too much trouble. Provided I didn't want to start customizing and > upgrading that is. > OK. So new security breaches and the necessary patches to block > them are to be expected. I have that already with existing Open > Source LAMP e-commerce installations. The cost of keeping them > secure is not particularly great. What is it about OFBiz that would > make maintenance a luxury I might not be able to afford? Please > expand. Unless you automate only a small part of what you do in your company, which is usually the case for small companies, you will HAVE to change the software to meet the needs of the company over time. Unfortunately (for us software peoples) not every company does exactly the same thing. Even more unfortunately is that the same company, large or small, does not do the same thing from one year to the next (or even smaller time periods). Small companies can get away with a single OOTB system because they only automate a very small part of what they do. As companies grow they MUST automate more and more of what they or the company is likely to fail. As far as up-front and ongoing costs go for OFBiz in relation to what you need, you hinted at an answer yourself in this paragraph: > When I first discovered OFBiz a couple of months ago I was > thunderstruck. Not only did the e-commerce front-end look every bit > as good as the LAMP systems I've been installing, but the whole > concept and framework looked like it ought to knock both Microsoft > and Sage into a cocked hat. > > I say 'looked like' because, of course, I have subsequently > discovered from my short time on this list that OFBiz is not yet as > fully developed as I first thought it to be. This means something different for everyone. Some companies are able to use OFBiz 100% out of the box, but this is rare and usually means, as mentioned above, that they are only automated a fairly small percentage of what they do. So, the question that will answer your question is: what do you mean by this? In other words, what are the details behind the statement "OFBiz is not yet as fully developed as I first thought it to be"? The answer to that initially and over time, for your company or each of your clients, is the answer to how much work will be necessary to "install" and "support" the system (ie customize and maintain in more honest terms). -David On Jan 21, 2007, at 9:50 AM, Ian McNulty wrote: > Andrew, > > I'm not looking for anything specific at the moment. Just trying to > evaluate current options and keep on top of developments in the > hope of offering clients the best, most flexible, most long-term > solutions I can find. > > I checked out GnuCash and SQL Ledger before I discovered OFBiz. > They both look fine, as far as small business accounting packages > go. You're not going to believe this, but I personally still use > QuickBooks 3 which I bought for less than $200 more than 15 years > ago to run on Windows 3.1. Since then I've used it to produce > budgets, VAT returns and year-end accounts for up to 4 different > companies at the same time - some with turnovers around the $1M > mark. It has its limitations and idiosyncrasies; but it runs like > lightning on XP, has never crashed even once or given me any kind > of problems at all (touch wood!!!) So it's going to take something > pretty special to persuade me to change to anything else. > > I started looking at OFBiz as a solution to problems I can see > starting to appear on the horizon for clients with established > bricks-and-mortar wholesale and retail businesses for whom I have > been installing Open Source e-commerce solutions over the past few > years. > > All started with no web presence, all are now finding online sales > becoming a significant and in some cases the major part of their > businesses. > > In the beginning, integration with existing in-store EPOS and > accounting systems from the likes of MS, Intuit and Sage was not an > issue. Now it is quickly becoming the main one as staff spend > increasingly longer amounts of time transferring information on > paper and re-keying the same data into 3 different systems running > in parallel. > > I have been trying to keep on top of this by installing patches and > plugins to get the different systems to talk to each other. But > bespoke integration with closed-source, proprietary systems is an > arduous and expensive business that few clients can afford. More to > the point, it is a very 'tacky' and incomplete solution as it > depends largely on staff following rigorously prescribed > synchronisation routines to prevent transactions colliding, falling > over each other and cancelling each other out. Most staff working > at this level will ignore the rules and cut corners if they can, > resulting in tangles of inaccurate data which threaten to bring the > whole business crashing around everyone's ears. > > Microsoft and Sage spotted the problems and the opportunities > several years ago, and are now offering their own e-commerce clones > seamlessly integrated with their own back-ends. I lost my biggest > client to them just before Christmas. If I can not offer equivalent > backend Open Source integration then it won't be long before I lose > all the rest. > > When I first discovered OFBiz a couple of months ago I was > thunderstruck. Not only did the e-commerce front-end look every bit > as good as the LAMP systems I've been installing, but the whole > concept and framework looked like it ought to knock both Microsoft > and Sage into a cocked hat. > > I say 'looked like' because, of course, I have subsequently > discovered from my short time on this list that OFBiz is not yet as > fully developed as I first thought it to be. > > Your analogy with office space is interesting but I'm not entirely > convinced it compares like with like. The cost of over-capacity in > bricks-and-mortar space is clearly very heavy. The cost of over- > capacity in Open Source virtual software space, not necessarily so. > > On the other hand, the cost of not building into the virtual > software space the option for future expansion could well be > crippling. It isn't just the cost of new installations and transfer > of data. The major cost is staff retraining. People who adapt > easily to such things do not usually end up working as warehousemen > or office clerks. > > Your Project-Open link looks like it might be able to do what I > need. The use of virtualisation looks very attractive. The web site > is clean and crisp. The lack of forums, user groups or mailing > lists is not so encouraging. I haven't even scratched the surface > yet so I have no idea how it compares with OFBiz. When I do I > promise to let you know. > > One thing you say at the end of your posting really does concern me: >> Can you really afford the luxury of servicing >> something as large as OfBiz en route? >> > I was aware that the cost of installing a usable version of OFBiz > might not be inconsiderable. But I had no idea that the cost of > servicing it could be so high it could be a luxury I might not be > able to afford. > > In my ignorance I kind of assumed that once I had a stable version > running it would - like my old QuickBooks 3 - keep on going without > too much trouble. Provided I didn't want to start customizing and > upgrading that is. > > OK. So new security breaches and the necessary patches to block > them are to be expected. I have that already with existing Open > Source LAMP e-commerce installations. The cost of keeping them > secure is not particularly great. What is it about OFBiz that would > make maintenance a luxury I might not be able to afford? Please > expand. > > Ian > > > > > Andrew Sykes wrote: >> Ian, >> >> It depends on what you're looking for. >> >> If the focus is still a "small business accounting package" as the >> subject line says - I know I know, there have been a zillion posts to >> this thread, so perhaps not. - If it's accounting, two spring to >> mind... >> >> For a desktop system, have a look at GnuCash... >> http://www.gnucash.org/ >> >> For a web based system, SQLLedger seems good and I've heard a few >> favourable reports about it... >> http://www.sql-ledger.org/ >> >> Finally, for a project which *seems* to have a more OOTB focus, >> although >> I've really only started looking at it this weekend, take a look >> at the >> Project:Open stuff... >> http://www.project-open.com/ >> I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this one as I've only just >> scratched the surface... >> >> One of the criteria you should consider is the cost of upgrading >> from an >> OOTB solution sometime in the future versus the cost of implementing >> OfBiz now. Generally if you are at the stage of being an >> enterprise with >> more "M" than "S" turnover (SME) and have implemented a lot of >> bespoke >> business processes which form part of you USP then OfBiz is a safe >> bet. >> If you plan to get to that point one day, it's probably better >> waiting >> for that day to come and using something OOTB in the meantime. >> Consider >> the analogy with office space, you wouldn't buy up half an industrial >> estate because the business plan you had written in your front >> room said >> one day you'd be bigger than ICI! Even if you factored the cost of >> hiring a van to help with the move, it would still look a bit >> dodgy on >> the balance sheet! >> >> Choosing the right system is about being on top of your overall >> business >> strategy, where are you going? how long and how much is it going >> to take >> to get you there? Can you really afford the luxury of servicing >> something as large as OfBiz en route? >> >> - Andrew >> >> >> On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 09:58 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote: >> >>> OK David. Maybe just one last thing. >>> >>> No more soap-boxing. A simple question for a change :) >>> >>> David E. Jones wrote: >>> >>>> Looking around the OFBiz documents and such I don't think this >>>> distinction is adequately represented, so I added some text >>>> similar to the above to the home page of ofbiz.apache.org. It >>>> should be public within a few hours, ie whenever the next >>>> deployment job runs. >>>> >>> Reading your new text, this stood out: >>> >>> "OFBiz can certainly be used OOTB (out of the box), but if you're >>> looking for something that works really well for that there are >>> many open source projects that do a great job there." >>> >>> OK. So maybe those projects might be more what I'm looking for. >>> >>> I searched a couple of months ago and didn't find anything I >>> thought could do a better job than OFBiz. What other open source >>> projects are you thinking of here? >>> >>> Ian >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> -David >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 3:49 AM, Ian McNulty wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Chris, David, Everybody. >>>>> >>>>> One last thought on the subject before I have my porridge and >>>>> another lie down ;) >>>>> >>>>> I'm wondering if any of you guys have ever taken a good hard >>>>> look at the osCommerce, Zen Cart or Ubuntu forums? >>>>> >>>>> http://www.zen-cart.com/forum >>>>> >>>>> http://forums.oscommerce.com >>>>> >>>>> http://www.ubuntuforums.