What does "OOTB front-end accessibility" mean to you?

[Ian McNulty]

I've been having this email discussion with David which he's asked me to
move out onto this mailing list. I guess that probably means I'm in for
a good kicking. But here goes anyway

First, some background to give some kind of handle on where I'm coming from.

I started working with computers in the late 60s as a physicist
modelling plasma dynamics. I've switched careers several times since,
but my relationship to computers remains the same. As a user, interested
not so much in the tool itself, but with what it can do.

I first came across OFBiz a month ago whilst researching a client's
request for back-end integration with osCommerce. As someone who was
raised in a generation that really did believe that 2001 was going to be
like Stanley Kubrick said it was going to be, I can count on one hand
the number of times a piece of technology has had enough wow to stop me
dead in my tracks. OFBiz would be one!

 From the outset it was clear that it was way too big a leap for any
client I know of to contemplate making. But the technology looked so
sweet I just had to find out more.

The more I looked the more fascinated I became. Platform independent.
Modular. Scale-able. Open Source. Wow! What a magnificent tool this
could be! Why would anybody ever want to use anything else?

This is a tool for running any kind of business you like. None of us can
survive without connection to some kind of business or other. This could
be monumental. The next big leap forward.

I didn't expect installation to be easy, and it wasn't! But then again,
I've just installed XP on new PC and that wasn't all that easy either
(what version of Windows ever was?)

I managed to get pilot installations of OFBiz (opentaps flavour) running
on Windows and Linux without too much trouble. But then again, I do have
some experience of this kind of thing. When it comes to setting up new
tools, I have several magnitudes more patience than anybody else I know.
Which means that if an application is going to be of any use to anybody
else apart from me, I have to hone usability down to the point it's a
no-brainer!

So I'm running opentaps and slowly working my way through the various
manuals and documents trying to get a handle on what this thing can
really do.

Pretty quickly I discover at least one glaringly obvious problem. So
obvious that if I demonstrated it to a client they would laugh me out of
the building in minutes.

The problem itself is trivial. A simple matter of somebody sitting down
for a few days and writing the necessary code. But who is going to do
that? Not me surely? I have the Java textbook, but still haven't found
time to sit down and read more than the first couple of chapters.
Finding other people with the expertise and the time to do that would be
the key. Or at least that's what I thought at the time!

So I go back to the web sites and start looking at the organisation and
the people rather than the code.

Who could fix this problem? How much would it cost? Why hasn't it been
fixed already?

 From the outset it's obvious that the Apache Incubator site is a
marvellous resource for engineers. But looking it from the user's POV -
as someone who wants to contact an engineer rather be one himself -
there isn't much I can get a handle on here.

Opentaps, Opensource Strategies and Undersun look much more like what I
need. Clean. Crisp. Elegant designs. Engineering 'talkback' mixed down
low in the background. You don't have to be an engineer to understand
that, for enterprise-level installation, these guys look like the business.

But enterprise-level means high-end, expensive! Corporate lawyers can
charge thousands an hour. Maybe these guys know they're worth more? I
have seen odd references to multi-million dollar installations. Sounds
par for that kind of course to me.

So where does that leave the ordinary Joe?

All businesses I personally deal with are small. 1 to 50 employees max.

OFBiz looks like it should be scalable, could be of value to all of them.

But how much value, and how much cost?

If I was running the IT department at the White House I'd be inviting
the OFBiz guys in and showing MS the door. With the prospect of
high-end, high-value contracts in the pipeline, I guess these guys just
won't have time to even think about making this stuff accessible to the
average Joe in the street. Oh well. Better start lowering my sights and
start thinking about cobbling together some low-level XSLT plugins for
the existing kit rather than thinking about a complete revamp of the
whole machine.

Then I discover Si's Jan 09/06 blog - exactly a year ago! - meditating
on exactly these issues.

"If open source is to gain popularity and move "up the stack", however,
open source software will need other advocates in the enterprise.
Somebody else besides the IT department must also be able to convince
enterprise users that open source software is indeed a credible
solution. Whether that advocate ultimately is a consulting firm, a
distributor, or an ISV using open source software, we don't really know yet.

What we can be certain of is this: whoever makes open source a credible
in the enterprise would ultimately win the "Linux wars."

Aha. Now then. That's interesting.

So credibility on the enterprise level isn't such a done deal after all
then.

So who could those advocates outside the IT department be? Is it the
consulting firm, the distributor, the ISV? Or is it all or none of the
above?

Rereading Si's blog, I was struck by this:

"Most buyers of commercial software don't actually verify that its
features are bug free or check out its support lines. Instead, their
"due diligence" consists of making sure that there are other users using
the software, including, most importantly, their golf buddies."

How important an insight is that?

So the key to credibility in the decision making process lies with those
who know absolutely nothing about the technicalities and most probably
care even less!

Why else would IBM spend many millions advertising enterprise level
technology on prime time television? How many viewers are actually in
the market for Blade servers?

I doubt anybody in IBM marketing believes they're spending that money to
advertise servers. They're spending it to make sure that not only the
average golf-buddy, but also his wife, kids, and grandmother all know
that IBM is a credible player. Because they know that's how the big
decisions are actually made. Emotionally, by people who are so far up on
the bridge of the ship, away from the engine room, that they probably
know less about the mechanics of it than their grandmothers!

So making OFBiz emotionally accessible to the average Joe Soap's
grandmother could be the key to unlocking both enterprise level and
wider markets.

 From an outsiders perspective, it seems that Si in particular has
already done a considerable amount of work in this direction. As someone
with formal financial rather than technical training, he is perhaps more
focused on markets than most. But Si is in no way representative of the
average user. His blog tells me his parents were postgrad programmers
who taught him everything they knew. Most programmers would give their
eye teeth for a  background like that! How many management wonks would
relish the idea of lifting up the bonnet everytime they wanted to start
their car? They chose their roles in life precisely to keep away from
that kind of thing. As indeed did Si when he chose a career in finance.

The moral of this would be that what is accessible to Si or most other
users on this forum is not necessarily even slightly accessible to the
average businessperson on the street.

If you wanted to maintain an elite group of cognoscenti who are in the
position to charge highly for their services then you may want to keep
it that way - or not as the case may be.

I would argue that the code is so radical and so deep that some levels
will always remain expert only. Increasing accessibility to a wider user
group would not threaten that core and could only lead to a wider user
base and larger market share.

OOTB, front-end, user accessibility to me means minimising any factors
which take time and attention away from getting on with the job the tool
was designed to do. From a purely user's POV, these are nothing more
than distractions, irritations and ultimately objections to buying into
the programme. Noise drowning out signals on the marketing channels if
you like.

As in all user applications, a proportion of time spent tooling-up and a
level of unwanted noise is to be expected. But in the job-efficiency
equation, this is a drag component to be optimised out. In the
development of sleek, user-friendly implementations, a zero tolerance
policy on noise, friction and drag is the only way to go!

To me, OOTB accessibility means exactly what it says on the tin: I don't
need a degree in anything to install or run it. It does everything it
said it would do. Is easy to maintain. Has cost exactly what they told
me it would. A brilliant tool for the job. Wouldn't even think of using
anything else.

But creating something like that means taking at least some of the focus
away engineering a better mousetrap, to looking at the way it appears to
the average mouse. Is it easy for them to get to the cheese, or are
there still too many wires and cogs in the way? Closing a sale means
overcoming all the objections. Making offers people don't see any reason
to refuse.

The marketing proposition from Undersun and Opensource Strategies looks
fine - if you're only interested in high end, enterprise-level applications.

The engineering proposition on Apache incubator looks fine - if you're
interested in being an engineer.

But where is the low-end proposition for the average businessperson in
the street? Something his golf playing buddie's grandmother might
understand?

It could be concluded that what I'm angling for here is a series of
television adverts.

If I thought OFBiz had a couple of mill lying around spare then this
would certainly be the case. If it's good enough for IBM...

But I doubt OFBiz is anywhere near that kind of position at the moment.

I just kinda don't see any reason why it shouldn't be at some time in
the foreseeable future.

But there would need to be a will to go in this direction and the
deliberate diversion of at least some of the time, creativity and
resources away from strictly engineering matters, into making the
application more accessible - acceptable - applicable, to a wider user base.

That would mean opening up whatever channels of communication with the
wider public are available and boosting the signal well above the noise.

Almost everybody has need of OFBiz. They just don't know it yet!

Ian

[Amit Shinde]

Hello and Happy New Year to Everyone,

                          I want to exclude a request to the controller and
was wondering if there is a way to do so. I want the request
http://localhost/abc/control/photos to bypass the controller and hit the
directory /webapp/abc/photos to access all the images in there.

                          I know we can access http://localhost/abc/photos
directly by putting photos in the allowedPaths. But in this case, I cannot
change/edit the request path as it is made from a compiled swf file. So the
swf file makes a request to render all the photos.


Any inputs will be appreciated,

Amit Shinde

[G.Venkata Phanindra]

Hi Amit Shinde,
There are two  in which u can achieve this
          1 writing a java request wrapper which takes your url and converts
into ofbiz related url and pass it to controller i.e we have to override the
methods in request wrapper class.
         2 Use rewrite rules in Apache and make sure that url is changed to
way in which ofbiz can underdstand .......

regards

G Venkata Phanindra.

On 1/3/07, Amit Shinde <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hello and Happy New Year to Everyone,
>
>                           I want to exclude a request to the controller
> and
> was wondering if there is a way to do so. I want the request
> http://localhost/abc/control/photos to bypass the controller and hit the
> directory /webapp/abc/photos to access all the images in there.
>
>                           I know we can access http://localhost/abc/photos
> directly by putting photos in the allowedPaths. But in this case, I cannot
> change/edit the request path as it is made from a compiled swf file. So
> the
> swf file makes a request to render all the photos.
>
>
> Any inputs will be appreciated,
>
> Amit Shinde
>
>
>

--
G.Venkata Phanindra
Mob:: [phone]

[Andrew Ballantine]

Ian,

You will NOT get a kicking from me. I'm right there with you.

I still think a OOTB solution for the small business is do-able.

Let's see what other comments this raises.

Kind regards,

Andrew Ballantine.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian McNulty [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: 03 January 2007 10:15
To: [hidden email]
Subject: What does "OOTB front-end accessibility" mean to you?


I've been having this email discussion with David which he's asked me to
move out onto this mailing list. I guess that probably means I'm in for
a good kicking. But here goes anyway

First, some background to give some kind of handle on where I'm coming from.

I started working with computers in the late 60s as a physicist
modelling plasma dynamics. I've switched careers several times since,
but my relationship to computers remains the same. As a user, interested
not so much in the tool itself, but with what it can do.

I first came across OFBiz a month ago whilst researching a client's
request for back-end integration with osCommerce. As someone who was
raised in a generation that really did believe that 2001 was going to be
like Stanley Kubrick said it was going to be, I can count on one hand
the number of times a piece of technology has had enough wow to stop me
dead in my tracks. OFBiz would be one!

 From the outset it was clear that it was way too big a leap for any
client I know of to contemplate making. But the technology looked so
sweet I just had to find out more.

The more I looked the more fascinated I became. Platform independent.
Modular. Scale-able. Open Source. Wow! What a magnificent tool this
could be! Why would anybody ever want to use anything else?

This is a tool for running any kind of business you like. None of us can
survive without connection to some kind of business or other. This could
be monumental. The next big leap forward.

I didn't expect installation to be easy, and it wasn't! But then again,
I've just installed XP on new PC and that wasn't all that easy either
(what version of Windows ever was?)

I managed to get pilot installations of OFBiz (opentaps flavour) running
on Windows and Linux without too much trouble. But then again, I do have
some experience of this kind of thing. When it comes to setting up new
tools, I have several magnitudes more patience than anybody else I know.
Which means that if an application is going to be of any use to anybody
else apart from me, I have to hone usability down to the point it's a
no-brainer!

So I'm running opentaps and slowly working my way through the various
manuals and documents trying to get a handle on what this thing can
really do.

Pretty quickly I discover at least one glaringly obvious problem. So
obvious that if I demonstrated it to a client they would laugh me out of
the building in minutes.

The problem itself is trivial. A simple matter of somebody sitting down
for a few days and writing the necessary code. But who is going to do
that? Not me surely? I have the Java textbook, but still haven't found
time to sit down and read more than the first couple of chapters.
Finding other people with the expertise and the time to do that would be
the key. Or at least that's what I thought at the time!

So I go back to the web sites and start looking at the organisation and
the people rather than the code.

Who could fix this problem? How much would it cost? Why hasn't it been
fixed already?

 From the outset it's obvious that the Apache Incubator site is a
marvellous resource for engineers. But looking it from the user's POV -
as someone who wants to contact an engineer rather be one himself -
there isn't much I can get a handle on here.

Opentaps, Opensource Strategies and Undersun look much more like what I
need. Clean. Crisp. Elegant designs. Engineering 'talkback' mixed down
low in the background. You don't have to be an engineer to understand
that, for enterprise-level installation, these guys look like the business.

But enterprise-level means high-end, expensive! Corporate lawyers can
charge thousands an hour. Maybe these guys know they're worth more? I
have seen odd references to multi-million dollar installations. Sounds
par for that kind of course to me.

So where does that leave the ordinary Joe?

All businesses I personally deal with are small. 1 to 50 employees max.

OFBiz looks like it should be scalable, could be of value to all of them.

But how much value, and how much cost?

If I was running the IT department at the White House I'd be inviting
the OFBiz guys in and showing MS the door. With the prospect of
high-end, high-value contracts in the pipeline, I guess these guys just
won't have time to even think about making this stuff accessible to the
average Joe in the street. Oh well. Better start lowering my sights and
start thinking about cobbling together some low-level XSLT plugins for
the existing kit rather than thinking about a complete revamp of the
whole machine.

Then I discover Si's Jan 09/06 blog - exactly a year ago! - meditating
on exactly these issues.

"If open source is to gain popularity and move "up the stack", however,
open source software will need other advocates in the enterprise.
Somebody else besides the IT department must also be able to convince
enterprise users that open source software is indeed a credible
solution. Whether that advocate ultimately is a consulting firm, a
distributor, or an ISV using open source software, we don't really know yet.

What we can be certain of is this: whoever makes open source a credible
in the enterprise would ultimately win the "Linux wars."

Aha. Now then. That's interesting.

So credibility on the enterprise level isn't such a done deal after all
then.

So who could those advocates outside the IT department be? Is it the
consulting firm, the distributor, the ISV? Or is it all or none of the
above?

Rereading Si's blog, I was struck by this:

"Most buyers of commercial software don't actually verify that its
features are bug free or check out its support lines. Instead, their
"due diligence" consists of making sure that there are other users using
the software, including, most importantly, their golf buddies."

How important an insight is that?

So the key to credibility in the decision making process lies with those
who know absolutely nothing about the technicalities and most probably
care even less!

Why else would IBM spend many millions advertising enterprise level
technology on prime time television? How many viewers are actually in
the market for Blade servers?

I doubt anybody in IBM marketing believes they're spending that money to
advertise servers. They're spending it to make sure that not only the
average golf-buddy, but also his wife, kids, and grandmother all know
that IBM is a credible player. Because they know that's how the big
decisions are actually made. Emotionally, by people who are so far up on
the bridge of the ship, away from the engine room, that they probably
know less about the mechanics of it than their grandmothers!

So making OFBiz emotionally accessible to the average Joe Soap's
grandmother could be the key to unlocking both enterprise level and
wider markets.

 From an outsiders perspective, it seems that Si in particular has
already done a considerable amount of work in this direction. As someone
with formal financial rather than technical training, he is perhaps more
focused on markets than most. But Si is in no way representative of the
average user. His blog tells me his parents were postgrad programmers
who taught him everything they knew. Most programmers would give their
eye teeth for a  background like that! How many management wonks would
relish the idea of lifting up the bonnet everytime they wanted to start
their car? They chose their roles in life precisely to keep away from
that kind of thing. As indeed did Si when he chose a career in finance.

The moral of this would be that what is accessible to Si or most other
users on this forum is not necessarily even slightly accessible to the
average businessperson on the street.

If you wanted to maintain an elite group of cognoscenti who are in the
position to charge highly for their services then you may want to keep
it that way - or not as the case may be.

I would argue that the code is so radical and so deep that some levels
will always remain expert only. Increasing accessibility to a wider user
group would not threaten that core and could only lead to a wider user
base and larger market share.

OOTB, front-end, user accessibility to me means minimising any factors
which take time and attention away from getting on with the job the tool
was designed to do. From a purely user's POV, these are nothing more
than distractions, irritations and ultimately objections to buying into
the programme. Noise drowning out signals on the marketing channels if
you like.

As in all user applications, a proportion of time spent tooling-up and a
level of unwanted noise is to be expected. But in the job-efficiency
equation, this is a drag component to be optimised out. In the
development of sleek, user-friendly implementations, a zero tolerance
policy on noise, friction and drag is the only way to go!

To me, OOTB accessibility means exactly what it says on the tin: I don't
need a degree in anything to install or run it. It does everything it
said it would do. Is easy to maintain. Has cost exactly what they told
me it would. A brilliant tool for the job. Wouldn't even think of using
anything else.

But creating something like that means taking at least some of the focus
away engineering a better mousetrap, to looking at the way it appears to
the average mouse. Is it easy for them to get to the cheese, or are
there still too many wires and cogs in the way? Closing a sale means
overcoming all the objections. Making offers people don't see any reason
to refuse.

The marketing proposition from Undersun and Opensource Strategies looks
fine - if you're only interested in high end, enterprise-level applications.

The engineering proposition on Apache incubator looks fine - if you're
interested in being an engineer.

But where is the low-end proposition for the average businessperson in
the street? Something his golf playing buddie's grandmother might
understand?

It could be concluded that what I'm angling for here is a series of
television adverts.

If I thought OFBiz had a couple of mill lying around spare then this
would certainly be the case. If it's good enough for IBM...

But I doubt OFBiz is anywhere near that kind of position at the moment.

I just kinda don't see any reason why it shouldn't be at some time in
the foreseeable future.

But there would need to be a will to go in this direction and the
deliberate diversion of at least some of the time, creativity and
resources away from strictly engineering matters, into making the
application more accessible - acceptable - applicable, to a wider user base.

That would mean opening up whatever channels of communication with the
wider public are available and boosting the signal well above the noise.

Almost everybody has need of OFBiz. They just don't know it yet!

Ian



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date: 02/01/2007
14:58


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date: 02/01/2007
14:58

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date: 02/01/2007
14:58



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

[Tim Ruppert]

Just so you know guys, we are effectively doing solutions for small  
business customers with custom front ends that are providing great  
return on their investment.  Many of them have limited budgets, but  
by being flexible to their needs and seeing exactly what they're  
trying to get out of the system, we have proven that it can be done.  
The only caveat is that it takes a reasonable amount of time and  
focus to get to a point where this is something that you can offer as  
a vendor - but what technology is that _not_ true of?

The fact of the matter is that the reason that HotWax got involved  
with OFBiz in the first place was to be able to bring enterprise  
solutions to small businesses as a reasonable cost.  The little guy  
deserves the scalability and complete integration that large business  
enjoy.

I'm not sure how to fully answer Ian's monologue other than to say  
that this can be done my friend.

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

o:801.649.6594
f:801.649.6595


On Jan 3, 2007, at 8:26 AM, Andrew Ballantine wrote:

> Ian,
>
> You will NOT get a kicking from me. I'm right there with you.
>
> I still think a OOTB solution for the small business is do-able.
>
> Let's see what other comments this raises.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Andrew Ballantine.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian McNulty [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: 03 January 2007 10:15
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: What does "OOTB front-end accessibility" mean to you?
>
>
> I've been having this email discussion with David which he's asked  
> me to
> move out onto this mailing list. I guess that probably means I'm in  
> for
> a good kicking. But here goes anyway
>
> First, some background to give some kind of handle on where I'm  
> coming from.
>
> I started working with computers in the late 60s as a physicist
> modelling plasma dynamics. I've switched careers several times since,
> but my relationship to computers remains the same. As a user,  
> interested
> not so much in the tool itself, but with what it can do.
>
> I first came across OFBiz a month ago whilst researching a client's
> request for back-end integration with osCommerce. As someone who was
> raised in a generation that really did believe that 2001 was going  
> to be
> like Stanley Kubrick said it was going to be, I can count on one hand
> the number of times a piece of technology has had enough wow to  
> stop me
> dead in my tracks. OFBiz would be one!
>
>  From the outset it was clear that it was way too big a leap for any
> client I know of to contemplate making. But the technology looked so
> sweet I just had to find out more.
>
> The more I looked the more fascinated I became. Platform independent.
> Modular. Scale-able. Open Source. Wow! What a magnificent tool this
> could be! Why would anybody ever want to use anything else?
>
> This is a tool for running any kind of business you like. None of  
> us can
> survive without connection to some kind of business or other. This  
> could
> be monumental. The next big leap forward.
>
> I didn't expect installation to be easy, and it wasn't! But then  
> again,
> I've just installed XP on new PC and that wasn't all that easy either
> (what version of Windows ever was?)
>
> I managed to get pilot installations of OFBiz (opentaps flavour)  
> running
> on Windows and Linux without too much trouble. But then again, I do  
> have
> some experience of this kind of thing. When it comes to setting up new
> tools, I have several magnitudes more patience than anybody else I  
> know.
> Which means that if an application is going to be of any use to  
> anybody
> else apart from me, I have to hone usability down to the point it's a
> no-brainer!
>
> So I'm running opentaps and slowly working my way through the various
> manuals and documents trying to get a handle on what this thing can
> really do.
>
> Pretty quickly I discover at least one glaringly obvious problem. So
> obvious that if I demonstrated it to a client they would laugh me  
> out of
> the building in minutes.
>
> The problem itself is trivial. A simple matter of somebody sitting  
> down
> for a few days and writing the necessary code. But who is going to do
> that? Not me surely? I have the Java textbook, but still haven't found
> time to sit down and read more than the first couple of chapters.
> Finding other people with the expertise and the time to do that  
> would be
> the key. Or at least that's what I thought at the time!
>
> So I go back to the web sites and start looking at the organisation  
> and
> the people rather than the code.
>
> Who could fix this problem? How much would it cost? Why hasn't it been
> fixed already?
>
>  From the outset it's obvious that the Apache Incubator site is a
> marvellous resource for engineers. But looking it from the user's  
> POV -
> as someone who wants to contact an engineer rather be one himself -
> there isn't much I can get a handle on here.
>
> Opentaps, Opensource Strategies and Undersun look much more like  
> what I
> need. Clean. Crisp. Elegant designs. Engineering 'talkback' mixed down
> low in the background. You don't have to be an engineer to understand
> that, for enterprise-level installation, these guys look like the  
> business.
>
> But enterprise-level means high-end, expensive! Corporate lawyers can
> charge thousands an hour. Maybe these guys know they're worth more? I
> have seen odd references to multi-million dollar installations. Sounds
> par for that kind of course to me.
>
> So where does that leave the ordinary Joe?
>
> All businesses I personally deal with are small. 1 to 50 employees  
> max.
>
> OFBiz looks like it should be scalable, could be of value to all of  
> them.
>
> But how much value, and how much cost?
>
> If I was running the IT department at the White House I'd be inviting
> the OFBiz guys in and showing MS the door. With the prospect of
> high-end, high-value contracts in the pipeline, I guess these guys  
> just
> won't have time to even think about making this stuff accessible to  
> the
> average Joe in the street. Oh well. Better start lowering my sights  
> and
> start thinking about cobbling together some low-level XSLT plugins for
> the existing kit rather than thinking about a complete revamp of the
> whole machine.
>
> Then I discover Si's Jan 09/06 blog - exactly a year ago! - meditating
> on exactly these issues.
>
> "If open source is to gain popularity and move "up the stack",  
> however,
> open source software will need other advocates in the enterprise.
> Somebody else besides the IT department must also be able to convince
> enterprise users that open source software is indeed a credible
> solution. Whether that advocate ultimately is a consulting firm, a
> distributor, or an ISV using open source software, we don't really  
> know yet.
>
> What we can be certain of is this: whoever makes open source a  
> credible
> in the enterprise would ultimately win the "Linux wars."
>
> Aha. Now then. That's interesting.
>
> So credibility on the enterprise level isn't such a done deal after  
> all
> then.
>
> So who could those advocates outside the IT department be? Is it the
> consulting firm, the distributor, the ISV? Or is it all or none of the
> above?
>
> Rereading Si's blog, I was struck by this:
>
> "Most buyers of commercial software don't actually verify that its
> features are bug free or check out its support lines. Instead, their
> "due diligence" consists of making sure that there are other users  
> using
> the software, including, most importantly, their golf buddies."
>
> How important an insight is that?
>
> So the key to credibility in the decision making process lies with  
> those
> who know absolutely nothing about the technicalities and most probably
> care even less!
>
> Why else would IBM spend many millions advertising enterprise level
> technology on prime time television? How many viewers are actually in
> the market for Blade servers?
>
> I doubt anybody in IBM marketing believes they're spending that  
> money to
> advertise servers. They're spending it to make sure that not only the
> average golf-buddy, but also his wife, kids, and grandmother all know
> that IBM is a credible player. Because they know that's how the big
> decisions are actually made. Emotionally, by people who are so far  
> up on
> the bridge of the ship, away from the engine room, that they probably
> know less about the mechanics of it than their grandmothers!
>
> So making OFBiz emotionally accessible to the average Joe Soap's
> grandmother could be the key to unlocking both enterprise level and
> wider markets.
>
>  From an outsiders perspective, it seems that Si in particular has
> already done a considerable amount of work in this direction. As  
> someone
> with formal financial rather than technical training, he is perhaps  
> more
> focused on markets than most. But Si is in no way representative of  
> the
> average user. His blog tells me his parents were postgrad programmers
> who taught him everything they knew. Most programmers would give their
> eye teeth for a  background like that! How many management wonks would
> relish the idea of lifting up the bonnet everytime they wanted to  
> start
> their car? They chose their roles in life precisely to keep away from
> that kind of thing. As indeed did Si when he chose a career in  
> finance.
>
> The moral of this would be that what is accessible to Si or most other
> users on this forum is not necessarily even slightly accessible to the
> average businessperson on the street.
>
> If you wanted to maintain an elite group of cognoscenti who are in the
> position to charge highly for their services then you may want to keep
> it that way - or not as the case may be.
>
> I would argue that the code is so radical and so deep that some levels
> will always remain expert only. Increasing accessibility to a wider  
> user
> group would not threaten that core and could only lead to a wider user
> base and larger market share.
>
> OOTB, front-end, user accessibility to me means minimising any factors
> which take time and attention away from getting on with the job the  
> tool
> was designed to do. From a purely user's POV, these are nothing more
> than distractions, irritations and ultimately objections to buying  
> into
> the programme. Noise drowning out signals on the marketing channels if
> you like.
>
> As in all user applications, a proportion of time spent tooling-up  
> and a
> level of unwanted noise is to be expected. But in the job-efficiency
> equation, this is a drag component to be optimised out. In the
> development of sleek, user-friendly implementations, a zero tolerance
> policy on noise, friction and drag is the only way to go!
>
> To me, OOTB accessibility means exactly what it says on the tin: I  
> don't
> need a degree in anything to install or run it. It does everything it
> said it would do. Is easy to maintain. Has cost exactly what they told
> me it would. A brilliant tool for the job. Wouldn't even think of  
> using
> anything else.
>
> But creating something like that means taking at least some of the  
> focus
> away engineering a better mousetrap, to looking at the way it  
> appears to
> the average mouse. Is it easy for them to get to the cheese, or are
> there still too many wires and cogs in the way? Closing a sale means
> overcoming all the objections. Making offers people don't see any  
> reason
> to refuse.
>
> The marketing proposition from Undersun and Opensource Strategies  
> looks
> fine - if you're only interested in high end, enterprise-level  
> applications.
>
> The engineering proposition on Apache incubator looks fine - if you're
> interested in being an engineer.
>
> But where is the low-end proposition for the average businessperson in
> the street? Something his golf playing buddie's grandmother might
> understand?
>
> It could be concluded that what I'm angling for here is a series of
> television adverts.
>
> If I thought OFBiz had a couple of mill lying around spare then this
> would certainly be the case. If it's good enough for IBM...
>
> But I doubt OFBiz is anywhere near that kind of position at the  
> moment.
>
> I just kinda don't see any reason why it shouldn't be at some time in
> the foreseeable future.
>
> But there would need to be a will to go in this direction and the
> deliberate diversion of at least some of the time, creativity and
> resources away from strictly engineering matters, into making the
> application more accessible - acceptable - applicable, to a wider  
> user base.
>
> That would mean opening up whatever channels of communication with the
> wider public are available and boosting the signal well above the  
> noise.
>
> Almost everybody has need of OFBiz. They just don't know it yet!
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date:  
> 02/01/2007
> 14:58
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date:  
> 02/01/2007
> 14:58
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date:  
> 02/01/2007
> 14:58
>
>
>
> *****************************************************************
> This email has been checked by the altohiway Mailcontroller Service
> *****************************************************************

[Andrew Sykes]

Ian,

A fascinating insight, perhaps you could go a bit further in explaining
a strategy?

