OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[jonwimp]

Paul,

Oh, I forgot it was originally your thread! I even wrote you privately about it. Geez. I always
had problems with my memory. Too much CPU for reverse-engineering, too little cache to remember my
work once it's delivered. That's my problem with music too.

Paul, you can use one of my virtual instances for testing. Yeah, you'll be testing my boss'
version of OFBiz. But we try to keep it as near OFBiz as possible for easy maintenance and merge
with mainstream OFBiz SVN.

Right off bat, you'll see some functionalities fully fleshed out (half-baked in mainstream OFBiz).
You'll also spot (or not spot) many bugsfixes.

For now, I'm just moving my boss' OFBiz along his requirements. But if you, like Ian, has a vision
for fleshing out all "best practices" (commonly needed, "duh, why isn't it there"
functionalities), then you are free (like Ian is) to submit issues (via Mantis) to me. Together,
we'll:

1. Round off all half-implemented concepts so newcomers don't have so many red
    herrings to deal with.

2. Document all fully-implemented concepts so newcomers know that undocumented
    concepts are either not there or not fully there.

The above is something David has clearly said he will not address (not OOTB-oriented). So, it's
open season for us. :) We'll be swimming in another pond, so David shouldn't mind.

I do stress that this isn't a fork of OFBiz. I don't support dilution of open source resources
(yes yes, in many cases it's simply necessary, and yes I do have my own fork of hibernated project
phpMVC, even relatively active Mantis, and many others).

(* military band starting to drum a march *)

Some of us may be currently breaking off to handle smaller skirmishes (smaller clients who cannot
afford non-OOTB, big customization projects); some will stay in fatherland factory to continue
plodding along, serving the bigger (easier?) clients. I believe David will give his blessing to
those of us who will venture out, who stick our necks out to take the horizons.

I urge us all to collaborate. David will continue to feed those of us on the frontlines (by virtue
of OFBiz being open source). Those on the frontlines should also report new targets (market
requirements) back to David (by virtue of a published document of exploration?). Together, we can
win this war. OFBiz will take over the world of ERPs. Erm... I mean... OFBiz will bring love and
peace to the world. :)

And lastly, welcome back, Paul Gear! I know you've been watching OFBiz from a distance since your
boss crossed out OFBiz (thankfully, mine has responded to my incessant begging!). Join us!

Jonathon

PS: I gotta get my head checked for military bands.

Paul Gear wrote:

> 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!!!
>
> 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.  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.
>

[jonwimp]

Paul,

Then let's make OFBiz the perfect excuse not to buy MYOB!

Onward! Take the skies! The seas! No, not my cheese.

Jonathon

Paul Gear wrote:
> 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...
>

[David E Jones]

On Jan 22, 2007, at 5:28 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:

> Right off bat, you'll see some functionalities fully fleshed out  
> (half-baked in mainstream OFBiz). You'll also spot (or not spot)  
> many bugsfixes.
>
> For now, I'm just moving my boss' OFBiz along his requirements. But  
> if you, like Ian, has a vision for fleshing out all "best  
> practices" (commonly needed, "duh, why isn't it there"  
> functionalities), then you are free (like Ian is) to submit issues  
> (via Mantis) to me. Together, we'll:
>
> 1. Round off all half-implemented concepts so newcomers don't have  
> so many red
>    herrings to deal with.
>
> 2. Document all fully-implemented concepts so newcomers know that  
> undocumented
>    concepts are either not there or not fully there.
>
> The above is something David has clearly said he will not address  
> (not OOTB-oriented).

That is simply not true. I never said I would not address it, and of  
course since the fact is that I am not OFBiz I should also make it  
clear that this is not the OFBiz policy. I never said we would not do  
something that works great OOTB, I just said that is not currently  
the focus of OFBiz given that we have to set priorities so that  
limited resources are best used, and that we have a sustainable model  
for growing and perpetuating the project.

Besides, for the 2 issues you mentioned above, what do they have to  
do with OOTB use orientation? Those 2 things sound a lot like exactly  
what we're doing in OFBiz right now...

> So, it's open season for us. :) We'll be swimming in another pond,  
> so David shouldn't mind.

This is true though. It is always open season for you. There are  
means for contribution and the more you contribute and get involved  
in the project the more we'll want to give you permissions so it is  
easier for us to work together.

> I do stress that this isn't a fork of OFBiz.

Hmmmm.... if you're encouraging people to send you fixes and  
enhancements that are core to OFBiz instead of sending them to the  
main project, that sounds an awful lot like a fork to me...

If that's not a fork, what is?

> I don't support dilution of open source resources (yes yes, in many  
> cases it's simply necessary, and yes I do have my own fork of  
> hibernated project phpMVC, even relatively active Mantis, and many  
> others).
>
> (* military band starting to drum a march *)
>
> Some of us may be currently breaking off to handle smaller  
> skirmishes (smaller clients who cannot afford non-OOTB, big  
> customization projects); some will stay in fatherland factory to  
> continue plodding along, serving the bigger (easier?) clients. I  
> believe David will give his blessing to those of us who will  
> venture out, who stick our necks out to take the horizons.

I don't see how any of this is necessary. To have a better OOTB  
experience we need feedback from users including bug reports, bug  
fixes, and enhancements as well. It sounds like this is mostly what  
you are proposing.

It sounds like what I wrote about applications well suited for real  
world OOTB use didn't make it through. The point I was trying to make  
is that generic user interfaces will never be well suited to all  
possible tasks. In order to create a true fully feature system to use  
OOTB you have to define a target audience, like a specific type of  
company to create a complete system for.

Lastly a quick question: why do you keep saying my name? What in  
blazes does ANY OF THIS have to do with me? I don't own OFBiz. I  
don't control OFBiz. I don't even implement most of what goes into  
OFBiz any more. I'm just a moderator trying to keep things flowing  
smoothly for the project and clarify to the best of what I can see  
what is and isn't a good idea. I can't force anyone to do anything,  
nor can I even manage and moderate every bit that makes it into the  
project. That just isn't realistic. This is why there is an  
organization and why we need more people involved with the project.

So, yes, you can create your own project and try to recruit people to  
it. I just hope you have a long term sustainable plan, direction, and  
scope for it.

-David

[jonwimp]

David,

 > That is simply not true. I never said I would not address it

And so, you wouldn't mind us addressing it for you. Unless I'm mistaken.

 > Besides, for the 2 issues you mentioned above, what do they have to do
 > with OOTB use orientation? Those 2 things sound a lot like exactly what
 > we're doing in OFBiz right now...

I'd say "that is simply not true". But I'm kinda tired from all this talk back and forth. I'll
just get down to "doing things", ie doing exactly those "2 things" I mentioned.

 >> So, it's open season for us. :) We'll be swimming in another pond, so
 >> David shouldn't mind.
 >
 > This is true though. It is always open season for you. There are means
 > for contribution and the more you contribute and get involved in the
 > project the more we'll want to give you permissions so it is easier for
 > us to work together.

For the record, I don't need committer permissions, if that's what you're referring to. I believe
that a non-comitter can just as effectively help a few committers as if the non-committer were a
committer himself. And that will be preferably because we'd have lower admin and accounting costs
(as opposed to having 100s of committers). Anyway, reread my posts agreeing with you on some kind
of moderation. I'm too tired to repeat.

It's difficult for me to work with you NOT because I have no committer permissions. It's the
community's lack of time to draw up technical references once and for all. With such references, I
can easily churn out focused HowTo(s) for Ian or Paul Gear or whoever, if the need arises. See
further below for more on this.

 >> I do stress that this isn't a fork of OFBiz.
 >
 > Hmmmm.... if you're encouraging people to send you fixes and
 > enhancements that are core to OFBiz instead of sending them to the main
 > project, that sounds an awful lot like a fork to me...

What do you want me to do? Become a committer and commit all the enhancements and bugfixes I am
currently holding on my private harddisk?

There's some posts that show that many OFBiz users like myself are also holding on to bugfixes,
not just "open my special tin can upside-down" enhancements.

I kept trying to remind all those users (who are able to fix OFBiz faster than OFBiz
community/committers can) to remember where the source came from. Kept trying to remind everyone
that there wouldn't be our own bugfixes to OFBiz if there wasn't OFBiz in the first place. You
think I'm the only reverse-engineer in this world? Go take an inside look into Intel, AMD, even SAP.

And yes, sorry to say this, but I learned OFBiz in a tenth of time myself what your training
videos tried to teach in 110 minutes. Which is really nothing much concrete. Where are the textual
references I can search or grep through? REFERENCES, not overviews done with razzle-dazzle
multimedia videos and PDFs and whatnot. The resources you spent on those overviews could've easily
been spent to churn out REAL references, from which we can (given time) draw up focused HowTo(s)
for less techie folks. Get the basics and fundamentals right first, not the commercials (or is
this some form of marketing strategy?).

Take the final line of one of your training videos: "Now we've seen the BASICS of the user
interface artifacts."

And the first line of your final video: "I hope you've enjoyed this overview..."

You've by now added a new definition into my dictionary: "Overview, meaning DO NOT waste 110
minutes to see if you're a developer who can trace through whole framework yourself in 10
minutes." Which practically refers to the MILLIONS of reverse-engineers around the world. Yeah,
burn us all at a stake if you want that definition seared away.

As for "sending fixes to me", ask Mike Wong from Hong Kong what is my preferred channel of comms.
But I'm not so sure what to think anymore by now.

 > I don't see how any of this is necessary. To have a better OOTB experience we
 > need feedback from users including bug reports, bug fixes, and enhancements
 > as well. It sounds like this is mostly what you are proposing.