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Yes. I know php is nasty. But that's not the point. >>>>> >>>>> Look at the accessibility and structure of the interface. >>>>> >>>>> All user levels are accommodated. >>>>> >>>>> All find their natural place. >>>>> >>>>> Nearly a quarter of a million members on Ubuntu. 120K on >>>>> osCommerce. 2,347 and 824 currently active respectively at this >>>>> very moment as we speak >>>>> >>>>> A working model of how to build a user base surely, if nothing >>>>> else? >>>>> >>>>> Ian >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Chris Howe wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> ================================================================= >>>>>> ============================= >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> 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. >>>>> ================================================================== >>>>> ============================ >>>>> > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------ > 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. > ====================================================================== > ======================== |
smime.p7s (3K)
Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
|
|
Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
|
|
Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
|
|
Jonathon, So, just to be clear and try to rephrase what you said: the problems you are running into are caused by the approach used to customize and install OFBiz rather than OFBiz itself. You should know, if you don't already, that OFBiz is being used effectively in various manufacturing operations. If you're having trouble and the free support of the community isn't meeting your needs, have you considered engaging people who have successfully deployed OFBiz in a manufacturing setting? If your time weren't so tight or if you had the luxury of more time to plan you could probably even get help from Jacopo. As I understand it he is working on a couple of fairly big contracts right now which is why he hasn't been as involved in OFBiz in the last few weeks (which is a big difference from before, BTW, we all have Jacopo to thank for a goodly percentage of what exists in OFBiz, especially in the manufacturing area). -David On Jan 21, 2007, at 8:50 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote: > David, Ian, > > I believe Ian has a point about "not yet fully developed". As > discussed before, the OFBiz framework is fine, complete. It's > what's built around the engine (car body, doors, windscreen wipers, > seat ejection button, etc) that's incomplete, or to put it in a > more PR way to potential customers, "buggy and requires debugging, > is all". Let's make a distinction between OFBiz framework and OFBiz- > ERP. > > David is right that OFBiz is hard, if not impossible, to use OOTB. > That's not precisely because OFBiz-ERP is all done up but the > market is so choosy and differentiated and finely-segmented, ie > everybody has their own ways of doing business. It's because OFBiz- > ERP functionalities are very much incomplete. Let's take > Made2Manage, for instance. My first guesstimate for boss was: > > "I believe OFBiz-ERP is all there, best-practices way of doing > things. So if M2M was any good for you at all, I believe we can > move you to OFBiz-ERP easily. Only thing we have to work on is to > cater for any special ways you do business, any proprietary secret > ingenious workflows, any superstitious feng-shui requirements in > your corporate culture, etc.". > > I'm currently in really hot soup for that wrong guesstimate. Boss > has every right to stick with M2M now (a very strong and well- > developed and well-supported product too). > > I wish I didn't have to say the above out loud. I realize it'll > possibly raise red flags for potential OFBiz customers. But I don't > know if I can live with sitting by and watching them moths come to > a hot flame advertised as "kool light". No, I'm not publicizing my > findings, just speaking up here since it seems Ian's (and myself > and boss many weeks ago) been asking precisely the above for some > time now without getting upfront "honest-to-God and honest-to-good- > service" answers. > > If only Ian would just focus on how fantastic the OFBiz framework > is, such as the entity engine, widgets (if documented right), etc. > But I guess Ian's just trying to push us to address a vacuum, a > vacuum that could well be blocking OFBiz from explosive world-wide > adoption and popularity. And my guesstimate here would be (please > let me be right this time!), Ian's right. OFBiz still rocks. > > My boss asked me if I would bet my career on OFBiz. I'd say that if > I weren't a reverse-engineer in my past life, I'd be better off > pushing a real OOTB solution to him and work on impromptu patches/ > integration to get specialized functionalities welded into that > OOTB solution. But bear in mind that I have impossible deadlines > (barely a month to cut OFBiz for a sizeable manufacturing > operation, didn't figure in bugfixes I had to do myself). So if you > could get a sucker to pay $30,000 over 3 months for you to tailor > OFBiz, you're on safe(r) ground. Yes, I know, my cases are always > close to crazy (that's the way I live). > > Don't mind speaking this plainly. I'm intending to work with Ian on > that vacuum. I hope we have some volunteers from the community > veterans, but if not, we're going ahead ourselves. > > But please EVERYBODY here be aware that whether we go it ourselves > or with community's blessing/hand-holding, we will STILL be > practically leeching off the community's charitable work in OFBiz > (SVN trunk). Proper perspective. Just FYI. Remember that. > > Jonathon > > David E. Jones wrote: >> Ian, >> About this question: >>> In my ignorance I kind of assumed that once I had a stable >>> version running it would - like my old QuickBooks 3 - keep on >>> going without too much trouble. Provided I didn't want to start >>> customizing and upgrading that is. >>> OK. So new security breaches and the necessary patches to block >>> them are to be expected. I have that already with existing Open >>> Source LAMP e-commerce installations. The cost of keeping them >>> secure is not particularly great. What is it about OFBiz that >>> would make maintenance a luxury I might not be able to afford? >>> Please expand. >> Unless you automate only a small part of what you do in your >> company, which is usually the case for small companies, you will >> HAVE to change the software to meet the needs of the company over >> time. Unfortunately (for us software peoples) not every company >> does exactly the same thing. Even more unfortunately is that the >> same company, large or small, does not do the same thing from one >> year to the next (or even smaller time periods). Small companies >> can get away with a single OOTB system because they only automate >> a very small part of what they do. As companies grow they MUST >> automate more and more of what they or the company is likely to fail. >> As far as up-front and ongoing costs go for OFBiz in relation to >> what you need, you hinted at an answer yourself in this paragraph: >>> When I first discovered OFBiz a couple of months ago I was >>> thunderstruck. Not only did the e-commerce front-end look every >>> bit as good as the LAMP systems I've been installing, but the >>> whole concept and framework looked like it ought to knock both >>> Microsoft and Sage into a cocked hat. >>> >>> I say 'looked like' because, of course, I have subsequently >>> discovered from my short time on this list that OFBiz is not yet >>> as fully developed as I first thought it to be. >> This means something different for everyone. Some companies are >> able to use OFBiz 100% out of the box, but this is rare and >> usually means, as mentioned above, that they are only automated a >> fairly small percentage of what they do. >> So, the question that will answer your question is: what do you >> mean by this? In other words, what are the details behind the >> statement "OFBiz is not yet as fully developed as I first thought >> it to be"? >> The answer to that initially and over time, for your company or >> each of your clients, is the answer to how much work will be >> necessary to "install" and "support" the system (ie customize and >> maintain in more honest terms). >> -David >> On Jan 21, 2007, at 9:50 AM, Ian McNulty wrote: >>> Andrew, >>> >>> I'm not looking for anything specific at the moment. Just trying >>> to evaluate current options and keep on top of developments in >>> the hope of offering clients the best, most flexible, most long- >>> term solutions I can find. >>> >>> I checked out GnuCash and SQL Ledger before I discovered OFBiz. >>> They both look fine, as far as small business accounting packages >>> go. You're not going to believe this, but I personally still use >>> QuickBooks 3 which I bought for less than $200 more than 15 years >>> ago to run on Windows 3.1. Since then I've used it to produce >>> budgets, VAT returns and year-end accounts for up to 4 different >>> companies at the same time - some with turnovers around the $1M >>> mark. It has its limitations and idiosyncrasies; but it runs like >>> lightning on XP, has never crashed even once or given me any kind >>> of problems at all (touch wood!!!) So it's going to take >>> something pretty special to persuade me to change to anything else. >>> >>> I started looking at OFBiz as a solution to problems I can see >>> starting to appear on the horizon for clients with established >>> bricks-and-mortar wholesale and retail businesses for whom I have >>> been installing Open Source e-commerce solutions over the past >>> few years. >>> >>> All started with no web presence, all are now finding online >>> sales becoming a significant and in some cases the major part of >>> their businesses. >>> >>> In the beginning, integration with existing in-store EPOS and >>> accounting systems from the likes of MS, Intuit and Sage was not >>> an issue. Now it is quickly becoming the main one