I wonder how relevant OfBiz is to the very small end of the market,
there's an awful lot to learn and (from a small business perspective) an
awful lot that could go wrong.

I almost think that you are talking about a different product perhaps
"OfBiz Lite" or something...

- Andrew


On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 10:15 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:

> I've been having this email discussion with David which he's asked me to
> move out onto this mailing list. I guess that probably means I'm in for
> a good kicking. But here goes anyway
>
> First, some background to give some kind of handle on where I'm coming from.
>
> I started working with computers in the late 60s as a physicist
> modelling plasma dynamics. I've switched careers several times since,
> but my relationship to computers remains the same. As a user, interested
> not so much in the tool itself, but with what it can do.
>
> I first came across OFBiz a month ago whilst researching a client's
> request for back-end integration with osCommerce. As someone who was
> raised in a generation that really did believe that 2001 was going to be
> like Stanley Kubrick said it was going to be, I can count on one hand
> the number of times a piece of technology has had enough wow to stop me
> dead in my tracks. OFBiz would be one!
>
>  From the outset it was clear that it was way too big a leap for any
> client I know of to contemplate making. But the technology looked so
> sweet I just had to find out more.
>
> The more I looked the more fascinated I became. Platform independent.
> Modular. Scale-able. Open Source. Wow! What a magnificent tool this
> could be! Why would anybody ever want to use anything else?
>
> This is a tool for running any kind of business you like. None of us can
> survive without connection to some kind of business or other. This could
> be monumental. The next big leap forward.
>
> I didn't expect installation to be easy, and it wasn't! But then again,
> I've just installed XP on new PC and that wasn't all that easy either
> (what version of Windows ever was?)
>
> I managed to get pilot installations of OFBiz (opentaps flavour) running
> on Windows and Linux without too much trouble. But then again, I do have
> some experience of this kind of thing. When it comes to setting up new
> tools, I have several magnitudes more patience than anybody else I know.
> Which means that if an application is going to be of any use to anybody
> else apart from me, I have to hone usability down to the point it's a
> no-brainer!
>
> So I'm running opentaps and slowly working my way through the various
> manuals and documents trying to get a handle on what this thing can
> really do.
>
> Pretty quickly I discover at least one glaringly obvious problem. So
> obvious that if I demonstrated it to a client they would laugh me out of
> the building in minutes.
>
> The problem itself is trivial. A simple matter of somebody sitting down
> for a few days and writing the necessary code. But who is going to do
> that? Not me surely? I have the Java textbook, but still haven't found
> time to sit down and read more than the first couple of chapters.
> Finding other people with the expertise and the time to do that would be
> the key. Or at least that's what I thought at the time!
>
> So I go back to the web sites and start looking at the organisation and
> the people rather than the code.
>
> Who could fix this problem? How much would it cost? Why hasn't it been
> fixed already?
>
>  From the outset it's obvious that the Apache Incubator site is a
> marvellous resource for engineers. But looking it from the user's POV -
> as someone who wants to contact an engineer rather be one himself -
> there isn't much I can get a handle on here.
>
> Opentaps, Opensource Strategies and Undersun look much more like what I
> need. Clean. Crisp. Elegant designs. Engineering 'talkback' mixed down
> low in the background. You don't have to be an engineer to understand
> that, for enterprise-level installation, these guys look like the business.
>
> But enterprise-level means high-end, expensive! Corporate lawyers can
> charge thousands an hour. Maybe these guys know they're worth more? I
> have seen odd references to multi-million dollar installations. Sounds
> par for that kind of course to me.
>
> So where does that leave the ordinary Joe?
>
> All businesses I personally deal with are small. 1 to 50 employees max.
>
> OFBiz looks like it should be scalable, could be of value to all of them.
>
> But how much value, and how much cost?
>
> If I was running the IT department at the White House I'd be inviting
> the OFBiz guys in and showing MS the door. With the prospect of
> high-end, high-value contracts in the pipeline, I guess these guys just
> won't have time to even think about making this stuff accessible to the
> average Joe in the street. Oh well. Better start lowering my sights and
> start thinking about cobbling together some low-level XSLT plugins for
> the existing kit rather than thinking about a complete revamp of the
> whole machine.
>
> Then I discover Si's Jan 09/06 blog - exactly a year ago! - meditating
> on exactly these issues.
>
> "If open source is to gain popularity and move "up the stack", however,
> open source software will need other advocates in the enterprise.
> Somebody else besides the IT department must also be able to convince
> enterprise users that open source software is indeed a credible
> solution. Whether that advocate ultimately is a consulting firm, a
> distributor, or an ISV using open source software, we don't really know yet.
>
> What we can be certain of is this: whoever makes open source a credible
> in the enterprise would ultimately win the "Linux wars."
>
> Aha. Now then. That's interesting.
>
> So credibility on the enterprise level isn't such a done deal after all
> then.
>
> So who could those advocates outside the IT department be? Is it the
> consulting firm, the distributor, the ISV? Or is it all or none of the
> above?
>
> Rereading Si's blog, I was struck by this:
>
> "Most buyers of commercial software don't actually verify that its
> features are bug free or check out its support lines. Instead, their
> "due diligence" consists of making sure that there are other users using
> the software, including, most importantly, their golf buddies."
>
> How important an insight is that?
>
> So the key to credibility in the decision making process lies with those
> who know absolutely nothing about the technicalities and most probably
> care even less!
>
> Why else would IBM spend many millions advertising enterprise level
> technology on prime time television? How many viewers are actually in
> the market for Blade servers?
>
> I doubt anybody in IBM marketing believes they're spending that money to
> advertise servers. They're spending it to make sure that not only the
> average golf-buddy, but also his wife, kids, and grandmother all know
> that IBM is a credible player. Because they know that's how the big
> decisions are actually made. Emotionally, by people who are so far up on
> the bridge of the ship, away from the engine room, that they probably
> know less about the mechanics of it than their grandmothers!
>
> So making OFBiz emotionally accessible to the average Joe Soap's
> grandmother could be the key to unlocking both enterprise level and
> wider markets.
>
>  From an outsiders perspective, it seems that Si in particular has
> already done a considerable amount of work in this direction. As someone
> with formal financial rather than technical training, he is perhaps more
> focused on markets than most. But Si is in no way representative of the
> average user. His blog tells me his parents were postgrad programmers
> who taught him everything they knew. Most programmers would give their
> eye teeth for a  background like that! How many management wonks would
> relish the idea of lifting up the bonnet everytime they wanted to start
> their car? They chose their roles in life precisely to keep away from
> that kind of thing. As indeed did Si when he chose a career in finance.
>
> The moral of this would be that what is accessible to Si or most other
> users on this forum is not necessarily even slightly accessible to the
> average businessperson on the street.
>
> If you wanted to maintain an elite group of cognoscenti who are in the
> position to charge highly for their services then you may want to keep
> it that way - or not as the case may be.
>
> I would argue that the code is so radical and so deep that some levels
> will always remain expert only. Increasing accessibility to a wider user
> group would not threaten that core and could only lead to a wider user
> base and larger market share.
>
> OOTB, front-end, user accessibility to me means minimising any factors
> which take time and attention away from getting on with the job the tool
> was designed to do. From a purely user's POV, these are nothing more
> than distractions, irritations and ultimately objections to buying into
> the programme. Noise drowning out signals on the marketing channels if
> you like.
>
> As in all user applications, a proportion of time spent tooling-up and a
> level of unwanted noise is to be expected. But in the job-efficiency
> equation, this is a drag component to be optimised out. In the
> development of sleek, user-friendly implementations, a zero tolerance
> policy on noise, friction and drag is the only way to go!
>
> To me, OOTB accessibility means exactly what it says on the tin: I don't
> need a degree in anything to install or run it. It does everything it
> said it would do. Is easy to maintain. Has cost exactly what they told
> me it would. A brilliant tool for the job. Wouldn't even think of using
> anything else.
>
> But creating something like that means taking at least some of the focus
> away engineering a better mousetrap, to looking at the way it appears to
> the average mouse. Is it easy for them to get to the cheese, or are
> there still too many wires and cogs in the way? Closing a sale means
> overcoming all the objections. Making offers people don't see any reason
> to refuse.
>
> The marketing proposition from Undersun and Opensource Strategies looks
> fine - if you're only interested in high end, enterprise-level applications.
>
> The engineering proposition on Apache incubator looks fine - if you're
> interested in being an engineer.
>
> But where is the low-end proposition for the average businessperson in
> the street? Something his golf playing buddie's grandmother might
> understand?
>
> It could be concluded that what I'm angling for here is a series of
> television adverts.
>
> If I thought OFBiz had a couple of mill lying around spare then this
> would certainly be the case. If it's good enough for IBM...
>
> But I doubt OFBiz is anywhere near that kind of position at the moment.
>
> I just kinda don't see any reason why it shouldn't be at some time in
> the foreseeable future.
>
> But there would need to be a will to go in this direction and the
> deliberate diversion of at least some of the time, creativity and
> resources away from strictly engineering matters, into making the
> application more accessible - acceptable - applicable, to a wider user base.
>
> That would mean opening up whatever channels of communication with the
> wider public are available and boosting the signal well above the noise.
>
> Almost everybody has need of OFBiz. They just don't know it yet!
>
> Ian
>

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

[Jacques Le Roux]

Ian, Andrew,

I think that the problem here is more to compete with offers like
http://www.intuit.com/ (in US)
http://www.sage.com/ (in EU)
and convince end users that OFBiz is the right tool !

Anyway a good wide strategy is surely a very good thing !

Jacques

PS : I did some comparaison between Sage 100 and OFBiz for a client (in french including POS with multi-sites) and I was happily
surprised how OFBiz was facing the challenge :o)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Sykes" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: What does "OOTB front-end accessibility" mean to you?

> Ian,
>
> A fascinating insight, perhaps you could go a bit further in explaining
> a strategy?
>
> I wonder how relevant OfBiz is to the very small end of the market,
> there's an awful lot to learn and (from a small business perspective) an
> awful lot that could go wrong.
>
> I almost think that you are talking about a different product perhaps
> "OfBiz Lite" or something...
>
> - Andrew
>
>
> On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 10:15 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
> > I've been having this email discussion with David which he's asked me to
> > move out onto this mailing list. I guess that probably means I'm in for
> > a good kicking. But here goes anyway
> >
> > First, some background to give some kind of handle on where I'm coming from.
> >
> > I started working with computers in the late 60s as a physicist
> > modelling plasma dynamics. I've switched careers several times since,
> > but my relationship to computers remains the same. As a user, interested
> > not so much in the tool itself, but with what it can do.
> >
> > I first came across OFBiz a month ago whilst researching a client's
> > request for back-end integration with osCommerce. As someone who was
> > raised in a generation that really did believe that 2001 was going to be
> > like Stanley Kubrick said it was going to be, I can count on one hand
> > the number of times a piece of technology has had enough wow to stop me
> > dead in my tracks. OFBiz would be one!
> >
> >  From the outset it was clear that it was way too big a leap for any
> > client I know of to contemplate making. But the technology looked so
> > sweet I just had to find out more.
> >
> > The more I looked the more fascinated I became. Platform independent.
> > Modular. Scale-able. Open Source. Wow! What a magnificent tool this
> > could be! Why would anybody ever want to use anything else?
> >
> > This is a tool for running any kind of business you like. None of us can
> > survive without connection to some kind of business or other. This could
> > be monumental. The next big leap forward.
> >
> > I didn't expect installation to be easy, and it wasn't! But then again,
> > I've just installed XP on new PC and that wasn't all that easy either
> > (what version of Windows ever was?)
> >
> > I managed to get pilot installations of OFBiz (opentaps flavour) running
> > on Windows and Linux without too much trouble. But then again, I do have
> > some experience of this kind of thing. When it comes to setting up new
> > tools, I have several magnitudes more patience than anybody else I know.
> > Which means that if an application is going to be of any use to anybody
> > else apart from me, I have to hone usability down to the point it's a
> > no-brainer!
> >
> > So I'm running opentaps and slowly working my way through the various
> > manuals and documents trying to get a handle on what this thing can
> > really do.
> >
> > Pretty quickly I discover at least one glaringly obvious problem. So
> > obvious that if I demonstrated it to a client they would laugh me out of
> > the building in minutes.
> >
> > The problem itself is trivial. A simple matter of somebody sitting down
> > for a few days and writing the necessary code. But who is going to do
> > that? Not me surely? I have the Java textbook, but still haven't found
> > time to sit down and read more than the first couple of chapters.
> > Finding other people with the expertise and the time to do that would be
> > the key. Or at least that's what I thought at the time!
> >
> > So I go back to the web sites and start looking at the organisation and
> > the people rather than the code.
> >
> > Who could fix this problem? How much would it cost? Why hasn't it been
> > fixed already?
> >
> >  From the outset it's obvious that the Apache Incubator site is a
> > marvellous resource for engineers. But looking it from the user's POV -
> > as someone who wants to contact an engineer rather be one himself -
> > there isn't much I can get a handle on here.
> >
> > Opentaps, Opensource Strategies and Undersun look much more like what I
> > need. Clean. Crisp. Elegant designs. Engineering 'talkback' mixed down
> > low in the background. You don't have to be an engineer to understand
> > that, for enterprise-level installation, these guys look like the business.
> >
> > But enterprise-level means high-end, expensive! Corporate lawyers can
> > charge thousands an hour. Maybe these guys know they're worth more? I
> > have seen odd references to multi-million dollar installations. Sounds
> > par for that kind of course to me.
> >
> > So where does that leave the ordinary Joe?
> >
> > All businesses I personally deal with are small. 1 to 50 employees max.
> >
> > OFBiz looks like it should be scalable, could be of value to all of them.
> >
> > But how much value, and how much cost?
> >
> > If I was running the IT department at the White House I'd be inviting
> > the OFBiz guys in and showing MS the door. With the prospect of
> > high-end, high-value contracts in the pipeline, I guess these guys just
> > won't have time to even think about making this stuff accessible to the
> > average Joe in the street. Oh well. Better start lowering my sights and
> > start thinking about cobbling together some low-level XSLT plugins for
> > the existing kit rather than thinking about a complete revamp of the
> > whole machine.
> >
> > Then I discover Si's Jan 09/06 blog - exactly a year ago! - meditating
> > on exactly these issues.
> >
> > "If open source is to gain popularity and move "up the stack", however,
> > open source software will need other advocates in the enterprise.
> > Somebody else besides the IT department must also be able to convince
> > enterprise users that open source software is indeed a credible
> > solution. Whether that advocate ultimately is a consulting firm, a
> > distributor, or an ISV using open source software, we don't really know yet.
> >
> > What we can be certain of is this: whoever makes open source a credible
> > in the enterprise would ultimately win the "Linux wars."
> >
> > Aha. Now then. That's interesting.
> >
> > So credibility on the enterprise level isn't such a done deal after all
> > then.
> >
> > So who could those advocates outside the IT department be? Is it the
> > consulting firm, the distributor, the ISV? Or is it all or none of the
> > above?
> >
> > Rereading Si's blog, I was struck by this:
> >
> > "Most buyers of commercial software don't actually verify that its
> > features are bug free or check out its support lines. Instead, their
> > "due diligence" consists of making sure that there are other users using
> > the software, including, most importantly, their golf buddies."
> >
> > How important an insight is that?
> >
> > So the key to credibility in the decision making process lies with those
> > who know absolutely nothing about the technicalities and most probably
> > care even less!
> >
> > Why else would IBM spend many millions advertising enterprise level
> > technology on prime time television? How many viewers are actually in
> > the market for Blade servers?
> >
> > I doubt anybody in IBM marketing believes they're spending that money to
> > advertise servers. They're spending it to make sure that not only the
> > average golf-buddy, but also his wife, kids, and grandmother all know
> > that IBM is a credible player. Because they know that's how the big
> > decisions are actually made. Emotionally, by people who are so far up on
> > the bridge of the ship, away from the engine room, that they probably
> > know less about the mechanics of it than their grandmothers!
> >
> > So making OFBiz emotionally accessible to the average Joe Soap's
> > grandmother could be the key to unlocking both enterprise level and
> > wider markets.
> >
> >  From an outsiders perspective, it seems that Si in particular has
> > already done a considerable amount of work in this direction. As someone
> > with formal financial rather than technical training, he is perhaps more
> > focused on markets than most. But Si is in no way representative of the
> > average user. His blog tells me his parents were postgrad programmers
> > who taught him everything they knew. Most programmers would give their
> > eye teeth for a  background like that! How many management wonks would
> > relish the idea of lifting up the bonnet everytime they wanted to start
> > their car? They chose their roles in life precisely to keep away from
> > that kind of thing. As indeed did Si when he chose a career in finance.
> >
> > The moral of this would be that what is accessible to Si or most other
> > users on this forum is not necessarily even slightly accessible to the
> > average businessperson on the street.
> >
> > If you wanted to maintain an elite group of cognoscenti who are in the
> > position to charge highly for their services then you may want to keep
> > it that way - or not as the case may be.
> >
> > I would argue that the code is so radical and so deep that some levels
> > will always remain expert only. Increasing accessibility to a wider user
> > group would not threaten that core and could only lead to a wider user
> > base and larger market share.
> >
> > OOTB, front-end, user accessibility to me means minimising any factors
> > which take time and attention away from getting on with the job the tool
> > was designed to do. From a purely user's POV, these are nothing more
> > than distractions, irritations and ultimately objections to buying into
> > the programme. Noise drowning out signals on the marketing channels if
> > you like.
> >
> > As in all user applications, a proportion of time spent tooling-up and a
> > level of unwanted noise is to be expected. But in the job-efficiency
> > equation, this is a drag component to be optimised out. In the
> > development of sleek, user-friendly implementations, a zero tolerance
> > policy on noise, friction and drag is the only way to go!
> >
> > To me, OOTB accessibility means exactly what it says on the tin: I don't
> > need a degree in anything to install or run it. It does everything it
> > said it would do. Is easy to maintain. Has cost exactly what they told
> > me it would. A brilliant tool for the job. Wouldn't even think of using
> > anything else.
> >
> > But creating something like that means taking at least some of the focus
> > away engineering a better mousetrap, to looking at the way it appears to
> > the average mouse. Is it easy for them to get to the cheese, or are
> > there still too many wires and cogs in the way? Closing a sale means
> > overcoming all the objections. Making offers people don't see any reason
> > to refuse.
> >
> > The marketing proposition from Undersun and Opensource Strategies looks
> > fine - if you're only interested in high end, enterprise-level applications.
> >
> > The engineering proposition on Apache incubator looks fine - if you're
> > interested in being an engineer.
> >
> > But where is the low-end proposition for the average businessperson in
> > the street? Something his golf playing buddie's grandmother might
> > understand?
> >
> > It could be concluded that what I'm angling for here is a series of
> > television adverts.
> >
> > If I thought OFBiz had a couple of mill lying around spare then this
> > would certainly be the case. If it's good enough for IBM...
> >
> > But I doubt OFBiz is anywhere near that kind of position at the moment.
> >
> > I just kinda don't see any reason why it shouldn't be at some time in
> > the foreseeable future.
> >
> > But there would need to be a will to go in this direction and the
> > deliberate diversion of at least some of the time, creativity and
> > resources away from strictly engineering matters, into making the
> > application more accessible - acceptable - applicable, to a wider user base.
> >
> > That would mean opening up whatever channels of communication with the
> > wider public are available and boosting the signal well above the noise.
> >
> > Almost everybody has need of OFBiz. They just don't know it yet!
> >
> > Ian
> >
> --
> Kind Regards
> Andrew Sykes <[hidden email]>
> Sykes Development Ltd
> http://www.sykesdevelopment.com

[Ian McNulty]

Tim,

Thanks for the pointer.

I'll certainly be checking it out and will pass on first impressions
when I do.

Cheers,

Ian



Tim Ruppert wrote:

> Just so you know guys, we are effectively doing solutions for small
> business customers with custom front ends that are providing great
> return on their investment.  Many of them have limited budgets, but by
> being flexible to their needs and seeing exactly what they're trying
> to get out of the system, we have proven that it can be done.  The
> only caveat is that it takes a reasonable amount of time and focus to
> get to a point where this is something that you can offer as a vendor
> - but what technology is that _not_ true of?
>
> The fact of the matter is that the reason that HotWax got involved
> with OFBiz in the first place was to be able to bring enterprise
> solutions to small businesses as a reasonable cost.  The little guy
> deserves the scalability and complete integration that large business
> enjoy.
>
> I'm not sure how to fully answer Ian's monologue other than to say
> that this can be done my friend.
>
> Cheers,
> Tim
> --
> Tim Ruppert
> HotWax Media
> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>
> o:801.649.6594
> f:801.649.6595
>
>
> On Jan 3, 2007, at 8:26 AM, Andrew Ballantine wrote:
>
>> Ian,
>>
>> You will NOT get a kicking from me. I'm right there with you.
>>
>> I still think a OOTB solution for the small business is do-able.
>>
>> Let's see what other comments this raises.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Andrew Ballantine.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ian McNulty [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: 03 January 2007 10:15
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Subject: What does "OOTB front-end accessibility" mean to you?
>>
>>
>> I've been having this email discussion with David which he's asked me to
>> move out onto this mailing list. I guess that probably means I'm in for
>> a good kicking. But here goes anyway
>>
>> First, some background to give some kind of handle on where I'm
>> coming from.
>>
>> I started working with computers in the late 60s as a physicist
>> modelling plasma dynamics. I've switched careers several times since,
>> but my relationship to computers remains the same. As a user, interested
>> not so much in the tool itself, but with what it can do.
>>
>> I first came across OFBiz a month ago whilst researching a client's
>> request for back-end integration with osCommerce. As someone who was
>> raised in a generation that really did believe that 2001 was going to be
>> like Stanley Kubrick said it was going to be, I can count on one hand
>> the number of times a piece of technology has had enough wow to stop me
>> dead in my tracks. OFBiz would be one!
>>
>>  From the outset it was clear that it was way too big a leap for any
>> client I know of to contemplate making. But the technology looked so
>> sweet I just had to find out more.
>>
>> The more I looked the more fascinated I became. Platform independent.
>> Modular. Scale-able. Open Source. Wow! What a magnificent tool this
>> could be! Why would anybody ever want to use anything else?
>>
>> This is a tool for running any kind of business you like. None of us can
>> survive without connection to some kind of business or other. This could
>> be monumental. The next big leap forward.
>>
>> I didn't expect installation to be easy, and it wasn't! But then again,
>> I've just installed XP on new PC and that wasn't all that easy either
>> (what version of Windows ever was?)
>>
>> I managed to get pilot installations of OFBiz (opentaps flavour) running
>> on Windows and Linux without too much trouble. But then again, I do have
>> some experience of this kind of thing. When it comes to setting up new
>> tools, I have several magnitudes more patience than anybody else I know.
>> Which means that if an application is going to be of any use to anybody
>> else apart from me, I have to hone usability down to the point it's a
>> no-brainer!
>>
>> So I'm running opentaps and slowly working my way through the various
>> manuals and documents trying to get a handle on what this thing can
>> really do.
>>
>> Pretty quickly I discover at least one glaringly obvious problem. So
>> obvious that if I demonstrated it to a client they would laugh me out of
>> the building in minutes.
>>
>> The problem itself is trivial. A simple matter of somebody sitting down
>> for a few days and writing the necessary code. But who is going to do
>> that? Not me surely? I have the Java textbook, but still haven't found
>> time to sit down and read more than the first couple of chapters.
>> Finding other people with the expertise and the time to do that would be
>> the key. Or at least that's what I thought at the time!
>>
>> So I go back to the web sites and start looking at the organisation and
>> the people rather than the code.
>>
>> Who could fix this problem? How much would it cost? Why hasn't it been
>> fixed already?
>>
>>  From the outset it's obvious that the Apache Incubator site is a
>> marvellous resource for engineers. But looking it from the user's POV -
>> as someone who wants to contact an engineer rather be one himself -
>> there isn't much I can get a handle on here.
>>
>> Opentaps, Opensource Strategies and Undersun look much more like what I
>> need. Clean. Crisp. Elegant designs. Engineering 'talkback' mixed down
>> low in the background. You don't have to be an engineer to understand
>> that, for enterprise-level installation, these guys look like the
>> business.
>>
>> But enterprise-level means high-end, expensive! Corporate lawyers can
>> charge thousands an hour. Maybe these guys know they're worth more? I
>> have seen odd references to multi-million dollar installations. Sounds
>> par for that kind of course to me.
>>
>> So where does that leave the ordinary Joe?
>>
>> All businesses I personally deal with are small. 1 to 50 employees max.
>>
>> OFBiz looks like it should be scalable, could be of value to all of
>> them.
>>
>> But how much value, and how much cost?
>>
>> If I was running the IT department at the White House I'd be inviting
>> the OFBiz guys in and showing MS the door. With the prospect of
>> high-end, high-value contracts in the pipeline, I guess these guys just
>> won't have time to even think about making this stuff accessible to the
>> average Joe in the street. Oh well. Better start lowering my sights and
>> start thinking about cobbling together some low-level XSLT plugins for
>> the existing kit rather than thinking about a complete revamp of the
>> whole machine.
>>
>> Then I discover Si's Jan 09/06 blog - exactly a year ago! - meditating
>> on exactly these issues.
>>
>> "If open source is to gain popularity and move "up the stack", however,
>> open source software will need other advocates in the enterprise.
>> Somebody else besides the IT department must also be able to convince
>> enterprise users that open source software is indeed a credible
>> solution. Whether that advocate ultimately is a consulting firm, a
>> distributor, or an ISV using open source software, we don't really
>> know yet.
>>
>> What we can be certain of is this: whoever makes open source a credible
>> in the enterprise would ultimately win the "Linux wars."
>>
>> Aha. Now then. That's interesting.
>>
>> So credibility on the enterprise level isn't such a done deal after all
>> then.
>>
>> So who could those advocates outside the IT department be? Is it the
>> consulting firm, the distributor, the ISV? Or is it all or none of the
>> above?
>>
>> Rereading Si's blog, I was struck by this:
>>
>> "Most buyers of commercial software don't actually verify that its
>> features are bug free or check out its support lines. Instead, their
>> "due diligence" consists of making sure that there are other users using
>> the software, including, most importantly, their golf buddies."
>>
>> How important an insight is that?
>>
>> So the key to credibility in the decision making process lies with those
>> who know absolutely nothing about the technicalities and most probably
>> care even less!
>>
>> Why else would IBM spend many millions advertising enterprise level
>> technology on prime time television? How many viewers are actually in
>> the market for Blade servers?
>>
>> I doubt anybody in IBM marketing believes they're spending that money to
>> advertise servers. They're spending it to make sure that not only the
>> average golf-buddy, but also his wife, kids, and grandmother all know
>> that IBM is a credible player. Because they know that's how the big
>> decisions are actually made. Emotionally, by people who are so far up on
>> the bridge of the ship, away from the engine room, that they probably
>> know less about the mechanics of it than their grandmothers!
>>
>> So making OFBiz emotionally accessible to the average Joe Soap's
>> grandmother could be the key to unlocking both enterprise level and
>> wider markets.
>>
>>  From an outsiders perspective, it seems that Si in particular has
>> already done a considerable amount of work in this direction. As someone
>> with formal financial rather than technical training, he is perhaps more
>> focused on markets than most. But Si is in no way representative of the
>> average user. His blog tells me his parents were postgrad programmers
>> who taught him everything they knew. Most programmers would give their
>> eye teeth for a  background like that! How many management wonks would
>> relish the idea of lifting up the bonnet everytime they wanted to start
>> their car? They chose their roles in life precisely to keep away from
>> that kind of thing. As indeed did Si when he chose a career in finance.
>>
>> The moral of this would be that what is accessible to Si or most other
>> users on this forum is not necessarily even slightly accessible to the
>> average businessperson on the street.
>>
>> If you wanted to maintain an elite group of cognoscenti who are in the
>> position to charge highly for their services then you may want to keep
>> it that way - or not as the case may be.
>>
>> I would argue that the code is so radical and so deep that some levels
>> will always remain expert only. Increasing accessibility to a wider user
>> group would not threaten that core and could only lead to a wider user
>> base and larger market share.
>>
>> OOTB, front-end, user accessibility to me means minimising any factors
>> which take time and attention away from getting on with the job the tool
>> was designed to do. From a purely user's POV, these are nothing more
>> than distractions, irritations and ultimately objections to buying into
>> the programme. Noise drowning out signals on the marketing channels if
>> you like.
>>
>> As in all user applications, a proportion of time spent tooling-up and a
>> level of unwanted noise is to be expected. But in the job-efficiency
>> equation, this is a drag component to be optimised out. In the
>> development of sleek, user-friendly implementations, a zero tolerance
>> policy on noise, friction and drag is the only way to go!
>>
>> To me, OOTB accessibility means exactly what it says on the tin: I don't
>> need a degree in anything to install or run it. It does everything it
>> said it would do. Is easy to maintain. Has cost exactly what they told
>> me it would. A brilliant tool for the job. Wouldn't even think of using
>> anything else.
>>
>> But creating something like that means taking at least some of the focus
>> away engineering a better mousetrap, to looking at the way it appears to
>> the average mouse. Is it easy for them to get to the cheese, or are
>> there still too many wires and cogs in the way? Closing a sale means
>> overcoming all the objections. Making offers people don't see any reason
>> to refuse.
>>
>> The marketing proposition from Undersun and Opensource Strategies looks
>> fine - if you're only interested in high end, enterprise-level
>> applications.
>>
>> The engineering proposition on Apache incubator looks fine - if you're
>> interested in being an engineer.
>>
>> But where is the low-end proposition for the average businessperson in
>> the street? Something his golf playing buddie's grandmother might
>> understand?
>>
>> It could be concluded that what I'm angling for here is a series of
>> television adverts.
>>
>> If I thought OFBiz had a couple of mill lying around spare then this
>> would certainly be the case. If it's good enough for IBM...
>>
>> But I doubt OFBiz is anywhere near that kind of position at the moment.
>>
>> I just kinda don't see any reason why it shouldn't be at some time in
>> the foreseeable future.
>>
>> But there would need to be a will to go in this direction and the
>> deliberate diversion of at least some of the time, creativity and
>> resources away from strictly engineering matters, into making the
>> application more accessible - acceptable - applicable, to a wider
>> user base.
>>
>> That would mean opening up whatever channels of communication with the
>> wider public are available and boosting the signal well above the noise.
>>
>> Almost everybody has need of OFBiz. They just don't know it yet!
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date:
>> 02/01/2007
>> 14:58
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date:
>> 02/01/2007
>> 14:58
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date:
>> 02/01/2007
>> 14:58
>>
>>
>>
>> *****************************************************************
>> 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]

Jacques,

I am familiar with both QuickBooks and Sage. Sage is quite awful, but sells
because all the accountants recommend it. Quickbooks is great apart from its
limitations and inability to be enhanced. The arbitrary limit of 27,000
customers is one, difficult import/export of data another.

There is no reason why we couldn't have several versions that support
different vertical markets.
e.g.
Corner shop with POS and Ecommerce and/or ebay
Independent motor car workshop/repair/sales business
Simple box shifting wholesaler
...

The big, big point about OFBiz is that the architecture is right, and the
architecture should, hopefully, help young businesses do things the correct
way.

BTW There is nothing wrong with stipulating which system, database etc that
has to be used in a package. The world is quite used to that already in the
proprietary world. The point is to have a package that works for a
particular style of business with relevant sample data that works OOTB.
There will be ample consultancy work customising the extras.

Hope this is of interest.

Kind regards,

Andrew.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jacques Le Roux [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: 03 January 2007 16:07
To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: What does "OOTB front-end accessibility" mean to you?


Ian, Andrew,

I think that the problem here is more to compete with offers like
http://www.intuit.com/ (in US)
http://www.sage.com/ (in EU)
and convince end users that OFBiz is the right tool !

Anyway a good wide strategy is surely a very good thing !

Jacques

PS : I did some comparaison between Sage 100 and OFBiz for a client (in
french including POS with multi-sites) and I was happily
surprised how OFBiz was facing the challenge :o)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Sykes" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: What does "OOTB front-end accessibility" mean to you?

> Ian,
>
> A fascinating insight, perhaps you could go a bit further in explaining
> a strategy?
>
> I wonder how relevant OfBiz is to the very small end of the market,
> there's an awful lot to learn and (from a small business perspective) an
> awful lot that could go wrong.
>
> I almost think that you are talking about a different product perhaps
> "OfBiz Lite" or something...
>
> - Andrew
>
>
> On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 10:15 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
> > I've been having this email discussion with David which he's asked me to
> > move out onto this mailing list. I guess that probably means I'm in for
> > a good kicking. But here goes anyway
> >
> > First, some background to give some kind of handle on where I'm coming

from.

> >
> > I started working with computers in the late 60s as a physicist
> > modelling plasma dynamics. I've switched careers several times since,
> > but my relationship to computers remains the same. As a user, interested
> > not so much in the tool itself, but with what it can do.
> >
> > I first came across OFBiz a month ago whilst researching a client's
> > request for back-end integration with osCommerce. As someone who was
> > raised in a generation that really did believe that 2001 was going to be
> > like Stanley Kubrick said it was going to be, I can count on one hand
> > the number of times a piece of technology has had enough wow to stop me
> > dead in my tracks. OFBiz would be one!
> >
> >  From the outset it was clear that it was way too big a leap for any
> > client I know of to contemplate making. But the technology looked so
> > sweet I just had to find out more.
> >
> > The more I looked the more fascinated I became. Platform independent.
> > Modular. Scale-able. Open Source. Wow! What a magnificent tool this
> > could be! Why would anybody ever want to use anything else?
> >
> > This is a tool for running any kind of business you like. None of us can
> > survive without connection to some kind of business or other. This could
> > be monumental. The next big leap forward.
> >
> > I didn't expect installation to be easy, and it wasn't! But then again,
> > I've just installed XP on new PC and that wasn't all that easy either
> > (what version of Windows ever was?)
> >
> > I managed to get pilot installations of OFBiz (opentaps flavour) running
> > on Windows and Linux without too much trouble. But then again, I do have
> > some experience of this kind of thing. When it comes to setting up new
> > tools, I have several magnitudes more patience than anybody else I know.
> > Which means that if an application is going to be of any use to anybody
> > else apart from me, I have to hone usability down to the point it's a
> > no-brainer!
> >
> > So I'm running opentaps and slowly working my way through the various
> > manuals and documents trying to get a handle on what this thing can
> > really do.
> >
> > Pretty quickly I discover at least one glaringly obvious problem. So
> > obvious that if I demonstrated it to a client they would laugh me out of
> > the building in minutes.
> >
> > The problem itself is trivial. A simple matter of somebody sitting down
> > for a few days and writing the necessary code. But who is going to do
> > that? Not me surely? I have the Java textbook, but still haven't found
> > time to sit down and read more than the first couple of chapters.
> > Finding other people with the expertise and the time to do that would be
> > the key. Or at least that's what I thought at the time!
> >
> > So I go back to the web sites and start looking at the organisation and
> > the people rather than the code.
> >
> > Who could fix this problem? How much would it cost? Why hasn't it been
> > fixed already?
> >
> >  From the outset it's obvious that the Apache Incubator site is a
> > marvellous resource for engineers. But looking it from the user's POV -
> > as someone who wants to contact an engineer rather be one himself -
> > there isn't much I can get a handle on here.
> >
> > Opentaps, Opensource Strategies and Undersun look much more like what I
> > need. Clean. Crisp. Elegant designs. Engineering 'talkback' mixed down
> > low in the background. You don't have to be an engineer to understand
> > that, for enterprise-level installation, these guys look like the

business.

> >
> > But enterprise-level means high-end, expensive! Corporate lawyers can
> > charge thousands an hour. Maybe these guys know they're worth more? I
> > have seen odd references to multi-million dollar installations. Sounds
> > par for that kind of course to me.
> >
> > So where does that leave the ordinary Joe?
> >
> > All businesses I personally deal with are small. 1 to 50 employees max.
> >
> > OFBiz looks like it should be scalable, could be of value to all of

them.

> >
> > But how much value, and how much cost?
> >
> > If I was running the IT department at the White House I'd be inviting
> > the OFBiz guys in and showing MS the door. With the prospect of
> > high-end, high-value contracts in the pipeline, I guess these guys just
> > won't have time to even think about making this stuff accessible to the
> > average Joe in the street. Oh well. Better start lowering my sights and
> > start thinking about cobbling together some low-level XSLT plugins for
> > the existing kit rather than thinking about a complete revamp of the
> > whole machine.
> >
> > Then I discover Si's Jan 09/06 blog - exactly a year ago! - meditating
> > on exactly these issues.
> >
> > "If open source is to gain popularity and move "up the stack", however,
> > open source software will need other advocates in the enterprise.
> > Somebody else besides the IT department must also be able to convince
> > enterprise users that open source software is indeed a credible
> > solution. Whether that advocate ultimately is a consulting firm, a
> > distributor, or an ISV using open source software, we don't really know

yet.

> >
> > What we can be certain of is this: whoever makes open source a credible
> > in the enterprise would ultimately win the "Linux wars."
> >
> > Aha. Now then. That's interesting.
> >
> > So credibility on the enterprise level isn't such a done deal after all
> > then.
> >
> > So who could those advocates outside the IT department be? Is it the
> > consulting firm, the distributor, the ISV? Or is it all or none of the
> > above?
> >
> > Rereading Si's blog, I was struck by this:
> >
> > "Most buyers of commercial software don't actually verify that its
> > features are bug free or check out its support lines. Instead, their
> > "due diligence" consists of making sure that there are other users using
> > the software, including, most importantly, their golf buddies."
> >
> > How important an insight is that?
> >
> > So the key to credibility in the decision making process lies with those
> > who know absolutely nothing about the technicalities and most probably
> > care even less!
> >
> > Why else would IBM spend many millions advertising enterprise level
> > technology on prime time television? How many viewers are actually in
> > the market for Blade servers?
> >
> > I doubt anybody in IBM marketing believes they're spending that money to
> > advertise servers. They're spending it to make sure that not only the
> > average golf-buddy, but also his wife, kids, and grandmother all know
> > that IBM is a credible player. Because they know that's how the big
> > decisions are actually made. Emotionally, by people who are so far up on
> > the bridge of the ship, away from the engine room, that they probably
> > know less about the mechanics of it than their grandmothers!
> >
> > So making OFBiz emotionally accessible to the average Joe Soap's
> > grandmother could be the key to unlocking both enterprise level and
> > wider markets.
> >
> >  From an outsiders perspective, it seems that Si in particular has
> > already done a considerable amount of work in this direction. As someone
> > with formal financial rather than technical training, he is perhaps more
> > focused on markets than most. But Si is in no way representative of the
> > average user. His blog tells me his parents were postgrad programmers
> > who taught him everything they knew. Most programmers would give their
> > eye teeth for a  background like that! How many management wonks would
> > relish the idea of lifting up the bonnet everytime they wanted to start
> > their car? They chose their roles in life precisely to keep away from
> > that kind of thing. As indeed did Si when he chose a career in finance.
> >
> > The moral of this would be that what is accessible to Si or most other
> > users on this forum is not necessarily even slightly accessible to the
> > average businessperson on the street.
> >
> > If you wanted to maintain an elite group of cognoscenti who are in the
> > position to charge highly for their services then you may want to keep
> > it that way - or not as the case may be.
> >
> > I would argue that the code is so radical and so deep that some levels
> > will always remain expert only. Increasing accessibility to a wider user
> > group would not threaten that core and could only lead to a wider user
> > base and larger market share.
> >
> > OOTB, front-end, user accessibility to me means minimising any factors
> > which take time and attention away from getting on with the job the tool
> > was designed to do. From a purely user's POV, these are nothing more
> > than distractions, irritations and ultimately objections to buying into
> > the programme. Noise drowning out signals on the marketing channels if
> > you like.
> >
> > As in all user applications, a proportion of time spent tooling-up and a
> > level of unwanted noise is to be expected. But in the job-efficiency
> > equation, this is a drag component to be optimised out. In the
> > development of sleek, user-friendly implementations, a zero tolerance
> > policy on noise, friction and drag is the only way to go!
> >
> > To me, OOTB accessibility means exactly what it says on the tin: I don't

> > need a degree in anything to install or run it. It does everything it
> > said it would do. Is easy to maintain. Has cost exactly what they told
> > me it would. A brilliant tool for the job. Wouldn't even think of using
> > anything else.
> >
> > But creating something like that means taking at least some of the focus
> > away engineering a better mousetrap, to looking at the way it appears to
> > the average mouse. Is it easy for them to get to the cheese, or are
> > there still too many wires and cogs in the way? Closing a sale means
> > overcoming all the objections. Making offers people don't see any reason
> > to refuse.
> >
> > The marketing proposition from Undersun and Opensource Strategies looks
> > fine - if you're only interested in high end, enterprise-level

applications.

> >
> > The engineering proposition on Apache incubator looks fine - if you're
> > interested in being an engineer.
> >
> > But where is the low-end proposition for the average businessperson in
> > the street? Something his golf playing buddie's grandmother might
> > understand?
> >
> > It could be concluded that what I'm angling for here is a series of
> > television adverts.
> >
> > If I thought OFBiz had a couple of mill lying around spare then this
> > would certainly be the case. If it's good enough for IBM...
> >
> > But I doubt OFBiz is anywhere near that kind of position at the moment.
> >
> > I just kinda don't see any reason why it shouldn't be at some time in
> > the foreseeable future.
> >
> > But there would need to be a will to go in this direction and the
> > deliberate diversion of at least some of the time, creativity and
> > resources away from strictly engineering matters, into making the
> > application more accessible - acceptable - applicable, to a wider user

base.

> >
> > That would mean opening up whatever channels of communication with the
> > wider public are available and boosting the signal well above the noise.
> >
> > Almost everybody has need of OFBiz. They just don't know it yet!
> >
> > Ian
> >
> --
> Kind Regards
> Andrew Sykes <[hidden email]>
> Sykes Development Ltd
> http://www.sykesdevelopment.com

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date: 02/01/2007
14:58


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date: 02/01/2007
14:58

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date: 02/01/2007
14:58



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

[Ian McNulty]

Andrew,

Me again :)

Right on the money old son. OFBiz light was one of the possible
strategies that came to mind.

The principal would be that to move from a high-end, high-value,
tailor-made service where a skilled wheelwright is needed to re-factor,
if not reinvent, the wheel on every installation, to more of a
mass-market solution with a wider user-base, requires offering easily
understood, preconfigured solutions in price bands customers can afford.

That's a whole science in itself!

In the absence of that, the strategy would be to use the net for what it
has proved to be best at. Building user-groups and user-generated content.

The functionality of the user interface on ;the mailing list we are
currently communicating through is proven for it's efficacy in focusing
the attention of a relatively small and highly motivated group onto
resolution of sticky technical issues. But in this context, an avalanche
of n00bies asking the same old questions would be indifferentiable from
an avalanche of spam.

A format which would welcome a range of basic questions from a wider
user group who might be interested but are currently neither informed,
confident nor motivated enough to RTFM would be more along the lines of
those run by osCommerce, Zen Cart, Ubuntu and the like. This is, imho,
the single most important contribution these projects have made to
developments in the field.

On those kind of forums the default is not that the experts are
inundated with every single post in their inbox, but that they can
browse and choose to address issues or not at their leisure.  The result
is a much more comfortable environment for a wider group of potential
users to adopt.

'OFBiz Lite' would certainly be a major stepping stone along the way.
But the effort to do something like that is perhaps more than the
current community could bear.

So the answer would be to widen the community, delegate the tasks, and
spread the load.

The creation of some kind of extra web page, gathering site or forum
with this objective as the only focus could be a soft way forward to a
wider user base. To be taken or left by anybody, as the case may be.

Ian



Andrew Sykes wrote:

> Ian,
>
> A fascinating insight, perhaps you could go a bit further in explaining
> a strategy?
>
> I wonder how relevant OfBiz is to the very small end of the market,
> there's an awful lot to learn and (from a small business perspective) an
> awful lot that could go wrong.
>
> I almost think that you are talking about a different product perhaps
> "OfBiz Lite" or something...
>
> - Andrew
>
>
> On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 10:15 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
>  
>> I've been having this email discussion with David which he's asked me to
>> move out onto this mailing list. I guess that probably means I'm in for
>> a good kicking. But here goes anyway
>>
>> First, some background to give some kind of handle on where I'm coming from.
>>
>> I started working with computers in the late 60s as a physicist
>> modelling plasma dynamics. I've switched careers several times since,
>> but my relationship to computers remains the same. As a user, interested
>> not so much in the tool itself, but with what it can do.
>>
>> I first came across OFBiz a month ago whilst researching a client's
>> request for back-end integration with osCommerce. As someone who was
>> raised in a generation that really did believe that 2001 was going to be
>> like Stanley Kubrick said it was going to be, I can count on one hand
>> the number of times a piece of technology has had enough wow to stop me
>> dead in my tracks. OFBiz would be one!
>>
>>  From the outset it was clear that it was way too big a leap for any
>> client I know of to contemplate making. But the technology looked so
>> sweet I just had to find out more.
>>
>> The more I looked the more fascinated I became. Platform independent.
>> Modular. Scale-able. Open Source. Wow! What a magnificent tool this
>> could be! Why would anybody ever want to use anything else?
>>
>> This is a tool for running any kind of business you like. None of us can
>> survive without connection to some kind of business or other. This could
>> be monumental. The next big leap forward.
>>
>> I didn't expect installation to be easy, and it wasn't! But then again,
>> I've just installed XP on new PC and that wasn't all that easy either
>> (what version of Windows ever was?)
>>
>> I managed to get pilot installations of OFBiz (opentaps flavour) running
>> on Windows and Linux without too much trouble. But then again, I do have
>> some experience of this kind of thing. When it comes to setting up new
>> tools, I have several magnitudes more patience than anybody else I know.
>> Which means that if an application is going to be of any use to anybody
>> else apart from me, I have to hone usability down to the point it's a
>> no-brainer!
>>
>> So I'm running opentaps and slowly working my way through the various
>> manuals and documents trying to get a handle on what this thing can
>> really do.
>>
>> Pretty quickly I discover at least one glaringly obvious problem. So
>> obvious that if I demonstrated it to a client they would laugh me out of
>> the building in minutes.
>>
>> The problem itself is trivial. A simple matter of somebody sitting down
>> for a few days and writing the necessary code. But who is going to do
>> that? Not me surely? I have the Java textbook, but still haven't found
>> time to sit down and read more than the first couple of chapters.
>> Finding other people with the expertise and the time to do that would be
>> the key. Or at least that's what I thought at the time!
>>
>> So I go back to the web sites and start looking at the organisation and
>> the people rather than the code.
>>
>> Who could fix this problem? How much would it cost? Why hasn't it been
>> fixed already?
>>
>>  From the outset it's obvious that the Apache Incubator site is a
>> marvellous resource for engineers. But looking it from the user's POV -
>> as someone who wants to contact an engineer rather be one himself -
>> there isn't much I can get a handle on here.
>>
>> Opentaps, Opensource Strategies and Undersun look much more like what I
>> need. Clean. Crisp. Elegant designs. Engineering 'talkback' mixed down
>> low in the background. You don't have to be an engineer to understand
>> that, for enterprise-level installation, these guys look like the business.
>>
>> But enterprise-level means high-end, expensive! Corporate lawyers can
>> charge thousands an hour. Maybe these guys know they're worth more? I
>> have seen odd references to multi-million dollar installations. Sounds
>> par for that kind of course to me.
>>
>> So where does that leave the ordinary Joe?
>>
>> All businesses I personally deal with are small. 1 to 50 employees max.
>>
>> OFBiz looks like it should be scalable, could be of value to all of them.
>>
>> But how much value, and how much cost?
>>
>> If I was running the IT department at the White House I'd be inviting
>> the OFBiz guys in and showing MS the door. With the prospect of
>> high-end, high-value contracts in the pipeline, I guess these guys just
>> won't have time to even think about making this stuff accessible to the
>> average Joe in the street. Oh well. Better start lowering my sights and
>> start thinking about cobbling together some low-level XSLT plugins for
>> the existing kit rather than thinking about a complete revamp of the
>> whole machine.
>>
>> Then I discover Si's Jan 09/06 blog - exactly a year ago! - meditating
>> on exactly these issues.
>>
>> "If open source is to gain popularity and move "up the stack", however,
>> open source software will need other advocates in the enterprise.
>> Somebody else besides the IT department must also be able to convince
>> enterprise users that open source software is indeed a credible
>> solution. Whether that advocate ultimately is a consulting firm, a
>> distributor, or an ISV using open source software, we don't really know yet.
>>
>> What we can be certain of is this: whoever makes open source a credible
>> in the enterprise would ultimately win the "Linux wars."
>>
>> Aha. Now then. That's interesting.
>>
>> So credibility on the enterprise level isn't such a done deal after all
>> then.
>>
>> So who could those advocates outside the IT department be? Is it the
>> consulting firm, the distributor, the ISV? Or is it all or none of the
>> above?
>>
>> Rereading Si's blog, I was struck by this:
>>
>> "Most buyers of commercial software don't actually verify that its
>> features are bug free or check out its support lines. Instead, their
>> "due diligence" consists of making sure that there are other users using
>> the software, including, most importantly, their golf buddies."
>>
>> How important an insight is that?
>>
>> So the key to credibility in the decision making process lies with those
>> who know absolutely nothing about the technicalities and most probably
>> care even less!
>>
>> Why else would IBM spend many millions advertising enterprise level
>> technology on prime time television? How many viewers are actually in
>> the market for Blade servers?
>>
>> I doubt anybody in IBM marketing believes they're spending that money to
>> advertise servers. They're spending it to make sure that not only the
>> average golf-buddy, but also his wife, kids, and grandmother all know
>> that IBM is a credible player. Because they know that's how the big
>> decisions are actually made. Emotionally, by people who are so far up on
>> the bridge of the ship, away from the engine room, that they probably
>> know less about the mechanics of it than their grandmothers!
>>
>> So making OFBiz emotionally accessible to the average Joe Soap's
>> grandmother could be the key to unlocking both enterprise level and
>> wider markets.
>>
>>  From an outsiders perspective, it seems that Si in particular has
>> already done a considerable amount of work in this direction. As someone
>> with formal financial rather than technical training, he is perhaps more
>> focused on markets than most. But Si is in no way representative of the
>> average user. His blog tells me his parents were postgrad programmers
>> who taught him everything they knew. Most programmers would give their
>> eye teeth for a  background like that! How many management wonks would
>> relish the idea of lifting up the bonnet everytime they wanted to start
>> their car? They chose their roles in life precisely to keep away from
>> that kind of thing. As indeed did Si when he chose a career in finance.
>>
>> The moral of this would be that what is accessible to Si or most other
>> users on this forum is not necessarily even slightly accessible to the
>> average businessperson on the street.
>>
>> If you wanted to maintain an elite group of cognoscenti who are in the
>> position to charge highly for their services then you may want to keep
>> it that way - or not as the case may be.
>>
>> I would argue that the code is so radical and so deep that some levels
>> will always remain expert only. Increasing accessibility to a wider user
>> group would not threaten that core and could only lead to a wider user
>> base and larger market share.
>>
>> OOTB, front-end, user accessibility to me means minimising any factors
>> which take time and attention away from getting on with the job the tool
>> was designed to do. From a purely user's POV, these are nothing more
>> than distractions, irritations and ultimately objections to buying into
>> the programme. Noise drowning out signals on the marketing channels if
>> you like.
>>
>> As in all user applications, a proportion of time spent tooling-up and a
>> level of unwanted noise is to be expected. But in the job-efficiency
>> equation, this is a drag component to be optimised out. In the
>> development of sleek, user-friendly implementations, a zero tolerance
>> policy on noise, friction and drag is the only way to go!
>>
>> To me, OOTB accessibility means exactly what it says on the tin: I don't
>> need a degree in anything to install or run it. It does everything it
>> said it would do. Is easy to maintain. Has cost exactly what they told
>> me it would. A brilliant tool for the job. Wouldn't even think of using
>> anything else.
>>
>> But creating something like that means taking at least some of the focus
>> away engineering a better mousetrap, to looking at the way it appears to
>> the average mouse. Is it easy for them to get to the cheese, or are
>> there still too many wires and cogs in the way? Closing a sale means
>> overcoming all the objections. Making offers people don't see any reason
>> to refuse.
>>
>> The marketing proposition from Undersun and Opensource Strategies looks
>> fine - if you're only interested in high end, enterprise-level applications.
>>
>> The engineering proposition on Apache incubator looks fine - if you're
>> interested in being an engineer.
>>
>> But where is the low-end proposition for the average businessperson in
>> the street? Something his golf playing buddie's grandmother might
>> understand?
>>
>> It could be concluded that what I'm angling for here is a series of
>> television adverts.
>>
>> If I thought OFBiz had a couple of mill lying around spare then this
>> would certainly be the case. If it's good enough for IBM...
>>
>> But I doubt OFBiz is anywhere near that kind of position at the moment.
>>
>> I just kinda don't see any reason why it shouldn't be at some time in
>> the foreseeable future.
>>
>> But there would need to be a will to go in this direction and the
>> deliberate diversion of at least some of the time, creativity and
>> resources away from strictly engineering matters, into making the
>> application more accessible - acceptable - applicable, to a wider user base.
>>
>> That would mean opening up whatever channels of communication with the
>> wider public are available and boosting the signal well above the noise.
>>
>> Almost everybody has need of OFBiz. They just don't know it yet!
>>
>> 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.
==============================================================================================

[Ian McNulty]

Jacques,

> I did some comparaison between Sage 100 and OFBiz for a client (in french including POS with multi-sites) and I was happily surprised how OFBiz was facing the challenge :o)
>  

That's exactly the result I expected, and I am heartened to hear it
confirmed.

A differential analysis of the relative costs, downtime etc. would be a
significant step forward. Or is this client-privileged?

>
> I think that the problem here is more to compete with offers like
> http://www.intuit.com/ (in US)
> http://www.sage.com/ (in EU)
> and convince end users that OFBiz is the right tool !
>
>  
That's right on the money. That's also how I came to find out about
OFBiz myself. By looking first at the commercially available solutions
presented in front of my nose, then next at the Open Source equivalents
buried behind. I'm guessing a lot of others may stumble across it the
same way. And the obstacles I've encountered will be the same ones they
encounter too. Solving them could therefore be a significant
contribution to widening the user base.

How can end users be convinced if there is no alternative OOTB
equivalent to convince them with?

> Anyway a good wide strategy is surely a very good thing !
>
>  
Amen on that too! (Providing it isn't predicated on drawing critical
resources from the core!)

Ian




Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Ian, Andrew,
>
> I think that the problem here is more to compete with offers like
> http://www.intuit.com/ (in US)
> http://www.sage.com/ (in EU)
> and convince end users that OFBiz is the right tool !
>
> Anyway a good wide strategy is surely a very good thing !
>
> Jacques
>
> PS : I did some comparaison between Sage 100 and OFBiz for a client (in french including POS with multi-sites) and I was happily
> surprised how OFBiz was facing the challenge :o)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew Sykes" <[hidden email]>
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 4:54 PM
> Subject: Re: What does "OOTB front-end accessibility" mean to you?
>
>
>  
>> Ian,
>>
>> A fascinating insight, perhaps you could go a bit further in explaining
>> a strategy?
>>
>> I wonder how relevant OfBiz is to the very small end of the market,
>> there's an awful lot to learn and (from a small business perspective) an
>> awful lot that could go wrong.
>>
>> I almost think that you are talking about a different product perhaps
>> "OfBiz Lite" or something...
>>
>> - Andrew
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 10:15 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>    
>>> I've been having this email discussion with David which he's asked me to
>>> move out onto this mailing list. I guess that probably means I'm in for
>>> a good kicking. But here goes anyway
>>>
>>> First, some background to give some kind of handle on where I'm coming from.
>>>
>>> I started working with computers in the late 60s as a physicist
>>> modelling plasma dynamics. I've switched careers several times since,
>>> but my relationship to computers remains the same. As a user, interested
>>> not so much in the tool itself, but with what it can do.
>>>
>>> I first came across OFBiz a month ago whilst researching a client's
>>> request for back-end integration with osCommerce. As someone who was
>>> raised in a generation that really did believe that 2001 was going to be
>>> like Stanley Kubrick said it was going to be, I can count on one hand
>>> the number of times a piece of technology has had enough wow to stop me
>>> dead in my tracks. OFBiz would be one!
>>>
>>>  From the outset it was clear that it was way too big a leap for any
>>> client I know of to contemplate making. But the technology looked so
>>> sweet I just had to find out more.
>>>
>>> The more I looked the more fascinated I became. Platform independent.
>>> Modular. Scale-able. Open Source. Wow! What a magnificent tool this
>>> could be! Why would anybody ever want to use anything else?
>>>
>>> This is a tool for running any kind of business you like. None of us can
>>> survive without connection to some kind of business or other. This could
>>> be monumental. The next big leap forward.
>>>
>>> I didn't expect installation to be easy, and it wasn't! But then again,
>>> I've just installed XP on new PC and that wasn't all that easy either
>>> (what version of Windows ever was?)
>>>
>>> I managed to get pilot installations of OFBiz (opentaps flavour) running
>>> on Windows and Linux without too much trouble. But then again, I do have
>>> some experience of this kind of thing. When it comes to setting up new
>>> tools, I have several magnitudes more patience than anybody else I know.
>>> Which means that if an application is going to be of any use to anybody
>>> else apart from me, I have to hone usability down to the point it's a
>>> no-brainer!
>>>
>>> So I'm running opentaps and slowly working my way through the various
>>> manuals and documents trying to get a handle on what this thing can
>>> really do.
>>>
>>> Pretty quickly I discover at least one glaringly obvious problem. So
>>> obvious that if I demonstrated it to a client they would laugh me out of
>>> the building in minutes.
>>>
>>> The problem itself is trivial. A simple matter of somebody sitting down
>>> for a few days and writing the necessary code. But who is going to do
>>> that? Not me surely? I have the Java textbook, but still haven't found
>>> time to sit down and read more than the first couple of chapters.
>>> Finding other people with the expertise and the time to do that would be
>>> the key. Or at least that's what I thought at the time!
>>>
>>> So I go back to the web sites and start looking at the organisation and
>>> the people rather than the code.
>>>
>>> Who could fix this problem? How much would it cost? Why hasn't it been
>>> fixed already?
>>>
>>>  From the outset it's obvious that the Apache Incubator site is a
>>> marvellous resource for engineers. But looking it from the user's POV -
>>> as someone who wants to contact an engineer rather be one himself -
>>> there isn't much I can get a handle on here.
>>>
>>> Opentaps, Opensource Strategies and Undersun look much more like what I
>>> need. Clean. Crisp. Elegant designs. Engineering 'talkback' mixed down
>>> low in the background. You don't have to be an engineer to understand
>>> that, for enterprise-level installation, these guys look like the business.
>>>
>>> But enterprise-level means high-end, expensive! Corporate lawyers can
>>> charge thousands an hour. Maybe these guys know they're worth more? I
>>> have seen odd references to multi-million dollar installations. Sounds
>>> par for that kind of course to me.
>>>
>>> So where does that leave the ordinary Joe?
>>>
>>> All businesses I personally deal with are small. 1 to 50 employees max.
>>>
>>> OFBiz looks like it should be scalable, could be of value to all of them.
>>>
>>> But how much value, and how much cost?
>>>
>>> If I was running the IT department at the White House I'd be inviting
>>> the OFBiz guys in and showing MS the door. With the prospect of
>>> high-end, high-value contracts in the pipeline, I guess these guys just
>>> won't have time to even think about making this stuff accessible to the
>>> average Joe in the street. Oh well. Better start lowering my sights and
>>> start thinking about cobbling together some low-level XSLT plugins for
>>> the existing kit rather than thinking about a complete revamp of the
>>> whole machine.
>>>
>>> Then I discover Si's Jan 09/06 blog - exactly a year ago! - meditating
>>> on exactly these issues.
>>>
>>> "If open source is to gain popularity and move "up the stack", however,
>>> open source software will need other advocates in the enterprise.
>>> Somebody else besides the IT department must also be able to convince
>>> enterprise users that open source software is indeed a credible
>>> solution. Whether that advocate ultimately is a consulting firm, a
>>> distributor, or an ISV using open source software, we don't really know yet.
>>>
>>> What we can be certain of is this: whoever makes open source a credible
>>> in the enterprise would ultimately win the "Linux wars."
>>>
>>> Aha. Now then. That's interesting.
>>>
>>> So credibility on the enterprise level isn't such a done deal after all
>>> then.
>>>
>>> So who could those advocates outside the IT department be? Is it the
>>> consulting firm, the distributor, the ISV? Or is it all or none of the
>>> above?
>>>
>>> Rereading Si's blog, I was struck by this:
>>>
>>> "Most buyers of commercial software don't actually verify that its
>>> features are bug free or check out its support lines. Instead, their
>>> "due diligence" consists of making sure that there are other users using
>>> the software, including, most importantly, their golf buddies."
>>>
>>> How important an insight is that?
>>>
>>> So the key to credibility in the decision making process lies with those
>>> who know absolutely nothing about the technicalities and most probably
>>> care even less!
>>>
>>> Why else would IBM spend many millions advertising enterprise level
>>> technology on prime time television? How many viewers are actually in
>>> the market for Blade servers?
>>>
>>> I doubt anybody in IBM marketing believes they're spending that money to
>>> advertise servers. They're spending it to make sure that not only the
>>> average golf-buddy, but also his wife, kids, and grandmother all know
>>> that IBM is a credible player. Because they know that's how the big
>>> decisions are actually made. Emotionally, by people who are so far up on
>>> the bridge of the ship, away from the engine room, that they probably
>>> know less about the mechanics of it than their grandmothers!
>>>
>>> So making OFBiz emotionally accessible to the average Joe Soap's
>>> grandmother could be the key to unlocking both enterprise level and
>>> wider markets.
>>>
>>>  From an outsiders perspective, it seems that Si in particular has
>>> already done a considerable amount of work in this direction. As someone
>>> with formal financial rather than technical training, he is perhaps more
>>> focused on markets than most. But Si is in no way representative of the
>>> average user. His blog tells me his parents were postgrad programmers
>>> who taught him everything they knew. Most programmers would give their
>>> eye teeth for a  background like that! How many management wonks would
>>> relish the idea of lifting up the bonnet everytime they wanted to start
>>> their car? They chose their roles in life precisely to keep away from
>>> that kind of thing. As indeed did Si when he chose a career in finance.
>>>
>>> The moral of this would be that what is accessible to Si or most other
>>> users on this forum is not necessarily even slightly accessible to the
>>> average businessperson on the street.
>>>
>>> If you wanted to maintain an elite group of cognoscenti who are in the
>>> position to charge highly for their services then you may want to keep
>>> it that way - or not as the case may be.
>>>
>>> I would argue that the code is so radical and so deep that some levels
>>> will always remain expert only. Increasing accessibility to a wider user
>>> group would not threaten that core and could only lead to a wider user
>>> base and larger market share.
>>>
>>> OOTB, front-end, user accessibility to me means minimising any factors
>>> which take time and attention away from getting on with the job the tool
>>> was designed to do. From a purely user's POV, these are nothing more
>>> than distractions, irritations and ultimately objections to buying into
>>> the programme. Noise drowning out signals on the marketing channels if
>>> you like.
>>>
>>> As in all user applications, a proportion of time spent tooling-up and a
>>> level of unwanted noise is to be expected. But in the job-efficiency
>>> equation, this is a drag component to be optimised out. In the
>>> development of sleek, user-friendly implementations, a zero tolerance
>>> policy on noise, friction and drag is the only way to go!
>>>
>>> To me, OOTB accessibility means exactly what it says on the tin: I don't
>>> need a degree in anything to install or run it. It does everything it
>>> said it would do. Is easy to maintain. Has cost exactly what they told
>>> me it would. A brilliant tool for the job. Wouldn't even think of using
>>> anything else.
>>>
>>> But creating something like that means taking at least some of the focus
>>> away engineering a better mousetrap, to looking at the way it appears to
>>> the average mouse. Is it easy for them to get to the cheese, or are
>>> there still too many wires and cogs in the way? Closing a sale means
>>> overcoming all the objections. Making offers people don't see any reason
>>> to refuse.
>>>
>>> The marketing proposition from Undersun and Opensource Strategies looks
>>> fine - if you're only interested in high end, enterprise-level applications.
>>>
>>> The engineering proposition on Apache incubator looks fine - if you're
>>> interested in being an engineer.
>>>
>>> But where is the low-end proposition for the average businessperson in
>>> the street? Something his golf playing buddie's grandmother might
>>> understand?
>>>
>>> It could be concluded that what I'm angling for here is a series of
>>> television adverts.
>>>
>>> If I thought OFBiz had a couple of mill lying around spare then this
>>> would certainly be the case. If it's good enough for IBM...
>>>
>>> But I doubt OFBiz is anywhere near that kind of position at the moment.
>>>
>>> I just kinda don't see any reason why it shouldn't be at some time in
>>> the foreseeable future.
>>>
>>> But there would need to be a will to go in this direction and the
>>> deliberate diversion of at least some of the time, creativity and
>>> resources away from strictly engineering matters, into making the
>>> application more accessible - acceptable - applicable, to a wider user base.
>>>
>>> That would mean opening up whatever channels of communication with the
>>> wider public are available and boosting the signal well above the noise.
>>>
>>> Almost everybody has need of OFBiz. They just don't know it yet!
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>>      
>> --
>> Kind Regards
>> Andrew Sykes <[hidden email]>
>> Sykes Development Ltd
>> http://www.sykesdevelopment.com
>>    
>
>
>
>  

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
==============================================================================================

[Jacques Le Roux]

Ian,

No this is not priviledged. On the other hand I did only functionnal comparaison and it took me some time. It's only in french.
I'm not now in a situation to do more. I managed to be close to the Sage 100 solution but with more functionnalities (Sage does not
handle well the Web side, it's always a client-server architecture).

So I was a little mor expansive but with far more openness and the client finally choose my solution (he is wise and without fear
;). Too bad he was sued for forgery in the mean-time. Something weird, a company in France copyrighted french departements numbers
(there are about an hundred of dpt here and they are numbered from 1 to 974 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9partement_in_France)
an my client is using his dpt number in his businness. The law prohibit to register departements names and such but forgot the
numbers. This company is making money with this idea. My client is now waiting for the law to change (his deputy puts a proposition
of law to include numbers in september but nothing is done yet because of near presidential elections). Moreover now (just yesterday
2/1/07) his departement general counsel is suing the "bad" company. So I hope one day this project will be achieved....

Sorry to annoy everybody with that but it's so a strange story ;o)

That said you see why I'm no really ready now to do more about that...

Jacques

From: "Ian McNulty" <[hidden email]>
> Jacques,
>
> > I did some comparaison between Sage 100 and OFBiz for a client (in french including POS with multi-sites) and I was happily
surprised how OFBiz was facing the challenge :o)

> >
>
> That's exactly the result I expected, and I am heartened to hear it
> confirmed.
>
> A differential analysis of the relative costs, downtime etc. would be a
> significant step forward. Or is this client-privileged?
>
> >
> > I think that the problem here is more to compete with offers like
> > http://www.intuit.com/ (in US)
> > http://www.sage.com/ (in EU)
> > and convince end users that OFBiz is the right tool !
> >
> >
> That's right on the money. That's also how I came to find out about
> OFBiz myself. By looking first at the commercially available solutions
> presented in front of my nose, then next at the Open Source equivalents
> buried behind. I'm guessing a lot of others may stumble across it the
> same way. And the obstacles I've encountered will be the same ones they
> encounter too. Solving them could therefore be a significant
> contribution to widening the user base.
>
> How can end users be convinced if there is no alternative OOTB
> equivalent to convince them with?
>
> > Anyway a good wide strategy is surely a very good thing !
> >
> >
> Amen on that too! (Providing it isn't predicated on drawing critical
> resources from the core!)
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> > Ian, Andrew,
> >
> > I think that the problem here is more to compete with offers like
> > http://www.intuit.com/ (in US)
> > http://www.sage.com/ (in EU)
> > and convince end users that OFBiz is the right tool !
> >
> > Anyway a good wide strategy is surely a very good thing !
> >
> > Jacques
> >
> > PS : I did some comparaison between Sage 100 and OFBiz for a client (in french including POS with multi-sites) and I was happily
> > surprised how OFBiz was facing the challenge :o)
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Andrew Sykes" <[hidden email]>
> > To: <[hidden email]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 4:54 PM
> > Subject: Re: What does "OOTB front-end accessibility" mean to you?
> >
> >
> >
> >> Ian,
> >>
> >> A fascinating insight, perhaps you could go a bit further in explaining
> >> a strategy?
> >>
> >> I wonder how relevant OfBiz is to the very small end of the market,
> >> there's an awful lot to learn and (from a small business perspective) an
> >> awful lot that could go wrong.
> >>
> >> I almost think that you are talking about a different product perhaps
> >> "OfBiz Lite" or something...
> >>
> >> - Andrew
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 10:15 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
> >>
> >>> I've been having this email discussion with David which he's asked me to
> >>> move out onto this mailing list. I guess that probably means I'm in for
> >>> a good kicking. But here goes anyway
> >>>
> >>> First, some background to give some kind of handle on where I'm coming from.
> >>>
> >>> I started working with computers in the late 60s as a physicist
> >>> modelling plasma dynamics. I've switched careers several times since,
> >>> but my relationship to computers remains the same. As a user, interested
> >>> not so much in the tool itself, but with what it can do.
> >>>
> >>> I first came across OFBiz a month ago whilst researching a client's
> >>> request for back-end integration with osCommerce. As someone who was
> >>> raised in a generation that really did believe that 2001 was going to be
> >>> like Stanley Kubrick said it was going to be, I can count on one hand
> >>> the number of times a piece of technology has had enough wow to stop me
> >>> dead in my tracks. OFBiz would be one!
> >>>
> >>>  From the outset it was clear that it was way too big a leap for any
> >>> client I know of to contemplate making. But the technology looked so
> >>> sweet I just had to find out more.
> >>>
> >>> The more I looked the more fascinated I became. Platform independent.
> >>> Modular. Scale-able. Open Source. Wow! What a magnificent tool this
> >>> could be! Why would anybody ever want to use anything else?
> >>>
> >>> This is a tool for running any kind of business you like. None of us can
> >>> survive without connection to some kind of business or other. This could
> >>> be monumental. The next big leap forward.
> >>>
> >>> I didn't expect installation to be easy, and it wasn't! But then again,
> >>> I've just installed XP on new PC and that wasn't all that easy either
> >>> (what version of Windows ever was?)
> >>>
> >>> I managed to get pilot installations of OFBiz (opentaps flavour) running
> >>> on Windows and Linux without too much trouble. But then again, I do have
> >>> some experience of this kind of thing. When it comes to setting up new
> >>> tools, I have several magnitudes more patience than anybody else I know.
> >>> Which means that if an application is going to be of any use to anybody
> >>> else apart from me, I have to hone usability down to the point it's a
> >>> no-brainer!
> >>>
> >>> So I'm running opentaps and slowly working my way through the various
> >>> manuals and documents trying to get a handle on what this thing can
> >>> really do.
> >>>
> >>> Pretty quickly I discover at least one glaringly obvious problem. So
> >>> obvious that if I demonstrated it to a client they would laugh me out of
> >>> the building in minutes.
> >>>
> >>> The problem itself is trivial. A simple matter of somebody sitting down
> >>> for a few days and writing the necessary code. But who is going to do
> >>> that? Not me surely? I have the Java textbook, but still haven't found
> >>> time to sit down and read more than the first couple of chapters.
> >>> Finding other people with the expertise and the time to do that would be
> >>> the key. Or at least that's what I thought at the time!
> >>>
> >>> So I go back to the web sites and start looking at the organisation and
> >>> the people rather than the code.
> >>>
> >>> Who could fix this problem? How much would it cost? Why hasn't it been
> >>> fixed already?
> >>>
> >>>  From the outset it's obvious that the Apache Incubator site is a
> >>> marvellous resource for engineers. But looking it from the user's POV -
> >>> as someone who wants to contact an engineer rather be one himself -
> >>> there isn't much I can get a handle on here.
> >>>
> >>> Opentaps, Opensource Strategies and Undersun look much more like what I
> >>> need. Clean. Crisp. Elegant designs. Engineering 'talkback' mixed down
> >>> low in the background. You don't have to be an engineer to understand
> >>> that, for enterprise-level installation, these guys look like the business.
> >>>
> >>> But enterprise-level means high-end, expensive! Corporate lawyers can
> >>> charge thousands an hour. Maybe these guys know they're worth more? I
> >>> have seen odd references to multi-million dollar installations. Sounds
> >>> par for that kind of course to me.
> >>>
> >>> So where does that leave the ordinary Joe?
> >>>
> >>> All businesses I personally deal with are small. 1 to 50 employees max.
> >>>
> >>> OFBiz looks like it should be scalable, could be of value to all of them.
> >>>
> >>> But how much value, and how much cost?
> >>>
> >>> If I was running the IT department at the White House I'd be inviting
> >>> the OFBiz guys in and showing MS the door. With the prospect of
> >>> high-end, high-value contracts in the pipeline, I guess these guys just
> >>> won't have time to even think about making this stuff accessible to the
> >>> average Joe in the street. Oh well. Better start lowering my sights and
> >>> start thinking about cobbling together some low-level XSLT plugins for
> >>> the existing kit rather than thinking about a complete revamp of the
> >>> whole machine.
> >>>
> >>> Then I discover Si's Jan 09/06 blog - exactly a year ago! - meditating
> >>> on exactly these issues.
> >>>
> >>> "If open source is to gain popularity and move "up the stack", however,
> >>> open source software will need other advocates in the enterprise.
> >>> Somebody else besides the IT department must also be able to convince
> >>> enterprise users that open source software is indeed a credible
> >>> solution. Whether that advocate ultimately is a consulting firm, a
> >>> distributor, or an ISV using open source software, we don't really know yet.
> >>>
> >>> What we can be certain of is this: whoever makes open source a credible
> >>> in the enterprise would ultimately win the "Linux wars."
> >>>
> >>> Aha. Now then. That's interesting.
> >>>
> >>> So credibility on the enterprise level isn't such a done deal after all
> >>> then.
> >>>
> >>> So who could those advocates outside the IT department be? Is it the
> >>> consulting firm, the distributor, the ISV? Or is it all or none of the
> >>> above?
> >>>
> >>> Rereading Si's blog, I was struck by this:
> >>>
> >>> "Most buyers of commercial software don't actually verify that its
> >>> features are bug free or check out its support lines. Instead, their
> >>> "due diligence" consists of making sure that there are other users using
> >>> the software, including, most importantly, their golf buddies."
> >>>
> >>> How important an insight is that?
> >>>
> >>> So the key to credibility in the decision making process lies with those
> >>> who know absolutely nothing about the technicalities and most probably
> >>> care even less!
> >>>
> >>> Why else would IBM spend many millions advertising enterprise level
> >>> technology on prime time television? How many viewers are actually in
> >>> the market for Blade servers?
> >>>
> >>> I doubt anybody in IBM marketing believes they're spending that money to
> >>> advertise servers. They're spending it to make sure that not only the
> >>> average golf-buddy, but also his wife, kids, and grandmother all know
> >>> that IBM is a credible player. Because they know that's how the big
> >>> decisions are actually made. Emotionally, by people who are so far up on
> >>> the bridge of the ship, away from the engine room, that they probably
> >>> know less about the mechanics of it than their grandmothers!
> >>>
> >>> So making OFBiz emotionally accessible to the average Joe Soap's
> >>> grandmother could be the key to unlocking both enterprise level and
> >>> wider markets.
> >>>
> >>>  From an outsiders perspective, it seems that Si in particular has
> >>> already done a considerable amount of work in this direction. As someone
> >>> with formal financial rather than technical training, he is perhaps more
> >>> focused on markets than most. But Si is in no way representative of the
> >>> average user. His blog tells me his parents were postgrad programmers
> >>> who taught him everything they knew. Most programmers would give their
> >>> eye teeth for a  background like that! How many management wonks would
> >>> relish the idea of lifting up the bonnet everytime they wanted to start
> >>> their car? They chose their roles in life precisely to keep away from
> >>> that kind of thing. As indeed did Si when he chose a career in finance.
> >>>
> >>> The moral of this would be that what is accessible to Si or most other
> >>> users on this forum is not necessarily even slightly accessible to the
> >>> average businessperson on the street.
> >>>
> >>> If you wanted to maintain an elite group of cognoscenti who are in the
> >>> position to charge highly for their services then you may want to keep
> >>> it that way - or not as the case may be.
> >>>
> >>> I would argue that the code is so radical and so deep that some levels
> >>> will always remain expert only. Increasing accessibility to a wider user
> >>> group would not threaten that core and could only lead to a wider user
> >>> base and larger market share.
> >>>
> >>> OOTB, front-end, user accessibility to me means minimising any factors
> >>> which take time and attention away from getting on with the job the tool
> >>> was designed to do. From a purely user's POV, these are nothing more
> >>> than distractions, irritations and ultimately objections to buying into
> >>> the programme. Noise drowning out signals on the marketing channels if
> >>> you like.
> >>>
> >>> As in all user applications, a proportion of time spent tooling-up and a
> >>> level of unwanted noise is to be expected. But in the job-efficiency
> >>> equation, this is a drag component to be optimised out. In the
> >>> development of sleek, user-friendly implementations, a zero tolerance
> >>> policy on noise, friction and drag is the only way to go!
> >>>
> >>> To me, OOTB accessibility means exactly what it says on the tin: I don't
> >>> need a degree in anything to install or run it. It does everything it
> >>> said it would do. Is easy to maintain. Has cost exactly what they told
> >>> me it would. A brilliant tool for the job. Wouldn't even think of using
> >>> anything else.
> >>>
> >>> But creating something like that means taking at least some of the focus
> >>> away engineering a better mousetrap, to looking at the way it appears to
> >>> the average mouse. Is it easy for them to get to the cheese, or are
> >>> there still too many wires and cogs in the way? Closing a sale means
> >>> overcoming all the objections. Making offers people don't see any reason
> >>> to refuse.
> >>>
> >>> The marketing proposition from Undersun and Opensource Strategies looks
> >>> fine - if you're only interested in high end, enterprise-level applications.
> >>>
> >>> The engineering proposition on Apache incubator looks fine - if you're
> >>> interested in being an engineer.
> >>>
> >>> But where is the low-end proposition for the average businessperson in
> >>> the street? Something his golf playing buddie's grandmother might
> >>> understand?
> >>>
> >>> It could be concluded that what I'm angling for here is a series of
> >>> television adverts.
> >>>
> >>> If I thought OFBiz had a couple of mill lying around spare then this
> >>> would certainly be the case. If it's good enough for IBM...
> >>>
> >>> But I doubt OFBiz is anywhere near that kind of position at the moment.
> >>>
> >>> I just kinda don't see any reason why it shouldn't be at some time in
> >>> the foreseeable future.
> >>>
> >>> But there would need to be a will to go in this direction and the
> >>> deliberate diversion of at least some of the time, creativity and
> >>> resources away from strictly engineering matters, into making the
> >>> application more accessible - acceptable - applicable, to a wider user base.
> >>>
> >>> That would mean opening up whatever channels of communication with the
> >>> wider public are available and boosting the signal well above the noise.
> >>>
> >>> Almost everybody has need of OFBiz. They just don't know it yet!
> >>>
> >>> Ian
> >>>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Kind Regards
> >> Andrew Sykes <[hidden email]>
> >> Sykes Development Ltd
> >> http://www.sykesdevelopment.com
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
> ==============================================================================================

[Daniel Kunkel]

Hi Ian

I'm going to jump in and say I think there may be a better way.

>From what I'm reading, I get the idea that you want to create some sort
of fork in the development in order to have a version that is simpler
and more easily implemented out of the box.

I REALLY don't like the idea of any kind of development fork even though
I see how alluring it is given the huge untapped markets. With a project
as big and encompassing as OFBiz, it's easy to see how certain design
decisions have affected the appropriateness of the application for
particular markets.

I would like to see if we can build on the strength of OFBiz's framework
and create more "interchangeable plug-ins" like those in the specialized
directory that add or remove features as needed. I think this could be
used to create an app that is easily  configured for the needs of any
particular company.

Furthermore, it might help to create a simpler, more intuitive
interface. If the interface is clear and easy to use, even small
companies will appreciate most of the extra features.

Perhaps some developers on this list already have modules they've
created can share them as a specialized modules.

Thanks

Daniel





On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 18:22 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> Me again :)
>
> Right on the money old son. OFBiz light was one of the possible
> strategies that came to mind.
>
> The principal would be that to move from a high-end, high-value,
> tailor-made service where a skilled wheelwright is needed to re-factor,
> if not reinvent, the wheel on every installation, to more of a
> mass-market solution with a wider user-base, requires offering easily
> understood, preconfigured solutions in price bands customers can afford.
>
> That's a whole science in itself!
>
> In the absence of that, the strategy would be to use the net for what it
> has proved to be best at. Building user-groups and user-generated content.
>
> The functionality of the user interface on ;the mailing list we are
> currently communicating through is proven for it's efficacy in focusing
> the attention of a relatively small and highly motivated group onto
> resolution of sticky technical issues. But in this context, an avalanche
> of n00bies asking the same old questions would be indifferentiable from
> an avalanche of spam.
>
> A format which would welcome a range of basic questions from a wider
> user group who might be interested but are currently neither informed,
> confident nor motivated enough to RTFM would be more along the lines of
> those run by osCommerce, Zen Cart, Ubuntu and the like. This is, imho,
> the single most important contribution these projects have made to
> developments in the field.
>
> On those kind of forums the default is not that the experts are
> inundated with every single post in their inbox, but that they can
> browse and choose to address issues or not at their leisure.  The result
> is a much more comfortable environment for a wider group of potential
> users to adopt.
>
> 'OFBiz Lite' would certainly be a major stepping stone along the way.
> But the effort to do something like that is perhaps more than the
> current community could bear.
>
> So the answer would be to widen the community, delegate the tasks, and
> spread the load.
>
> The creation of some kind of extra web page, gathering site or forum
> with this objective as the only focus could be a soft way forward to a
> wider user base. To be taken or left by anybody, as the case may be.
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> Andrew Sykes wrote:
> > Ian,
> >
> > A fascinating insight, perhaps you could go a bit further in explaining
> > a strategy?
> >
> > I wonder how relevant OfBiz is to the very small end of the market,
> > there's an awful lot to learn and (from a small business perspective) an
> > awful lot that could go wrong.
> >
> > I almost think that you are talking about a different product perhaps
> > "OfBiz Lite" or something...
> >
> > - Andrew
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 10:15 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
> >  
> >> I've been having this email discussion with David which he's asked me to
> >> move out onto this mailing list. I guess that probably means I'm in for
> >> a good kicking. But here goes anyway
> >>
> >> First, some background to give some kind of handle on where I'm coming from.
> >>
> >> I started working with computers in the late 60s as a physicist
> >> modelling plasma dynamics. I've switched careers several times since,
> >> but my relationship to computers remains the same. As a user, interested
> >> not so much in the tool itself, but with what it can do.
> >>
> >> I first came across OFBiz a month ago whilst researching a client's
> >> request for back-end integration with osCommerce. As someone who was
> >> raised in a generation that really did believe that 2001 was going to be
> >> like Stanley Kubrick said it was going to be, I can count on one hand
> >> the number of times a piece of technology has had enough wow to stop me
> >> dead in my tracks. OFBiz would be one!
> >>
> >>  From the outset it was clear that it was way too big a leap for any
> >> client I know of to contemplate making. But the technology looked so
> >> sweet I just had to find out more.
> >>
> >> The more I looked the more fascinated I became. Platform independent.
> >> Modular. Scale-able. Open Source. Wow! What a magnificent tool this
> >> could be! Why would anybody ever want to use anything else?
> >>
> >> This is a tool for running any kind of business you like. None of us can
> >> survive without connection to some kind of business or other. This could
> >> be monumental. The next big leap forward.
> >>
> >> I didn't expect installation to be easy, and it wasn't! But then again,
> >> I've just installed XP on new PC and that wasn't all that easy either
> >> (what version of Windows ever was?)
> >>
> >> I managed to get pilot installations of OFBiz (opentaps flavour) running
> >> on Windows and Linux without too much trouble. But then again, I do have
> >> some experience of this kind of thing. When it comes to setting up new
> >> tools, I have several magnitudes more patience than anybody else I know.
> >> Which means that if an application is going to be of any use to anybody
> >> else apart from me, I have to hone usability down to the point it's a
> >> no-brainer!
> >>
> >> So I'm running opentaps and slowly working my way through the various
> >> manuals and documents trying to get a handle on what this thing can
> >> really do.
> >>
> >> Pretty quickly I discover at least one glaringly obvious problem. So
> >> obvious that if I demonstrated it to a client they would laugh me out of
> >> the building in minutes.
> >>
> >> The problem itself is trivial. A simple matter of somebody sitting down
> >> for a few days and writing the necessary code. But who is going to do
> >> that? Not me surely? I have the Java textbook, but still haven't found
> >> time to sit down and read more than the first couple of chapters.
> >> Finding other people with the expertise and the time to do that would be
> >> the key. Or at least that's what I thought at the time!
> >>
> >> So I go back to the web sites and start looking at the organisation and
> >> the people rather than the code.
> >>
> >> Who could fix this problem? How much would it cost? Why hasn't it been
> >> fixed already?
> >>
> >>  From the outset it's obvious that the Apache Incubator site is a
> >> marvellous resource for engineers. But looking it from the user's POV -
> >> as someone who wants to contact an engineer rather be one himself -
> >> there isn't much I can get a handle on here.
> >>
> >> Opentaps, Opensource Strategies and Undersun look much more like what I
> >> need. Clean. Crisp. Elegant designs. Engineering 'talkback' mixed down
> >> low in the background. You don't have to be an engineer to understand
> >> that, for enterprise-level installation, these guys look like the business.
> >>
> >> But enterprise-level means high-end, expensive! Corporate lawyers can
> >> charge thousands an hour. Maybe these guys know they're worth more? I
> >> have seen odd references to multi-million dollar installations. Sounds
> >> par for that kind of course to me.
> >>
> >> So where does that leave the ordinary Joe?
> >>
> >> All businesses I personally deal with are small. 1 to 50 employees max.
> >>
> >> OFBiz looks like it should be scalable, could be of value to all of them.
> >>
> >> But how much value, and how much cost?
> >>
> >> If I was running the IT department at the White House I'd be inviting
> >> the OFBiz guys in and showing MS the door. With the prospect of
> >> high-end, high-value contracts in the pipeline, I guess these guys just
> >> won't have time to even think about making this stuff accessible to the
> >> average Joe in the street. Oh well. Better start lowering my sights and
> >> start thinking about cobbling together some low-level XSLT plugins for
> >> the existing kit rather than thinking about a complete revamp of the
> >> whole machine.
> >>
> >> Then I discover Si's Jan 09/06 blog - exactly a year ago! - meditating
> >> on exactly these issues.
> >>
> >> "If open source is to gain popularity and move "up the stack", however,
> >> open source software will need other advocates in the enterprise.
> >> Somebody else besides the IT department must also be able to convince
> >> enterprise users that open source software is indeed a credible
> >> solution. Whether that advocate ultimately is a consulting firm, a
> >> distributor, or an ISV using open source software, we don't really know yet.
> >>
> >> What we can be certain of is this: whoever makes open source a credible
> >> in the enterprise would ultimately win the "Linux wars."
> >>
> >> Aha. Now then. That's interesting.
> >>
> >> So credibility on the enterprise level isn't such a done deal after all
> >> then.
> >>
> >> So who could those advocates outside the IT department be? Is it the
> >> consulting firm, the distributor, the ISV? Or is it all or none of the
> >> above?
> >>
> >> Rereading Si's blog, I was struck by this:
> >>
> >> "Most buyers of commercial software don't actually verify that its
> >> features are bug free or check out its support lines. Instead, their
> >> "due diligence" consists of making sure that there are other users using
> >> the software, including, most importantly, their golf buddies."
> >>
> >> How important an insight is that?
> >>
> >> So the key to credibility in the decision making process lies with those
> >> who know absolutely nothing about the technicalities and most probably
> >> care even less!
> >>
> >> Why else would IBM spend many millions advertising enterprise level
> >> technology on prime time television? How many viewers are actually in
> >> the market for Blade servers?
> >>
> >> I doubt anybody in IBM marketing believes they're spending that money to
> >> advertise servers. They're spending it to make sure that not only the
> >> average golf-buddy, but also his wife, kids, and grandmother all know
> >> that IBM is a credible player. Because they know that's how the big
> >> decisions are actually made. Emotionally, by people who are so far up on
> >> the bridge of the ship, away from the engine room, that they probably
> >> know less about the mechanics of it than their grandmothers!
> >>
> >> So making OFBiz emotionally accessible to the average Joe Soap's
> >> grandmother could be the key to unlocking both enterprise level and
> >> wider markets.
> >>
> >>  From an outsiders perspective, it seems that Si in particular has
> >> already done a considerable amount of work in this direction. As someone
> >> with formal financial rather than technical training, he is perhaps more
> >> focused on markets than most. But Si is in no way representative of the
> >> average user. His blog tells me his parents were postgrad programmers
> >> who taught him everything they knew. Most programmers would give their
> >> eye teeth for a  background like that! How many management wonks would
> >> relish the idea of lifting up the bonnet everytime they wanted to start
> >> their car? They chose their roles in life precisely to keep away from
> >> that kind of thing. As indeed did Si when he chose a career in finance.
> >>
> >> The moral of this would be that what is accessible to Si or most other
> >> users on this forum is not necessarily even slightly accessible to the
> >> average businessperson on the street.
> >>
> >> If you wanted to maintain an elite group of cognoscenti who are in the
> >> position to charge highly for their services then you may want to keep
> >> it that way - or not as the case may be.
> >>
> >> I would argue that the code is so radical and so deep that some levels
> >> will always remain expert only. Increasing accessibility to a wider user
> >> group would not threaten that core and could only lead to a wider user
> >> base and larger market share.
> >>
> >> OOTB, front-end, user accessibility to me means minimising any factors
> >> which take time and attention away from getting on with the job the tool
> >> was designed to do. From a purely user's POV, these are nothing more
> >> than distractions, irritations and ultimately objections to buying into
> >> the programme. Noise drowning out signals on the marketing channels if
> >> you like.
> >>
> >> As in all user applications, a proportion of time spent tooling-up and a
> >> level of unwanted noise is to be expected. But in the job-efficiency
> >> equation, this is a drag component to be optimised out. In the
> >> development of sleek, user-friendly implementations, a zero tolerance
> >> policy on noise, friction and drag is the only way to go!
> >>
> >> To me, OOTB accessibility means exactly what it says on the tin: I don't
> >> need a degree in anything to install or run it. It does everything it
> >> said it would do. Is easy to maintain. Has cost exactly what they told
> >> me it would. A brilliant tool for the job. Wouldn't even think of using
> >> anything else.
> >>
> >> But creating something like that means taking at least some of the focus
> >> away engineering a better mousetrap, to looking at the way it appears to
> >> the average mouse. Is it easy for them to get to the cheese, or are
> >> there still too many wires and cogs in the way? Closing a sale means
> >> overcoming all the objections. Making offers people don't see any reason
> >> to refuse.
> >>
> >> The marketing proposition from Undersun and Opensource Strategies looks
> >> fine - if you're only interested in high end, enterprise-level applications.
> >>
> >> The engineering proposition on Apache incubator looks fine - if you're
> >> interested in being an engineer.
> >>
> >> But where is the low-end proposition for the average businessperson in
> >> the street? Something his golf playing buddie's grandmother might
> >> understand?
> >>
> >> It could be concluded that what I'm angling for here is a series of
> >> television adverts.
> >>
> >> If I thought OFBiz had a couple of mill lying around spare then this
> >> would certainly be the case. If it's good enough for IBM...
> >>
> >> But I doubt OFBiz is anywhere near that kind of position at the moment.
> >>
> >> I just kinda don't see any reason why it shouldn't be at some time in
> >> the foreseeable future.
> >>
> >> But there would need to be a will to go in this direction and the
> >> deliberate diversion of at least some of the time, creativity and
> >> resources away from strictly engineering matters, into making the
> >> application more accessible - acceptable - applicable, to a wider user base.
> >>
> >> That would mean opening up whatever channels of communication with the
> >> wider public are available and boosting the signal well above the noise.
> >>
> >> Almost everybody has need of OFBiz. They just don't know it yet!
> >>
> >> Ian
> >>
> >>    
>

--
Daniel

*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-
Have a GREAT Day!

Daniel Kunkel           [hidden email]
BioWaves, LLC           http://www.BioWaves.com
14150 NE 20th St. Suite F1
Bellevue, WA 98007
800-734-3588    425-895-0050
http://www.Apartment-Pets.com  http://www.Illusion-Optical.com
http://www.Card-Offer.com      http://www.RackWine.com
http://www.JokesBlonde.com     http://www.Brain-Fun.com 
*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-

[Anil Patel]

I like the approach Daniel suggested. We have implemented few projects like
that. I am trying to build Asset Maintenance application that is candidate
for specialized module.



On 1/3/07, Daniel Kunkel <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hi Ian
>
> I'm going to jump in and say I think there may be a better way.
>
> >From what I'm reading, I get the idea that you want to create some sort
> of fork in the development in order to have a version that is simpler
> and more easily implemented out of the box.
>
> I REALLY don't like the idea of any kind of development fork even though
> I see how alluring it is given the huge untapped markets. With a project
> as big and encompassing as OFBiz, it's easy to see how certain design
> decisions have affected the appropriateness of the application for
> particular markets.
>
> I would like to see if we can build on the strength of OFBiz's framework
> and create more "interchangeable plug-ins" like those in the specialized
> directory that add or remove features as needed. I think this could be
> used to create an app that is easily  configured for the needs of any
> particular company.
>
> Furthermore, it might help to create a simpler, more intuitive
> interface. If the interface is clear and easy to use, even small
> companies will appreciate most of the extra features.
>
> Perhaps some developers on this list already have modules they've
> created can share them as a specialized modules.
>
> Thanks
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 18:22 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
> > Andrew,
> >
> > Me again :)
> >
> > Right on the money old son. OFBiz light was one of the possible
> > strategies that came to mind.
> >
> > The principal would be that to move from a high-end, high-value,
> > tailor-made service where a skilled wheelwright is needed to re-factor,
> > if not reinvent, the wheel on every installation, to more of a
> > mass-market solution with a wider user-base, requires offering easily
> > understood, preconfigured solutions in price bands customers can afford.
> >
> > That's a whole science in itself!
> >
> > In the absence of that, the strategy would be to use the net for what it
> > has proved to be best at. Building user-groups and user-generated
> content.
> >
> > The functionality of the user interface on ;the mailing list we are
> > currently communicating through is proven for it's efficacy in focusing
> > the attention of a relatively small and highly motivated group onto
> > resolution of sticky technical issues. But in this context, an avalanche
> > of n00bies asking the same old questions would be indifferentiable from
> > an avalanche of spam.
> >
> > A format which would welcome a range of basic questions from a wider
> > user group who might be interested but are currently neither informed,
> > confident nor motivated enough to RTFM would be more along the lines of
> > those run by osCommerce, Zen Cart, Ubuntu and the like. This is, imho,
> > the single most important contribution these projects have made to
> > developments in the field.
> >
> > On those kind of forums the default is not that the experts are
> > inundated with every single post in their inbox, but that they can
> > browse and choose to address issues or not at their leisure.  The result
> > is a much more comfortable environment for a wider group of potential
> > users to adopt.
> >
> > 'OFBiz Lite' would certainly be a major stepping stone along the way.
> > But the effort to do something like that is perhaps more than the
> > current community could bear.
> >
> > So the answer would be to widen the community, delegate the tasks, and
> > spread the load.
> >
> > The creation of some kind of extra web page, gathering site or forum
> > with this objective as the only focus could be a soft way forward to a
> > wider user base. To be taken or left by anybody, as the case may be.
> >
> > Ian
> >
> >
> >
> > Andrew Sykes wrote:
> > > Ian,
> > >
> > > A fascinating insight, perhaps you could go a bit further in
> explaining
> > > a strategy?
> > >
> > > I wonder how relevant OfBiz is to the very small end of the market,
> > > there's an awful lot to learn and (from a small business perspective)
> an
> > > awful lot that could go wrong.
> > >
> > > I almost think that you are talking about a different product perhaps
> > > "OfBiz Lite" or something...
> > >
> > > - Andrew
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 10:15 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
> > >
> > >> I've been having this email discussion with David which he's asked me
> to
> > >> move out onto this mailing list. I guess that probably means I'm in
> for
> > >> a good kicking. But here goes anyway
> > >>
> > >> First, some background to give some kind of handle on where I'm
> coming from.
> > >>
> > >> I started working with computers in the late 60s as a physicist
> > >> modelling plasma dynamics. I've switched careers several times since,
> > >> but my relationship to computers remains the same. As a user,
> interested
> > >> not so much in the tool itself, but with what it can do.
> > >>
> > >> I first came across OFBiz a month ago whilst researching a client's
> > >> request for back-end integration with osCommerce. As someone who was
> > >> raised in a generation that really did believe that 2001 was going to
> be
> > >> like Stanley Kubrick said it was going to be, I can count on one hand
> > >> the number of times a piece of technology has had enough wow to stop
> me
> > >> dead in my tracks. OFBiz would be one!
> > >>
> > >>  From the outset it was clear that it was way too big a leap for any
> > >> client I know of to contemplate making. But the technology looked so
> > >> sweet I just had to find out more.
> > >>
> > >> The more I looked the more fascinated I became. Platform independent.
> > >> Modular. Scale-able. Open Source. Wow! What a magnificent tool this
> > >> could be! Why would anybody ever want to use anything else?
> > >>
> > >> This is a tool for running any kind of business you like. None of us
> can
> > >> survive without connection to some kind of business or other. This
> could
> > >> be monumental. The next big leap forward.
> > >>
> > >> I didn't expect installation to be easy, and it wasn't! But then
> again,
> > >> I've just installed XP on new PC and that wasn't all that easy either
> > >> (what version of Windows ever was?)
> > >>
> > >> I managed to get pilot installations of OFBiz (opentaps flavour)
> running
> > >> on Windows and Linux without too much trouble. But then again, I do
> have
> > >> some experience of this kind of thing. When it comes to setting up
> new
> > >> tools, I have several magnitudes more patience than anybody else I
> know.
> > >> Which means that if an application is going to be of any use to
> anybody
> > >> else apart from me, I have to hone usability down to the point it's a
> > >> no-brainer!
> > >>
> > >> So I'm running opentaps and slowly working my way through the various
> > >> manuals and documents trying to get a handle on what this thing can
> > >> really do.
> > >>
> > >> Pretty quickly I discover at least one glaringly obvious problem. So
> > >> obvious that if I demonstrated it to a client they would laugh me out
> of
> > >> the building in minutes.
> > >>
> > >> The problem itself is trivial. A simple matter of somebody sitting
> down
> > >> for a few days and writing the necessary code. But who is going to do
> > >> that? Not me surely? I have the Java textbook, but still haven't
> found
> > >> time to sit down and read more than the first couple of chapters.
> > >> Finding other people with the expertise and the time to do that would
> be
> > >> the key. Or at least that's what I thought at the time!
> > >>
> > >> So I go back to the web sites and start looking at the organisation
> and
> > >> the people rather than the code.
> > >>
> > >> Who could fix this problem? How much would it cost? Why hasn't it
> been
> > >> fixed already?
> > >>
> > >>  From the outset it's obvious that the Apache Incubator site is a
> > >> marvellous resource for engineers. But looking it from the user's POV
> -
> > >> as someone who wants to contact an engineer rather be one himself -
> > >> there isn't much I can get a handle on here.
> > >>
> > >> Opentaps, Opensource Strategies and Undersun look much more like what
> I
> > >> need. Clean. Crisp. Elegant designs. Engineering 'talkback' mixed
> down
> > >> low in the background. You don't have to be an engineer to understand
> > >> that, for enterprise-level installation, these guys look like the
> business.
> > >>
> > >> But enterprise-level means high-end, expensive! Corporate lawyers can
> > >> charge thousands an hour. Maybe these guys know they're worth more? I
> > >> have seen odd references to multi-million dollar installations.
> Sounds
> > >> par for that kind of course to me.
> > >>
> > >> So where does that leave the ordinary Joe?
> > >>
> > >> All businesses I personally deal with are small. 1 to 50 employees
> max.
> > >>
> > >> OFBiz looks like it should be scalable, could be of value to all of
> them.
> > >>
> > >> But how much value, and how much cost?
> > >>
> > >> If I was running the IT department at the White House I'd be inviting
> > >> the OFBiz guys in and showing MS the door. With the prospect of
> > >> high-end, high-value contracts in the pipeline, I guess these guys
> just
> > >> won't have time to even think about making this stuff accessible to
> the
> > >> average Joe in the street. Oh well. Better start lowering my sights
> and
> > >> start thinking about cobbling together some low-level XSLT plugins
> for
> > >> the existing kit rather than thinking about a complete revamp of the
> > >> whole machine.
> > >>
> > >> Then I discover Si's Jan 09/06 blog - exactly a year ago! -
> meditating
> > >> on exactly these issues.
> > >>
> > >> "If open source is to gain popularity and move "up the stack",
> however,
> > >> open source software will need other advocates in the enterprise.
> > >> Somebody else besides the IT department must also be able to convince
> > >> enterprise users that open source software is indeed a credible
> > >> solution. Whether that advocate ultimately is a consulting firm, a
> > >> distributor, or an ISV using open source software, we don't really
> know yet.
> > >>
> > >> What we can be certain of is this: whoever makes open source a
> credible
> > >> in the enterprise would ultimately win the "Linux wars."
> > >>
> > >> Aha. Now then. That's interesting.
> > >>
> > >> So credibility on the enterprise level isn't such a done deal after
> all
> > >> then.
> > >>
> > >> So who could those advocates outside the IT department be? Is it the
> > >> consulting firm, the distributor, the ISV? Or is it all or none of
> the
> > >> above?
> > >>
> > >> Rereading Si's blog, I was struck by this:
> > >>
> > >> "Most buyers of commercial software don't actually verify that its
> > >> features are bug free or check out its support lines. Instead, their
> > >> "due diligence" consists of making sure that there are other users
> using
> > >> the software, including, most importantly, their golf buddies."
> > >>
> > >> How important an insight is that?
> > >>
> > >> So the key to credibility in the decision making process lies with
> those
> > >> who know absolutely nothing about the technicalities and most
> probably
> > >> care even less!
> > >>
> > >> Why else would IBM spend many millions advertising enterprise level
> > >> technology on prime time television? How many viewers are actually in
> > >> the market for Blade servers?
> > >>
> > >> I doubt anybody in IBM marketing believes they're spending that money
> to
> > >> advertise servers. They're spending it to make sure that not only the
> > >> average golf-buddy, but also his wife, kids, and grandmother all know
> > >> that IBM is a credible player. Because they know that's how the big
> > >> decisions are actually made. Emotionally, by people who are so far up
> on
> > >> the bridge of the ship, away from the engine room, that they probably
> > >> know less about the mechanics of it than their grandmothers!
> > >>
> > >> So making OFBiz emotionally accessible to the average Joe Soap's
> > >> grandmother could be the key to unlocking both enterprise level and
> > >> wider markets.
> > >>
> > >>  From an outsiders perspective, it seems that Si in particular has
> > >> already done a considerable amount of work in this direction. As
> someone
> > >> with formal financial rather than technical training, he is perhaps
> more
> > >> focused on markets than most. But Si is in no way representative of
> the
> > >> average user. His blog tells me his parents were postgrad programmers
> > >> who taught him everything they knew. Most programmers would give
> their
> > >> eye teeth for a  background like that! How many management wonks
> would
> > >> relish the idea of lifting up the bonnet everytime they wanted to
> start
> > >> their car? They chose their roles in life precisely to keep away from
> > >> that kind of thing. As indeed did Si when he chose a career in
> finance.
> > >>
> > >> The moral of this would be that what is accessible to Si or most
> other
> > >> users on this forum is not necessarily even slightly accessible to
> the
> > >> average businessperson on the street.
> > >>
> > >> If you wanted to maintain an elite group of cognoscenti who are in
> the
> > >> position to charge highly for their services then you may want to
> keep
> > >> it that way - or not as the case may be.
> > >>
> > >> I would argue that the code is so radical and so deep that some
> levels
> > >> will always remain expert only. Increasing accessibility to a wider
> user
> > >> group would not threaten that core and could only lead to a wider
> user
> > >> base and larger market share.
> > >>
> > >> OOTB, front-end, user accessibility to me means minimising any
> factors
> > >> which take time and attention away from getting on with the job the
> tool
> > >> was designed to do. From a purely user's POV, these are nothing more
> > >> than distractions, irritations and ultimately objections to buying
> into
> > >> the programme. Noise drowning out signals on the marketing channels
> if
> > >> you like.
> > >>
> > >> As in all user applications, a proportion of time spent tooling-up
> and a
> > >> level of unwanted noise is to be expected. But in the job-efficiency
> > >> equation, this is a drag component to be optimised out. In the
> > >> development of sleek, user-friendly implementations, a zero tolerance
> > >> policy on noise, friction and drag is the only way to go!
> > >>
> > >> To me, OOTB accessibility means exactly what it says on the tin: I
> don't
> > >> need a degree in anything to install or run it. It does everything it
> > >> said it would do. Is easy to maintain. Has cost exactly what they
> told
> > >> me it would. A brilliant tool for the job. Wouldn't even think of
> using
> > >> anything else.
> > >>
> > >> But creating something like that means taking at least some of the
> focus
> > >> away engineering a better mousetrap, to looking at the way it appears
> to
> > >> the average mouse. Is it easy for them to get to the cheese, or are
> > >> there still too many wires and cogs in the way? Closing a sale means
> > >> overcoming all the objections. Making offers people don't see any
> reason
> > >> to refuse.
> > >>
> > >> The marketing proposition from Undersun and Opensource Strategies
> looks
> > >> fine - if you're only interested in high end, enterprise-level
> applications.
> > >>
> > >> The engineering proposition on Apache incubator looks fine - if
> you're
> > >> interested in being an engineer.
> > >>
> > >> But where is the low-end proposition for the average businessperson
> in
> > >> the street? Something his golf playing buddie's grandmother might
> > >> understand?
> > >>
> > >> It could be concluded that what I'm angling for here is a series of
> > >> television adverts.
> > >>
> > >> If I thought OFBiz had a couple of mill lying around spare then this
> > >> would certainly be the case. If it's good enough for IBM...
> > >>
> > >> But I doubt OFBiz is anywhere near that kind of position at the
> moment.
> > >>
> > >> I just kinda don't see any reason why it shouldn't be at some time in
> > >> the foreseeable future.
> > >>
> > >> But there would need to be a will to go in this direction and the
> > >> deliberate diversion of at least some of the time, creativity and
> > >> resources away from strictly engineering matters, into making the
> > >> application more accessible - acceptable - applicable, to a wider
> user base.
> > >>
> > >> That would mean opening up whatever channels of communication with
> the
> > >> wider public are available and boosting the signal well above the
> noise.
> > >>
> > >> Almost everybody has need of OFBiz. They just don't know it yet!
> > >>
> > >> Ian
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> --
> Daniel
>
> *-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-
> Have a GREAT Day!
>
> Daniel Kunkel           [hidden email]
> BioWaves, LLC           http://www.BioWaves.com
> 14150 NE 20th St. Suite F1
> Bellevue, WA 98007
> 800-734-3588    425-895-0050
> http://www.Apartment-Pets.com  http://www.Illusion-Optical.com
> http://www.Card-Offer.com      http://www.RackWine.com
> http://www.JokesBlonde.com     http://www.Brain-Fun.com
> *-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-
>
>

[Ian McNulty]

Andrew,

>
> I am familiar with both QuickBooks and Sage. Sage is quite awful,

Me too! Your opinion on Sage is not a surprise. I come from Newcastle,
Sage's home town, and have some knowledge of their roots. Say no more!

>  but sells because all the accountants recommend it.
>  

Too true. Why is that?

>
> There is no reason why we couldn't have several versions that support
> different vertical markets.
> e.g.
> Corner shop with POS and Ecommerce and/or ebay
> Independent motor car workshop/repair/sales business
> Simple box shifting wholesaler
> ...
>  

My thoughts entirely. The only reason would be the lack of resources to
create those versions.


> The big, big point about OFBiz is that the architecture is right,

That would be my feeling too!

>  and the architecture should, hopefully, help young businesses do things the correct
> way.
>  

That's such a good vision, and such a good motivation for getting it right.

> BTW There is nothing wrong with stipulating which system, database etc that
> has to be used in a package. The world is quite used to that already in the
> proprietary world.

Amen to that!

>  The point is to have a package that works for a
> particular style of business with relevant sample data that works OOTB.
> There will be ample consultancy work customising the extras.
>  

How right is that?

> Hope this is of interest.
>
>  

You bet it is!

Best,

Ian






Andrew Ballantine wrote:

> Jacques,
>
> I am familiar with both QuickBooks and Sage. Sage is quite awful, but sells
> because all the accountants recommend it. Quickbooks is great apart from its
> limitations and inability to be enhanced. The arbitrary limit of 27,000
> customers is one, difficult import/export of data another.
>
> There is no reason why we couldn't have several versions that support
> different vertical markets.
> e.g.
> Corner shop with POS and Ecommerce and/or ebay
> Independent motor car workshop/repair/sales business
> Simple box shifting wholesaler
> ...
>
> The big, big point about OFBiz is that the architecture is right, and the
> architecture should, hopefully, help young businesses do things the correct
> way.
>
> BTW There is nothing wrong with stipulating which system, database etc that
> has to be used in a package. The world is quite used to that already in the
> proprietary world. The point is to have a package that works for a
> particular style of business with relevant sample data that works OOTB.
> There will be ample consultancy work customising the extras.
>
> Hope this is of interest.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Andrew.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacques Le Roux [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: 03 January 2007 16:07
> To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: What does "OOTB front-end accessibility" mean to you?
>
>
> Ian, Andrew,
>
> I think that the problem here is more to compete with offers like
> http://www.intuit.com/ (in US)
> http://www.sage.com/ (in EU)
> and convince end users that OFBiz is the right tool !
>
> Anyway a good wide strategy is surely a very good thing !
>
> Jacques
>
> PS : I did some comparaison between Sage 100 and OFBiz for a client (in
> french including POS with multi-sites) and I was happily
> surprised how OFBiz was facing the challenge :o)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew Sykes" <[hidden email]>
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 4:54 PM
> Subject: Re: What does "OOTB front-end accessibility" mean to you?
>
>
>  
>> Ian,
>>
>> A fascinating insight, perhaps you could go a bit further in explaining
>> a strategy?
>>
>> I wonder how relevant OfBiz is to the very small end of the market,
>> there's an awful lot to learn and (from a small business perspective) an
>> awful lot that could go wrong.
>>
>> I almost think that you are talking about a different product perhaps
>> "OfBiz Lite" or something...
>>
>> - Andrew
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 10:15 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>    
>>> I've been having this email discussion with David which he's asked me to
>>> move out onto this mailing list. I guess that probably means I'm in for
>>> a good kicking. But here goes anyway
>>>
>>> First, some background to give some kind of handle on where I'm coming
>>>      
> from.
>  
>>> I started working with computers in the late 60s as a physicist
>>> modelling plasma dynamics. I've switched careers several times since,
>>> but my relationship to computers remains the same. As a user, interested
>>> not so much in the tool itself, but with what it can do.
>>>
>>> I first came across OFBiz a month ago whilst researching a client's
>>> request for back-end integration with osCommerce. As someone who was
>>> raised in a generation that really did believe that 2001 was going to be
>>> like Stanley Kubrick said it was going to be, I can count on one hand
>>> the number of times a piece of technology has had enough wow to stop me
>>> dead in my tracks. OFBiz would be one!
>>>
>>>  From the outset it was clear that it was way too big a leap for any
>>> client I know of to contemplate making. But the technology looked so
>>> sweet I just had to find out more.
>>>
>>> The more I looked the more fascinated I became. Platform independent.
>>> Modular. Scale-able. Open Source. Wow! What a magnificent tool this
>>> could be! Why would anybody ever want to use anything else?
>>>
>>> This is a tool for running any kind of business you like. None of us can
>>> survive without connection to some kind of business or other. This could
>>> be monumental. The next big leap forward.
>>>
>>> I didn't expect installation to be easy, and it wasn't! But then again,
>>> I've just installed XP on new PC and that wasn't all that easy either
>>> (what version of Windows ever was?)
>>>
>>> I managed to get pilot installations of OFBiz (opentaps flavour) running
>>> on Windows and Linux without too much trouble. But then again, I do have
>>> some experience of this kind of thing. When it comes to setting up new
>>> tools, I have several magnitudes more patience than anybody else I know.
>>> Which means that if an application is going to be of any use to anybody
>>> else apart from me, I have to hone usability down to the point it's a
>>> no-brainer!
>>>
>>> So I'm running opentaps and slowly working my way through the various
>>> manuals and documents trying to get a handle on what this thing can
>>> really do.
>>>
>>> Pretty quickly I discover at least one glaringly obvious problem. So
>>> obvious that if I demonstrated it to a client they would laugh me out of
>>> the building in minutes.
>>>
>>> The problem itself is trivial. A simple matter of somebody sitting down
>>> for a few days and writing the necessary code. But who is going to do
>>> that? Not me surely? I have the Java textbook, but still haven't found
>>> time to sit down and read more than the first couple of chapters.
>>> Finding other people with the expertise and the time to do that would be
>>> the key. Or at least that's what I thought at the time!
>>>
>>> So I go back to the web sites and start looking at the organisation and
>>> the people rather than the code.
>>>
>>> Who could fix this problem? How much would it cost? Why hasn't it been
>>> fixed already?
>>>
>>>  From the outset it's obvious that the Apache Incubator site is a
>>> marvellous resource for engineers. But looking it from the user's POV -
>>> as someone who wants to contact an engineer rather be one himself -
>>> there isn't much I can get a handle on here.
>>>
>>> Opentaps, Opensource Strategies and Undersun look much more like what I
>>> need. Clean. Crisp. Elegant designs. Engineering 'talkback' mixed down
>>> low in the background. You don't have to be an engineer to understand
>>> that, for enterprise-level installation, these guys look like the
>>>      
> business.
>  
>>> But enterprise-level means high-end, expensive! Corporate lawyers can
>>> charge thousands an hour. Maybe these guys know they're worth more? I
>>> have seen odd references to multi-million dollar installations. Sounds
>>> par for that kind of course to me.
>>>
>>> So where does that leave the ordinary Joe?
>>>
>>> All businesses I personally deal with are small. 1 to 50 employees max.
>>>
>>> OFBiz looks like it should be scalable, could be of value to all of
>>>      
> them.
>  
>>> But how much value, and how much cost?
>>>
>>> If I was running the IT department at the White House I'd be inviting
>>> the OFBiz guys in and showing MS the door. With the prospect of
>>> high-end, high-value contracts in the pipeline, I guess these guys just
>>> won't have time to even think about making this stuff accessible to the
>>> average Joe in the street. Oh well. Better start lowering my sights and
>>> start thinking about cobbling together some low-level XSLT plugins for
>>> the existing kit rather than thinking about a complete revamp of the
>>> whole machine.
>>>
>>> Then I discover Si's Jan 09/06 blog - exactly a year ago! - meditating
>>> on exactly these issues.
>>>
>>> "If open source is to gain popularity and move "up the stack", however,
>>> open source software will need other advocates in the enterprise.
>>> Somebody else besides the IT department must also be able to convince
>>> enterprise users that open source software is indeed a credible
>>> solution. Whether that advocate ultimately is a consulting firm, a
>>> distributor, or an ISV using open source software, we don't really know
>>>      
> yet.
>  
>>> What we can be certain of is this: whoever makes open source a credible
>>> in the enterprise would ultimately win the "Linux wars."
>>>
>>> Aha. Now then. That's interesting.
>>>
>>> So credibility on the enterprise level isn't such a done deal after all
>>> then.
>>>
>>> So who could those advocates outside the IT department be? Is it the
>>> consulting firm, the distributor, the ISV? Or is it all or none of the
>>> above?
>>>
>>> Rereading Si's blog, I was struck by this:
>>>
>>> "Most buyers of commercial software don't actually verify that its
>>> features are bug free or check out its support lines. Instead, their
>>> "due diligence" consists of making sure that there are other users using
>>> the software, including, most importantly, their golf buddies."
>>>
>>> How important an insight is that?
>>>
>>> So the key to credibility in the decision making process lies with those
>>> who know absolutely nothing about the technicalities and most probably
>>> care even less!
>>>
>>> Why else would IBM spend many millions advertising enterprise level
>>> technology on prime time television? How many viewers are actually in
>>> the market for Blade servers?
>>>
>>> I doubt anybody in IBM marketing believes they're spending that money to
>>> advertise servers. They're spending it to make sure that not only the
>>> average golf-buddy, but also his wife, kids, and grandmother all know
>>> that IBM is a credible player. Because they know that's how the big
>>> decisions are actually made. Emotionally, by people who are so far up on
>>> the bridge of the ship, away from the engine room, that they probably
>>> know less about the mechanics of it than their grandmothers!
>>>
>>> So making OFBiz emotionally accessible to the average Joe Soap's
>>> grandmother could be the key to unlocking both enterprise level and
>>> wider markets.
>>>
>>>  From an outsiders perspective, it seems that Si in particular has
>>> already done a considerable amount of work in this direction. As someone
>>> with formal financial rather than technical training, he is perhaps more
>>> focused on markets than most. But Si is in no way representative of the
>>> average user. His blog tells me his parents were postgrad programmers
>>> who taught him everything they knew. Most programmers would give their
>>> eye teeth for a  background like that! How many management wonks would
>>> relish the idea of lifting up the bonnet everytime they wanted to start
>>> their car? They chose their roles in life precisely to keep away from
>>> that kind of thing. As indeed did Si when he chose a career in finance.
>>>
>>> The moral of this would be that what is accessible to Si or most other
>>> users on this forum is not necessarily even slightly accessible to the
>>> average businessperson on the street.
>>>
>>> If you wanted to maintain an elite group of cognoscenti who are in the
>>> position to charge highly for their services then you may want to keep
>>> it that way - or not as the case may be.
>>>
>>> I would argue that the code is so radical and so deep that some levels
>>> will always remain expert only. Increasing accessibility to a wider user
>>> group would not threaten that core and could only lead to a wider user
>>> base and larger market share.
>>>
>>> OOTB, front-end, user accessibility to me means minimising any factors
>>> which take time and attention away from getting on with the job the tool
>>> was designed to do. From a purely user's POV, these are nothing more
>>> than distractions, irritations and ultimately objections to buying into
>>> the programme. Noise drowning out signals on the marketing channels if
>>> you like.
>>>
>>> As in all user applications, a proportion of time spent tooling-up and a
>>> level of unwanted noise is to be expected. But in the job-efficiency
>>> equation, this is a drag component to be optimised out. In the
>>> development of sleek, user-friendly implementations, a zero tolerance
>>> policy on noise, friction and drag is the only way to go!
>>>
>>> To me, OOTB accessibility means exactly what it says on the tin: I don't
>>>      
>
>  
>>> need a degree in anything to install or run it. It does everything it
>>> said it would do. Is easy to maintain. Has cost exactly what they told
>>> me it would. A brilliant tool for the job. Wouldn't even think of using
>>> anything else.
>>>
>>> But creating something like that means taking at least some of the focus
>>> away engineering a better mousetrap, to looking at the way it appears to
>>> the average mouse. Is it easy for them to get to the cheese, or are
>>> there still too many wires and cogs in the way? Closing a sale means
>>> overcoming all the objections. Making offers people don't see any reason
>>> to refuse.
>>>
>>> The marketing proposition from Undersun and Opensource Strategies looks
>>> fine - if you're only interested in high end, enterprise-level
>>>      
> applications.
>  
>>> The engineering proposition on Apache incubator looks fine - if you're
>>> interested in being an engineer.
>>>
>>> But where is the low-end proposition for the average businessperson in
>>> the street? Something his golf playing buddie's grandmother might
>>> understand?
>>>
>>> It could be concluded that what I'm angling for here is a series of
>>> television adverts.
>>>
>>> If I thought OFBiz had a couple of mill lying around spare then this
>>> would certainly be the case. If it's good enough for IBM...
>>>
>>> But I doubt OFBiz is anywhere near that kind of position at the moment.
>>>
>>> I just kinda don't see any reason why it shouldn't be at some time in
>>> the foreseeable future.
>>>
>>> But there would need to be a will to go in this direction and the
>>> deliberate diversion of at least some of the time, creativity and
>>> resources away from strictly engineering matters, into making the
>>> application more accessible - acceptable - applicable, to a wider user
>>>      
> base.
>  
>>> That would mean opening up whatever channels of communication with the
>>> wider public are available and boosting the signal well above the noise.
>>>
>>> Almost everybody has need of OFBiz. They just don't know it yet!
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>>      
>> --
>> Kind Regards
>> Andrew Sykes <[hidden email]>
>> Sykes Development Ltd
>> http://www.sykesdevelopment.com
>>    
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date: 02/01/2007
> 14:58
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date: 02/01/2007
> 14:58
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date: 02/01/2007
> 14:58
>
>
>
> *****************************************************************
> 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.
==============================================================================================

[Adrian Crum]

Some time ago BJ Freeman had suggested an installation wizard that would walk
users through the installation process. Something along that line packaged on a
CD might be what's needed.


Daniel Kunkel wrote:

> Hi Ian
>
> I'm going to jump in and say I think there may be a better way.
>
>>From what I'm reading, I get the idea that you want to create some sort
> of fork in the development in order to have a version that is simpler
> and more easily implemented out of the box.
>
> I REALLY don't like the idea of any kind of development fork even though
> I see how alluring it is given the huge untapped markets. With a project
> as big and encompassing as OFBiz, it's easy to see how certain design
> decisions have affected the appropriateness of the application for
> particular markets.
>
> I would like to see if we can build on the strength of OFBiz's framework
> and create more "interchangeable plug-ins" like those in the specialized
> directory that add or remove features as needed. I think this could be
> used to create an app that is easily  configured for the needs of any
> particular company.
>
> Furthermore, it might help to create a simpler, more intuitive
> interface. If the interface is clear and easy to use, even small
> companies will appreciate most of the extra features.
>
> Perhaps some developers on this list already have modules they've
> created can share them as a specialized modules.
>
> Thanks
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 18:22 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
>
>>Andrew,
>>
>>Me again :)
>>
>>Right on the money old son. OFBiz light was one of the possible
>>strategies that came to mind.
>>
>>The principal would be that to move from a high-end, high-value,
>>tailor-made service where a skilled wheelwright is needed to re-factor,
>>if not reinvent, the wheel on every installation, to more of a
>>mass-market solution with a wider user-base, requires offering easily
>>understood, preconfigured solutions in price bands customers can afford.
>>
>>That's a whole science in itself!
>>
>>In the absence of that, the strategy would be to use the net for what it
>>has proved to be best at. Building user-groups and user-generated content.
>>
>>The functionality of the user interface on ;the mailing list we are
>>currently communicating through is proven for it's efficacy in focusing
>>the attention of a relatively small and highly motivated group onto
>>resolution of sticky technical issues. But in this context, an avalanche
>>of n00bies asking the same old questions would be indifferentiable from
>>an avalanche of spam.
>>
>>A format which would welcome a range of basic questions from a wider
>>user group who might be interested but are currently neither informed,
>>confident nor motivated enough to RTFM would be more along the lines of
>>those run by osCommerce, Zen Cart, Ubuntu and the like. This is, imho,
>>the single most important contribution these projects have made to
>>developments in the field.
>>
>>On those kind of forums the default is not that the experts are
>>inundated with every single post in their inbox, but that they can
>>browse and choose to address issues or not at their leisure.  The result
>>is a much more comfortable environment for a wider group of potential
>>users to adopt.
>>
>>'OFBiz Lite' would certainly be a major stepping stone along the way.
>>But the effort to do something like that is perhaps more than the
>>current community could bear.
>>
>>So the answer would be to widen the community, delegate the tasks, and
>>spread the load.
>>
>>The creation of some kind of extra web page, gathering site or forum
>>with this objective as the only focus could be a soft way forward to a
>>wider user base. To be taken or left by anybody, as the case may be.
>>
>>Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>Andrew Sykes wrote:
>>
>>>Ian,
>>>
>>>A fascinating insight, perhaps you could go a bit further in explaining
>>>a strategy?
>>>
>>>I wonder how relevant OfBiz is to the very small end of the market,
>>>there's an awful lot to learn and (from a small business perspective) an
>>>awful lot that could go wrong.
>>>
>>>I almost think that you are talking about a different product perhaps
>>>"OfBiz Lite" or something...
>>>
>>>- Andrew
>>>
>>>
>>>On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 10:15 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>  
>>>
>>>>I've been having this email discussion with David which he's asked me to
>>>>move out onto this mailing list. I guess that probably means I'm in for
>>>>a good kicking. But here goes anyway
>>>>
>>>>First, some background to give some kind of handle on where I'm coming from.
>>>>
>>>>I started working with computers in the late 60s as a physicist
>>>>modelling plasma dynamics. I've switched careers several times since,
>>>>but my relationship to computers remains the same. As a user, interested
>>>>not so much in the tool itself, but with what it can do.
>>>>
>>>>I first came across OFBiz a month ago whilst researching a client's
>>>>request for back-end integration with osCommerce. As someone who was
>>>>raised in a generation that really did believe that 2001 was going to be
>>>>like Stanley Kubrick said it was going to be, I can count on one hand
>>>>the number of times a piece of technology has had enough wow to stop me
>>>>dead in my tracks. OFBiz would be one!
>>>>
>>>> From the outset it was clear that it was way too big a leap for any
>>>>client I know of to contemplate making. But the technology looked so
>>>>sweet I just had to find out more.
>>>>
>>>>The more I looked the more fascinated I became. Platform independent.
>>>>Modular. Scale-able. Open Source. Wow! What a magnificent tool this
>>>>could be! Why would anybody ever want to use anything else?
>>>>
>>>>This is a tool for running any kind of business you like. None of us can
>>>>survive without connection to some kind of business or other. This could
>>>>be monumental. The next big leap forward.
>>>>
>>>>I didn't expect installation to be easy, and it wasn't! But then again,
>>>>I've just installed XP on new PC and that wasn't all that easy either
>>>>(what version of Windows ever was?)
>>>>
>>>>I managed to get pilot installations of OFBiz (opentaps flavour) running
>>>>on Windows and Linux without too much trouble. But then again, I do have
>>>>some experience of this kind of thing. When it comes to setting up new
>>>>tools, I have several magnitudes more patience than anybody else I know.
>>>>Which means that if an application is going to be of any use to anybody
>>>>else apart from me, I have to hone usability down to the point it's a
>>>>no-brainer!
>>>>
>>>>So I'm running opentaps and slowly working my way through the various
>>>>manuals and documents trying to get a handle on what this thing can
>>>>really do.
>>>>
>>>>Pretty quickly I discover at least one glaringly obvious problem. So
>>>>obvious that if I demonstrated it to a client they would laugh me out of
>>>>the building in minutes.
>>>>
>>>>The problem itself is trivial. A simple matter of somebody sitting down
>>>>for a few days and writing the necessary code. But who is going to do
>>>>that? Not me surely? I have the Java textbook, but still haven't found
>>>>time to sit down and read more than the first couple of chapters.
>>>>Finding other people with the expertise and the time to do that would be
>>>>the key. Or at least that's what I thought at the time!
>>>>
>>>>So I go back to the web sites and start looking at the organisation and
>>>>the people rather than the code.
>>>>
>>>>Who could fix this problem? How much would it cost? Why hasn't it been
>>>>fixed already?
>>>>
>>>> From the outset it's obvious that the Apache Incubator site is a
>>>>marvellous resource for engineers. But looking it from the user's POV -
>>>>as someone who wants to contact an engineer rather be one himself -
>>>>there isn't much I can get a handle on here.
>>>>
>>>>Opentaps, Opensource Strategies and Undersun look much more like what I
>>>>need. Clean. Crisp. Elegant designs. Engineering 'talkback' mixed down
>>>>low in the background. You don't have to be an engineer to understand
>>>>that, for enterprise-level installation, these guys look like the business.
>>>>
>>>>But enterprise-level means high-end, expensive! Corporate lawyers can
>>>>charge thousands an hour. Maybe these guys know they're worth more? I
>>>>have seen odd references to multi-million dollar installations. Sounds
>>>>par for that kind of course to me.
>>>>
>>>>So where does that leave the ordinary Joe?
>>>>
>>>>All businesses I personally deal with are small. 1 to 50 employees max.
>>>>
>>>>OFBiz looks like it should be scalable, could be of value to all of them.
>>>>
>>>>But how much value, and how much cost?
>>>>
>>>>If I was running the IT department at the White House I'd be inviting
>>>>the OFBiz guys in and showing MS the door. With the prospect of
>>>>high-end, high-value contracts in the pipeline, I guess these guys just
>>>>won't have time to even think about making this stuff accessible to the
>>>>average Joe in the street. Oh well. Better start lowering my sights and
>>>>start thinking about cobbling together some low-level XSLT plugins for
>>>>the existing kit rather than thinking about a complete revamp of the
>>>>whole machine.
>>>>
>>>>Then I discover Si's Jan 09/06 blog - exactly a year ago! - meditating
>>>>on exactly these issues.
>>>>
>>>>"If open source is to gain popularity and move "up the stack", however,
>>>>open source software will need other advocates in the enterprise.
>>>>Somebody else besides the IT department must also be able to convince
>>>>enterprise users that open source software is indeed a credible
>>>>solution. Whether that advocate ultimately is a consulting firm, a
>>>>distributor, or an ISV using open source software, we don't really know yet.
>>>>
>>>>What we can be certain of is this: whoever makes open source a credible
>>>>in the enterprise would ultimately win the "Linux wars."
>>>>
>>>>Aha. Now then. That's interesting.
>>>>
>>>>So credibility on the enterprise level isn't such a done deal after all
>>>>then.
>>>>
>>>>So who could those advocates outside the IT department be? Is it the
>>>>consulting firm, the distributor, the ISV? Or is it all or none of the
>>>>above?
>>>>
>>>>Rereading Si's blog, I was struck by this:
>>>>
>>>>"Most buyers of commercial software don't actually verify that its
>>>>features are bug free or check out its support lines. Instead, their
>>>>"due diligence" consists of making sure that there are other users using
>>>>the software, including, most importantly, their golf buddies."
>>>>
>>>>How important an insight is that?
>>>>
>>>>So the key to credibility in the decision making process lies with those
>>>>who know absolutely nothing about the technicalities and most probably
>>>>care even less!
>>>>
>>>>Why else would IBM spend many millions advertising enterprise level
>>>>technology on prime time television? How many viewers are actually in
>>>>the market for Blade servers?
>>>>
>>>>I doubt anybody in IBM marketing believes they're spending that money to
>>>>advertise servers. They're spending it to make sure that not only the
>>>>average golf-buddy, but also his wife, kids, and grandmother all know
>>>>that IBM is a credible player. Because they know that's how the big
>>>>decisions are actually made. Emotionally, by people who are so far up on
>>>>the bridge of the ship, away from the engine room, that they probably
>>>>know less about the mechanics of it than their grandmothers!
>>>>
>>>>So making OFBiz emotionally accessible to the average Joe Soap's
>>>>grandmother could be the key to unlocking both enterprise level and
>>>>wider markets.
>>>>
>>>> From an outsiders perspective, it seems that Si in particular has
>>>>already done a considerable amount of work in this direction. As someone
>>>>with formal financial rather than technical training, he is perhaps more
>>>>focused on markets than most. But Si is in no way representative of the
>>>>average user. His blog tells me his parents were postgrad programmers
>>>>who taught him everything they knew. Most programmers would give their
>>>>eye teeth for a  background like that! How many management wonks would
>>>>relish the idea of lifting up the bonnet everytime they wanted to start
>>>>their car? They chose their roles in life precisely to keep away from
>>>>that kind of thing. As indeed did Si when he chose a career in finance.
>>>>
>>>>The moral of this would be that what is accessible to Si or most other
>>>>users on this forum is not necessarily even slightly accessible to the
>>>>average businessperson on the street.
>>>>
>>>>If you wanted to maintain an elite group of cognoscenti who are in the
>>>>position to charge highly for their services then you may want to keep
>>>>it that way - or not as the case may be.
>>>>
>>>>I would argue that the code is so radical and so deep that some levels
>>>>will always remain expert only. Increasing accessibility to a wider user
>>>>group would not threaten that core and could only lead to a wider user
>>>>base and larger market share.
>>>>
>>>>OOTB, front-end, user accessibility to me means minimising any factors
>>>>which take time and attention away from getting on with the job the tool
>>>>was designed to do. From a purely user's POV, these are nothing more
>>>>than distractions, irritations and ultimately objections to buying into
>>>>the programme. Noise drowning out signals on the marketing channels if
>>>>you like.
>>>>
>>>>As in all user applications, a proportion of time spent tooling-up and a
>>>>level of unwanted noise is to be expected. But in the job-efficiency
>>>>equation, this is a drag component to be optimised out. In the
>>>>development of sleek, user-friendly implementations, a zero tolerance
>>>>policy on noise, friction and drag is the only way to go!
>>>>
>>>>To me, OOTB accessibility means exactly what it says on the tin: I don't
>>>>need a degree in anything to install or run it. It does everything it
>>>>said it would do. Is easy to maintain. Has cost exactly what they told
>>>>me it would. A brilliant tool for the job. Wouldn't even think of using
>>>>anything else.
>>>>
>>>>But creating something like that means taking at least some of the focus
>>>>away engineering a better mousetrap, to looking at the way it appears to
>>>>the average mouse. Is it easy for them to get to the cheese, or are
>>>>there still too many wires and cogs in the way? Closing a sale means
>>>>overcoming all the objections. Making offers people don't see any reason
>>>>to refuse.
>>>>
>>>>The marketing proposition from Undersun and Opensource Strategies looks
>>>>fine - if you're only interested in high end, enterprise-level applications.
>>>>
>>>>The engineering proposition on Apache incubator looks fine - if you're
>>>>interested in being an engineer.
>>>>
>>>>But where is the low-end proposition for the average businessperson in
>>>>the street? Something his golf playing buddie's grandmother might
>>>>understand?
>>>>
>>>>It could be concluded that what I'm angling for here is a series of
>>>>television adverts.
>>>>
>>>>If I thought OFBiz had a couple of mill lying around spare then this
>>>>would certainly be the case. If it's good enough for IBM...
>>>>
>>>>But I doubt OFBiz is anywhere near that kind of position at the moment.
>>>>
>>>>I just kinda don't see any reason why it shouldn't be at some time in
>>>>the foreseeable future.
>>>>
>>>>But there would need to be a will to go in this direction and the
>>>>deliberate diversion of at least some of the time, creativity and
>>>>resources away from strictly engineering matters, into making the
>>>>application more accessible - acceptable - applicable, to a wider user base.
>>>>
>>>>That would mean opening up whatever channels of communication with the
>>>>wider public are available and boosting the signal well above the noise.
>>>>
>>>>Almost everybody has need of OFBiz. They just don't know it yet!
>>>>
>>>>Ian
>>>>
>>>>    
>>

[Anil Patel]

Regarding Installation,
We have experimented with Building Ubuntu 6.06 Live CD with Ofbiz. Also it
installs to hard drive with Ubuntu.

Anil

On 1/3/07, Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Some time ago BJ Freeman had suggested an installation wizard that would
> walk
> users through the installation process. Something along that line packaged
> on a
> CD might be what's needed.
>
>
> Daniel Kunkel wrote:
>
> > Hi Ian
> >
> > I'm going to jump in and say I think there may be a better way.
> >
> >>From what I'm reading, I get the idea that you want to create some sort
> > of fork in the development in order to have a version that is simpler
> > and more easily implemented out of the box.
> >
> > I REALLY don't like the idea of any kind of development fork even though
> > I see how alluring it is given the huge untapped markets. With a project
> > as big and encompassing as OFBiz, it's easy to see how certain design
> > decisions have affected the appropriateness of the application for
> > particular markets.
> >
> > I would like to see if we can build on the strength of OFBiz's framework
> > and create more "interchangeable plug-ins" like those in the specialized
> > directory that add or remove features as needed. I think this could be
> > used to create an app that is easily  configured for the needs of any
> > particular company.
> >
> > Furthermore, it might help to create a simpler, more intuitive
> > interface. If the interface is clear and easy to use, even small
> > companies will appreciate most of the extra features.
> >
> > Perhaps some developers on this list already have modules they've
> > created can share them as a specialized modules.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Daniel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 18:22 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
> >
> >>Andrew,
> >>
> >>Me again :)
> >>
> >>Right on the money old son. OFBiz light was one of the possible
> >>strategies that came to mind.
> >>
> >>The principal would be that to move from a high-end, high-value,
> >>tailor-made service where a skilled wheelwright is needed to re-factor,
> >>if not reinvent, the wheel on every installation, to more of a
> >>mass-market solution with a wider user-base, requires offering easily
> >>understood, preconfigured solutions in price bands customers can afford.
> >>
> >>That's a whole science in itself!
> >>
> >>In the absence of that, the strategy would be to use the net for what it
> >>has proved to be best at. Building user-groups and user-generated
> content.
> >>
> >>The functionality of the user interface on ;the mailing list we are
> >>currently communicating through is proven for it's efficacy in focusing
> >>the attention of a relatively small and highly motivated group onto
> >>resolution of sticky technical issues. But in this context, an avalanche
> >>of n00bies asking the same old questions would be indifferentiable from
> >>an avalanche of spam.
> >>
> >>A format which would welcome a range of basic questions from a wider
> >>user group who might be interested but are currently neither informed,
> >>confident nor motivated enough to RTFM would be more along the lines of
> >>those run by osCommerce, Zen Cart, Ubuntu and the like. This is, imho,
> >>the single most important contribution these projects have made to
> >>developments in the field.
> >>
> >>On those kind of forums the default is not that the experts are
> >>inundated with every single post in their inbox, but that they can
> >>browse and choose to address issues or not at their leisure.  The result
> >>is a much more comfortable environment for a wider group of potential
> >>users to adopt.
> >>
> >>'OFBiz Lite' would certainly be a major stepping stone along the way.
> >>But the effort to do something like that is perhaps more than the
> >>current community could bear.
> >>
> >>So the answer would be to widen the community, delegate the tasks, and
> >>spread the load.
> >>
> >>The creation of some kind of extra web page, gathering site or forum
> >>with this objective as the only focus could be a soft way forward to a
> >>wider user base. To be taken or left by anybody, as the case may be.
> >>
> >>Ian
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Andrew Sykes wrote:
> >>
> >>>Ian,
> >>>
> >>>A fascinating insight, perhaps you could go a bit further in explaining
> >>>a strategy?
> >>>
> >>>I wonder how relevant OfBiz is to the very small end of the market,
> >>>there's an awful lot to learn and (from a small business perspective)
> an
> >>>awful lot that could go wrong.
> >>>
> >>>I almost think that you are talking about a different product perhaps
> >>>"OfBiz Lite" or something...
> >>>
> >>>- Andrew
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 10:15 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I've been having this email discussion with David which he's asked me
> to
> >>>>move out onto this mailing list. I guess that probably means I'm in
> for
> >>>>a good kicking. But here goes anyway
> >>>>
> >>>>First, some background to give some kind of handle on where I'm coming
> from.
> >>>>
> >>>>I started working with computers in the late 60s as a physicist
> >>>>modelling plasma dynamics. I've switched careers several times since,
> >>>>but my relationship to computers remains the same. As a user,
> interested
> >>>>not so much in the tool itself, but with what it can do.
> >>>>
> >>>>I first came across OFBiz a month ago whilst researching a client's
> >>>>request for back-end integration with osCommerce. As someone who was
> >>>>raised in a generation that really did believe that 2001 was going to
> be
> >>>>like Stanley Kubrick said it was going to be, I can count on one hand
> >>>>the number of times a piece of technology has had enough wow to stop
> me
> >>>>dead in my tracks. OFBiz would be one!
> >>>>
> >>>> From the outset it was clear that it was way too big a leap for any
> >>>>client I know of to contemplate making. But the technology looked so
> >>>>sweet I just had to find out more.
> >>>>
> >>>>The more I looked the more fascinated I became. Platform independent.
> >>>>Modular. Scale-able. Open Source. Wow! What a magnificent tool this
> >>>>could be! Why would anybody ever want to use anything else?
> >>>>
> >>>>This is a tool for running any kind of business you like. None of us
> can
> >>>>survive without connection to some kind of business or other. This
> could
> >>>>be monumental. The next big leap forward.
> >>>>
> >>>>I didn't expect installation to be easy, and it wasn't! But then
> again,
> >>>>I've just installed XP on new PC and that wasn't all that easy either
> >>>>(what version of Windows ever was?)
> >>>>
> >>>>I managed to get pilot installations of OFBiz (opentaps flavour)
> running
> >>>>on Windows and Linux without too much trouble. But then again, I do
> have
> >>>>some experience of this kind of thing. When it comes to setting up new
> >>>>tools, I have several magnitudes more patience than anybody else I
> know.
> >>>>Which means that if an application is going to be of any use to
> anybody
> >>>>else apart from me, I have to hone usability down to the point it's a
> >>>>no-brainer!
> >>>>
> >>>>So I'm running opentaps and slowly working my way through the various
> >>>>manuals and documents trying to get a handle on what this thing can
> >>>>really do.
> >>>>
> >>>>Pretty quickly I discover at least one glaringly obvious problem. So
> >>>>obvious that if I demonstrated it to a client they would laugh me out
> of
> >>>>the building in minutes.
> >>>>
> >>>>The problem itself is trivial. A simple matter of somebody sitting
> down
> >>>>for a few days and writing the necessary code. But who is going to do
> >>>>that? Not me surely? I have the Java textbook, but still haven't found
> >>>>time to sit down and read more than the first couple of chapters.
> >>>>Finding other people with the expertise and the time to do that would
> be
> >>>>the key. Or at least that's what I thought at the time!
> >>>>
> >>>>So I go back to the web sites and start looking at the organisation
> and
> >>>>the people rather than the code.
> >>>>
> >>>>Who could fix this problem? How much would it cost? Why hasn't it been
> >>>>fixed already?
> >>>>
> >>>> From the outset it's obvious that the Apache Incubator site is a
> >>>>marvellous resource for engineers. But looking it from the user's POV
> -
> >>>>as someone who wants to contact an engineer rather be one himself -
> >>>>there isn't much I can get a handle on here.
> >>>>
> >>>>Opentaps, Opensource Strategies and Undersun look much more like what
> I
> >>>>need. Clean. Crisp. Elegant designs. Engineering 'talkback' mixed down
> >>>>low in the background. You don't have to be an engineer to understand
> >>>>that, for enterprise-level installation, these guys look like the
> business.
> >>>>
> >>>>But enterprise-level means high-end, expensive! Corporate lawyers can
> >>>>charge thousands an hour. Maybe these guys know they're worth more? I
> >>>>have seen odd references to multi-million dollar installations. Sounds
> >>>>par for that kind of course to me.
> >>>>
> >>>>So where does that leave the ordinary Joe?
> >>>>
> >>>>All businesses I personally deal with are small. 1 to 50 employees
> max.
> >>>>
> >>>>OFBiz looks like it should be scalable, could be of value to all of
> them.
> >>>>
> >>>>But how much value, and how much cost?
> >>>>
> >>>>If I was running the IT department at the White House I'd be inviting
> >>>>the OFBiz guys in and showing MS the door. With the prospect of
> >>>>high-end, high-value contracts in the pipeline, I guess these guys
> just
> >>>>won't have time to even think about making this stuff accessible to
> the
> >>>>average Joe in the street. Oh well. Better start lowering my sights
> and
> >>>>start thinking about cobbling together some low-level XSLT plugins for
> >>>>the existing kit rather than thinking about a complete revamp of the
> >>>>whole machine.
> >>>>
> >>>>Then I discover Si's Jan 09/06 blog - exactly a year ago! - meditating
> >>>>on exactly these issues.
> >>>>
> >>>>"If open source is to gain popularity and move "up the stack",
> however,
> >>>>open source software will need other advocates in the enterprise.
> >>>>Somebody else besides the IT department must also be able to convince
> >>>>enterprise users that open source software is indeed a credible
> >>>>solution. Whether that advocate ultimately is a consulting firm, a
> >>>>distributor, or an ISV using open source software, we don't really
> know yet.
> >>>>
> >>>>What we can be certain of is this: whoever makes open source a
> credible
> >>>>in the enterprise would ultimately win the "Linux wars."
> >>>>
> >>>>Aha. Now then. That's interesting.
> >>>>
> >>>>So credibility on the enterprise level isn't such a done deal after
> all
> >>>>then.
> >>>>
> >>>>So who could those advocates outside the IT department be? Is it the
> >>>>consulting firm, the distributor, the ISV? Or is it all or none of the
> >>>>above?
> >>>>
> >>>>Rereading Si's blog, I was struck by this:
> >>>>
> >>>>"Most buyers of commercial software don't actually verify that its
> >>>>features are bug free or check out its support lines. Instead, their
> >>>>"due diligence" consists of making sure that there are other users
> using
> >>>>the software, including, most importantly, their golf buddies."
> >>>>
> >>>>How important an insight is that?
> >>>>
> >>>>So the key to credibility in the decision making process lies with
> those
> >>>>who know absolutely nothing about the technicalities and most probably
> >>>>care even less!
> >>>>
> >>>>Why else would IBM spend many millions advertising enterprise level
> >>>>technology on prime time television? How many viewers are actually in
> >>>>the market for Blade servers?
> >>>>
> >>>>I doubt anybody in IBM marketing believes they're spending that money
> to
> >>>>advertise servers. They're spending it to make sure that not only the
> >>>>average golf-buddy, but also his wife, kids, and grandmother all know
> >>>>that IBM is a credible player. Because they know that's how the big
> >>>>decisions are actually made. Emotionally, by people who are so far up
> on
> >>>>the bridge of the ship, away from the engine room, that they probably
> >>>>know less about the mechanics of it than their grandmothers!
> >>>>
> >>>>So making OFBiz emotionally accessible to the average Joe Soap's
> >>>>grandmother could be the key to unlocking both enterprise level and
> >>>>wider markets.
> >>>>
> >>>> From an outsiders perspective, it seems that Si in particular has
> >>>>already done a considerable amount of work in this direction. As
> someone
> >>>>with formal financial rather than technical training, he is perhaps
> more
> >>>>focused on markets than most. But Si is in no way representative of
> the
> >>>>average user. His blog tells me his parents were postgrad programmers
> >>>>who taught him everything they knew. Most programmers would give their
> >>>>eye teeth for a  background like that! How many management wonks would
> >>>>relish the idea of lifting up the bonnet everytime they wanted to
> start
> >>>>their car? They chose their roles in life precisely to keep away from
> >>>>that kind of thing. As indeed did Si when he chose a career in
> finance.
> >>>>
> >>>>The moral of this would be that what is accessible to Si or most other
> >>>>users on this forum is not necessarily even slightly accessible to the
> >>>>average businessperson on the street.
> >>>>
> >>>>If you wanted to maintain an elite group of cognoscenti who are in the
> >>>>position to charge highly for their services then you may want to keep
> >>>>it that way - or not as the case may be.
> >>>>
> >>>>I would argue that the code is so radical and so deep that some levels
> >>>>will always remain expert only. Increasing accessibility to a wider
> user
> >>>>group would not threaten that core and could only lead to a wider user
> >>>>base and larger market share.
> >>>>
> >>>>OOTB, front-end, user accessibility to me means minimising any factors
> >>>>which take time and attention away from getting on with the job the
> tool
> >>>>was designed to do. From a purely user's POV, these are nothing more
> >>>>than distractions, irritations and ultimately objections to buying
> into
> >>>>the programme. Noise drowning out signals on the marketing channels if
> >>>>you like.
> >>>>
> >>>>As in all user applications, a proportion of time spent tooling-up and
> a
> >>>>level of unwanted noise is to be expected. But in the job-efficiency
> >>>>equation, this is a drag component to be optimised out. In the
> >>>>development of sleek, user-friendly implementations, a zero tolerance
> >>>>policy on noise, friction and drag is the only way to go!
> >>>>
> >>>>To me, OOTB accessibility means exactly what it says on the tin: I
> don't
> >>>>need a degree in anything to install or run it. It does everything it
> >>>>said it would do. Is easy to maintain. Has cost exactly what they told
> >>>>me it would. A brilliant tool for the job. Wouldn't even think of
> using
> >>>>anything else.
> >>>>
> >>>>But creating something like that means taking at least some of the
> focus
> >>>>away engineering a better mousetrap, to looking at the way it appears
> to
> >>>>the average mouse. Is it easy for them to get to the cheese, or are
> >>>>there still too many wires and cogs in the way? Closing a sale means
> >>>>overcoming all the objections. Making offers people don't see any
> reason
> >>>>to refuse.
> >>>>
> >>>>The marketing proposition from Undersun and Opensource Strategies
> looks
> >>>>fine - if you're only interested in high end, enterprise-level
> applications.
> >>>>
> >>>>The engineering proposition on Apache incubator looks fine - if you're
> >>>>interested in being an engineer.
> >>>>
> >>>>But where is the low-end proposition for the average businessperson in
> >>>>the street? Something his golf playing buddie's grandmother might
> >>>>understand?
> >>>>
> >>>>It could be concluded that what I'm angling for here is a series of
> >>>>television adverts.
> >>>>
> >>>>If I thought OFBiz had a couple of mill lying around spare then this
> >>>>would certainly be the case. If it's good enough for IBM...
> >>>>
> >>>>But I doubt OFBiz is anywhere near that kind of position at the
> moment.
> >>>>
> >>>>I just kinda don't see any reason why it shouldn't be at some time in
> >>>>the foreseeable future.
> >>>>
> >>>>But there would need to be a will to go in this direction and the
> >>>>deliberate diversion of at least some of the time, creativity and
> >>>>resources away from strictly engineering matters, into making the
> >>>>application more accessible - acceptable - applicable, to a wider user
> base.
> >>>>
> >>>>That would mean opening up whatever channels of communication with the
> >>>>wider public are available and boosting the signal well above the
> noise.
> >>>>
> >>>>Almost everybody has need of OFBiz. They just don't know it yet!
> >>>>
> >>>>Ian
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
>

[Ian McNulty]

Hi Daniel,

>
> I'm going to jump in and say I think there may be a better way.
>
>  
Good one :)
> From what I'm reading, I get the idea that you want to create some sort
> of fork in the development in order to have a version that is simpler
> and more easily implemented out of the box.
>  

No. Not at all. That would be disastrous. Any developments need to stick
close to the roots. Any kind of fork at this stage would be a sucker too
strained to sustain.

>
> I would like to see if we can build on the strength of OFBiz's framework
> and create more "interchangeable plug-ins" like those in the specialized
> directory that add or remove features as needed.

That would be my view too.

>  I think this could be
> used to create an app that is easily  configured for the needs of any
> particular company.
>  

I suspected that might be the case, but do not understand enough to be sure.

> Furthermore, it might help to create a simpler, more intuitive
> interface. If the interface is clear and easy to use, even small
> companies will appreciate most of the extra features.
>
>  

That would be the objective.

> Perhaps some developers on this list already have modules they've
> created can share them as a specialized modules.
>  

Could be the case. Guess we'll be finding out sooner or later :)

Thanks to you too,

Ian






Daniel Kunkel wrote:

> Hi Ian
>
> I'm going to jump in and say I think there may be a better way.
>
> >From what I'm reading, I get the idea that you want to create some sort
> of fork in the development in order to have a version that is simpler
> and more easily implemented out of the box.
>
> I REALLY don't like the idea of any kind of development fork even though
> I see how alluring it is given the huge untapped markets. With a project
> as big and encompassing as OFBiz, it's easy to see how certain design
> decisions have affected the appropriateness of the application for
> particular markets.
>
> I would like to see if we can build on the strength of OFBiz's framework
> and create more "interchangeable plug-ins" like those in the specialized
> directory that add or remove features as needed. I think this could be
> used to create an app that is easily  configured for the needs of any
> particular company.
>
> Furthermore, it might help to create a simpler, more intuitive
> interface. If the interface is clear and easy to use, even small
> companies will appreciate most of the extra features.
>
> Perhaps some developers on this list already have modules they've
> created can share them as a specialized modules.
>
> Thanks
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 18:22 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
>  
>> Andrew,
>>
>> Me again :)
>>
>> Right on the money old son. OFBiz light was one of the possible
>> strategies that came to mind.
>>
>> The principal would be that to move from a high-end, high-value,
>> tailor-made service where a skilled wheelwright is needed to re-factor,
>> if not reinvent, the wheel on every installation, to more of a
>> mass-market solution with a wider user-base, requires offering easily
>> understood, preconfigured solutions in price bands customers can afford.
>>
>> That's a whole science in itself!
>>
>> In the absence of that, the strategy would be to use the net for what it
>> has proved to be best at. Building user-groups and user-generated content.
>>
>> The functionality of the user interface on ;the mailing list we are
>> currently communicating through is proven for it's efficacy in focusing
>> the attention of a relatively small and highly motivated group onto
>> resolution of sticky technical issues. But in this context, an avalanche
>> of n00bies asking the same old questions would be indifferentiable from
>> an avalanche of spam.
>>
>> A format which would welcome a range of basic questions from a wider
>> user group who might be interested but are currently neither informed,
>> confident nor motivated enough to RTFM would be more along the lines of
>> those run by osCommerce, Zen Cart, Ubuntu and the like. This is, imho,
>> the single most important contribution these projects have made to
>> developments in the field.
>>
>> On those kind of forums the default is not that the experts are
>> inundated with every single post in their inbox, but that they can
>> browse and choose to address issues or not at their leisure.  The result
>> is a much more comfortable environment for a wider group of potential
>> users to adopt.
>>
>> 'OFBiz Lite' would certainly be a major stepping stone along the way.
>> But the effort to do something like that is perhaps more than the
>> current community could bear.
>>
>> So the answer would be to widen the community, delegate the tasks, and
>> spread the load.
>>
>> The creation of some kind of extra web page, gathering site or forum
>> with this objective as the only focus could be a soft way forward to a
>> wider user base. To be taken or left by anybody, as the case may be.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>> Andrew Sykes wrote:
>>    
>>> Ian,
>>>
>>> A fascinating insight, perhaps you could go a bit further in explaining
>>> a strategy?
>>>
>>> I wonder how relevant OfBiz is to the very small end of the market,
>>> there's an awful lot to learn and (from a small business perspective) an
>>> awful lot that could go wrong.
>>>
>>> I almost think that you are talking about a different product perhaps
>>> "OfBiz Lite" or something...
>>>
>>> - Andrew
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 10:15 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>  
>>>      
>>>> I've been having this email discussion with David which he's asked me to
>>>> move out onto this mailing list. I guess that probably means I'm in for
>>>> a good kicking. But here goes anyway
>>>>
>>>> First, some background to give some kind of handle on where I'm coming from.
>>>>
>>>> I started working with computers in the late 60s as a physicist
>>>> modelling plasma dynamics. I've switched careers several times since,
>>>> but my relationship to computers remains the same. As a user, interested
>>>> not so much in the tool itself, but with what it can do.
>>>>
>>>> I first came across OFBiz a month ago whilst researching a client's
>>>> request for back-end integration with osCommerce. As someone who was
>>>> raised in a generation that really did believe that 2001 was going to be
>>>> like Stanley Kubrick said it was going to be, I can count on one hand
>>>> the number of times a piece of technology has had enough wow to stop me
>>>> dead in my tracks. OFBiz would be one!
>>>>
>>>>  From the outset it was clear that it was way too big a leap for any
>>>> client I know of to contemplate making. But the technology looked so
>>>> sweet I just had to find out more.
>>>>
>>>> The more I looked the more fascinated I became. Platform independent.
>>>> Modular. Scale-able. Open Source. Wow! What a magnificent tool this
>>>> could be! Why would anybody ever want to use anything else?
>>>>
>>>> This is a tool for running any kind of business you like. None of us can
>>>> survive without connection to some kind of business or other. This could
>>>> be monumental. The next big leap forward.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't expect installation to be easy, and it wasn't! But then again,
>>>> I've just installed XP on new PC and that wasn't all that easy either
>>>> (what version of Windows ever was?)
>>>>
>>>> I managed to get pilot installations of OFBiz (opentaps flavour) running
>>>> on Windows and Linux without too much trouble. But then again, I do have
>>>> some experience of this kind of thing. When it comes to setting up new
>>>> tools, I have several magnitudes more patience than anybody else I know.
>>>> Which means that if an application is going to be of any use to anybody
>>>> else apart from me, I have to hone usability down to the point it's a
>>>> no-brainer!
>>>>
>>>> So I'm running opentaps and slowly working my way through the various
>>>> manuals and documents trying to get a handle on what this thing can
>>>> really do.
>>>>
>>>> Pretty quickly I discover at least one glaringly obvious problem. So
>>>> obvious that if I demonstrated it to a client they would laugh me out of
>>>> the building in minutes.
>>>>
>>>> The problem itself is trivial. A simple matter of somebody sitting down
>>>> for a few days and writing the necessary code. But who is going to do
>>>> that? Not me surely? I have the Java textbook, but still haven't found
>>>> time to sit down and read more than the first couple of chapters.
>>>> Finding other people with the expertise and the time to do that would be
>>>> the key. Or at least that's what I thought at the time!
>>>>
>>>> So I go back to the web sites and start looking at the organisation and
>>>> the people rather than the code.
>>>>
>>>> Who could fix this problem? How much would it cost? Why hasn't it been
>>>> fixed already?
>>>>
>>>>  From the outset it's obvious that the Apache Incubator site is a
>>>> marvellous resource for engineers. But looking it from the user's POV -
>>>> as someone who wants to contact an engineer rather be one himself -
>>>> there isn't much I can get a handle on here.
>>>>
>>>> Opentaps, Opensource Strategies and Undersun look much more like what I
>>>> need. Clean. Crisp. Elegant designs. Engineering 'talkback' mixed down
>>>> low in the background. You don't have to be an engineer to understand
>>>> that, for enterprise-level installation, these guys look like the business.
>>>>
>>>> But enterprise-level means high-end, expensive! Corporate lawyers can
>>>> charge thousands an hour. Maybe these guys know they're worth more? I
>>>> have seen odd references to multi-million dollar installations. Sounds
>>>> par for that kind of course to me.
>>>>
>>>> So where does that leave the ordinary Joe?
>>>>
>>>> All businesses I personally deal with are small. 1 to 50 employees max.
>>>>
>>>> OFBiz looks like it should be scalable, could be of value to all of them.
>>>>
>>>> But how much value, and how much cost?
>>>>
>>>> If I was running the IT department at the White House I'd be inviting
>>>> the OFBiz guys in and showing MS the door. With the prospect of
>>>> high-end, high-value contracts in the pipeline, I guess these guys just
>>>> won't have time to even think about making this stuff accessible to the
>>>> average Joe in the street. Oh well. Better start lowering my sights and
>>>> start thinking about cobbling together some low-level XSLT plugins for
>>>> the existing kit rather than thinking about a complete revamp of the
>>>> whole machine.
>>>>
>>>> Then I discover Si's Jan 09/06 blog - exactly a year ago! - meditating
>>>> on exactly these issues.
>>>>
>>>> "If open source is to gain popularity and move "up the stack", however,
>>>> open source software will need other advocates in the enterprise.
>>>> Somebody else besides the IT department must also be able to convince
>>>> enterprise users that open source software is indeed a credible
>>>> solution. Whether that advocate ultimately is a consulting firm, a
>>>> distributor, or an ISV using open source software, we don't really know yet.
>>>>
>>>> What we can be certain of is this: whoever makes open source a credible
>>>> in the enterprise would ultimately win the "Linux wars."
>>>>
>>>> Aha. Now then. That's interesting.
>>>>
>>>> So credibility on the enterprise level isn't such a done deal after all
>>>> then.
>>>>
>>>> So who could those advocates outside the IT department be? Is it the
>>>> consulting firm, the distributor, the ISV? Or is it all or none of the
>>>> above?
>>>>
>>>> Rereading Si's blog, I was struck by this:
>>>>
>>>> "Most buyers of commercial software don't actually verify that its
>>>> features are bug free or check out its support lines. Instead, their
>>>> "due diligence" consists of making sure that there are other users using
>>>> the software, including, most importantly, their golf buddies."
>>>>
>>>> How important an insight is that?
>>>>
>>>> So the key to credibility in the decision making process lies with those
>>>> who know absolutely nothing about the technicalities and most probably
>>>> care even less!
>>>>
>>>> Why else would IBM spend many millions advertising enterprise level
>>>> technology on prime time television? How many viewers are actually in
>>>> the market for Blade servers?
>>>>
>>>> I doubt anybody in IBM marketing believes they're spending that money to
>>>> advertise servers. They're spending it to make sure that not only the
>>>> average golf-buddy, but also his wife, kids, and grandmother all know
>>>> that IBM is a credible player. Because they know that's how the big
>>>> decisions are actually made. Emotionally, by people who are so far up on
>>>> the bridge of the ship, away from the engine room, that they probably
>>>> know less about the mechanics of it than their grandmothers!
>>>>
>>>> So making OFBiz emotionally accessible to the average Joe Soap's
>>>> grandmother could be the key to unlocking both enterprise level and
>>>> wider markets.
>>>>
>>>>  From an outsiders perspective, it seems that Si in particular has
>>>> already done a considerable amount of work in this direction. As someone
>>>> with formal financial rather than technical training, he is perhaps more
>>>> focused on markets than most. But Si is in no way representative of the
>>>> average user. His blog tells me his parents were postgrad programmers
>>>> who taught him everything they knew. Most programmers would give their
>>>> eye teeth for a  background like that! How many management wonks would
>>>> relish the idea of lifting up the bonnet everytime they wanted to start
>>>> their car? They chose their roles in life precisely to keep away from
>>>> that kind of thing. As indeed did Si when he chose a career in finance.
>>>>
>>>> The moral of this would be that what is accessible to Si or most other
>>>> users on this forum is not necessarily even slightly accessible to the
>>>> average businessperson on the street.
>>>>
>>>> If you wanted to maintain an elite group of cognoscenti who are in the
>>>> position to charge highly for their services then you may want to keep
>>>> it that way - or not as the case may be.
>>>>
>>>> I would argue that the code is so radical and so deep that some levels
>>>> will always remain expert only. Increasing accessibility to a wider user
>>>> group would not threaten that core and could only lead to a wider user
>>>> base and larger market share.
>>>>
>>>> OOTB, front-end, user accessibility to me means minimising any factors
>>>> which take time and attention away from getting on with the job the tool
>>>> was designed to do. From a purely user's POV, these are nothing more
>>>> than distractions, irritations and ultimately objections to buying into
>>>> the programme. Noise drowning out signals on the marketing channels if
>>>> you like.
>>>>
>>>> As in all user applications, a proportion of time spent tooling-up and a
>>>> level of unwanted noise is to be expected. But in the job-efficiency
>>>> equation, this is a drag component to be optimised out. In the
>>>> development of sleek, user-friendly implementations, a zero tolerance
>>>> policy on noise, friction and drag is the only way to go!
>>>>
>>>> To me, OOTB accessibility means exactly what it says on the tin: I don't
>>>> need a degree in anything to install or run it. It does everything it
>>>> said it would do. Is easy to maintain. Has cost exactly what they told
>>>> me it would. A brilliant tool for the job. Wouldn't even think of using
>>>> anything else.
>>>>
>>>> But creating something like that means taking at least some of the focus
>>>> away engineering a better mousetrap, to looking at the way it appears to
>>>> the average mouse. Is it easy for them to get to the cheese, or are
>>>> there still too many wires and cogs in the way? Closing a sale means
>>>> overcoming all the objections. Making offers people don't see any reason
>>>> to refuse.
>>>>
>>>> The marketing proposition from Undersun and Opensource Strategies looks
>>>> fine - if you're only interested in high end, enterprise-level applications.
>>>>
>>>> The engineering proposition on Apache incubator looks fine - if you're
>>>> interested in being an engineer.
>>>>
>>>> But where is the low-end proposition for the average businessperson in
>>>> the street? Something his golf playing buddie's grandmother might
>>>> understand?
>>>>
>>>> It could be concluded that what I'm angling for here is a series of
>>>> television adverts.
>>>>
>>>> If I thought OFBiz had a couple of mill lying around spare then this
>>>> would certainly be the case. If it's good enough for IBM...
>>>>
>>>> But I doubt OFBiz is anywhere near that kind of position at the moment.
>>>>
>>>> I just kinda don't see any reason why it shouldn't be at some time in
>>>> the foreseeable future.
>>>>
>>>> But there would need to be a will to go in this direction and the
>>>> deliberate diversion of at least some of the time, creativity and
>>>> resources away from strictly engineering matters, into making the
>>>> application more accessible - acceptable - applicable, to a wider user base.
>>>>
>>>> That would mean opening up whatever channels of communication with the
>>>> wider public are available and boosting the signal well above the noise.
>>>>
>>>> Almost everybody has need of OFBiz. They just don't know it yet!
>>>>
>>>> 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.
==============================================================================================

[Ian McNulty]

Jacques,

You know something? That story of yours may look like an irritating
diversion, but on closer examination it turns out to be one of the most
interesting things I've encountered on this mailing list to date.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that your client is being
prosecuted for using the equivalent of the zip or postcode in their
business because some other private company copyrighted the codes? And
they're holding their corner until somebody in the legislature starts
seeing sense?

No way you could be expected you to do anything except hold your horses
on that one.

But a functional comparison which you invested some time in has wider
value beyond that particular case. Maybe someone else would want to
volunteer to take the burden of translating it from the French?

More importantly, Sage's failure to handle the Web side is news to me.
Why is client-server architecture so bad? And how does OFBiz do it better?

Ian



Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Ian,
>
> No this is not priviledged. On the other hand I did only functionnal comparaison and it took me some time. It's only in french.
> I'm not now in a situation to do more. I managed to be close to the Sage 100 solution but with more functionnalities (Sage does not
> handle well the Web side, it's always a client-server architecture).
>
> So I was a little mor expansive but with far more openness and the client finally choose my solution (he is wise and without fear
> ;). Too bad he was sued for forgery in the mean-time. Something weird, a company in France copyrighted french departements numbers
> (there are about an hundred of dpt here and they are numbered from 1 to 974 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9partement_in_France)
> an my client is using his dpt number in his businness. The law prohibit to register departements names and such but forgot the
> numbers. This company is making money with this idea. My client is now waiting for the law to change (his deputy puts a proposition
> of law to include numbers in september but nothing is done yet because of near presidential elections). Moreover now (just yesterday
> 2/1/07) his departement general counsel is suing the "bad" company. So I hope one day this project will be achieved....
>
> Sorry to annoy everybody with that but it's so a strange story ;o)
>
> That said you see why I'm no really ready now to do more about that...
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Ian McNulty" <[hidden email]>
>  
>> Jacques,
>>
>>    
>>> I did some comparaison between Sage 100 and OFBiz for a client (in french including POS with multi-sites) and I was happily
>>>      
> surprised how OFBiz was facing the challenge :o)
>  
>> That's exactly the result I expected, and I am heartened to hear it
>> confirmed.
>>
>> A differential analysis of the relative costs, downtime etc. would be a
>> significant step forward. Or is this client-privileged?
>>
>>    
>>> I think that the problem here is more to compete with offers like
>>> http://www.intuit.com/ (in US)
>>> http://www.sage.com/ (in EU)
>>> and convince end users that OFBiz is the right tool !
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>> That's right on the money. That's also how I came to find out about
>> OFBiz myself. By looking first at the commercially available solutions
>> presented in front of my nose, then next at the Open Source equivalents
>> buried behind. I'm guessing a lot of others may stumble across it the
>> same way. And the obstacles I've encountered will be the same ones they
>> encounter too. Solving them could therefore be a significant
>> contribution to widening the user base.
>>
>> How can end users be convinced if there is no alternative OOTB
>> equivalent to convince them with?
>>
>>    
>>> Anyway a good wide strategy is surely a very good thing !
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>> Amen on that too! (Providing it isn't predicated on drawing critical
>> resources from the core!)
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>    
>>> Ian, Andrew,
>>>
>>> I think that the problem here is more to compete with offers like
>>> http://www.intuit.com/ (in US)
>>> http://www.sage.com/ (in EU)
>>> and convince end users that OFBiz is the right tool !
>>>
>>> Anyway a good wide strategy is surely a very good thing !
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> PS : I did some comparaison between Sage 100 and OFBiz for a client (in french including POS with multi-sites) and I was happily
>>> surprised how OFBiz was facing the challenge :o)
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Andrew Sykes" <[hidden email]>
>>> To: <[hidden email]>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 4:54 PM
>>> Subject: Re: What does "OOTB front-end accessibility" mean to you?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>> Ian,
>>>>
>>>> A fascinating insight, perhaps you could go a bit further in explaining
>>>> a strategy?
>>>>
>>>> I wonder how relevant OfBiz is to the very small end of the market,
>>>> there's an awful lot to learn and (from a small business perspective) an
>>>> awful lot that could go wrong.
>>>>
>>>> I almost think that you are talking about a different product perhaps
>>>> "OfBiz Lite" or something...
>>>>
>>>> - Andrew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 10:15 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>> I've been having this email discussion with David which he's asked me to
>>>>> move out onto this mailing list. I guess that probably means I'm in for
>>>>> a good kicking. But here goes anyway
>>>>>
>>>>> First, some background to give some kind of handle on where I'm coming from.
>>>>>
>>>>> I started working with computers in the late 60s as a physicist
>>>>> modelling plasma dynamics. I've switched careers several times since,
>>>>> but my relationship to computers remains the same. As a user, interested
>>>>> not so much in the tool itself, but with what it can do.
>>>>>
>>>>> I first came across OFBiz a month ago whilst researching a client's
>>>>> request for back-end integration with osCommerce. As someone who was
>>>>> raised in a generation that really did believe that 2001 was going to be
>>>>> like Stanley Kubrick said it was going to be, I can count on one hand
>>>>> the number of times a piece of technology has had enough wow to stop me
>>>>> dead in my tracks. OFBiz would be one!
>>>>>
>>>>>  From the outset it was clear that it was way too big a leap for any
>>>>> client I know of to contemplate making. But the technology looked so
>>>>> sweet I just had to find out more.
>>>>>
>>>>> The more I looked the more fascinated I became. Platform independent.
>>>>> Modular. Scale-able. Open Source. Wow! What a magnificent tool this
>>>>> could be! Why would anybody ever want to use anything else?
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a tool for running any kind of business you like. None of us can
>>>>> survive without connection to some kind of business or other. This could
>>>>> be monumental. The next big leap forward.
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't expect installation to be easy, and it wasn't! But then again,
>>>>> I've just installed XP on new PC and that wasn't all that easy either
>>>>> (what version of Windows ever was?)
>>>>>
>>>>> I managed to get pilot installations of OFBiz (opentaps flavour) running
>>>>> on Windows and Linux without too much trouble. But then again, I do have
>>>>> some experience of this kind of thing. When it comes to setting up new
>>>>> tools, I have several magnitudes more patience than anybody else I know.
>>>>> Which means that if an application is going to be of any use to anybody
>>>>> else apart from me, I have to hone usability down to the point it's a
>>>>> no-brainer!
>>>>>
>>>>> So I'm running opentaps and slowly working my way through the various
>>>>> manuals and documents trying to get a handle on what this thing can
>>>>> really do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pretty quickly I discover at least one glaringly obvious problem. So
>>>>> obvious that if I demonstrated it to a client they would laugh me out of
>>>>> the building in minutes.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem itself is trivial. A simple matter of somebody sitting down
>>>>> for a few days and writing the necessary code. But who is going to do
>>>>> that? Not me surely? I have the Java textbook, but still haven't found
>>>>> time to sit down and read more than the first couple of chapters.
>>>>> Finding other people with the expertise and the time to do that would be
>>>>> the key. Or at least that's what I thought at the time!
>>>>>
>>>>> So I go back to the web sites and start looking at the organisation and
>>>>> the people rather than the code.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who could fix this problem? How much would it cost? Why hasn't it been
>>>>> fixed already?
>>>>>
>>>>>  From the outset it's obvious that the Apache Incubator site is a
>>>>> marvellous resource for engineers. But looking it from the user's POV -
>>>>> as someone who wants to contact an engineer rather be one himself -
>>>>> there isn't much I can get a handle on here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Opentaps, Opensource Strategies and Undersun look much more like what I
>>>>> need. Clean. Crisp. Elegant designs. Engineering 'talkback' mixed down
>>>>> low in the background. You don't have to be an engineer to understand
>>>>> that, for enterprise-level installation, these guys look like the business.
>>>>>
>>>>> But enterprise-level means high-end, expensive! Corporate lawyers can
>>>>> charge thousands an hour. Maybe these guys know they're worth more? I
>>>>> have seen odd references to multi-million dollar installations. Sounds
>>>>> par for that kind of course to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> So where does that leave the ordinary Joe?
>>>>>
>>>>> All businesses I personally deal with are small. 1 to 50 employees max.
>>>>>
>>>>> OFBiz looks like it should be scalable, could be of value to all of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> But how much value, and how much cost?
>>>>>
>>>>> If I was running the IT department at the White House I'd be inviting
>>>>> the OFBiz guys in and showing MS the door. With the prospect of
>>>>> high-end, high-value contracts in the pipeline, I guess these guys just
>>>>> won't have time to even think about making this stuff accessible to the
>>>>> average Joe in the street. Oh well. Better start lowering my sights and
>>>>> start thinking about cobbling together some low-level XSLT plugins for
>>>>> the existing kit rather than thinking about a complete revamp of the
>>>>> whole machine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then I discover Si's Jan 09/06 blog - exactly a year ago! - meditating
>>>>> on exactly these issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> "If open source is to gain popularity and move "up the stack", however,
>>>>> open source software will need other advocates in the enterprise.
>>>>> Somebody else besides the IT department must also be able to convince
>>>>> enterprise users that open source software is indeed a credible
>>>>> solution. Whether that advocate ultimately is a consulting firm, a
>>>>> distributor, or an ISV using open source software, we don't really know yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> What we can be certain of is this: whoever makes open source a credible
>>>>> in the enterprise would ultimately win the "Linux wars."
>>>>>
>>>>> Aha. Now then. That's interesting.
>>>>>
>>>>> So credibility on the enterprise level isn't such a done deal after all
>>>>> then.
>>>>>
>>>>> So who could those advocates outside the IT department be? Is it the
>>>>> consulting firm, the distributor, the ISV? Or is it all or none of the
>>>>> above?
>>>>>
>>>>> Rereading Si's blog, I was struck by this:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Most buyers of commercial software don't actually verify that its
>>>>> features are bug free or check out its support lines. Instead, their
>>>>> "due diligence" consists of making sure that there are other users using
>>>>> the software, including, most importantly, their golf buddies."
>>>>>
>>>>> How important an insight is that?
>>>>>
>>>>> So the key to credibility in the decision making process lies with those
>>>>> who know absolutely nothing about the technicalities and most probably
>>>>> care even less!
>>>>>
>>>>> Why else would IBM spend many millions advertising enterprise level
>>>>> technology on prime time television? How many viewers are actually in
>>>>> the market for Blade servers?
>>>>>
>>>>> I doubt anybody in IBM marketing believes they're spending that money to
>>>>> advertise servers. They're spending it to make sure that not only the
>>>>> average golf-buddy, but also his wife, kids, and grandmother all know
>>>>> that IBM is a credible player. Because they know that's how the big
>>>>> decisions are actually made. Emotionally, by people who are so far up on
>>>>> the bridge of the ship, away from the engine room, that they probably
>>>>> know less about the mechanics of it than their grandmothers!
>>>>>
>>>>> So making OFBiz emotionally accessible to the average Joe Soap's
>>>>> grandmother could be the key to unlocking both enterprise level and
>>>>> wider markets.
>>>>>
>>>>>  From an outsiders perspective, it seems that Si in particular has
>>>>> already done a considerable amount of work in this direction. As someone
>>>>> with formal financial rather than technical training, he is perhaps more
>>>>> focused on markets than most. But Si is in no way representative of the
>>>>> average user. His blog tells me his parents were postgrad programmers
>>>>> who taught him everything they knew. Most programmers would give their
>>>>> eye teeth for a  background like that! How many management wonks would
>>>>> relish the idea of lifting up the bonnet everytime they wanted to start
>>>>> their car? They chose their roles in life precisely to keep away from
>>>>> that kind of thing. As indeed did Si when he chose a career in finance.
>>>>>
>>>>> The moral of this would be that what is accessible to Si or most other
>>>>> users on this forum is not necessarily even slightly accessible to the
>>>>> average businessperson on the street.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you wanted to maintain an elite group of cognoscenti who are in the
>>>>> position to charge highly for their services then you may want to keep
>>>>> it that way - or not as the case may be.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would argue that the code is so radical and so deep that some levels
>>>>> will always remain expert only. Increasing accessibility to a wider user
>>>>> group would not threaten that core and could only lead to a wider user
>>>>> base and larger market share.
>>>>>
>>>>> OOTB, front-end, user accessibility to me means minimising any factors
>>>>> which take time and attention away from getting on with the job the tool
>>>>> was designed to do. From a purely user's POV, these are nothing more
>>>>> than distractions, irritations and ultimately objections to buying into
>>>>> the programme. Noise drowning out signals on the marketing channels if
>>>>> you like.
>>>>>
>>>>> As in all user applications, a proportion of time spent tooling-up and a
>>>>> level of unwanted noise is to be expected. But in the job-efficiency
>>>>> equation, this is a drag component to be optimised out. In the
>>>>> development of sleek, user-friendly implementations, a zero tolerance
>>>>> policy on noise, friction and drag is the only way to go!
>>>>>
>>>>> To me, OOTB accessibility means exactly what it says on the tin: I don't
>>>>> need a degree in anything to install or run it. It does everything it
>>>>> said it would do. Is easy to maintain. Has cost exactly what they told
>>>>> me it would. A brilliant tool for the job. Wouldn't even think of using
>>>>> anything else.
>>>>>
>>>>> But creating something like that means taking at least some of the focus
>>>>> away engineering a better mousetrap, to looking at the way it appears to
>>>>> the average mouse. Is it easy for them to get to the cheese, or are
>>>>> there still too many wires and cogs in the way? Closing a sale means
>>>>> overcoming all the objections. Making offers people don't see any reason
>>>>> to refuse.
>>>>>
>>>>> The marketing proposition from Undersun and Opensource Strategies looks
>>>>> fine - if you're only interested in high end, enterprise-level applications.
>>>>>
>>>>> The engineering proposition on Apache incubator looks fine - if you're
>>>>> interested in being an engineer.
>>>>>
>>>>> But where is the low-end proposition for the average businessperson in
>>>>> the street? Something his golf playing buddie's grandmother might
>>>>> understand?
>>>>>
>>>>> It could be concluded that what I'm angling for here is a series of
>>>>> television adverts.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I thought OFBiz had a couple of mill lying around spare then this
>>>>> would certainly be the case. If it's good enough for IBM...
>>>>>
>>>>> But I doubt OFBiz is anywhere near that kind of position at the moment.
>>>>>
>>>>> I just kinda don't see any reason why it shouldn't be at some time in
>>>>> the foreseeable future.
>>>>>
>>>>> But there would need to be a will to go in this direction and the
>>>>> deliberate diversion of at least some of the time, creativity and
>>>>> resources away from strictly engineering matters, into making the
>>>>> application more accessible - acceptable - applicable, to a wider user base.
>>>>>
>>>>> That would mean opening up whatever channels of communication with the
>>>>> wider public are available and boosting the signal well above the noise.
>>>>>
>>>>> Almost everybody has need of OFBiz. They just don't know it yet!
>>>>>
>>>>> Ian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>> --
>>>> Kind Regards
>>>> Andrew Sykes <[hidden email]>
>>>> Sykes Development Ltd
>>>> http://www.sykesdevelopment.com
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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.
>  
>> ==============================================================================================
>>    
>
>
>
>  

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
==============================================================================================

[Walter Vaughan]

Ian McNulty wrote:

> More importantly, Sage's failure to handle the Web side is news to me.

Sage's Mas500 ERP public facing website was B2B only. A developer has been
working for several years to make it B2C. It may be done now, but from memory it
  didn't handle both.

> Why is client-server architecture so bad?

Do you really want your data traveling to a virus prone Windows box, being
manipulated by a binary on that same virus prone box, and being returned to a
server?

If the operator inadvertently asks for 4 gigabits of data, do you want that data
manipulated in the memory and hard disk space of the server, or do you want to
push 4 gigs of data over the wire to a XP box that has the commit charge
exceeded because it spending all availble CPU time/memory running Norton?

Do you not want the ability to manipulate your ofBiz data via any web connected
device that has a browser?

And how does OFBiz do it better?

The discussion was about 1-50 users systems. Today a company with 50 employees
may have 50 computers. Where a business gets killed is that a 50 user license of
Mas500 will be approaching the upper half of a million dollars. So then they
come back with "remove half the computers to make it affordable". Their point is
that it should be worth $12K USD per person for software.

That makes sence. Remove computers. Make people walk farther to find information
they need.

--
Walter