Yes, that's it. "To have a better OOTB experience...". Reread my very first posts to the ML, and
make a guess about my experience, and about many others' who've touched OFBiz and left for more
expensive and perhaps long-term-bad solutions. We'd be lucky if those folks actually stayed on the
ML to watch us from a distance. Most just leave thinking "OFBiz is another ragtag open source
fall-apart or not-quite-there solution". You yourself said that your focus (possibly only possible
focus for now) are those who can fork out the cash to pay us to:

1. Implement/Deploy OFBiz.

2. Fix any fall-apart, show-stopping issues.

Even MS doesn't make us pay for bugfixes (patches/updates).

If you cannot see that I had met the community more than halfway (not that community is at fault,
just economics of time resources), then you probably won't welcome my contributions to your
fundamentals (nor Ian's or any other concerned parties).

 > It sounds like what I wrote about applications well suited for real world
 > OOTB use didn't make it through. The point I was trying to make is that
 > generic user interfaces will never be well suited to all possible tasks. In
 > order to create a true fully feature system to use OOTB you have to define a
 > target audience, like a specific type of company to create a complete system
 > for.

Yes, that did come through to me. I personally don't think a "one-size-fits-all" solution exists,
but then I'm not the creator of AirAsia (one-size-fits-all airways passenger service). Ian kinda
convinced me with a simple remark: "only got to satisfy some folks some of the time". I've even
seen big corporations settle for a workaround just to save $100,000 (you know the economics of
paying a premium for top 5% of products). So Ian may even sell to your customers with such a
solution, not just to poorer businesses not worth your second glance.

And do note that I've "boiled me down" to considering just removing red herrings, and completing
implementation of currently half-baked functions, and comprehensively documenting all fully-baked
functions.

 > Lastly a quick question: why do you keep saying my name? What in blazes does
 > ANY OF THIS have to do with me? I don't own OFBiz. I don't control OFBiz. I
 > don't even implement most of what goes into OFBiz any more. I'm just a
 > moderator trying to keep things flowing smoothly for the project and clarify
 > to the best of what I can see what is and isn't a good idea.  I can't force
 > anyone to do anything, nor can I even manage and moderate every bit that
 > makes it into the project. That just isn't realistic.  This is why there is
 > an organization and why we need more people involved with the project.

Because I consider you the father of this movement! We all need an anchor, the original vision,
original visionary. You're it for me. I don't know what the rest of the folks think.

I may accidentally reinvent wheels in my fervent rush to round off OFBiz. But I'm certainly not
gonna reinvent YOU. So what if I wake up tomorrow with an idea similar to what you throw up years
ago? I need a point of reference, not many Jonathon-Speak-A-Louds down the road with the same idea
every year. I want to know I only have to memorize one name --- David E. Jones --- when it comes
to OFBiz.

Sorry if you've become a brand name. But sorry too that I can't change that for you. Talk to the
market and masses.

Like it or not, if OFBiz goes south, your name is attached to the trend. Likewise if it goes north.

 > I'm just a moderator trying to keep things flowing smoothly for the project
 > and clarify to the best of what I can see what is and isn't a good idea.

And I've always been with you. No, actually I'm with what's best for OFBiz, which happens to be
"with you" sometimes. Thought you would've known by now that my interests lie in developing OFBiz.

 > So, yes, you can create your own project and try to recruit people to it. I
 > just hope you have a long term sustainable plan, direction, and scope for it.

You know, I'm beginning to think I must be really dysfunctional in my communication. I'm on your side!

Some folks have even mentioned they "see my strategy... trying to offend you with my niceness".

Just because my nice comments do reveal sore spots doesn't mean I'm trying to tear you down. Look
at all my posts and my general inclination for context.

Tell you what. I give up. No point fighting the market forces. You do what you will with open
source. I'll try to keep my job first.

You should know by now that I'm a constructive pacifist; I'm not the one doing any boxing here. If
you don't, then you really should worry about your own inclination to unconstructively fight
societal and market forces and facts.

Jonathon

David E. Jones wrote:

>
> On Jan 22, 2007, at 5:28 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>
>> Right off bat, you'll see some functionalities fully fleshed out
>> (half-baked in mainstream OFBiz). You'll also spot (or not spot) many
>> bugsfixes.
>>
>> For now, I'm just moving my boss' OFBiz along his requirements. But if
>> you, like Ian, has a vision for fleshing out all "best practices"
>> (commonly needed, "duh, why isn't it there" functionalities), then you
>> are free (like Ian is) to submit issues (via Mantis) to me. Together,
>> we'll:
>>
>> 1. Round off all half-implemented concepts so newcomers don't have so
>> many red
>>    herrings to deal with.
>>
>> 2. Document all fully-implemented concepts so newcomers know that
>> undocumented
>>    concepts are either not there or not fully there.
>>
>> The above is something David has clearly said he will not address (not
>> OOTB-oriented).
>
> That is simply not true. I never said I would not address it, and of
> course since the fact is that I am not OFBiz I should also make it clear
> that this is not the OFBiz policy. I never said we would not do
> something that works great OOTB, I just said that is not currently the
> focus of OFBiz given that we have to set priorities so that limited
> resources are best used, and that we have a sustainable model for
> growing and perpetuating the project.
>
> Besides, for the 2 issues you mentioned above, what do they have to do
> with OOTB use orientation? Those 2 things sound a lot like exactly what
> we're doing in OFBiz right now...
>
>> So, it's open season for us. :) We'll be swimming in another pond, so
>> David shouldn't mind.
>
> This is true though. It is always open season for you. There are means
> for contribution and the more you contribute and get involved in the
> project the more we'll want to give you permissions so it is easier for
> us to work together.
>
>> I do stress that this isn't a fork of OFBiz.
>
> Hmmmm.... if you're encouraging people to send you fixes and
> enhancements that are core to OFBiz instead of sending them to the main
> project, that sounds an awful lot like a fork to me...
>
> If that's not a fork, what is?
>
>> I don't support dilution of open source resources (yes yes, in many
>> cases it's simply necessary, and yes I do have my own fork of
>> hibernated project phpMVC, even relatively active Mantis, and many
>> others).
>>
>> (* military band starting to drum a march *)
>>
>> Some of us may be currently breaking off to handle smaller skirmishes
>> (smaller clients who cannot afford non-OOTB, big customization
>> projects); some will stay in fatherland factory to continue plodding
>> along, serving the bigger (easier?) clients. I believe David will give
>> his blessing to those of us who will venture out, who stick our necks
>> out to take the horizons.
>
> I don't see how any of this is necessary. To have a better OOTB
> experience we need feedback from users including bug reports, bug fixes,
> and enhancements as well. It sounds like this is mostly what you are
> proposing.
>
> It sounds like what I wrote about applications well suited for real
> world OOTB use didn't make it through. The point I was trying to make is
> that generic user interfaces will never be well suited to all possible
> tasks. In order to create a true fully feature system to use OOTB you
> have to define a target audience, like a specific type of company to
> create a complete system for.
>
> Lastly a quick question: why do you keep saying my name? What in blazes
> does ANY OF THIS have to do with me? I don't own OFBiz. I don't control
> OFBiz. I don't even implement most of what goes into OFBiz any more. I'm
> just a moderator trying to keep things flowing smoothly for the project
> and clarify to the best of what I can see what is and isn't a good idea.
> I can't force anyone to do anything, nor can I even manage and moderate
> every bit that makes it into the project. That just isn't realistic.
> This is why there is an organization and why we need more people
> involved with the project.
>
> So, yes, you can create your own project and try to recruit people to
> it. I just hope you have a long term sustainable plan, direction, and
> scope for it.
>
> -David
>
>

[Ian McNulty]

David,

Reading all this stuff - particularly your replies to Jonathon - I've
started to hear this old Beatles number buzzing around in my head:

"I say yes.
You say no,
You say why?
I say I don't know.

Oh no.

You say goodbye,
And I say Hello.

I don't know why you say goodbye I say hello"

The way I read it, Jonathon's gone out of his way to say everything
anybody could possibly say to try and reassure everybody that a fork is
the very last thing he would want. What more could you want?

>
> Lastly a quick question: why do you keep saying my name? What in
> blazes does ANY OF THIS have to do with me?

Ehr... Well... Last time I looked at the Apache minutes, you were Vice
President of OFBiz. So it's not hard to see why people might make the
mistake that it's all got quite a lot to do with you.

> I don't own OFBiz. I don't control OFBiz. I don't even implement most
> of what goes into OFBiz any more. I'm just a moderator trying to keep
> things flowing smoothly for the project and clarify to the best of
> what I can see what is and isn't a good idea. I can't force anyone to
> do anything, nor can I even manage and moderate every bit that makes
> it into the project. That just isn't realistic. This is why there is
> an organization and why we need more people involved with the project.

OK. Fair enough.  But even in the most ideal democracy, there has to be
someone at the wheel. Without it ships drift onto the rocks and crews
dissolve into back-biting chaos.

I don't know if you've ever read any of Bill Onken's and Ken Blanchard's
Monkey management stuff. A monkey is whatever the next move is when the
meeting ends. Managers who take everybody else's monkeys on their own
backs quickly go under. So imho you are absolutely right to bat them off.

Trouble is, if there isn't a clear chain of backs you can bat the
monkeys on to, you have a load of very anxious monkeys looking for any
kind of back to land on.

Delegation is the key. If you don't have time, then can't you delegate
the delegation to somebody one step down the chain?

>
> So, yes, you can create your own project and try to recruit people to
> it. I just hope you have a long term sustainable plan, direction, and
> scope for it.