as staff spend >>> increasingly longer amounts of time transferring information on >>> paper and re-keying the same data into 3 different systems >>> running in parallel. >>> >>> I have been trying to keep on top of this by installing patches >>> and plugins to get the different systems to talk to each other. >>> But bespoke integration with closed-source, proprietary systems >>> is an arduous and expensive business that few clients can afford. >>> More to the point, it is a very 'tacky' and incomplete solution >>> as it depends largely on staff following rigorously prescribed >>> synchronisation routines to prevent transactions colliding, >>> falling over each other and cancelling each other out. Most staff >>> working at this level will ignore the rules and cut corners if >>> they can, resulting in tangles of inaccurate data which threaten >>> to bring the whole business crashing around everyone's ears. >>> >>> Microsoft and Sage spotted the problems and the opportunities >>> several years ago, and are now offering their own e-commerce >>> clones seamlessly integrated with their own back-ends. I lost my >>> biggest client to them just before Christmas. If I can not offer >>> equivalent backend Open Source integration then it won't be long >>> before I lose all the rest. >>> >>> When I first discovered OFBiz a couple of months ago I was >>> thunderstruck. Not only did the e-commerce front-end look every >>> bit as good as the LAMP systems I've been installing, but the >>> whole concept and framework looked like it ought to knock both >>> Microsoft and Sage into a cocked hat. >>> >>> I say 'looked like' because, of course, I have subsequently >>> discovered from my short time on this list that OFBiz is not yet >>> as fully developed as I first thought it to be. >>> >>> Your analogy with office space is interesting but I'm not >>> entirely convinced it compares like with like. The cost of over- >>> capacity in bricks-and-mortar space is clearly very heavy. The >>> cost of over-capacity in Open Source virtual software space, not >>> necessarily so. >>> >>> On the other hand, the cost of not building into the virtual >>> software space the option for future expansion could well be >>> crippling. It isn't just the cost of new installations and >>> transfer of data. The major cost is staff retraining. People who >>> adapt easily to such things do not usually end up working as >>> warehousemen or office clerks. >>> >>> Your Project-Open link looks like it might be able to do what I >>> need. The use of virtualisation looks very attractive. The web >>> site is clean and crisp. The lack of forums, user groups or >>> mailing lists is not so encouraging. I haven't even scratched the >>> surface yet so I have no idea how it compares with OFBiz. When I >>> do I promise to let you know. >>> >>> One thing you say at the end of your posting really does concern me: >>>> Can you really afford the luxury of servicing >>>> something as large as OfBiz en route? >>>> >>> I was aware that the cost of installing a usable version of OFBiz >>> might not be inconsiderable. But I had no idea that the cost of >>> servicing it could be so high it could be a luxury I might not be >>> able to afford. >>> >>> In my ignorance I kind of assumed that once I had a stable >>> version running it would - like my old QuickBooks 3 - keep on >>> going without too much trouble. Provided I didn't want to start >>> customizing and upgrading that is. >>> >>> OK. So new security breaches and the necessary patches to block >>> them are to be expected. I have that already with existing Open >>> Source LAMP e-commerce installations. The cost of keeping them >>> secure is not particularly great. What is it about OFBiz that >>> would make maintenance a luxury I might not be able to afford? >>> Please expand. >>> >>> Ian >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Andrew Sykes wrote: >>>> Ian, >>>> >>>> It depends on what you're looking for. >>>> >>>> If the focus is still a "small business accounting package" as the >>>> subject line says - I know I know, there have been a zillion >>>> posts to >>>> this thread, so perhaps not. - If it's accounting, two spring to >>>> mind... >>>> >>>> For a desktop system, have a look at GnuCash... >>>> http://www.gnucash.org/ >>>> >>>> For a web based system, SQLLedger seems good and I've heard a few >>>> favourable reports about it... >>>> http://www.sql-ledger.org/ >>>> >>>> Finally, for a project which *seems* to have a more OOTB focus, >>>> although >>>> I've really only started looking at it this weekend, take a look >>>> at the >>>> Project:Open stuff... >>>> http://www.project-open.com/ >>>> I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this one as I've only >>>> just >>>> scratched the surface... >>>> >>>> One of the criteria you should consider is the cost of upgrading >>>> from an >>>> OOTB solution sometime in the future versus the cost of >>>> implementing >>>> OfBiz now. Generally if you are at the stage of being an >>>> enterprise with >>>> more "M" than "S" turnover (SME) and have implemented a lot of >>>> bespoke >>>> business processes which form part of you USP then OfBiz is a >>>> safe bet. >>>> If you plan to get to that point one day, it's probably better >>>> waiting >>>> for that day to come and using something OOTB in the meantime. >>>> Consider >>>> the analogy with office space, you wouldn't buy up half an >>>> industrial >>>> estate because the business plan you had written in your front >>>> room said >>>> one day you'd be bigger than ICI! Even if you factored the cost of >>>> hiring a van to help with the move, it would still look a bit >>>> dodgy on >>>> the balance sheet! >>>> >>>> Choosing the right system is about being on top of your overall >>>> business >>>> strategy, where are you going? how long and how much is it going >>>> to take >>>> to get you there? Can you really afford the luxury of servicing >>>> something as large as OfBiz en route? >>>> >>>> - Andrew >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 09:58 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote: >>>> >>>>> OK David. Maybe just one last thing. >>>>> >>>>> No more soap-boxing. A simple question for a change :) >>>>> >>>>> David E. Jones wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Looking around the OFBiz documents and such I don't think this >>>>>> distinction is adequately represented, so I added some text >>>>>> similar to the above to the home page of ofbiz.apache.org. It >>>>>> should be public within a few hours, ie whenever the next >>>>>> deployment job runs. >>>>>> >>>>> Reading your new text, this stood out: >>>>> >>>>> "OFBiz can certainly be used OOTB (out of the box), but if >>>>> you're looking for something that works really well for that >>>>> there are many open source projects that do a great job there." >>>>> >>>>> OK. So maybe those projects might be more what I'm looking for. >>>>> >>>>> I searched a couple of months ago and didn't find anything I >>>>> thought could do a better job than OFBiz. What other open >>>>> source projects are you thinking of here? >>>>> >>>>> Ian >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -David >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 3:49 AM, Ian McNulty wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Chris, David, Everybody. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One last thought on the subject before I have my porridge and >>>>>>> another lie down ;) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm wondering if any of you guys have ever taken a good hard >>>>>>> look at the osCommerce, Zen Cart or Ubuntu forums? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.zen-cart.com/forum >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://forums.oscommerce.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.ubuntuforums.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes. I know php is nasty. But that's not the point. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Look at the accessibility and structure of the interface. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All user levels are accommodated. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All find their natural place. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nearly a quarter of a million members on Ubuntu. 120K on >>>>>>> osCommerce. 2,347 and 824 currently active respectively at >>>>>>> this very moment as we speak >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A working model of how to build a user base surely, if >>>>>>> nothing else? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ian >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Chris Howe wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> =============================================================== >>>>>>>> =============================== >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> -------------------------------- >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> ================================================================ >>>>>>> ============================== >>>>>>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ---------------------------- >>> 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. >>> ==================================================================== >>> ========================== > |
Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
|
|
Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
|
|