There you go again. The way I read it, the only person suggesting
creating another project around here is you. Is this wishful thinking
and a self-fulfilling prophecy or what?


Ian

[Andrew Sykes]

This thread is going on a bit :-)

Perhaps we need a new ML just for this!

I guess the bottom line with all this stuff is that you can't get OFBiz
to do what you want by petitioning, only by contributing (either funds
or time).

David (or anyone else) isn't sitting on a pot of cash that he
distributes to developers based on the demand for a feature or project
direction.

- Andrew


On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 10:04 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:

> David,
>
> Reading all this stuff - particularly your replies to Jonathon - I've
> started to hear this old Beatles number buzzing around in my head:
>
> "I say yes.
> You say no,
> You say why?
> I say I don't know.
>
> Oh no.
>
> You say goodbye,
> And I say Hello.
>
> I don't know why you say goodbye I say hello"
>
> The way I read it, Jonathon's gone out of his way to say everything
> anybody could possibly say to try and reassure everybody that a fork is
> the very last thing he would want. What more could you want?
>
> >
> > Lastly a quick question: why do you keep saying my name? What in
> > blazes does ANY OF THIS have to do with me?
>
> Ehr... Well... Last time I looked at the Apache minutes, you were Vice
> President of OFBiz. So it's not hard to see why people might make the
> mistake that it's all got quite a lot to do with you.
>
> > I don't own OFBiz. I don't control OFBiz. I don't even implement most
> > of what goes into OFBiz any more. I'm just a moderator trying to keep
> > things flowing smoothly for the project and clarify to the best of
> > what I can see what is and isn't a good idea. I can't force anyone to
> > do anything, nor can I even manage and moderate every bit that makes
> > it into the project. That just isn't realistic. This is why there is
> > an organization and why we need more people involved with the project.
>
> OK. Fair enough.  But even in the most ideal democracy, there has to be
> someone at the wheel. Without it ships drift onto the rocks and crews
> dissolve into back-biting chaos.
>
> I don't know if you've ever read any of Bill Onken's and Ken Blanchard's
> Monkey management stuff. A monkey is whatever the next move is when the
> meeting ends. Managers who take everybody else's monkeys on their own
> backs quickly go under. So imho you are absolutely right to bat them off.
>
> Trouble is, if there isn't a clear chain of backs you can bat the
> monkeys on to, you have a load of very anxious monkeys looking for any
> kind of back to land on.
>
> Delegation is the key. If you don't have time, then can't you delegate
> the delegation to somebody one step down the chain?
>
> >
> > So, yes, you can create your own project and try to recruit people to
> > it. I just hope you have a long term sustainable plan, direction, and
> > scope for it.
>
> There you go again. The way I read it, the only person suggesting
> creating another project around here is you. Is this wishful thinking
> and a self-fulfilling prophecy or what?
>
>
> Ian
>

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

[Andrew Ballantine]

I meant only restricted from anonymous modification. I have observed some
other projects that have completely open wikis and whole pages are regularly
destroyed by spammers.

I cannot see why anyone should object to registering in order to add to a
wiki. If a spammer registers then the registration can be cancelled if they
prove to be a spammer.

Or am I missing something?

Kind regards,

Andrew Ballantine.

-----Original Message-----
From: Florin Jurcovici [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: 18 January 2007 19:35
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?


IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even if I had some experience
which I'd like to share, if the wiki is closed or restricted, I cannot.
Some maintainers should review docs occasionally and correct or delete
them if they are not OK, maybe draw an outline of the documentation at the
beginning then let whoever is willing to fill the pages. But IMO a
closed/restricted wiki is not the way to go.

--
Florin Jurcovici
------------------
Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
03:36


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
03:36

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
03:36



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

[Ian McNulty]

Jonathon, David,

>
> > It sounds like what I wrote about applications well suited for real
> world
> > OOTB use didn't make it through. The point I was trying to make is that
> > generic user interfaces will never be well suited to all possible
> tasks. In
> > order to create a true fully feature system to use OOTB you have to
> define a
> > target audience, like a specific type of company to create a
> complete system
> > for.
>
> Yes, that did come through to me. I personally don't think a
> "one-size-fits-all" solution exists, but then I'm not the creator of
> AirAsia (one-size-fits-all airways passenger service).

Let's try a slightly different tack. Tailor-made is what we're talking
about here.

Tailor-made suits fit like a glove and cost more than most of us can afford.

There was a time when that was all there was, and tailor shops on street
corner were as common as greengrocers. But tailor-made suits were so
expensive that  most ordinary working people bought only one of two in a
lifetime. Sunday-Best they used to call it. Preserved in mothballs in
the wardrobe and only ever worn for  church. Of course for top-drawer
executives it was different. But then it always is.

When the first off-the peg chain stores started appearing on the High
Street, almost everybody was appalled. First into battle were the
tailors in their corner shops.

How can one size fit everybody?

Well, of course it can't.

The great leap forward - the Blue Ocean thinking outside the box - was
to produce a carefully banded range of sizes, to fit most of the people
most of the time.

"But then no size will ever fit anybody," was the next outraged cry.

Well of course they can't. Never could. Never would. And still don't!

The trick was to produce suit designs where it doesn't really matter.
Pile them high and bang them out at prices everyone could afford. Making
the leap from fitting some of the people all of the time to fitting most
of the people most of the time was all it took to turn a whole industry
completely upside down.

The average tailor on the average corner quickly lost the plot. The
master tailors in Saville Row upped their prices even more.

Personally I thing that's all very sad. But you can't stop progress.
That's the way all technology goes. One-off automobiles for the aristos
give way to Model T Ford's for the masses, putting average tailor-made
manufacturers out of business and leaving a small niche of
master-tailors servicing the extremely well-off who would never be
caught dead in anything off-the-peg.

If David is saying is that he wants to stay tailoring for the executives
and is appalled at the idea of selling ill-fitting suits to the masses
then no way would I want to knock that.

But you can't stop progress. Somebody somewhere will do it, even if we
don't.

If I was a master tailor faced with that kind of situation I guess the
clever way to go would be to build credibility servicing my bespoke
clients, and then label the off-the-peg, no-size-fits-anybody stuff with
the brand.

Like Yves St. Laurent, Gucci, Calvin Klein, Prada, Dior, Versace and Chanel.

Come to think of it. Isn't that the way the whole clothing business has
gone? Who cares if it fits anybody? Just as long as it's got a good name
on the tin.

>
> Because I consider you the father of this movement! We all need an
> anchor, the original vision, original visionary. You're it for me. I
> don't know what the rest of the folks think.
>
> I may accidentally reinvent wheels in my fervent rush to round off
> OFBiz. But I'm certainly not gonna reinvent YOU. So what if I wake up
> tomorrow with an idea similar to what you throw up years ago? I need a
> point of reference, not many Jonathon-Speak-A-Louds down the road with
> the same idea every year. I want to know I only have to memorize one
> name --- David E. Jones --- when it comes to OFBiz.
>
> Sorry if you've become a brand name. But sorry too that I can't change
> that for you. Talk to the market and masses.

You know something David. If I was you I'd be wanting to give this guy a
medal, not a hard time.

Ian

>
>
> David E. Jones wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 22, 2007, at 5:28 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>
>>> Right off bat, you'll see some functionalities fully fleshed out
>>> (half-baked in mainstream OFBiz). You'll also spot (or not spot)
>>> many bugsfixes.
>>>
>>> For now, I'm just moving my boss' OFBiz along his requirements. But
>>> if you, like Ian, has a vision for fleshing out all "best practices"
>>> (commonly needed, "duh, why isn't it there" functionalities), then
>>> you are free (like Ian is) to submit issues (via Mantis) to me.
>>> Together, we'll:
>>>
>>> 1. Round off all half-implemented concepts so newcomers don't have
>>> so many red
>>>    herrings to deal with.
>>>
>>> 2. Document all fully-implemented concepts so newcomers know that
>>> undocumented
>>>    concepts are either not there or not fully there.
>>>
>>> The above is something David has clearly said he will not address
>>> (not OOTB-oriented).
>>
>> That is simply not true. I never said I would not address it, and of
>> course since the fact is that I am not OFBiz I should also make it
>> clear that this is not the OFBiz policy. I never said we would not do
>> something that works great OOTB, I just said that is not currently
>> the focus of OFBiz given that we have to set priorities so that
>> limited resources are best used, and that we have a sustainable model
>> for growing and perpetuating the project.
>>
>> Besides, for the 2 issues you mentioned above, what do they have to
>> do with OOTB use orientation? Those 2 things sound a lot like exactly
>> what we're doing in OFBiz right now...
>>
>>> So, it's open season for us. :) We'll be swimming in another pond,
>>> so David shouldn't mind.
>>
>> This is true though. It is always open season for you. There are
>> means for contribution and the more you contribute and get involved
>> in the project the more we'll want to give you permissions so it is
>> easier for us to work together.
>>
>>> I do stress that this isn't a fork of OFBiz.
>>
>> Hmmmm.... if you're encouraging people to send you fixes and
>> enhancements that are core to OFBiz instead of sending them to the
>> main project, that sounds an awful lot like a fork to me...
>>
>> If that's not a fork, what is?
>>
>>> I don't support dilution of open source resources (yes yes, in many
>>> cases it's simply necessary, and yes I do have my own fork of
>>> hibernated project phpMVC, even relatively active Mantis, and many
>>> others).
>>>
>>> (* military band starting to drum a march *)
>>>
>>> Some of us may be currently breaking off to handle smaller
>>> skirmishes (smaller clients who cannot afford non-OOTB, big
>>> customization projects); some will stay in fatherland factory to
>>> continue plodding along, serving the bigger (easier?) clients. I
>>> believe David will give his blessing to those of us who will venture
>>> out, who stick our necks out to take the horizons.
>>
>> I don't see how any of this is necessary. To have a better OOTB
>> experience we need feedback from users including bug reports, bug
>> fixes, and enhancements as well. It sounds like this is mostly what
>> you are proposing.
>>
>> It sounds like what I wrote about applications well suited for real
>> world OOTB use didn't make it through. The point I was trying to make
>> is that generic user interfaces will never be well suited to all
>> possible tasks. In order to create a true fully feature system to use
>> OOTB you have to define a target audience, like a specific type of
>> company to create a complete system for.
>>
>> Lastly a quick question: why do you keep saying my name? What in
>> blazes does ANY OF THIS have to do with me? I don't own OFBiz. I
>> don't control OFBiz. I don't even implement most of what goes into
>> OFBiz any more. I'm just a moderator trying to keep things flowing
>> smoothly for the project and clarify to the best of what I can see
>> what is and isn't a good idea. I can't force anyone to do anything,
>> nor can I even manage and moderate every bit that makes it into the
>> project. That just isn't realistic. This is why there is an
>> organization and why we need more people involved with the project.
>>
>> So, yes, you can create your own project and try to recruit people to
>> it. I just hope you have a long term sustainable plan, direction, and
>> scope for it.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>
>
>

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

t: [phone]
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 [phone]

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.
==============================================================================================

[jonwimp]

Hi Andrew,

Welcome back. I haven't read your posts for some time now, I mean. To be honest, you reassured me
at a very early stage when I almost gave up on the community (frankly, are there many newbies here
at all? looks like mostly veterans).

This is the last I'm writing to here. Not wasting my time reading this thread even. I'm back to
working.

I don't know what David was thinking in his response to my post. But I do know he appreciates my
contribution (patch or time or helping out in ML).

Jonathon

Andrew Sykes wrote:

> This thread is going on a bit :-)
>
> Perhaps we need a new ML just for this!
>
> I guess the bottom line with all this stuff is that you can't get OFBiz
> to do what you want by petitioning, only by contributing (either funds
> or time).
>
> David (or anyone else) isn't sitting on a pot of cash that he
> distributes to developers based on the demand for a feature or project
> direction.
>
> - Andrew
>
>
> On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 10:04 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
>> David,
>>
>> Reading all this stuff - particularly your replies to Jonathon - I've
>> started to hear this old Beatles number buzzing around in my head:
>>
>> "I say yes.
>> You say no,
>> You say why?
>> I say I don't know.
>>
>> Oh no.
>>
>> You say goodbye,
>> And I say Hello.
>>
>> I don't know why you say goodbye I say hello"
>>
>> The way I read it, Jonathon's gone out of his way to say everything
>> anybody could possibly say to try and reassure everybody that a fork is
>> the very last thing he would want. What more could you want?
>>
>>> Lastly a quick question: why do you keep saying my name? What in
>>> blazes does ANY OF THIS have to do with me?
>> Ehr... Well... Last time I looked at the Apache minutes, you were Vice
>> President of OFBiz. So it's not hard to see why people might make the
>> mistake that it's all got quite a lot to do with you.
>>
>>> I don't own OFBiz. I don't control OFBiz. I don't even implement most
>>> of what goes into OFBiz any more. I'm just a moderator trying to keep
>>> things flowing smoothly for the project and clarify to the best of
>>> what I can see what is and isn't a good idea. I can't force anyone to
>>> do anything, nor can I even manage and moderate every bit that makes
>>> it into the project. That just isn't realistic. This is why there is
>>> an organization and why we need more people involved with the project.
>> OK. Fair enough.  But even in the most ideal democracy, there has to be
>> someone at the wheel. Without it ships drift onto the rocks and crews
>> dissolve into back-biting chaos.
>>
>> I don't know if you've ever read any of Bill Onken's and Ken Blanchard's
>> Monkey management stuff. A monkey is whatever the next move is when the
>> meeting ends. Managers who take everybody else's monkeys on their own
>> backs quickly go under. So imho you are absolutely right to bat them off.
>>
>> Trouble is, if there isn't a clear chain of backs you can bat the
>> monkeys on to, you have a load of very anxious monkeys looking for any
>> kind of back to land on.
>>
>> Delegation is the key. If you don't have time, then can't you delegate
>> the delegation to somebody one step down the chain?
>>
>>> So, yes, you can create your own project and try to recruit people to
>>> it. I just hope you have a long term sustainable plan, direction, and
>>> scope for it.
>> There you go again. The way I read it, the only person suggesting
>> creating another project around here is you. Is this wishful thinking
>> and a self-fulfilling prophecy or what?
>>
>>
>> Ian
>>

[Ian McNulty]

Andrew,

Wise words as always. Couldn't agree with you more.

I stopped trying to petition weeks ago. Since then I've just been
batting off the flack.

I've actually contributed much more time to this than I wanted to. Keep
trying to get off.

I started off suggesting a users forum. Not my fault if all I can find
is stony ground.

I'm not looking for a pot of cash. Just a bit of space and some fertile
ground to try and grow one.

Ian



Andrew Sykes wrote:

> This thread is going on a bit :-)
>
> Perhaps we need a new ML just for this!
>
> I guess the bottom line with all this stuff is that you can't get OFBiz
> to do what you want by petitioning, only by contributing (either funds
> or time).
>
> David (or anyone else) isn't sitting on a pot of cash that he
> distributes to developers based on the demand for a feature or project
> direction.
>
> - Andrew
>
>
> On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 10:04 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
>  
>> David,
>>
>> Reading all this stuff - particularly your replies to Jonathon - I've
>> started to hear this old Beatles number buzzing around in my head:
>>
>> "I say yes.
>> You say no,
>> You say why?
>> I say I don't know.
>>
>> Oh no.
>>
>> You say goodbye,
>> And I say Hello.
>>
>> I don't know why you say goodbye I say hello"
>>
>> The way I read it, Jonathon's gone out of his way to say everything
>> anybody could possibly say to try and reassure everybody that a fork is
>> the very last thing he would want. What more could you want?
>>
>>    
>>> Lastly a quick question: why do you keep saying my name? What in
>>> blazes does ANY OF THIS have to do with me?
>>>      
>> Ehr... Well... Last time I looked at the Apache minutes, you were Vice
>> President of OFBiz. So it's not hard to see why people might make the
>> mistake that it's all got quite a lot to do with you.
>>
>>    
>>> I don't own OFBiz. I don't control OFBiz. I don't even implement most
>>> of what goes into OFBiz any more. I'm just a moderator trying to keep
>>> things flowing smoothly for the project and clarify to the best of
>>> what I can see what is and isn't a good idea. I can't force anyone to
>>> do anything, nor can I even manage and moderate every bit that makes
>>> it into the project. That just isn't realistic. This is why there is
>>> an organization and why we need more people involved with the project.
>>>      
>> OK. Fair enough.  But even in the most ideal democracy, there has to be
>> someone at the wheel. Without it ships drift onto the rocks and crews
>> dissolve into back-biting chaos.
>>
>> I don't know if you've ever read any of Bill Onken's and Ken Blanchard's
>> Monkey management stuff. A monkey is whatever the next move is when the
>> meeting ends. Managers who take everybody else's monkeys on their own
>> backs quickly go under. So imho you are absolutely right to bat them off.
>>
>> Trouble is, if there isn't a clear chain of backs you can bat the
>> monkeys on to, you have a load of very anxious monkeys looking for any
>> kind of back to land on.
>>
>> Delegation is the key. If you don't have time, then can't you delegate
>> the delegation to somebody one step down the chain?
>>
>>    
>>> So, yes, you can create your own project and try to recruit people to
>>> it. I just hope you have a long term sustainable plan, direction, and
>>> scope for it.
>>>      
>> There you go again. The way I read it, the only person suggesting
>> creating another project around here is you. Is this wishful thinking
>> and a self-fulfilling prophecy or what?
>>
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>    

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

t: [phone]
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 [phone]

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.
==============================================================================================

[Andrew Ballantine]

We seem to be making heavy weather of this.

A road map is a list of recommended action in a suggested order of
implementation. It can have notes that say "if you are and experienced
programmer, go to section x".

What Ian and I are suggesting is a roadmap for the un-initiated starter who
may know very little about Linux or programming, but has heard so much about
OFBiz that they want to try this baby out (well more of a teenager really
;-) ).

I would also suggest that we have some simple documents which suggest things
to try after OFBiz is installed that show off its talents.

Just simple stuff like creating a product with variants, ordering it,
processing the order, making sure it's in stock, picking it, shipping it and
telling the customer what you have done.

Use of day-to-day language is important too. Using terms like entity, tuple
and other DBMS terms are too confusing for the beginner. Likewise
assumptions that the reader knows what an environmental variable is and how
to set on permanently, should be avoided.

It's always the little things that get forgotten that cause confusion and
frustration.

I would even go so far as to suggest that there should be a section that
instructs the reader on HOW to download the file, which of course the
experienced reader can skip past unless there is a label in red saying read
this because it is non-standard.

Hope this clarifies.

Kind regards,

Andrew Ballantine.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian McNulty [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: 18 January 2007 21:00
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?



Andrew Sykes wrote:
> As with everything OfBiz, progress is dictated by demand. With adoptees
> coming from such varied backgrounds and with such disparate
> requirements. It would be hard to create such a roadmap that would be
> relevant to all.
>

Absolutely true. But imo current adoptees mostly seem to fit into a
similar mould. Rocket scientists with high-end clients and very
idiosyncratic niches to fulfil. I'm not knocking that. I count myself as
one of that breed. But there is a lowest common denominator which
everybody seems determined to ignore. Some maps you have to be a rocket
scientist to read. But road maps are accessible to everyone. I don't see
a problem in creating such a thing, providing we  start off with an
attitude which - as I think Leo Szilard once said - "Assumes infinite
ignorance and unlimited intelligence."

That's why I'm determined to play the ignoramus around here. Assuming I
do have the intelligence to crack the code if I wanted to, why should I?
There are plenty of others who are better suited than I. I just want to
climb in, turn the key and get out on the road. Why should the only way
forward be for me to have to learn how to reinvent the wheel?

> Given that problem the obvious solution is to create free-standing
> documents that allow people the entry point of their choice.
>

Absolutely true for all free-thinking souls who like to think outside
the box. But, unfortunately, this is a very small minority. There's a
body of psychological research that shows that most people can only cope
with 7 choices in one go. That's why, for a long time, telephone numbers
were limited to just 7 digits. Faced with more choices than that,  most
people just roll-over and give-up. Supermarkets apparently work on this
principle. Offer more than 7 choices and punters don't know what to do.
Stick a big sign in the middle saying this is the way to go and most
will follow that.

> The key to success isn't where you enter, or how you progress, but
> rather that you do it in a thorough manner.

That's crucial for any engineer. But exactly not what most everybody
else can deal with. Why else are they prepared to pay us so well? My
mother would take a dozen balls of wool and work thoroughly night after
night to produce the most beautiful sweaters. Now, the supermarket shelf
is as far as most are prepared to go. And only then, if they can see
less than 7 in one go :-\

>  So take a part of the code
> that is of interest to you (you'll need relevance to stay motivated) and
> then work through artifact by artifact making sure you read all the
> free-standing documents you can lay your hands on as you go of course!
>

That's absolutely crucial. You do need relevance to stay motivated. If I
have to spend 3 months studying textbooks before I can fill in my VAT
returns how relevant is that? Especially when I can install entry-level
Intuit, Sage or Microsoft to do it for me OOB in just a few clicks for
less than the cost of a decent restaurant meal for 2!

> I hope that helps...
>

I think it does. Socratic dialogue... Arguing things through and
balancing the ratio of points for and against is the only way to
discover the rational way forward and what might be able to fly.

Hope that's OK with you too :)

Ian

> - Andrew (Sykes)
>
>
> On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 16:34 +0000, Andrew Ballantine wrote:
>
>> Chris Howe wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There's a funny point in learning OFBiz.  You start
>>> out looking at it as this huge monstrosity that's just
>>> too much to figure out and you get frustrated with the
>>> lack of documentation available (even given the sites
>>> linked off of ofbiz.apache.org and the tens of
>>> thousands of mailing list posts available and the
>>> number of video tutorials available).  But you start
>>> playing with it a bit, and you pass an "aha" moment.
>>> You don't realize the moment that you pass it but when
>>> you look back and think "how can I make the learning
>>> curve easier for the next guy", you realize everything
>>> was there, and it's difficult to figure out what you
>>> can add to those websites that could make it any
>>> clearer.
>>>
>> A clear roadmap would be most useful so that the essential stuff gets

read
>> first. And yes, there are already How to documents, architecture
documents,
>> but there is too much to read plus every document starts with a brief
resume
>> of OFBiz rather than getting down to the business at hand. Basically it
>> appears that every document has been written to stand alone and therefore
>> feels the need to fill in the back ground on OFBiz. I haven't yet read a
>> great deal of the available documentation, but there is a trend there.
>>
>> Please don't take offence at these comments, they are only intended to
help.
>> I also find that there is a lack of structure in the documents in that
there
>> tends to be paragraph after paragraph of text which is neither reference
nor
>> tutorial. And as I progress along the road to OFBiz heaven I will try to
>> document my path. In the mean time it might be useful to thrash out a
style
>> and structure to the whole documentation suite. Heck I know this can be
>> difficult in the open source environment.
>>
>> I would  favour a wiki approach to doing documents provided the wiki is
>> restricted to named members to stop spammers wrecking it. In the wiki,
users
>> should use a colour, perhaps blue to indicate a question or need for
further

>> detail in the flow of the document and the remainder of the contents in
>> black. I am quite willing to start up a tutorial document if you are all
>> willing to contribute to it with David acting as umpire.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Andrew Ballantine.
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.14/636 - Release Date:

18/01/2007
>> 04:00
>>
>>
>>
>> *****************************************************************
>> This email has been checked by the altohiway Mailcontroller Service
>> *****************************************************************
>>


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
03:36


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
03:36

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
03:36

[Andrew Sykes]

Andrew (Ballantine),

That sounds great, perhaps you should create an outline in Confluence
somewhere for those who wish to help with this.

Remember to tell everyone where it is and keep telling the list as you
update it, hopefully this in turn will elicit interest from others who
can contribute and thus get a bit of momentum behind the idea...

Anyone who can contribute documentation will receive great kudos!

- Andrew (Sykes)

On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 11:53 +0000, Andrew Ballantine wrote:

> We seem to be making heavy weather of this.
>
> A road map is a list of recommended action in a suggested order of
> implementation. It can have notes that say "if you are and experienced
> programmer, go to section x".
>
> What Ian and I are suggesting is a roadmap for the un-initiated starter who
> may know very little about Linux or programming, but has heard so much about
> OFBiz that they want to try this baby out (well more of a teenager really
> ;-) ).
>
> I would also suggest that we have some simple documents which suggest things
> to try after OFBiz is installed that show off its talents.
>
> Just simple stuff like creating a product with variants, ordering it,
> processing the order, making sure it's in stock, picking it, shipping it and
> telling the customer what you have done.
>
> Use of day-to-day language is important too. Using terms like entity, tuple
> and other DBMS terms are too confusing for the beginner. Likewise
> assumptions that the reader knows what an environmental variable is and how
> to set on permanently, should be avoided.
>
> It's always the little things that get forgotten that cause confusion and
> frustration.
>
> I would even go so far as to suggest that there should be a section that
> instructs the reader on HOW to download the file, which of course the
> experienced reader can skip past unless there is a label in red saying read
> this because it is non-standard.
>
> Hope this clarifies.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Andrew Ballantine.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian McNulty [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: 18 January 2007 21:00
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
>
>
>
> Andrew Sykes wrote:
> > As with everything OfBiz, progress is dictated by demand. With adoptees
> > coming from such varied backgrounds and with such disparate
> > requirements. It would be hard to create such a roadmap that would be
> > relevant to all.
> >
>
> Absolutely true. But imo current adoptees mostly seem to fit into a
> similar mould. Rocket scientists with high-end clients and very
> idiosyncratic niches to fulfil. I'm not knocking that. I count myself as
> one of that breed. But there is a lowest common denominator which
> everybody seems determined to ignore. Some maps you have to be a rocket
> scientist to read. But road maps are accessible to everyone. I don't see
> a problem in creating such a thing, providing we  start off with an
> attitude which - as I think Leo Szilard once said - "Assumes infinite
> ignorance and unlimited intelligence."
>
> That's why I'm determined to play the ignoramus around here. Assuming I
> do have the intelligence to crack the code if I wanted to, why should I?
> There are plenty of others who are better suited than I. I just want to
> climb in, turn the key and get out on the road. Why should the only way
> forward be for me to have to learn how to reinvent the wheel?
>
> > Given that problem the obvious solution is to create free-standing
> > documents that allow people the entry point of their choice.
> >
>
> Absolutely true for all free-thinking souls who like to think outside
> the box. But, unfortunately, this is a very small minority. There's a
> body of psychological research that shows that most people can only cope
> with 7 choices in one go. That's why, for a long time, telephone numbers
> were limited to just 7 digits. Faced with more choices than that,  most
> people just roll-over and give-up. Supermarkets apparently work on this
> principle. Offer more than 7 choices and punters don't know what to do.
> Stick a big sign in the middle saying this is the way to go and most
> will follow that.
>
> > The key to success isn't where you enter, or how you progress, but
> > rather that you do it in a thorough manner.
>
> That's crucial for any engineer. But exactly not what most everybody
> else can deal with. Why else are they prepared to pay us so well? My
> mother would take a dozen balls of wool and work thoroughly night after
> night to produce the most beautiful sweaters. Now, the supermarket shelf
> is as far as most are prepared to go. And only then, if they can see
> less than 7 in one go :-\
>
> >  So take a part of the code
> > that is of interest to you (you'll need relevance to stay motivated) and
> > then work through artifact by artifact making sure you read all the
> > free-standing documents you can lay your hands on as you go of course!
> >
>
> That's absolutely crucial. You do need relevance to stay motivated. If I
> have to spend 3 months studying textbooks before I can fill in my VAT
> returns how relevant is that? Especially when I can install entry-level
> Intuit, Sage or Microsoft to do it for me OOB in just a few clicks for
> less than the cost of a decent restaurant meal for 2!
>
> > I hope that helps...
> >
>
> I think it does. Socratic dialogue... Arguing things through and
> balancing the ratio of points for and against is the only way to
> discover the rational way forward and what might be able to fly.
>
> Hope that's OK with you too :)
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> > - Andrew (Sykes)
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 16:34 +0000, Andrew Ballantine wrote:
> >
> >> Chris Howe wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> There's a funny point in learning OFBiz.  You start
> >>> out looking at it as this huge monstrosity that's just
> >>> too much to figure out and you get frustrated with the
> >>> lack of documentation available (even given the sites
> >>> linked off of ofbiz.apache.org and the tens of
> >>> thousands of mailing list posts available and the
> >>> number of video tutorials available).  But you start
> >>> playing with it a bit, and you pass an "aha" moment.
> >>> You don't realize the moment that you pass it but when
> >>> you look back and think "how can I make the learning
> >>> curve easier for the next guy", you realize everything
> >>> was there, and it's difficult to figure out what you
> >>> can add to those websites that could make it any
> >>> clearer.
> >>>
> >> A clear roadmap would be most useful so that the essential stuff gets
> read
> >> first. And yes, there are already How to documents, architecture
> documents,
> >> but there is too much to read plus every document starts with a brief
> resume
> >> of OFBiz rather than getting down to the business at hand. Basically it
> >> appears that every document has been written to stand alone and therefore
> >> feels the need to fill in the back ground on OFBiz. I haven't yet read a
> >> great deal of the available documentation, but there is a trend there.
> >>
> >> Please don't take offence at these comments, they are only intended to
> help.
> >> I also find that there is a lack of structure in the documents in that
> there
> >> tends to be paragraph after paragraph of text which is neither reference
> nor
> >> tutorial. And as I progress along the road to OFBiz heaven I will try to
> >> document my path. In the mean time it might be useful to thrash out a
> style
> >> and structure to the whole documentation suite. Heck I know this can be
> >> difficult in the open source environment.
> >>
> >> I would  favour a wiki approach to doing documents provided the wiki is
> >> restricted to named members to stop spammers wrecking it. In the wiki,
> users
> >> should use a colour, perhaps blue to indicate a question or need for
> further
> >> detail in the flow of the document and the remainder of the contents in
> >> black. I am quite willing to start up a tutorial document if you are all
> >> willing to contribute to it with David acting as umpire.
> >>
> >> Kind regards,
> >>
> >> Andrew Ballantine.
> >>
> >> --
> >> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> >> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.14/636 - Release Date:
> 18/01/2007
> >> 04:00
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *****************************************************************
> >> This email has been checked by the altohiway Mailcontroller Service
> >> *****************************************************************
> >>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
> 03:36
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
> 03:36
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
> 03:36
>

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

[Andrew Ballantine]

Nicely put Ian. I agree.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian McNulty [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: 19 January 2007 09:42
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?


Jacques,

All that looks good as it stands. It's another one of those essential
engineering resources that I really wouldn't want to be messing around
with it at all.

Imo what is needed in terms of user rather than developer documentation,
is a completely fresh start form a completely different POV.

It isn't the absence of documentation that's the problem. It's the
presence of it. There's just way too much good stuff on offer. Too many
options. Too many possible ways to go.

For the developer this is heaven. For the noob it's confusing...
frustrating... a real turn off.

Take off your racing drivers hat for a moment and put yourself in the
position of someone who just wants something they can drive to work.

Now look at the Wiki. Is there a Start button, or does it look more like
the diagram of a wiring harness that you will never get your head
around?  You and I may be interested in using Eclipse, but I can't think
of one client I have ever met who would want to go there. They're all to
busy building their businesses - which is after all what OFBiz is
supposed to be about.

Take another look at Ubuntu.com. Imo that's the way to go. Nice big
buttons! Absolutely nothing there that I don't need to know.  And most
people will only read a fraction of that on the first run through anyway
:-/  For the few who want to customise their own hot-rod, all the
essential wiring is there if you look for it. It's just buried out of
the way behind the dashboard instead of scattered all over the floor.

Putting something together like that would require a zero tolerance
policy to any scrap of information that was not absolutely essential to
the business of showing the average driver how to get the thing into
gear and out onto the road.

I doubt if there would be anything new to write. It's basically all there.

But it would mean hacking quite crudely into stuff that the community
has taken years to create.

Without the community's approval, that's a show that could never get on
the road.

Ian



Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> Leon, all,
>
> There is already an open Wiki. Just have to create your login :
http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBIZ. I
> can't see a better tool for that : closed for some parts, open for
others...
>
> It's up to you folks...
>
> For instance http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBIZ/Online+Developers+Section
might be a good entry point for
> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php.
>
> BTW, I think that we may advertise for this and put a front page to
explain how it works (for instance that the "The Open For

> Business Project Wiki" is wide open)
>
> Jacques
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Leon Torres" <[hidden email]>
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 9:23 PM
> Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
>
>
>
>> I also believe it would be worthwhile to experiment with an open ofbiz

wiki.  As
>> the ofbiz community continues to grow, we will certainly attain the
critical
>> mass necessary to make such a thing work.
>>
>> For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks in .txt format about
specific
>> tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:
>>
>> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php
>>
>> Unfortunately contributing to those is hard because it takes an
investment in
>> time to read, verify, and update the documents on our end.  If they were
in the

>> form of an open wiki, it would be far easier to expand on them.
>>
>> - Leon
>>
>>
>> Florin Jurcovici wrote:
>>
>>> IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even if I had some
>>> experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki is closed or restricted,
>>> I cannot. Some maintainers should review docs occasionally and correct
>>> or delete them if they are not OK, maybe draw an outline of the
>>> documentation at the beginning then let whoever is willing to fill the
>>> pages. But IMO a closed/restricted wiki is not the way to go.
>>>
>>> --Florin Jurcovici
>>> ------------------
>>> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>

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

t: [phone]
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 [phone]

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


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
03:36


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
03:36

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
03:36



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

[Andrew Sykes]

Ian,

Wouldn't it be possible just to create a new set of documents that
either hyperlink to useful information or copy and paste from those
docs?

Surely that's something you could start? If the information is valuable
to you then that's what matters...

- Andrew


On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 12:22 +0000, Andrew Ballantine wrote:

> Nicely put Ian. I agree.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian McNulty [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: 19 January 2007 09:42
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
>
>
> Jacques,
>
> All that looks good as it stands. It's another one of those essential
> engineering resources that I really wouldn't want to be messing around
> with it at all.
>
> Imo what is needed in terms of user rather than developer documentation,
> is a completely fresh start form a completely different POV.
>
> It isn't the absence of documentation that's the problem. It's the
> presence of it. There's just way too much good stuff on offer. Too many
> options. Too many possible ways to go.
>
> For the developer this is heaven. For the noob it's confusing...
> frustrating... a real turn off.
>
> Take off your racing drivers hat for a moment and put yourself in the
> position of someone who just wants something they can drive to work.
>
> Now look at the Wiki. Is there a Start button, or does it look more like
> the diagram of a wiring harness that you will never get your head
> around?  You and I may be interested in using Eclipse, but I can't think
> of one client I have ever met who would want to go there. They're all to
> busy building their businesses - which is after all what OFBiz is
> supposed to be about.
>
> Take another look at Ubuntu.com. Imo that's the way to go. Nice big
> buttons! Absolutely nothing there that I don't need to know.  And most
> people will only read a fraction of that on the first run through anyway
> :-/  For the few who want to customise their own hot-rod, all the
> essential wiring is there if you look for it. It's just buried out of
> the way behind the dashboard instead of scattered all over the floor.
>
> Putting something together like that would require a zero tolerance
> policy to any scrap of information that was not absolutely essential to
> the business of showing the average driver how to get the thing into
> gear and out onto the road.
>
> I doubt if there would be anything new to write. It's basically all there.
>
> But it would mean hacking quite crudely into stuff that the community
> has taken years to create.
>
> Without the community's approval, that's a show that could never get on
> the road.
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> > Leon, all,
> >
> > There is already an open Wiki. Just have to create your login :
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBIZ. I
> > can't see a better tool for that : closed for some parts, open for
> others...
> >
> > It's up to you folks...
> >
> > For instance http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBIZ/Online+Developers+Section
> might be a good entry point for
> > http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php.
> >
> > BTW, I think that we may advertise for this and put a front page to
> explain how it works (for instance that the "The Open For
> > Business Project Wiki" is wide open)
> >
> > Jacques
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Leon Torres" <[hidden email]>
> > To: <[hidden email]>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 9:23 PM
> > Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
> >
> >
> >
> >> I also believe it would be worthwhile to experiment with an open ofbiz
> wiki.  As
> >> the ofbiz community continues to grow, we will certainly attain the
> critical
> >> mass necessary to make such a thing work.
> >>
> >> For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks in .txt format about
> specific
> >> tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:
> >>
> >> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php
> >>
> >> Unfortunately contributing to those is hard because it takes an
> investment in
> >> time to read, verify, and update the documents on our end.  If they were
> in the
> >> form of an open wiki, it would be far easier to expand on them.
> >>
> >> - Leon
> >>
> >>
> >> Florin Jurcovici wrote:
> >>
> >>> IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even if I had some
> >>> experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki is closed or restricted,
> >>> I cannot. Some maintainers should review docs occasionally and correct
> >>> or delete them if they are not OK, maybe draw an outline of the
> >>> documentation at the beginning then let whoever is willing to fill the
> >>> pages. But IMO a closed/restricted wiki is not the way to go.
> >>>
> >>> --Florin Jurcovici
> >>> ------------------
> >>> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> mcnultyMEDIA
> 60 Birkdale Gardens
> Durham
> DH1 2UL
>
> t: [phone]
> 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 [phone]
>
> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept any
> liability sustained as a result of software viruses and would recommend that
> you carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
> ============================================================================
> ==================
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
> 03:36
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
> 03:36
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
> 03:36
>
>
>
> *****************************************************************
> This email has been checked by the altohiway Mailcontroller Service
> *****************************************************************

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

[Ian McNulty]

Andrew,

Absolutely agreed.

I usually do this anyway with any new application I install. (Getting on
in years. Find it hard to remember where I was yesterday :-(

Every morning I sit down with the intention of starting a fresh page.
This morning I had 63 emails in my inbox. It will take all day just to
deal with those. I know we're all in the same boat here. But, as I've
said  before, I can't do 18 hour days any more. Jacques tells me that
isn't necessary. I guess he mustn't have so many people on his tail ;)

However. You are absolutely right.

I'll try to clear enough space to do what I can do.

The more time you see me spending on this ML, the less you know I'll be
succeeding. ;)

Ian



Andrew Sykes wrote:

> Ian,
>
> Wouldn't it be possible just to create a new set of documents that
> either hyperlink to useful information or copy and paste from those
> docs?
>
> Surely that's something you could start? If the information is valuable
> to you then that's what matters...
>
> - Andrew
>
>
> On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 12:22 +0000, Andrew Ballantine wrote:
>  
>> Nicely put Ian. I agree.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ian McNulty [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: 19 January 2007 09:42
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
>>
>>
>> Jacques,
>>
>> All that looks good as it stands. It's another one of those essential
>> engineering resources that I really wouldn't want to be messing around
>> with it at all.
>>
>> Imo what is needed in terms of user rather than developer documentation,
>> is a completely fresh start form a completely different POV.
>>
>> It isn't the absence of documentation that's the problem. It's the
>> presence of it. There's just way too much good stuff on offer. Too many
>> options. Too many possible ways to go.
>>
>> For the developer this is heaven. For the noob it's confusing...
>> frustrating... a real turn off.
>>
>> Take off your racing drivers hat for a moment and put yourself in the
>> position of someone who just wants something they can drive to work.
>>
>> Now look at the Wiki. Is there a Start button, or does it look more like
>> the diagram of a wiring harness that you will never get your head
>> around?  You and I may be interested in using Eclipse, but I can't think
>> of one client I have ever met who would want to go there. They're all to
>> busy building their businesses - which is after all what OFBiz is
>> supposed to be about.
>>
>> Take another look at Ubuntu.com. Imo that's the way to go. Nice big
>> buttons! Absolutely nothing there that I don't need to know.  And most
>> people will only read a fraction of that on the first run through anyway
>> :-/  For the few who want to customise their own hot-rod, all the
>> essential wiring is there if you look for it. It's just buried out of
>> the way behind the dashboard instead of scattered all over the floor.
>>
>> Putting something together like that would require a zero tolerance
>> policy to any scrap of information that was not absolutely essential to
>> the business of showing the average driver how to get the thing into
>> gear and out onto the road.
>>
>> I doubt if there would be anything new to write. It's basically all there.
>>
>> But it would mean hacking quite crudely into stuff that the community
>> has taken years to create.
>>
>> Without the community's approval, that's a show that could never get on
>> the road.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>    
>>> Leon, all,
>>>
>>> There is already an open Wiki. Just have to create your login :
>>>      
>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBIZ. I
>>    
>>> can't see a better tool for that : closed for some parts, open for
>>>      
>> others...
>>    
>>> It's up to you folks...
>>>
>>> For instance http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBIZ/Online+Developers+Section
>>>      
>> might be a good entry point for
>>    
>>> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php.
>>>
>>> BTW, I think that we may advertise for this and put a front page to
>>>      
>> explain how it works (for instance that the "The Open For
>>    
>>> Business Project Wiki" is wide open)
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Leon Torres" <[hidden email]>
>>> To: <[hidden email]>
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 9:23 PM
>>> Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>> I also believe it would be worthwhile to experiment with an open ofbiz
>>>>        
>> wiki.  As
>>    
>>>> the ofbiz community continues to grow, we will certainly attain the
>>>>        
>> critical
>>    
>>>> mass necessary to make such a thing work.
>>>>
>>>> For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks in .txt format about
>>>>        
>> specific
>>    
>>>> tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately contributing to those is hard because it takes an
>>>>        
>> investment in
>>    
>>>> time to read, verify, and update the documents on our end.  If they were
>>>>        
>> in the
>>    
>>>> form of an open wiki, it would be far easier to expand on them.
>>>>
>>>> - Leon
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Florin Jurcovici wrote:
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>> IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even if I had some
>>>>> experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki is closed or restricted,
>>>>> I cannot. Some maintainers should review docs occasionally and correct
>>>>> or delete them if they are not OK, maybe draw an outline of the
>>>>> documentation at the beginning then let whoever is willing to fill the
>>>>> pages. But IMO a closed/restricted wiki is not the way to go.
>>>>>
>>>>> --Florin Jurcovici
>>>>> ------------------
>>>>> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------
>> mcnultyMEDIA
>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>> Durham
>> DH1 2UL
>>
>> t: [phone]
>> 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 [phone]
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept any
>> liability sustained as a result of software viruses and would recommend that
>> you carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
>> ============================================================================
>> ==================
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
>> 03:36
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
>> 03:36
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
>> 03:36
>>
>>
>>
>> *****************************************************************
>> This email has been checked by the altohiway Mailcontroller Service
>> *****************************************************************
>>    

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

t: [phone]
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 [phone]

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.
==============================================================================================

[Andrew Ballantine]

David,

This is so difficult because I know you care passionately about OFBiz and
have put a huge amount of effort into both the code and the documentation
and I am not forgetting the contribution made by Andy and all the rest of
the community.

I am also deeply aware that OFBiz is a truly open source project and that we
should be grateful for all the contributions that have been received. Having
said that I think we can help make it even better by giving our input which
should be seen as constructive.

So I dutifully followed your link:

1. The list is in alpha order. I think it should be in read order. (i.e. the
order it is recommended to read the items)

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

"This page is for background information about the OFBiz project.

OFBiz Committers Roles and Responsbilities
Best Practices for Contributors"

What no description as to what OFBiz is, how it came to be, what businesses
it is designed to service?

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

I am guessing that Confluence has placed some restrictions on how the wiki
is presented.

I find the new wiki, um, rather dry.

I hope you get my drift.

Please can we have a wiki that looks like a wiki. Does the wiki have to be
on Apache?

Kind regards,

Andrew.

-----Original Message-----
From: David E. Jones [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: 20 January 2007 08:18
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?



Is there something wrong with the current OFBiz wiki linked to below?

http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBIZ

-David


On Jan 18, 2007, at 1:23 PM, Leon Torres wrote:

> I also believe it would be worthwhile to experiment with an open
> ofbiz wiki.  As the ofbiz community continues to grow, we will
> certainly attain the critical mass necessary to make such a thing
> work.
>
> For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks in .txt format
> about specific tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:
>
> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php
>
> Unfortunately contributing to those is hard because it takes an
> investment in time to read, verify, and update the documents on our
> end.  If they were in the form of an open wiki, it would be far
> easier to expand on them.
>
> - Leon
>
>
> Florin Jurcovici wrote:
>> IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even if I had some
>> experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki is closed or
>> restricted, I cannot. Some maintainers should review docs
>> occasionally and correct or delete them if they are not OK, maybe
>> draw an outline of the documentation at the beginning then let
>> whoever is willing to fill the pages. But IMO a closed/restricted
>> wiki is not the way to go.
>> --Florin Jurcovici
>> ------------------
>> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
03:36

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
03:36



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

[Andrew Ballantine]

David,

This is so difficult because I know you care passionately about OFBiz and
have put a huge amount of effort into both the code and the documentation
and I am not forgetting the contribution made by Andy and all the rest of
the community.

I am also deeply aware that OFBiz is a truly open source project and that we
should be grateful for all the contributions that have been received. Having
said that I think we can help make it even better by giving our input which
should be seen as constructive.

So I dutifully followed your link:

1. The list is in alpha order. I think it should be in read order. (i.e. the
order it is recommended to read the items)

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

"This page is for background information about the OFBiz project.

OFBiz Committers Roles and Responsbilities       <-- email spellchecker
picked up a typo here
Best Practices for Contributors"

(I would have corrected the typo if I could find an edit button/link)

What no description as to what OFBiz is, how it came to be, what businesses
it is designed to service?

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

I am guessing that Confluence has placed some restrictions on how the wiki
is presented.

I find the new wiki, um, rather dry.

I hope you get my drift.

Please can we have a wiki that looks like a wiki. Does the wiki have to be
on Apache?

Kind regards,

Andrew.

-----Original Message-----
From: David E. Jones [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: 20 January 2007 08:18
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?



Is there something wrong with the current OFBiz wiki linked to below?

http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBIZ

-David


On Jan 18, 2007, at 1:23 PM, Leon Torres wrote:

> I also believe it would be worthwhile to experiment with an open
> ofbiz wiki.  As the ofbiz community continues to grow, we will
> certainly attain the critical mass necessary to make such a thing
> work.
>
> For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks in .txt format
> about specific tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:
>
> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php
>
> Unfortunately contributing to those is hard because it takes an
> investment in time to read, verify, and update the documents on our
> end.  If they were in the form of an open wiki, it would be far
> easier to expand on them.
>
> - Leon
>
>
> Florin Jurcovici wrote:
>> IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even if I had some
>> experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki is closed or
>> restricted, I cannot. Some maintainers should review docs
>> occasionally and correct or delete them if they are not OK, maybe
>> draw an outline of the documentation at the beginning then let
>> whoever is willing to fill the pages. But IMO a closed/restricted
>> wiki is not the way to go.
>> --Florin Jurcovici
>> ------------------
>> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
03:36

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
03:36



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

[Andrew Sykes]

Ian

On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 13:07 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
> The more time you see me spending on this ML, the less you know I'll
> be
> succeeding. ;)

How true that is ;-)

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

[Andrew Ballantine]

Chris,

I would be impossible to back with statistics, but in the history of OFBiz
and there are many downloads that ended up in the delete bucket because they
never reached your AHA moment.

Ian and I are trying to change the Eh! into Ahaaaaaa

Kind regards,

Andrew Ballantine.

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Howe [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: 20 January 2007 09:44
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?


Ian,

While I certainly enjoy the analogies, who are you
ultimately suggesting create these lowest common
denominator (LCD) documents?

As has already been mentioned, once you pass that
"aha" moment in OFBiz, it's difficult to understand
why the engineering documentation didn't make sense
the first time around.  3D vector calculus, as you put
it, seems so elementary obvious at that point that
it's difficult to convey it in simpler terms; even
though you remember it not being obvious when you
started.  I don't think it's very time/quality
productive for someone who's passed that "aha" moment
to produce this documentation; at least not without
the aid of an "uninitiated".

If you'd like to be that test subject, I'm sure there
are a mess of people, including myself, that would be
willing to help explain things to you as you make your
way through the concepts, documenting as you go.  But
the POV of the documentation cannot be from someone
who's already gotten the bird off the ground, because
they're not really sure which button they pressed to
make it all seem second nature.


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

> David,
>
> I don't get the proposition that there are 100
> different pilot roles.
>
> There are many 1,000s  of different destinations.
> Maybe more than a
> dozen different pilot roles (commercial, fighter,
> bomber, spotter,
> etc.). But but there IS a lowest common denominator.
> They all fly
> planes. They all start off on fixed wing, single
> engine props. They all
> need to understand basic navigation, aerodynamics,
> flight-engineering etc.
>
> But it is very basic. The need to understand lift,
> drag, how to
> calculate take off velocities etc. But I doubt if
> they start of with 3D
> vector calculus or need to know what a Reynold's
> number is.
>
> So why can't the target be whatever denominators are
> common to all pilots?
>
> How to find the door handle and the start button
> would be top of my
> list. If they can't find those then they ain't never
> gonna fly.
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> David E. Jones wrote:
> >
> > On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
> >
> >> David,
> >>
> >> I can see where you're coming from on this. This
> project is better
> >> documented than anything else I've seen in the
> field.You yourself
> >> have produced a truly awesome amount of
> documentation. I don't know
> >> where you find the time. All are extremely well
> written, very clear,
> >> very well laid out. A model of their kind. (No
> I'm not sucking up - I
> >> mean it :) So what could possibly be the problem.
> >>
> >> I found the Introduction Videos and Diagrams page
> you link to here a
> >> couple of days ago myself.
> >>
> >> It was whilst working through these videos that
> the light bulb went off.
> >>
> >> What you're talking us through is a diagram of
> the wiring harness of
> >> a jumbo jet.
> >>
> >> Essential for the engineers who need to service
> it.
> >>
> >> Absolutely the last kind of map a pilot wants to
> find on his lap.
> >>
> >> Know what I mean?
> >
> > Uh, yeah, that's because it is meant to cover the
> framework, not the
> > applications. The two are very different, change
> very differently,
> > need to be understood by different people in
> different ways, etc. My
> > current estimate is that to produce something
> adequate for a "pilot",
> > given that there are about 100 different "pilot"
> roles in OFBiz, would
> > require many times the effort to produce that the
> framework videos
> > with their diagrams, reference materials,
> transcriptions, etc. Right
> > now I don't have the $500k to get into that... and
> the $40k already
> > spent on the documents which are now PDF-dumped
> into the
> > docs.ofbiz.org site was clearly inadequate,
> especially as it is mostly
> > reference materials (which is why you won't find
> how-to stuff in the
> > reference guides, they are references after all,
> just for reference
> > purposes). The Application Overview for Users is
> probably more of what
> > you're looking for, though that section only
> represents maybe 3-5% of
> > what is in OFBiz right now.
> >
> > Of course, that's assuming such documents could
> even be written in a
> > way that is close to generally useful. How do I
> use it? Well, that
> > depends on what you want to do... and
> unfortunately across a few
> > different industries that list grows into hundreds
> of thousands of
> > activities...
> >
> > So, that's the big question with any document: who
> is the target
> > audience? The more specific the answer, the better
> the document will
> > address their needs. But who is the target
> audience for OFBiz? ... ?
> >
> > -David
> >
>
> --
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
> mcnultyMEDIA
> 60 Birkdale Gardens
> Durham
> DH1 2UL
>
> t: [phone]
> e: [hidden email]
> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>
============================================================================
==================

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

============================================================================
==================
>



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
03:36


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
03:36

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
03:36



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

[Jacques Le Roux]

Andrew,

Please don't use (or suggest to use) copy and paste from docs. This generally end in a mess. A link to is far better IMHO to keep
docs unique and easily/securly updated, don't you think so ?

Thanks

Jacques

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Sykes" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 1:37 PM
Subject: RE: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

> Ian,
>
> Wouldn't it be possible just to create a new set of documents that
> either hyperlink to useful information or copy and paste from those
> docs?
>
> Surely that's something you could start? If the information is valuable
> to you then that's what matters...
>
> - Andrew
>
>
> On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 12:22 +0000, Andrew Ballantine wrote:
> > Nicely put Ian. I agree.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ian McNulty [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > Sent: 19 January 2007 09:42
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
> >
> >
> > Jacques,
> >
> > All that looks good as it stands. It's another one of those essential
> > engineering resources that I really wouldn't want to be messing around
> > with it at all.
> >
> > Imo what is needed in terms of user rather than developer documentation,
> > is a completely fresh start form a completely different POV.
> >
> > It isn't the absence of documentation that's the problem. It's the
> > presence of it. There's just way too much good stuff on offer. Too many
> > options. Too many possible ways to go.
> >
> > For the developer this is heaven. For the noob it's confusing...
> > frustrating... a real turn off.
> >
> > Take off your racing drivers hat for a moment and put yourself in the
> > position of someone who just wants something they can drive to work.
> >
> > Now look at the Wiki. Is there a Start button, or does it look more like
> > the diagram of a wiring harness that you will never get your head
> > around?  You and I may be interested in using Eclipse, but I can't think
> > of one client I have ever met who would want to go there. They're all to
> > busy building their businesses - which is after all what OFBiz is
> > supposed to be about.
> >
> > Take another look at Ubuntu.com. Imo that's the way to go. Nice big
> > buttons! Absolutely nothing there that I don't need to know.  And most
> > people will only read a fraction of that on the first run through anyway
> > :-/  For the few who want to customise their own hot-rod, all the
> > essential wiring is there if you look for it. It's just buried out of
> > the way behind the dashboard instead of scattered all over the floor.
> >
> > Putting something together like that would require a zero tolerance
> > policy to any scrap of information that was not absolutely essential to
> > the business of showing the average driver how to get the thing into
> > gear and out onto the road.
> >
> > I doubt if there would be anything new to write. It's basically all there.
> >
> > But it would mean hacking quite crudely into stuff that the community
> > has taken years to create.
> >
> > Without the community's approval, that's a show that could never get on
> > the road.
> >
> > Ian
> >
> >
> >
> > Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> > > Leon, all,
> > >
> > > There is already an open Wiki. Just have to create your login :
> > http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBIZ. I
> > > can't see a better tool for that : closed for some parts, open for
> > others...
> > >
> > > It's up to you folks...
> > >
> > > For instance http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBIZ/Online+Developers+Section
> > might be a good entry point for
> > > http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php.
> > >
> > > BTW, I think that we may advertise for this and put a front page to
> > explain how it works (for instance that the "The Open For
> > > Business Project Wiki" is wide open)
> > >
> > > Jacques
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Leon Torres" <[hidden email]>
> > > To: <[hidden email]>
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 9:23 PM
> > > Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> I also believe it would be worthwhile to experiment with an open ofbiz
> > wiki.  As
> > >> the ofbiz community continues to grow, we will certainly attain the
> > critical
> > >> mass necessary to make such a thing work.
> > >>
> > >> For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks in .txt format about
> > specific
> > >> tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:
> > >>
> > >> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php
> > >>
> > >> Unfortunately contributing to those is hard because it takes an
> > investment in
> > >> time to read, verify, and update the documents on our end.  If they were
> > in the
> > >> form of an open wiki, it would be far easier to expand on them.
> > >>
> > >> - Leon
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Florin Jurcovici wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even if I had some
> > >>> experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki is closed or restricted,
> > >>> I cannot. Some maintainers should review docs occasionally and correct
> > >>> or delete them if they are not OK, maybe draw an outline of the
> > >>> documentation at the beginning then let whoever is willing to fill the
> > >>> pages. But IMO a closed/restricted wiki is not the way to go.
> > >>>
> > >>> --Florin Jurcovici
> > >>> ------------------
> > >>> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------------------
> > mcnultyMEDIA
> > 60 Birkdale Gardens
> > Durham
> > DH1 2UL
> >
> > t: [phone]
> > 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 [phone]
> >
> > This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept any
> > liability sustained as a result of software viruses and would recommend that
> > you carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
> > ============================================================================
> > ==================
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
> > 03:36
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
> > 03:36
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
> > 03:36
> >
> >
> >
> > *****************************************************************
> > This email has been checked by the altohiway Mailcontroller Service
> > *****************************************************************
> --
> Kind Regards
> Andrew Sykes <[hidden email]>
> Sykes Development Ltd
> http://www.sykesdevelopment.com