Jonathon, This is good feedback, and very unfortunate. It has been frustrating to me for years that many users of OFBiz that even get it working well for them in production real-world use simply don't get involved and contribute back, and that happens to be the ONLY way anything gets into the project. One way or another OFBiz really needs volunteers that are dedicated and can contribute consistently and help moderate contributions as well. The trick is getting people to help and commit. This is actually the reason I'm not interested in investing in OOTB use for small companies, they generally don't have the resources or expertise to contribute much back. So, the project is what it is and moves as it does. Hundreds of thousands of man-hours have gone into it, and as the project and world progress we can really use more and more effort. We could easily put in a million man-hours into this project and still have work to do that would bring effective results that make a difference in the world. Thanks for the patches you've submitted and such Jonathon, BTW. I hope you do get a chance to be more involved and one way or another I look forward to hearing more from you. -David On Jan 21, 2007, at 11:41 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote: > David, > > > So, just to be clear and try to rephrase what you said: the > problems you are > > running into are caused by the approach used to customize and > install OFBiz > > rather than OFBiz itself. > > Sigh. Alright, I'll leave it at that. I concede that M2M could be > an application that deviates wildly from best practices in > manufacturing. Concede that I may be trying to enter building from > the 3rd floor window instead of the front door. Concede even that > my boss may be a dim-wit to have structured his operations such > that it's not as "best practices" as OFBiz is. No more arguments > from me on this front. > > > You should know, if you don't already, that OFBiz is being used > effectively > > in various manufacturing operations. > > Good to know. That's one of my main arguments I throw at boss in > every desperate situation I've had in defending OFBiz. > > > If you're having trouble and the free support of the community > isn't meeting > > your needs, > > No, we don't have such trouble. I only have trouble comprehending > why I need to fix so many bugs and non-intuitive workflows in OFBiz > given that it's supposed to be "best practices" (or maybe I > misrepresented OFBiz to boss?). > > In fact, my series of circus acts (correcting OFBiz rapidly, adding > functionalities, etc, all faster than OFBiz community can cope > with) has pacified my boss' fears for now (for now only). We have > no trouble working OFBiz at all. > > My main concern is the management of development of SVN trunk (I > trust you're holding the beast on course, so it won't trample the > fields it just ploughed). In the worst case, not that it'll happen, > if OFBiz does die off, at least I'm left with a SUBSTANTIAL amount > of work from which I can start building stuff. And I say again that > we must all remember where all that "stuff" came from (OFBiz > contributors). > > > have you considered engaging people who have successfully > deployed OFBiz in a > > manufacturing setting? > > Yes, we had. But after getting some answers from some veterans I > will not name, I am convinced that we couldn't have done it cheaper > AND FASTER if we went with OFBiz veterans (folks who can work OFBiz > in manufacturing setting). Nothing to do with how OFBiz is, just to > do with economics. Oh yes, has a lot to do with adoption (Ian's > long thread). Given a wider adoption due to better docs (entry > guides), there'd be a lot of human resources around that can do the > job cheap and fast. I'm not saying that should be your or OFBiz's > direction. > > As it is now, we're moving ahead faster than OFBiz is, and I'm not > talking about our specific needs aspect. I'm talking about bugs, > incomplete functionalities (scaffolding in database, but not used), > etc. I'm not even an OFBiz veteran. > > Our decision here was just pure economics. > > > If your time weren't so tight or if you had the luxury of more > time to plan > > you could probably even get help from Jacopo. As I understand it > he is > > working on a couple of fairly big contracts right now which is > why he hasn't > > been as involved in OFBiz in the last few weeks (which is a big > difference > > from before, BTW, we all have Jacopo to thank for a goodly > percentage of what > > exists in OFBiz, especially in the manufacturing area). > > No fault of yours or OFBiz's. Just a matter of economics, like I said. > > As for Jacopo, we're watching him. :) > > Jonathon > > David E. Jones wrote: >> Jonathon, >> So, just to be clear and try to rephrase what you said: the >> problems you are running into are caused by the approach used to >> customize and install OFBiz rather than OFBiz itself. >> You should know, if you don't already, that OFBiz is being used >> effectively in various manufacturing operations. If you're having >> trouble and the free support of the community isn't meeting your >> needs, have you considered engaging people who have successfully >> deployed OFBiz in a manufacturing setting? If your time weren't so >> tight or if you had the luxury of more time to plan you could >> probably even get help from Jacopo. As I understand it he is >> working on a couple of fairly big contracts right now which is why >> he hasn't been as involved in OFBiz in the last few weeks (which >> is a big difference from before, BTW, we all have Jacopo to thank >> for a goodly percentage of what exists in OFBiz, especially in the >> manufacturing area). >> -David >> On Jan 21, 2007, at 8:50 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote: >>> David, Ian, >>> >>> I believe Ian has a point about "not yet fully developed". As >>> discussed before, the OFBiz framework is fine, complete. It's >>> what's built around the engine (car body, doors, windscreen >>> wipers, seat ejection button, etc) that's incomplete, or to put >>> it in a more PR way to potential customers, "buggy and requires >>> debugging, is all". Let's make a distinction between OFBiz >>> framework and OFBiz-ERP. >>> >>> David is right that OFBiz is hard, if not impossible, to use >>> OOTB. That's not precisely because OFBiz-ERP is all done up but >>> the market is so choosy and differentiated and finely-segmented, >>> ie everybody has their own ways of doing business. It's because >>> OFBiz-ERP functionalities are very much incomplete. Let's take >>> Made2Manage, for instance. My first guesstimate for boss was: >>> >>> "I believe OFBiz-ERP is all there, best-practices way of doing >>> things. So if M2M was any good for you at all, I believe we can >>> move you to OFBiz-ERP easily. Only thing we have to work on is to >>> cater for any special ways you do business, any proprietary >>> secret ingenious workflows, any superstitious feng-shui >>> requirements in your corporate culture, etc.". >>> >>> I'm currently in really hot soup for that wrong guesstimate. Boss >>> has every right to stick with M2M now (a very strong and well- >>> developed and well-supported product too). >>> >>> I wish I didn't have to say the above out loud. I realize it'll >>> possibly raise red flags for potential OFBiz customers. But I >>> don't know if I can live with sitting by and watching them moths >>> come to a hot flame advertised as "kool light". No, I'm not >>> publicizing my findings, just speaking up here since it seems >>> Ian's (and myself and boss many weeks ago) been asking precisely >>> the above for some time now without getting upfront "honest-to- >>> God and honest-to-good-service" answers. >>> >>> If only Ian would just focus on how fantastic the OFBiz framework >>> is, such as the entity engine, widgets (if documented right), >>> etc. But I guess Ian's just trying to push us to address a >>> vacuum, a vacuum that could well be blocking OFBiz from explosive >>> world-wide adoption and popularity. And my guesstimate here would >>> be (please let me be right this time!), Ian's right. OFBiz still >>> rocks. >>> >>> My boss asked me if I would bet my career on OFBiz. I'd say that >>> if I weren't a reverse-engineer in my past life, I'd be better >>> off pushing a real OOTB solution to him and work on impromptu >>> patches/integration to get specialized functionalities welded >>> into that OOTB solution. But bear in mind that I have impossible >>> deadlines (barely a month to cut OFBiz for a sizeable >>> manufacturing operation, didn't figure in bugfixes I had to do >>> myself). So if you could get a sucker to pay $30,000 over 3 >>> months for you to tailor OFBiz, you're on safe(r) ground. Yes, I >>> know, my cases are always close to crazy (that's the way I live). >>> >>> Don't mind speaking this plainly. I'm intending to work with Ian >>> on that vacuum. I hope we have some volunteers from the community >>> veterans, but if not, we're going ahead ourselves. >>> >>> But please EVERYBODY here be aware that whether we go it >>> ourselves or with community's blessing/hand-holding, we will >>> STILL be practically leeching off the community's charitable work >>> in OFBiz (SVN trunk). Proper perspective. Just FYI. Remember that. >>> >>> Jonathon >>> >>> David E. Jones wrote: >>>> Ian, >>>> About this question: >>>>> In my ignorance I kind of assumed that once I had a stable >>>>> version running it would - like my old QuickBooks 3 - keep on >>>>> going without too much trouble. Provided I didn't want to start >>>>> customizing and upgrading that is. >>>>> OK. So new security breaches and the necessary patches to block >>>>> them are to be expected. I have that already with existing Open >>>>> Source LAMP e-commerce installations. The cost of keeping them >>>>> secure is not particularly great. What is it about OFBiz that >>>>> would make maintenance a luxury I might not be able to afford? >>>>> Please expand. >>>> Unless you automate only a small part of what you do in your >>>> company, which is usually the case for small companies, you will >>>> HAVE to change the software to meet the needs of the company >>>> over time. Unfortunately (for us software peoples) not every >>>> company does exactly the same thing. Even more unfortunately is >>>> that the same company, large or small, does not do the same >>>> thing from one year to the next (or even smaller time periods). >>>> Small companies can get away with a single OOTB system because >>>> they only automate a very small part of what they do. As >>>> companies grow they MUST automate more and more of what they or >>>> the company is likely to fail. >>>> As far as up-front and ongoing costs go for OFBiz in relation to >>>> what you need, you hinted at an answer yourself in this paragraph: >>>>> When I first discovered OFBiz a couple of months ago I was >>>>> thunderstruck. Not only did the e-commerce front-end look every >>>>> bit as good as the LAMP systems I've been installing, but the >>>>> whole concept and framework looked like it ought to knock both >>>>> Microsoft and Sage into a cocked hat. >>>>> >>>>> I say 'looked like' because, of course, I have subsequently >>>>> discovered from my short time on this list that OFBiz is not >>>>> yet as fully developed as I first thought it to be. >>>> This means something different for everyone. Some companies are >>>> able to use OFBiz 100% out of the box, but this is rare and >>>> usually means, as mentioned above, that they are only automated >>>> a fairly small percentage of what they do. >>>> So, the question that will answer your question is: what do you >>>> mean by this? In other words, what are the details behind the >>>> statement "OFBiz is not yet as fully developed as I first >>>> thought it to be"? >>>> The answer to that initially and over time, for your company or >>>> each of your clients, is the answer to how much work will be >>>> necessary to "install" and "support" the system (ie customize >>>> and maintain in more honest terms). >>>> -David >>>> On Jan 21, 2007, at 9:50 AM, Ian McNulty wrote: >>>>> Andrew, >>>>> >>>>> I'm not looking for anything specific at the moment. Just >>>>> trying to evaluate current options and keep on top of >>>>> developments in the hope of offering clients the best, most >>>>> flexible, most long-term solutions I can find. >>>>> >>>>> I checked out GnuCash and SQL Ledger before I discovered OFBiz. >>>>> They both look fine, as far as small business accounting >>>>> packages go. You're not going to believe this, but I personally >>>>> still use QuickBooks 3 which I bought for less than $200 more >>>>> than 15 years ago to run on Windows 3.1. Since then I've used >>>>> it to produce budgets, VAT returns and year-end accounts for up >>>>> to 4 different companies at the same time - some with turnovers >>>>> around the $1M mark. It has its limitations and idiosyncrasies; >>>>> but it runs like lightning on XP, has never crashed even once >>>>> or given me any kind of problems at all (touch wood!!!) So >>>>> it's going to take something pretty special to persuade me to >>>>> change to anything else. >>>>> >>>>> I started looking at OFBiz as a solution to problems I can see >>>>> starting to appear on the horizon for clients with established >>>>> bricks-and-mortar wholesale and retail businesses for whom I >>>>> have been installing Open Source e-commerce solutions over the >>>>> past few years. >>>>> >>>>> All started with no web presence, all are now finding online >>>>> sales becoming a significant and in some cases the major part >>>>> of their businesses. >>>>> >>>>> In the beginning, integration with existing in-store EPOS and >>>>> accounting systems from the likes of MS, Intuit and Sage was >>>>> not an issue. Now it is quickly becoming the main one as staff >>>>> spend increasingly longer amounts of time transferring >>>>> information on paper and re-keying the same data into 3 >>>>> different systems running in parallel. >>>>> >>>>> I have been trying to keep on top of this by installing patches >>>>> and plugins to get the different systems to talk to each other. >>>>> But bespoke integration with closed-source, proprietary systems >>>>> is an arduous and expensive business that few clients can >>>>> afford. More to the point, it is a very 'tacky' and incomplete >>>>> solution as it depends largely on staff following rigorously >>>>> prescribed synchronisation routines to prevent transactions >>>>> colliding, falling over each other and cancelling each other >>>>> out. Most staff working at this level will ignore the rules and >>>>> cut corners if they can, resulting in tangles of inaccurate >>>>> data which threaten to bring the whole business crashing around >>>>> everyone's ears. >>>>> >>>>> Microsoft and Sage spotted the problems and the opportunities >>>>> several years ago, and are now offering their own e-commerce >>>>> clones seamlessly integrated with their own back-ends. I lost >>>>> my biggest client to them just before Christmas. If I can not >>>>> offer equivalent backend Open Source integration then it won't >>>>> be long before I lose all the rest. >>>>> >>>>> When I first discovered OFBiz a couple of months ago I was >>>>> thunderstruck. Not only did the e-commerce front-end look every >>>>> bit as good as the LAMP systems I've been installing, but the >>>>> whole concept and framework looked like it ought to knock both >>>>> Microsoft and Sage into a cocked hat. >>>>> >>>>> I say 'looked like' because, of course, I have subsequently >>>>> discovered from my short time on this list that OFBiz is not >>>>> yet as fully developed as I first thought it to be. >>>>> >>>>> Your analogy with office space is interesting but I'm not >>>>> entirely convinced it compares like with like. The cost of over- >>>>> capacity in bricks-and-mortar space is clearly very heavy. The >>>>> cost of over-capacity in Open Source virtual software space, >>>>> not necessarily so. >>>>> >>>>> On the other hand, the cost of not building into the virtual >>>>> software space the option for future expansion could well be >>>>> crippling. It isn't just the cost of new installations and >>>>> transfer of data. The major cost is staff retraining. People >>>>> who adapt easily to such things do not usually end up working >>>>> as warehousemen or office clerks. >>>>> >>>>> Your Project-Open link looks like it might be able to do what I >>>>> need. The use of virtualisation looks very attractive. The web >>>>> site is clean and crisp. The lack of forums, user groups or >>>>> mailing lists is not so encouraging. I haven't even scratched >>>>> the surface yet so I have no idea how it compares with OFBiz. >>>>> When I do I promise to let you know. >>>>> >>>>> One thing you say at the end of your posting really does >>>>> concern me: >>>>>> Can you really afford the luxury of servicing >>>>>> something as large as OfBiz en route? >>>>>> >>>>> I was aware that the cost of installing a usable version of >>>>> OFBiz might not be inconsiderable. But I had no idea that the >>>>> cost of servicing it could be so high it could be a luxury I >>>>> might not be able to afford. >>>>> >>>>> In my ignorance I kind of assumed that once I had a stable >>>>> version running it would - like my old QuickBooks 3 - keep on >>>>> going without too much trouble. Provided I didn't want to start >>>>> customizing and upgrading that is. >>>>> >>>>> OK. So new security breaches and the necessary patches to block >>>>> them are to be expected. I have that already with existing Open >>>>> Source LAMP e-commerce installations. The cost of keeping them >>>>> secure is not particularly great. What is it about OFBiz that >>>>> would make maintenance a luxury I might not be able to afford? >>>>> Please expand. >>>>> >>>>> Ian >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Andrew Sykes wrote: >>>>>> Ian, >>>>>> >>>>>> It depends on what you're looking for. >>>>>> >>>>>> If the focus is still a "small business accounting package" as >>>>>> the >>>>>> subject line says - I know I know, there have been a zillion >>>>>> posts to >>>>>> this thread, so perhaps not. - If it's accounting, two spring >>>>>> to mind... >>>>>> >>>>>> For a desktop system, have a look at GnuCash... >>>>>> http://www.gnucash.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> For a web based system, SQLLedger seems good and I've heard a few >>>>>> favourable reports about it... >>>>>> http://www.sql-ledger.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Finally, for a project which *seems* to have a more OOTB >>>>>> focus, although >>>>>> I've really only started looking at it this weekend, take a >>>>>> look at the >>>>>> Project:Open stuff... >>>>>> http://www.project-open.com/ >>>>>> I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this one as I've >>>>>> only just >>>>>> scratched the surface... >>>>>> >>>>>> One of the criteria you should consider is the cost of >>>>>> upgrading from an >>>>>> OOTB solution sometime in the future versus the cost of >>>>>> implementing >>>>>> OfBiz now. Generally if you are at the stage of being an >>>>>> enterprise with >>>>>> more "M" than "S" turnover (SME) and have implemented a lot of >>>>>> bespoke >>>>>> business processes which form part of you USP then OfBiz is a >>>>>> safe bet. >>>>>> If you plan to get to that point one day, it's probably better >>>>>> waiting >>>>>> for that day to come and using something OOTB in the meantime. >>>>>> Consider >>>>>> the analogy with office space, you wouldn't buy up half an >>>>>> industrial >>>>>> estate because the business plan you had written in your front >>>>>> room said >>>>>> one day you'd be bigger than ICI! Even if you factored the >>>>>> cost of >>>>>> hiring a van to help with the move, it would still look a bit >>>>>> dodgy on >>>>>> the balance sheet! >>>>>> >>>>>> Choosing the right system is about being on top of your >>>>>> overall business >>>>>> strategy, where are you going? how long and how much is it >>>>>> going to take >>>>>> to get you there? Can you really afford the luxury of servicing >>>>>> something as large as OfBiz en route? >>>>>> >>>>>> - Andrew >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 09:58 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> OK David. Maybe just one last thing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No more soap-boxing. A simple question for a change :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David E. Jones wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Looking around the OFBiz documents and such I don't think >>>>>>>> this distinction is adequately represented, so I added some >>>>>>>> text similar to the above to the home page of >>>>>>>> ofbiz.apache.org. It should be public within a few hours, ie >>>>>>>> whenever the next deployment job runs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Reading your new text, this stood out: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "OFBiz can certainly be used OOTB (out of the box), but if >>>>>>> you're looking for something that works really well for that >>>>>>> there are many open source projects that do a great job there." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OK. So maybe those projects might be more what I'm looking for. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I searched a couple of months ago and didn't find anything I >>>>>>> thought could do a better job than OFBiz. What other open >>>>>>> source projects are you thinking of here? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ian >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -David >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 3:49 AM, Ian McNulty wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Chris, David, Everybody. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> One last thought on the subject before I have my porridge >>>>>>>>> and another lie down ;) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if any of you guys have ever taken a good >>>>>>>>> hard look at the osCommerce, Zen Cart or Ubuntu forums? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.zen-cart.com/forum >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://forums.oscommerce.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.ubuntuforums.org/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes. I know php is nasty. But that's not the point. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Look at the accessibility and structure of the interface. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All user levels are accommodated. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All find their natural place. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nearly a quarter of a million members on Ubuntu. 120K on >>>>>>>>> osCommerce. 2,347 and 824 currently active respectively at >>>>>>>>> this very moment as we speak >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A working model of how to build a user base surely, if >>>>>>>>> nothing else? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ian >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Chris Howe wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ============================================================= >>>>>>>>>> ================================= >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> ============================================================== >>>>>>>>> ================================ >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> 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. >>>>> ================================================================== >>>>> ============================ >>> > |
Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
|
|
Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
|
|
Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
|
|
In reply to this post by Ian McNulty
On Jan 22, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Ian McNulty wrote: > David, > > I'm pleased Jonathon has been able to make such a positive > contribution. I don't have his skill, talent or energy so can't > contribute in the same way - much as I'd like to. > > What I have tried to contribute is a different perspective - the > view from the opposite end of the telescope - what it's like trying > to fly this thing rather than overhaul the engines. > > I understand completely the ready market you have for building > executive Lear Jets. I've just been trying to put forward the > proposition that there might be a bigger, more lucrative and in may > ways easier one in building Jumbos for the Hoi Polloi. > > $10 profit from 10M seats = $100M > > $1M profit from 10 seats = $10M > > It's not just the numbers. Executives who can afford Lear Jets need > to have everything just so. The Hoi Polloi loading on board Jumbos > in batches of 500 will accept a standard package that only has to > please some of the people some of the time. (I think Abraham > Lincoln said that ;) > > That's the trick that all the big boys, from Intuit through Sage to > Microsoft managed to pull off. > > I remember my contempt when I saw the first 8086 machine running > DOS and the first versions of Windows, Sage, and Quicken. In > comparison to the IBM mainframes and Cray Supercomputers around at > the time they weren't even decent toys. The idea that you might be > able to use those systems as the foundation for developing > enterprise level systems to replace mainframes was dangerous > insanity. Put the future of Wall Street and SAC in the hands of a > kiddies bedroom toy? Do me a favour. Get out of here. If I'm not > mistaken, that's exactly what Intel said to Bill Gates when he gave > them first refusal on DOS. > > OK, so you've been very clear. You do not see it. And even if you > did you probably wouldn't want to service that kind of market. heavens does this have to do with OFBiz? Do you really want to compete with Intuit and Microsoft, and open source projects like GnuCash, SQL Ledger, oscommerce, and to some extend even SugarCRM? Isn't that market a bit crowded? Where's the "Blue Ocean" there? What I've been talking about is a real "Blue Ocean Strategy", which is a good book for anyone who hasn't yet had the pleasure. > So what's the harm in giving those of us who do your blessing and > enough rope to hang ourselves? You don't need anything from me... Check out the Contributors Best Practices page: http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/r If I'm missing something and you really do need something from me, just let me know what you have in mind. -David > > Ian > > > > David E. Jones wrote: >> >> Jonathon, >> >> This is good feedback, and very unfortunate. It has been >> frustrating to me for years that many users of OFBiz that even get >> it working well for them in production real-world use simply don't >> get involved and contribute back, and that happens to be the ONLY >> way anything gets into the project. >> >> One way or another OFBiz really needs volunteers that are >> dedicated and can contribute consistently and help moderate >> contributions as well. The trick is getting people to help and >> commit. This is actually the reason I'm not interested in >> investing in OOTB use for small companies, they generally don't >> have the resources or expertise to contribute much back. >> >> So, the project is what it is and moves as it does. Hundreds of >> thousands of man-hours have gone into it, and as the project and >> world progress we can really use more and more effort. We could >> easily put in a million man-hours into this project and still have >> work to do that would bring effective results that make a >> difference in the world. >> >> Thanks for the patches you've submitted and such Jonathon, BTW. I >> hope you do get a chance to be more involved and one way or >> another I look forward to hearing more from you. >> >> -David >> >> >> On Jan 21, 2007, at 11:41 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote: >> >>> David, >>> >>> > So, just to be clear and try to rephrase what you said: the >>> problems you are >>> > running into are caused by the approach used to customize and >>> install OFBiz >>> > rather than OFBiz itself. >>> >>> Sigh. Alright, I'll leave it at that. I concede that M2M could be >>> an application that deviates wildly from best practices in >>> manufacturing. Concede that I may be trying to enter building >>> from the 3rd floor window instead of the front door. Concede even >>> that my boss may be a dim-wit to have structured his operations >>> such that it's not as "best practices" as OFBiz is. No more >>> arguments from me on this front. >>> >>> > You should know, if you don't already, that OFBiz is being used >>> effectively >>> > in various manufacturing operations. >>> >>> Good to know. That's one of my main arguments I throw at boss in >>> every desperate situation I've had in defending OFBiz. >>> >>> > If you're having trouble and the free support of the community >>> isn't meeting >>> > your needs, >>> >>> No, we don't have such trouble. I only have trouble comprehending >>> why I need to fix so many bugs and non-intuitive workflows in >>> OFBiz given that it's supposed to be "best practices" (or maybe I >>> misrepresented OFBiz to boss?). >>> >>> In fact, my series of circus acts (correcting OFBiz rapidly, >>> adding functionalities, etc, all faster than OFBiz community can >>> cope with) has pacified my boss' fears for now (for now only). We >>> have no trouble working OFBiz at all. >>> >>> My main concern is the management of development of SVN trunk (I >>> trust you're holding the beast on course, so it won't trample the >>> fields it just ploughed). In the worst case, not that it'll >>> happen, if OFBiz does die off, at least I'm left with a >>> SUBSTANTIAL amount of work from which I can start building stuff. >>> And I say again that we must all remember where all that "stuff" >>> came from (OFBiz contributors). >>> >>> > have you considered engaging people who have successfully >>> deployed OFBiz in a >>> > manufacturing setting? >>> >>> Yes, we had. But after getting some answers from some veterans I >>> will not name, I am convinced that we couldn't have done it >>> cheaper AND FASTER if we went with OFBiz veterans (folks who can >>> work OFBiz in manufacturing setting). Nothing to do with how >>> OFBiz is, just to do with economics. Oh yes, has a lot to do with >>> adoption (Ian's long thread). Given a wider adoption due to >>> better docs (entry guides), there'd be a lot of human resources >>> around that can do the job cheap and fast. I'm not saying that >>> should be your or OFBiz's direction. >>> >>> As it is now, we're moving ahead faster than OFBiz is, and I'm >>> not talking about our specific needs aspect. I'm talking about >>> bugs, incomplete functionalities (scaffolding in database, but >>> not used), etc. I'm not even an OFBiz veteran. >>> >>> Our decision here was just pure economics. >>> >>> > If your time weren't so tight or if you had the luxury of more >>> time to plan >>> > you could probably even get help from Jacopo. As I understand >>> it he is >>> > working on a couple of fairly big contracts right now which is >>> why he hasn't >>> > been as involved in OFBiz in the last few weeks (which is a big >>> difference >>> > from before, BTW, we all have Jacopo to thank for a goodly >>> percentage of what >>> > exists in OFBiz, especially in the manufacturing area). >>> >>> No fault of yours or OFBiz's. Just a matter of economics, like I >>> said. >>> >>> As for Jacopo, we're watching him. :) >>> >>> Jonathon >>> >>> David E. Jones wrote: >>>> Jonathon, >>>> So, just to be clear and try to rephrase what you said: the >>>> problems you are running into are caused by the approach used to >>>> customize and install OFBiz rather than OFBiz itself. >>>> You should know, if you don't already, that OFBiz is being used >>>> effectively in various manufacturing operations. If you're >>>> having trouble and the free support of the community isn't >>>> meeting your needs, have you considered engaging people who have >>>> successfully deployed OFBiz in a manufacturing setting? If your >>>> time weren't so tight or if you had the luxury of more time to >>>> plan you could probably even get help from Jacopo. As I >>>> understand it he is working on a couple of fairly big contracts >>>> right now which is why he hasn't been as involved in OFBiz in >>>> the last few weeks (which is a big difference from before, BTW, >>>> we all have Jacopo to thank for a goodly percentage of what >>>> exists in OFBiz, especially in the manufacturing area). >>>> -David >>>> On Jan 21, 2007, at 8:50 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote: >>>>> David, Ian, >>>>> >>>>> I believe Ian has a point about "not yet fully developed". As >>>>> discussed before, the OFBiz framework is fine, complete. It's >>>>> what's built around the engine (car body, doors, windscreen >>>>> wipers, seat ejection button, etc) that's incomplete, or to put >>>>> it in a more PR way to potential customers, "buggy and requires >>>>> debugging, is all". Let's make a distinction between OFBiz >>>>> framework and OFBiz-ERP. >>>>> >>>>> David is right that OFBiz is hard, if not impossible, to use >>>>> OOTB. That's not precisely because OFBiz-ERP is all done up but >>>>> the market is so choosy and differentiated and finely- >>>>> segmented, ie everybody has their own ways of doing business. >>>>> It's because OFBiz-ERP functionalities are very much >>>>> incomplete. Let's take Made2Manage, for instance. My first >>>>> guesstimate for boss was: >>>>> >>>>> "I believe OFBiz-ERP is all there, best-practices way of doing >>>>> things. So if M2M was any good for you at all, I believe we can >>>>> move you to OFBiz-ERP easily. Only thing we have to work on is >>>>> to cater for any special ways you do business, any proprietary >>>>> secret ingenious workflows, any superstitious feng-shui >>>>> requirements in your corporate culture, etc.". >>>>> >>>>> I'm currently in really hot soup for that wrong guesstimate. >>>>> Boss has every right to stick with M2M now (a very strong and >>>>> well-developed and well-supported product too). >>>>> >>>>> I wish I didn't have to say the above out loud. I realize it'll >>>>> possibly raise red flags for potential OFBiz customers. But I >>>>> don't know if I can live with sitting by and watching them >>>>> moths come to a hot flame advertised as "kool light". No, I'm >>>>> not publicizing my findings, just speaking up here since it >>>>> seems Ian's (and myself and boss many weeks ago) been asking >>>>> precisely the above for some time now without getting upfront >>>>> "honest-to-God and honest-to-good-service" answers. >>>>> >>>>> If only Ian would just focus on how fantastic the OFBiz >>>>> framework is, such as the entity engine, widgets (if documented >>>>> right), etc. But I guess Ian's just trying to push us to >>>>> address a vacuum, a vacuum that could well be blocking OFBiz >>>>> from explosive world-wide adoption and popularity. And my >>>>> guesstimate here would be (please let me be right this time!), >>>>> Ian's right. OFBiz still rocks. >>>>> >>>>> My boss asked me if I would bet my career on OFBiz. I'd say >>>>> that if I weren't a reverse-engineer in my past life, I'd be >>>>> better off pushing a real OOTB solution to him and work on >>>>> impromptu patches/integration to get specialized >>>>> functionalities welded into that OOTB solution. But bear in >>>>> mind that I have impossible deadlines (barely a month to cut >>>>> OFBiz for a sizeable manufacturing operation, didn't figure in >>>>> bugfixes I had to do myself). So if you could get a sucker to >>>>> pay $30,000 over 3 months for you to tailor OFBiz, you're on >>>>> safe(r) ground. Yes, I know, my cases are always close to crazy >>>>> (that's the way I live). >>>>> >>>>> Don't mind speaking this plainly. I'm intending to work with >>>>> Ian on that vacuum. I hope we have some volunteers from the >>>>> community veterans, but if not, we're going ahead ourselves. >>>>> >>>>> But please EVERYBODY here be aware that whether we go it >>>>> ourselves or with community's blessing/hand-holding, we will >>>>> STILL be practically leeching off the community's charitable >>>>> work in OFBiz (SVN trunk). Proper perspective. Just FYI. >>>>> Remember that. >>>>> >>>>> Jonathon >>>>> >>>>> David E. Jones wrote: >>>>>> Ian, >>>>>> About this question: >>>>>>> In my ignorance I kind of assumed that once I had a stable >>>>>>> version running it would - like my old QuickBooks 3 - keep on >>>>>>> going without too much trouble. Provided I didn't want to >>>>>>> start customizing and upgrading that is. >>>>>>> OK. So new security breaches and the necessary patches to >>>>>>> block them are to be expected. I have that already with >>>>>>> existing Open Source LAMP e-commerce installations. The cost >>>>>>> of keeping them secure is not particularly great. What is it >>>>>>> about OFBiz that would make maintenance a luxury I might not >>>>>>> be able to afford? Please expand. >>>>>> Unless you automate only a small part of what you do in your >>>>>> company, which is usually the case for small companies, you >>>>>> will HAVE to change the software to meet the needs of the >>>>>> company over time. Unfortunately (for us software peoples) not >>>>>> every company does exactly the same thing. Even more >>>>>> unfortunately is that the same company, large or small, does >>>>>> not do the same thing from one year to the next (or even >>>>>> smaller time periods). Small companies can get away with a >>>>>> single OOTB system because they only automate a very small >>>>>> part of what they do. As companies grow they MUST automate >>>>>> more and more of what they or the company is likely to fail. >>>>>> As far as up-front and ongoing costs go for OFBiz in relation >>>>>> to what you need, you hinted at an answer yourself in this >>>>>> paragraph: >>>>>>> When I first discovered OFBiz a couple of months ago I was >>>>>>> thunderstruck. Not only did the e-commerce front-end look >>>>>>> every bit as good as the LAMP systems I've been installing, >>>>>>> but the whole concept and framework looked like it ought to >>>>>>> knock both Microsoft and Sage into a cocked hat. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I say 'looked like' because, of course, I have subsequently >>>>>>> discovered from my short time on this list that OFBiz is not >>>>>>> yet as fully developed as I first thought it to be. >>>>>> This means something different for everyone. Some companies >>>>>> are able to use OFBiz 100% out of the box, but this is rare >>>>>> and usually means, as mentioned above, that they are only >>>>>> automated a fairly small percentage of what they do. >>>>>> So, the question that will answer your question is: what do >>>>>> you mean by this? In other words, what are the details behind >>>>>> the statement "OFBiz is not yet as fully developed as I first >>>>>> thought it to be"? >>>>>> The answer to that initially and over time, for your company >>>>>> or each of your clients, is the answer to how much work will >>>>>> be necessary to "install" and "support" the system (ie >>>>>> customize and maintain in more honest terms). >>>>>> -David >>>>>> On Jan 21, 2007, at 9:50 AM, Ian McNulty wrote: >>>>>>> Andrew, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm not looking for anything specific at the moment. Just >>>>>>> trying to evaluate current options and keep on top of >>>>>>> developments in the hope of offering clients the best, most >>>>>>> flexible, most long-term solutions I can find. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I checked out GnuCash and SQL Ledger before I discovered >>>>>>> OFBiz. They both look fine, as far as small business >>>>>>> accounting packages go. You're not going to believe this, but >>>>>>> I personally still use QuickBooks 3 which I bought for less >>>>>>> than $200 more than 15 years ago to run on Windows 3.1. Since >>>>>>> then I've used it to produce budgets, VAT returns and year- >>>>>>> end accounts for up to 4 different companies at the same time >>>>>>> - some with turnovers around the $1M mark. It has its >>>>>>> limitations and idiosyncrasies; but it runs like lightning on >>>>>>> XP, has never crashed even once or given me any kind of >>>>>>> problems at all (touch wood!!!) So it's going to take >>>>>>> something pretty special to persuade me to change to anything >>>>>>> else. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I started looking at OFBiz as a solution to problems I can >>>>>>> see starting to appear on the horizon for clients with >>>>>>> established bricks-and-mortar wholesale and retail businesses >>>>>>> for whom I have been installing Open Source e-commerce >>>>>>> solutions over the past few years. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All started with no web presence, all are now finding online >>>>>>> sales becoming a significant and in some cases the major part >>>>>>> of their businesses. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the beginning, integration with existing in-store EPOS and >>>>>>> accounting systems from the likes of MS, Intuit and Sage was >>>>>>> not an issue. Now it is quickly becoming the main one as >>>>>>> staff spend increasingly longer amounts of time transferring >>>>>>> information on paper and re-keying the same data into 3 >>>>>>> different systems running in parallel. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have been trying to keep on top of this by installing >>>>>>> patches and plugins to get the different systems to talk to >>>>>>> each other. But bespoke integration with closed-source, >>>>>>> proprietary systems is an arduous and expensive business that >>>>>>> few clients can afford. More to the point, it is a very >>>>>>> 'tacky' and incomplete solution as it depends largely on >>>>>>> staff following rigorously prescribed synchronisation >>>>>>> routines to prevent transactions colliding, falling over each >>>>>>> other and cancelling each other out. Most staff working at >>>>>>> this level will ignore the rules and cut corners if they can, >>>>>>> resulting in tangles of inaccurate data which threaten to >>>>>>> bring the whole business crashing around everyone's ears. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Microsoft and Sage spotted the problems and the opportunities >>>>>>> several years ago, and are now offering their own e-commerce >>>>>>> clones seamlessly integrated with their own back-ends. I lost >>>>>>> my biggest client to them just before Christmas. If I can not >>>>>>> offer equivalent backend Open Source integration then it >>>>>>> won't be long before I lose all the rest. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When I first discovered OFBiz a couple of months ago I was >>>>>>> thunderstruck. Not only did the e-commerce front-end look >>>>>>> every bit as good as the LAMP systems I've been installing, >>>>>>> but the whole concept and framework looked like it ought to >>>>>>> knock both Microsoft and Sage into a cocked hat. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I say 'looked like' because, of course, I have subsequently >>>>>>> discovered from my short time on this list that OFBiz is not >>>>>>> yet as fully developed as I first thought it to be. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your analogy with office space is interesting but I'm not >>>>>>> entirely convinced it compares like with like. The cost of >>>>>>> over-capacity in bricks-and-mortar space is clearly very >>>>>>> heavy. The cost of over-capacity in Open Source virtual >>>>>>> software space, not necessarily so. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On the other hand, the cost of not building into the virtual >>>>>>> software space the option for future expansion could well be >>>>>>> crippling. It isn't just the cost of new installations and >>>>>>> transfer of data. The major cost is staff retraining. People >>>>>>> who adapt easily to such things do not usually end up working >>>>>>> as warehousemen or office clerks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your Project-Open link looks like it might be able to do what >>>>>>> I need. The use of virtualisation looks very attractive. The >>>>>>> web site is clean and crisp. The lack of forums, user groups >>>>>>> or mailing lists is not so encouraging. I haven't even >>>>>>> scratched the surface yet so I have no idea how it compares >>>>>>> with OFBiz. When I do I promise to let you know. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One thing you say at the end of your posting really does >>>>>>> concern me: >>>>>>>> Can you really afford the luxury of servicing >>>>>>>> something as large as OfBiz en route? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was aware that the cost of installing a usable version of >>>>>>> OFBiz might not be inconsiderable. But I had no idea that the >>>>>>> cost of servicing it could be so high it could be a luxury I >>>>>>> might not be able to afford. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In my ignorance I kind of assumed that once I had a stable >>>>>>> version running it would - like my old QuickBooks 3 - keep on >>>>>>> going without too much trouble. Provided I didn't want to >>>>>>> start customizing and upgrading that is. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OK. So new security breaches and the necessary patches to >>>>>>> block them are to be expected. I have that already with >>>>>>> existing Open Source LAMP e-commerce installations. The cost >>>>>>> of keeping them secure is not particularly great. What is it >>>>>>> about OFBiz that would make maintenance a luxury I might not >>>>>>> be able to afford? Please expand. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ian >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Andrew Sykes wrote: >>>>>>>> Ian, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It depends on what you're looking for. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the focus is still a "small business accounting package" >>>>>>>> as the >>>>>>>> subject line says - I know I know, there have been a zillion >>>>>>>> posts to >>>>>>>> this thread, so perhaps not. - If it's accounting, two >>>>>>>> spring to mind... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For a desktop system, have a look at GnuCash... >>>>>>>> http://www.gnucash.org/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For a web based system, SQLLedger seems good and I've heard >>>>>>>> a few >>>>>>>> favourable reports about it... >>>>>>>> http://www.sql-ledger.org/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Finally, for a project which *seems* to have a more OOTB >>>>>>>> focus, although >>>>>>>> I've really only started looking at it this weekend, take a >>>>>>>> look at the >>>>>>>> Project:Open stuff... >>>>>>>> http://www.project-open.com/ >>>>>>>> I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this one as I've >>>>>>>> only just >>>>>>>> scratched the surface... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> One of the criteria you should consider is the cost of >>>>>>>> upgrading from an >>>>>>>> OOTB solution sometime in the future versus the cost of >>>>>>>> implementing >>>>>>>> OfBiz now. Generally if you are at the stage of being an >>>>>>>> enterprise with >>>>>>>> more "M" than "S" turnover (SME) and have implemented a lot >>>>>>>> of bespoke >>>>>>>> business processes which form part of you USP then OfBiz is >>>>>>>> a safe bet. >>>>>>>> If you plan to get to that point one day, it's probably >>>>>>>> better waiting >>>>>>>> for that day to come and using something OOTB in the >>>>>>>> meantime. Consider >>>>>>>> the analogy with office space, you wouldn't buy up half an >>>>>>>> industrial >>>>>>>> estate because the business plan you had written in your >>>>>>>> front room said >>>>>>>> one day you'd be bigger than ICI! Even if you factored the >>>>>>>> cost of >>>>>>>> hiring a van to help with the move, it would still look a >>>>>>>> bit dodgy on >>>>>>>> the balance sheet! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Choosing the right system is about being on top of your >>>>>>>> overall business >>>>>>>> strategy, where are you going? how long and how much is it >>>>>>>> going to take >>>>>>>> to get you there? Can you really afford the luxury of servicing >>>>>>>> something as large as OfBiz en route? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Andrew >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 09:58 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> OK David. Maybe just one last thing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No more soap-boxing. A simple question for a change :) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> David E. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Looking around the OFBiz documents and such I don't think >>>>>>>>>> this distinction is adequately represented, so I added >>>>>>>>>> some text similar to the above to the home page of >>>>>>>>>> ofbiz.apache.org. It should be public within a few hours, >>>>>>>>>> ie whenever the next deployment job runs. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Reading your new text, this stood out: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "OFBiz can certainly be used OOTB (out of the box), but if >>>>>>>>> you're looking for something that works really well for >>>>>>>>> that there are many open source projects that do a great >>>>>>>>> job there." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> OK. So maybe those projects might be more what I'm looking >>>>>>>>> for. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I searched a couple of months ago and didn't find anything >>>>>>>>> I thought could do a better job than OFBiz. What other open >>>>>>>>> source projects are you thinking of here? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ian >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -David >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 3:49 AM, Ian McNulty wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Chris, David, Everybody. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> One last thought on the subject before I have my porridge >>>>>>>>>>> and another lie down ;) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if any of you guys have ever taken a good >>>>>>>>>>> hard look at the osCommerce, Zen Cart or Ubuntu forums? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.zen-cart.com/forum >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://forums.oscommerce.com >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ubuntuforums.org/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes. I know php is nasty. But that's not the point. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Look at the accessibility and structure of the interface. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> All user levels are accommodated. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> All find their natural place. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nearly a quarter of a million members on Ubuntu. 120K on >>>>>>>>>>> osCommerce. 2,347 and 824 currently active respectively >>>>>>>>>>> at this very moment as we speak >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A working model of how to build a user base surely, if >>>>>>>>>>> nothing else? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ian >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Chris Howe wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> =========================================================== >>>>>>>>>>>> =================================== >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>> ============================================================ >>>>>>>>>>> ================================== >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> -------------------------------- >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> ================================================================ >>>>>>> ============================== >>>>> >>> >> > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------ > 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. > ====================================================================== > ======================== |
Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
|
|
Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
|
|
Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
|
|
In reply to this post by David E Jones
David E. Jones wrote:
> > Nope. The users list is for users of OFBiz. The dev list is for > developers of OFBiz. There is commonly confusion around this point. > > On the users list we don't care if the users is a developer customizing > OFBiz or an end user who is only seeing OFBiz from a web browser. > > If you're trying to say that the community isn't geared up to support > end users who just touch OFBiz through a browser and are people > fulfilling orders and managing warehouses, then you're are 100% correct. > This community is not even close to geared up for something like that. > Not even close. We also don't have major aspirations to doing that > because there would be a significant resource gap. If you have some way > of staffing such a thing that has eluded the rest of us, please let us > know!!! basic aim in asking was to find an excuse not to by MYOB. It sounds like OFBiz is not even close to that yet, but there is plenty of room for an end-user targeted interface to both OFBiz itself and the introductory documentation. I'd be happy to contribute requirements, testing, and some documentation if there are more experienced OFBiz people who can guide me in the direction. -- Paul <http://paulgear.webhop.net> -- Did you know? Sending and receiving Microsoft Office documents via email can put your computer and others' at risk. Always scan attachments for viruses before you open them, and export your documents to a portable format such as PDF or HTML before sending them. |
Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
|
|
Paul Gear wrote:
> ... > Wow. I wasn't aware my question would generate so much discussion. My > basic aim in asking was to find an excuse not to by MYOB. That should have been: an excuse not to BUY MYOB... -- Paul <http://paulgear.webhop.net> -- Did you know? OpenOffice.org has built-in PDF creation. Better yet, it's compatible with Microsoft Office, and free! Find out more at <http://www.openoffice.org>. |
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |