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

[Jacques Le Roux]

Ian,

Sorry I did not resist to tell this story.

AFAIKR Sage handle the web side but it's a rather poor templating dedicaced to end-user. I see that as marketing only. The end-user
may change some colors here an there, etc. but at the end he comes with a rather poor eCommerce site. So it's a sort of appealing
"make it yourself' but wich IMHO finish with something not really usable at all. On the other end letting end-user doing itself this
part of work is certainly a key of what you are looking for (people like to be independent, specially businness people). I believe
that with today state of art it's something beyond our reach (at a reasonnable price I mean).

Client-server architecture is bad when it comes to communicate between at least 2 shops for instance (not even speaking of complex
architectures). Hence they offer batch solutions, not really fancy and not much reliable too (there are other drawbacks of course,
specially in complex cases).

Jacques

From: "Ian McNulty" <[hidden email]>
>
> 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

[Ian McNulty]

That sounds like good news.

But I also understand where those who are against installers are coming
from.

There's no point in having an easy installation if subsequent
implementation is not equally trouble free. At least at the moment  the
difficulty of the installation gives good warning of the condition of
the road ahead!

Imho an installer should be somewhere on the list, but not at the top of it.

More important would be the presentation of a proposition or a package
that users can easily understand.

This does not necessarily mean a one-click installation.

Think of the development of any technology you like. The motor car is as
good an example as any. Early installations were tailor-made one-offs,.
hand-built by experts, of value only to engineers, enthusiasts and the
extremely rich. The interface varied with each installation. The
accelerator on the steering wheel and the brake outside the drivers door
for godsakes! Who thought that one would ever fly? It took years before
the interface settled down and standardised around something even your
grandmother could learn to drive. Years more to move beyond the
proposition you could have any color you liked just as long as it was
Windows - ehr, sorry - black! Years more before most drivers could be
assured that they wouldn't have to - in the words of the old song - "get
out and get under" every time they popped down the shops for a pint of milk.

Everyone accepts that complex technology requires some kind of learning
curve. And that, without proper maintenance, it will probably break down.

But it wasn't until the training could be standardised, and maintenance
became more a matter of a regular oil change than a regular engine
rebuild, that the the motor car became a proposition that was easy to
understand, and the technology could move out of the garage and onto the
highway.

The change this precipitated was so radical that, now, it's the
proposition of life WITHOUT the motor car that most people would find
difficult to understand!

Ian



Anil Patel wrote:

> 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
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>
>>
>

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]

Walter,

What can I say?

Brilliant!

And if they walked further to get their information they wouldn't need
to waste all that electricity in the gym.

Even more brilliant!

If only life were like that.

You seem to have a pretty strong argument here, but I'm still not sure
I've got all of it. Who exactly is saying what software should be worth
$12K USD per person? In the UK most people aren't considered to be worth
that!

Ian




Walter Vaughan wrote:

> 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
>
>
>

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

[cjhowe]

I've been reading the posts on this thread all day and
trying to refrain from bashing my head on the keyboard
thinking this topic was already answered definitively.
   Apache Ofbiz does have an auto-installation script
and the only way to make it more automatic is to be
bound by GPLv2 that would occur by bundling Java JDK.

However, this evening I had the opportunity to
reintroduce myself to a dear old friend....Webmin
(http://www.webmin.com/) And it dawned on me:
installation and installation are two different
things!!

Looking at webmin, these are a collection of
completely geeked out tools that can be configured by
just about the average Joe (assuming the average Joe
knows what the project is supposed to do based on the
strange names that some projects program under).  How
difficult would it to be to make entityengine.xml,
url.properties, general.properties, (heck every ofbiz
file for that matter) configurable through a web
interface?  (Didn't the content component have this as
somewhat as a goal at some point?)  If someone could
manufacturer a demo script on how to make this
available, I'm sure the community could complete it.
Any takers?

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

> That sounds like good news.
>
> But I also understand where those who are against
> installers are coming
> from.
>
> There's no point in having an easy installation if
> subsequent
> implementation is not equally trouble free. At least
> at the moment  the
> difficulty of the installation gives good warning of
> the condition of
> the road ahead!
>
> Imho an installer should be somewhere on the list,
> but not at the top of it.
>
> More important would be the presentation of a
> proposition or a package
> that users can easily understand.
>
> This does not necessarily mean a one-click
> installation.
>
> Think of the development of any technology you like.
> The motor car is as
> good an example as any. Early installations were
> tailor-made one-offs,.
> hand-built by experts, of value only to engineers,
> enthusiasts and the
> extremely rich. The interface varied with each
> installation. The
> accelerator on the steering wheel and the brake
> outside the drivers door
> for godsakes! Who thought that one would ever fly?
> It took years before
> the interface settled down and standardised around
> something even your
> grandmother could learn to drive. Years more to move
> beyond the
> proposition you could have any color you liked just
> as long as it was
> Windows - ehr, sorry - black! Years more before most
> drivers could be
> assured that they wouldn't have to - in the words of
> the old song - "get
> out and get under" every time they popped down the
> shops for a pint of milk.
>
> Everyone accepts that complex technology requires
> some kind of learning
> curve. And that, without proper maintenance, it will
> probably break down.
>
> But it wasn't until the training could be
> standardised, and maintenance
> became more a matter of a regular oil change than a
> regular engine
> rebuild, that the the motor car became a proposition
> that was easy to
> understand, and the technology could move out of the
> garage and onto the
> highway.
>
> The change this precipitated was so radical that,
> now, it's the
> proposition of life WITHOUT the motor car that most
> people would find
> difficult to understand!
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> Anil Patel wrote:
> > 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.
> >> >>
>

=== message truncated ===

[Anil Patel]

I agree with Chris, Long back I did some work using OpenCMS. It has the
installation process that was Wizard build using JSP.



On 1/3/07, Chris Howe <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I've been reading the posts on this thread all day and
> trying to refrain from bashing my head on the keyboard
> thinking this topic was already answered definitively.
>    Apache Ofbiz does have an auto-installation script
> and the only way to make it more automatic is to be
> bound by GPLv2 that would occur by bundling Java JDK.
>
> However, this evening I had the opportunity to
> reintroduce myself to a dear old friend....Webmin
> (http://www.webmin.com/) And it dawned on me:
> installation and installation are two different
> things!!
>
> Looking at webmin, these are a collection of
> completely geeked out tools that can be configured by
> just about the average Joe (assuming the average Joe
> knows what the project is supposed to do based on the
> strange names that some projects program under).  How
> difficult would it to be to make entityengine.xml,
> url.properties, general.properties, (heck every ofbiz
> file for that matter) configurable through a web
> interface?  (Didn't the content component have this as
> somewhat as a goal at some point?)  If someone could
> manufacturer a demo script on how to make this
> available, I'm sure the community could complete it.
> Any takers?
>
> --- Ian McNulty <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > That sounds like good news.
> >
> > But I also understand where those who are against
> > installers are coming
> > from.
> >
> > There's no point in having an easy installation if
> > subsequent
> > implementation is not equally trouble free. At least
> > at the moment  the
> > difficulty of the installation gives good warning of
> > the condition of
> > the road ahead!
> >
> > Imho an installer should be somewhere on the list,
> > but not at the top of it.
> >
> > More important would be the presentation of a
> > proposition or a package
> > that users can easily understand.
> >
> > This does not necessarily mean a one-click
> > installation.
> >
> > Think of the development of any technology you like.
> > The motor car is as
> > good an example as any. Early installations were
> > tailor-made one-offs,.
> > hand-built by experts, of value only to engineers,
> > enthusiasts and the
> > extremely rich. The interface varied with each
> > installation. The
> > accelerator on the steering wheel and the brake
> > outside the drivers door
> > for godsakes! Who thought that one would ever fly?
> > It took years before
> > the interface settled down and standardised around
> > something even your
> > grandmother could learn to drive. Years more to move
> > beyond the
> > proposition you could have any color you liked just
> > as long as it was
> > Windows - ehr, sorry - black! Years more before most
> > drivers could be
> > assured that they wouldn't have to - in the words of
> > the old song - "get
> > out and get under" every time they popped down the
> > shops for a pint of milk.
> >
> > Everyone accepts that complex technology requires
> > some kind of learning
> > curve. And that, without proper maintenance, it will
> > probably break down.
> >
> > But it wasn't until the training could be
> > standardised, and maintenance
> > became more a matter of a regular oil change than a
> > regular engine
> > rebuild, that the the motor car became a proposition
> > that was easy to
> > understand, and the technology could move out of the
> > garage and onto the
> > highway.
> >
> > The change this precipitated was so radical that,
> > now, it's the
> > proposition of life WITHOUT the motor car that most
> > people would find
> > difficult to understand!
> >
> > Ian
> >
> >
> >
> > Anil Patel wrote:
> > > 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.
> > >> >>
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>

[Ian McNulty]

Jacques,

In my experience, end users don't care so much about the template as
they do about actually just using it.

Shop owners understand the value of attractive shop fronts and routinely
pay experts to revamp and improve them.

This is not the issue.

Reducing overheads is.

The costs of using any tool have to be balanced against the benefits
that tool can bring.

What I'm looking for is a solution to a problem more and more businesses
are currently facing.

Accounting systems, POS systems, ecommerce systems, client contact
systems, warehouse management systems - all legacy systems with
significant investment in staff trained to run them - all costing more
by the minute - all supplied with a vested interest in not talking to
the others.

It's a nightmare in desperate need of some kind of sweet technical fix.

Ian




Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Ian,
>
> Sorry I did not resist to tell this story.
>
> AFAIKR Sage handle the web side but it's a rather poor templating dedicaced to end-user. I see that as marketing only. The end-user
> may change some colors here an there, etc. but at the end he comes with a rather poor eCommerce site. So it's a sort of appealing
> "make it yourself' but wich IMHO finish with something not really usable at all. On the other end letting end-user doing itself this
> part of work is certainly a key of what you are looking for (people like to be independent, specially businness people). I believe
> that with today state of art it's something beyond our reach (at a reasonnable price I mean).
>
> Client-server architecture is bad when it comes to communicate between at least 2 shops for instance (not even speaking of complex
> architectures). Hence they offer batch solutions, not really fancy and not much reliable too (there are other drawbacks of course,
> specially in complex cases).
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Ian McNulty" <[hidden email]>
>  
>> 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,
>
> Sorry I did not resist to tell this story.
>
> AFAIKR Sage handle the web side but it's a rather poor templating dedicaced to end-user. I see that as marketing only. The end-user
> may change some colors here an there, etc. but at the end he comes with a rather poor eCommerce site. So it's a sort of appealing
> "make it yourself' but wich IMHO finish with something not really usable at all. On the other end letting end-user doing itself this
> part of work is certainly a key of what you are looking for (people like to be independent, specially businness people). I believe
> that with today state of art it's something beyond our reach (at a reasonnable price I mean).
>
> Client-server architecture is bad when it comes to communicate between at least 2 shops for instance (not even speaking of complex
> architectures). Hence they offer batch solutions, not really fancy and not much reliable too (there are other drawbacks of course,
> specially in complex cases).
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Ian McNulty" <[hidden email]>
>  
>> 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
>>    
>
>
>
>  

[Ian McNulty]

Chris,

> I've been reading the posts on this thread all day and
> trying to refrain from bashing my head on the keyboard
>  

Me too! The volume of mail in my inbox was starting to feel scary!

> However, this evening I had the opportunity to
> reintroduce myself to a dear old friend....Webmin
> (http://www.webmin.com/) And it dawned on me:
> installation and installation are two different
> things!!
>
>  

Now you're talking!

> Looking at webmin, these are a collection of
> completely geeked out tools that can be configured by
> just about the average Joe (assuming the average Joe
> knows what the project is supposed to do based on the
> strange names that some projects program under).

That would be a significant part of the problem with that particular
installation.

>   How difficult would it to be to make entityengine.xml,
> url.properties, general.properties, (heck every ofbiz
> file for that matter) configurable through a web
> interface?  (Didn't the content component have this as
> somewhat as a goal at some point?)

How difficult indeed? What a brilliant idea? If someone can point me in
the direction of the pieces I'd be prepared to help trying to put them
together.

>  If someone could
> manufacturer a demo script on how to make this
> available, I'm sure the community could complete it.
> Any takers?
>  

Afraid I'm too new here to even know what a demo script might look like,
so can't help there I'm afraid :(

Ian


Chris Howe wrote:

> I've been reading the posts on this thread all day and
> trying to refrain from bashing my head on the keyboard
> thinking this topic was already answered definitively.
>    Apache Ofbiz does have an auto-installation script
> and the only way to make it more automatic is to be
> bound by GPLv2 that would occur by bundling Java JDK.
>
> However, this evening I had the opportunity to
> reintroduce myself to a dear old friend....Webmin
> (http://www.webmin.com/) And it dawned on me:
> installation and installation are two different
> things!!
>
> Looking at webmin, these are a collection of
> completely geeked out tools that can be configured by
> just about the average Joe (assuming the average Joe
> knows what the project is supposed to do based on the
> strange names that some projects program under).  How
> difficult would it to be to make entityengine.xml,
> url.properties, general.properties, (heck every ofbiz
> file for that matter) configurable through a web
> interface?  (Didn't the content component have this as
> somewhat as a goal at some point?)  If someone could
> manufacturer a demo script on how to make this
> available, I'm sure the community could complete it.
> Any takers?
>
> --- Ian McNulty <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  
>> That sounds like good news.
>>
>> But I also understand where those who are against
>> installers are coming
>> from.
>>
>> There's no point in having an easy installation if
>> subsequent
>> implementation is not equally trouble free. At least
>> at the moment  the
>> difficulty of the installation gives good warning of
>> the condition of
>> the road ahead!
>>
>> Imho an installer should be somewhere on the list,
>> but not at the top of it.
>>
>> More important would be the presentation of a
>> proposition or a package
>> that users can easily understand.
>>
>> This does not necessarily mean a one-click
>> installation.
>>
>> Think of the development of any technology you like.
>> The motor car is as
>> good an example as any. Early installations were
>> tailor-made one-offs,.
>> hand-built by experts, of value only to engineers,
>> enthusiasts and the
>> extremely rich. The interface varied with each
>> installation. The
>> accelerator on the steering wheel and the brake
>> outside the drivers door
>> for godsakes! Who thought that one would ever fly?
>> It took years before
>> the interface settled down and standardised around
>> something even your
>> grandmother could learn to drive. Years more to move
>> beyond the
>> proposition you could have any color you liked just
>> as long as it was
>> Windows - ehr, sorry - black! Years more before most
>> drivers could be
>> assured that they wouldn't have to - in the words of
>> the old song - "get
>> out and get under" every time they popped down the
>> shops for a pint of milk.
>>
>> Everyone accepts that complex technology requires
>> some kind of learning
>> curve. And that, without proper maintenance, it will
>> probably break down.
>>
>> But it wasn't until the training could be
>> standardised, and maintenance
>> became more a matter of a regular oil change than a
>> regular engine
>> rebuild, that the the motor car became a proposition
>> that was easy to
>> understand, and the technology could move out of the
>> garage and onto the
>> highway.
>>
>> The change this precipitated was so radical that,
>> now, it's the
>> proposition of life WITHOUT the motor car that most
>> people would find
>> difficult to understand!
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>    

[David E Jones-2]

Sorry for the late involvement in this, it's been a crazy day and I'm  
just starting to catch up on email. It's quite refreshing (or perhaps  
a better word is "smarting"?) to see so much mailing list  
contribution to ring in the new year!


On Jan 3, 2007, at 10:38 AM, 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.

I think this is very much of interest, and to a lot of people. These  
all sound like they would make great derivative works of OFBiz,  
either commercial or open source. I'd say for right now that getting  
something very slick for any of these groups it outside the scope and  
current resources of OFBiz, but that doesn't mean these are a bad idea.

In fact, even "in the beginning" we had the intent to build OFBiz in  
such a way that such things could be built on top of it (or from it,  
depending on how you look at things), and be done in either an open  
source or commercial model, or even a combination of the two like the  
CRMSFA application from Open Source Strategies. There are actually a  
few other open source and commercial applications that use different  
parts of OFBiz (see the User List page on docs.ofbiz.org).

Anyway, someone else may have commented similarly further down the  
list... if so forgive my pooping bird style of interaction and let me  
fly off in peace... ;) Sorry I couldn't come with a better analog,  
I'm more ready for sleep than flying.

-David

[Ian McNulty]

David,

>
> It's quite refreshing (or perhaps a better word is "smarting"?) to see
> so much mailing list contribution to ring in the new year!

Must admit to being a bit taken-aback by it all myself!

>
>
> I think this is very much of interest, and to a lot of people. These
> all sound like they would make great derivative works of OFBiz, either
> commercial or open source. I'd say for right now that getting
> something very slick for any of these groups it outside the scope and
> current resources of OFBiz, but that doesn't mean these are a bad idea.

Sounds good to me. Am now wondering where the necessary resources may be?

>
> In fact, even "in the beginning" we had the intent to build OFBiz in
> such a way that such things could be built on top of it (or from it,
> depending on how you look at things), and be done in either an open
> source or commercial model, or even a combination of the two like the
> CRMSFA application from Open Source Strategies. There are actually a
> few other open source and commercial applications that use different
> parts of OFBiz (see the User List page on docs.ofbiz.org).

User List? Can't see that. Maybe I ought to try getting some sleep myself :)

Ian




>
>
> Anyway, someone else may have commented similarly further down the
> list... if so forgive my pooping bird style of interaction and let me
> fly off in peace... ;) Sorry I couldn't come with a better analog, I'm
> more ready for sleep than flying.
>
> -David







David E Jones wrote:

>
> Sorry for the late involvement in this, it's been a crazy day and I'm
> just starting to catch up on email. It's quite refreshing (or perhaps
> a better word is "smarting"?) to see so much mailing list contribution
> to ring in the new year!
>
>
> On Jan 3, 2007, at 10:38 AM, 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.
>
> I think this is very much of interest, and to a lot of people. These
> all sound like they would make great derivative works of OFBiz, either
> commercial or open source. I'd say for right now that getting
> something very slick for any of these groups it outside the scope and
> current resources of OFBiz, but that doesn't mean these are a bad idea.
>
> In fact, even "in the beginning" we had the intent to build OFBiz in
> such a way that such things could be built on top of it (or from it,
> depending on how you look at things), and be done in either an open
> source or commercial model, or even a combination of the two like the
> CRMSFA application from Open Source Strategies. There are actually a
> few other open source and commercial applications that use different
> parts of OFBiz (see the User List page on docs.ofbiz.org).
>
> Anyway, someone else may have commented similarly further down the
> list... if so forgive my pooping bird style of interaction and let me
> fly off in peace... ;) Sorry I couldn't come with a better analog, I'm
> more ready for sleep than flying.
>
> -David
>
>

[David E Jones-2]

On Jan 3, 2007, at 11:44 PM, Ian McNulty wrote:

> You seem to have a pretty strong argument here, but I'm still not  
> sure I've got all of it. Who exactly is saying what software should  
> be worth $12K USD per person? In the UK most people aren't  
> considered to be worth that!

Te he. I'd say the same applies for the USA. Heck, my net worth is  
not even near $12k, so I'm certainly in that category! ;)

-David

[Ian McNulty]

A quick and no doubt very stupid question from a total n00b.

If I want to search past posts do I have to download and save them? Or
is there an easier way?

Ian

[David E Jones-2]

Try www.nabble.com, it's really a pretty good tool on a free site  
that indexes various mailing lists and offers a nice UI for  
searching, viewing in threads, etc.

-David


On Jan 4, 2007, at 1:04 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:

> A quick and no doubt very stupid question from a total n00b.
>
> If I want to search past posts do I have to download and save them?  
> Or is there an easier way?
>
> Ian

[Ian McNulty]

David E Jones wrote:

>
> On Jan 3, 2007, at 11:44 PM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>
>> You seem to have a pretty strong argument here, but I'm still not
>> sure I've got all of it. Who exactly is saying what software should
>> be worth $12K USD per person? In the UK most people aren't considered
>> to be worth that!
>
> Te he. I'd say the same applies for the USA. Heck, my net worth is not
> even near $12k, so I'm certainly in that category! ;)
>
> -David
>
>

Me too mate. I'd like to put that first on the list of technical
problems that need to be solved  :)

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]

Ah Hah!

Cheers David. Thought it might be something like that. Thanks for the
tip. Will do.

Sweet dreams (We're just waking up this side of the pond!)

Ian




David E Jones wrote:

>
> Try www.nabble.com, it's really a pretty good tool on a free site that
> indexes various mailing lists and offers a nice UI for searching,
> viewing in threads, etc.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Jan 4, 2007, at 1:04 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>
>> A quick and no doubt very stupid question from a total n00b.
>>
>> If I want to search past posts do I have to download and save them?
>> Or is there an easier way?
>>
>> 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.
==============================================================================================

[David E Jones-2]

On Jan 4, 2007, at 12:59 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:

>> I think this is very much of interest, and to a lot of people.  
>> These all sound like they would make great derivative works of  
>> OFBiz, either commercial or open source. I'd say for right now  
>> that getting something very slick for any of these groups it  
>> outside the scope and current resources of OFBiz, but that doesn't  
>> mean these are a bad idea.
>
> Sounds good to me. Am now wondering where the necessary resources  
> may be?

Yes, very good question... elusive little buggers these do seem to be  
at best!

If you happen to find any, do ring me right away!

More seriously, I think there is some potential for open source  
communities based around certain industries, but my guess has been  
and remains to be that gathering resources to address these smaller  
markets will be more difficult than it was to attract a developer and  
contributor base to something more generic like OFBiz. So, in many of  
the small markets a more financial means of collaboration may be  
necessary.

A lot of the discussion here seem to be around the fact that OFBiz is  
so distastefully generic, and yet if it were too industry specific or  
meant to address only a small part of the world of enterprise  
automation functionality, the fact is most of us wouldn't be here...  
This is about the point where the end of loop n meets the beginning  
of loop n+1 and the search for a solution causes headaches, or at  
best teaches one a great deal about cautious optimism and patience.

>> In fact, even "in the beginning" we had the intent to build OFBiz  
>> in such a way that such things could be built on top of it (or  
>> from it, depending on how you look at things), and be done in  
>> either an open source or commercial model, or even a combination  
>> of the two like the CRMSFA application from Open Source  
>> Strategies. There are actually a few other open source and  
>> commercial applications that use different parts of OFBiz (see the  
>> User List page on docs.ofbiz.org).
>
> User List? Can't see that. Maybe I ought to try getting some sleep  
> myself :)

Sorry for the nebulous reference. You can find such things using the  
search box, hidden away in the upper right corner. Here is the actual  
link:

http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/ZQM

It should be noted that by our best guess this represents only a  
small percentage of OFBiz users. Many of these were found a long time  
ago by googling around for common URL patterns, which we really  
should do again some time. Still, it is an interesting thing to  
review to liven up a dreary winter day.

-David

[Ian McNulty]

David E Jones wrote:

>
> On Jan 4, 2007, at 12:59 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>
>>> I think this is very much of interest, and to a lot of people. These
>>> all sound like they would make great derivative works of OFBiz,
>>> either commercial or open source. I'd say for right now that getting
>>> something very slick for any of these groups it outside the scope
>>> and current resources of OFBiz, but that doesn't mean these are a
>>> bad idea.
>>
>> Sounds good to me. Am now wondering where the necessary resources may
>> be?
>
> Yes, very good question... elusive little buggers these do seem to be
> at best!
>
> If you happen to find any, do ring me right away!

I'm no Mark Shuttleworth. But I'd bet there's more than one of them
around! The trick would be to have a door through which such a person
may feel comfortable walking.

>
> More seriously, I think there is some potential for open source
> communities based around certain industries, but my guess has been and
> remains to be that gathering resources to address these smaller
> markets will be more difficult than it was to attract a developer and
> contributor base to something more generic like OFBiz. So, in many of
> the small markets a more financial means of collaboration may be
> necessary.

I don't really get this at all.

Think of how Sage and Intuit started. I remember early versions of
Quicken as little more than colourful toys for desktops. They were in no
way aiming for the high end. That had been taken care of quite nicely
for decades by mainframes running true enterprise grade systems like
Unix and people who wouldn't have been seen dead with a Commodore in the
house.

I have more intimate knowledge of Sage, which was started only a few
miles away from where I live by a university undergraduate working a
summer job at a very small printing shop. He knocked up a quick demo in
BASIC to demonstrate how they could run the accounts department of  the
whole (very small) organisation on a Sinclair. Mainly jut for fun!

I was working mainframes at the time. I thought Intel made nothing but
toys. I thought the guy was wasting his time.

That's exactly what Intel thought when Gates offered them DOS, or Decca
thought when Brian Epstein offered them the Beatles!

How wrong can you be?

The magic trick in all those instances was to get the timing exactly
right. To be in exactly the right place when the tide changed and the
microchip washed away the mainframe.

That was an engineering triumph. Carrying a toy operating system along
in its wake was not necessarily so. That's something all Microsoft users
are now starting to discover in one way or another. The tide is
beginning to turn!

>
> A lot of the discussion here seem to be around the fact that OFBiz is
> so distastefully generic,

Not from me it's not. I think this is it's major USP.

> and yet if it were too industry specific or meant to address only a
> small part of the world of enterprise automation functionality, the
> fact is most of us wouldn't be here...

That's true. And this mailing list is a core asset.

But the question is, how does this knowledge flow down the supply chain
and how does the cash flow back up?

Where are the toll-gates? Who pays for the highway, the wagons and
wagon-drivers tea?

Is it better to sell one thing with a margin of a million, or a million
things with a margin of just one?

I guess it's a lifestyle decision really. How many master chefs want
anything to do with McDonald's? And who could blame them?

> This is about the point where the end of loop n meets the beginning of
> loop n+1 and the search for a solution causes headaches, or at best
> teaches one a great deal about cautious optimism and patience.
>

Cautious optimism and patience I agree with. Not too sure about the
recursive loop thing. Might it not simply be a case of being too close
to the wood of the code to be able to get the full view of the outline
of the trees?

>>> In fact, even "in the beginning" we had the intent to build OFBiz in
>>> such a way that such things could be built on top of it (or from it,
>>> depending on how you look at things), and be done in either an open
>>> source or commercial model, or even a combination of the two like
>>> the CRMSFA application from Open Source Strategies. There are
>>> actually a few other open source and commercial applications that
>>> use different parts of OFBiz (see the User List page on
>>> docs.ofbiz.org).
>>
>> User List? Can't see that. Maybe I ought to try getting some sleep
>> myself :)
>
> Sorry for the nebulous reference. You can find such things using the
> search box, hidden away in the upper right corner. Here is the actual
> link:
>
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/ZQM

Thanks David. Sorry to be such a dummy. It takes a while to get into the
swing of such things. :)

>
> It should be noted that by our best guess this represents only a small
> percentage of OFBiz users. Many of these were found a long time ago by
> googling around for common URL patterns, which we really should do
> again some time. Still, it is an interesting thing to review to liven
> up a dreary winter day.

Sure does David.

What you've set me thinking about now is the difference between a fork
and a branch.

A fork is a parting of the roads, all of which take you  further from
the source.

But a branch is an addition to the total wealth of the tree.

Branches need to be attached to trees to grow, and roots need to grow to
balance them.

The analogy could be stretched in as many directions as there are
branches on trees.

But the point would be that any addition should add to the whole, not
distract from it.

As far as I can see,  the roots of OFBiz look as solid as roots can be.

Built on Java. Open Sourced by Sun. A high-tech company with an
immaculate pedigree, currently obliged to play Betacam to Microsoft's VHS.

Operating system independent.

Modular and scalable. From 1 to as many as you like.

Network-native.

All resources optimised to the bone.

Start your business in your bedroom for very little money and if you
should end up taking-over Virgin then we can deal with that too!

Is that too over-the-top or wot?

Ian

[Andrew Ballantine]

Ian and myself are pretty much on the same wavelength, I think. He appears
to get up earlier than I do and proceeds to say what I would say and perhaps
more eloquently.
I'd just like to re-enforce Ian's remarks.
Although a good looking modern interface would help to give an image of
current popularity, which is half the battle in persuading a client to go
with the project.

Also, most businesses are going to want a support contract which is were a
lot of us would benefit acting as local support with the backing of the
OFBiz community for the trickier stuff.

Kind regards,

Andrew Ballantine.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian McNulty [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: 04 January 2007 07:09
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: What does "OOTB front-end accessibility" mean to you?


Jacques,

In my experience, end users don't care so much about the template as
they do about actually just using it.

Shop owners understand the value of attractive shop fronts and routinely
pay experts to revamp and improve them.

This is not the issue.

Reducing overheads is.

The costs of using any tool have to be balanced against the benefits
that tool can bring.

What I'm looking for is a solution to a problem more and more businesses
are currently facing.

Accounting systems, POS systems, ecommerce systems, client contact
systems, warehouse management systems - all legacy systems with
significant investment in staff trained to run them - all costing more
by the minute - all supplied with a vested interest in not talking to
the others.

It's a nightmare in desperate need of some kind of sweet technical fix.

Ian




Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> Ian,
>
> Sorry I did not resist to tell this story.
>
> AFAIKR Sage handle the web side but it's a rather poor templating
dedicaced to end-user. I see that as marketing only. The end-user
> may change some colors here an there, etc. but at the end he comes with a
rather poor eCommerce site. So it's a sort of appealing
> "make it yourself' but wich IMHO finish with something not really usable
at all. On the other end letting end-user doing itself this
> part of work is certainly a key of what you are looking for (people like
to be independent, specially businness people). I believe
> that with today state of art it's something beyond our reach (at a
reasonnable price I mean).
>
> Client-server architecture is bad when it comes to communicate between at
least 2 shops for instance (not even speaking of complex
> architectures). Hence they offer batch solutions, not really fancy and not
much reliable too (there are other drawbacks of course,
> specially in complex cases).
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Ian McNulty" <[hidden email]>
>
>> 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,
>
> Sorry I did not resist to tell this story.
>
> AFAIKR Sage handle the web side but it's a rather poor templating
dedicaced to end-user. I see that as marketing only. The end-user
> may change some colors here an there, etc. but at the end he comes with a
rather poor eCommerce site. So it's a sort of appealing
> "make it yourself' but wich IMHO finish with something not really usable
at all. On the other end letting end-user doing itself this
> part of work is certainly a key of what you are looking for (people like
to be independent, specially businness people). I believe
> that with today state of art it's something beyond our reach (at a
reasonnable price I mean).
>
> Client-server architecture is bad when it comes to communicate between at
least 2 shops for instance (not even speaking of complex
> architectures). Hence they offer batch solutions, not really fancy and not
much reliable too (there are other drawbacks of course,
> specially in complex cases).
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Ian McNulty" <[hidden email]>
>
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
>


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.4/615 - Release Date: 03/01/2007
13:34


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.4/615 - Release Date: 03/01/2007
13:34

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.4/615 - Release Date: 03/01/2007
13:34



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

[Ian McNulty]

Bang on Andrew. Up at 0330 this morning! Though I do go to bed before
2000. That's the time TV turns completely moron and I lose the will to
live :-)

Thank god for new days!

I'm not so sure about the eloquent bit. Intoxicated with the exuberance
of my own verbosity maybe.

I think you got to the nub of it in a lot less words. As good a measure
of eloquence as there ever was.

> Also, most businesses are going to want a support contract which is were a
> lot of us would benefit acting as local support with the backing of the
> OFBiz community for the trickier stuff.
>  

Very nicely put. I'd dare to go even further:

All businesses need some level of support - whether they realise it or not!

The supply chain is the critical path.

This is the part of the interface that needs to be clarified,
simplified, opened-up, extended - from branch to root.

No use telling people that Open Source can give greater stability,
security, usability, cost-efficiency. You have to prove to them that
it's true.

That hinges on many things apart from simply the technology.

Doing what they do better - now - at a price they can afford, is a
proposition few would refuse.

And a mechanic on your doorstep rather than phoning it in from Redmond
could have much appeal!

Ian




Andrew Ballantine wrote:

> Ian and myself are pretty much on the same wavelength, I think. He appears
> to get up earlier than I do and proceeds to say what I would say and perhaps
> more eloquently.
> I'd just like to re-enforce Ian's remarks.
> Although a good looking modern interface would help to give an image of
> current popularity, which is half the battle in persuading a client to go
> with the project.
>
> Also, most businesses are going to want a support contract which is were a
> lot of us would benefit acting as local support with the backing of the
> OFBiz community for the trickier stuff.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Andrew Ballantine.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian McNulty [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: 04 January 2007 07:09
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: What does "OOTB front-end accessibility" mean to you?
>
>
> Jacques,
>
> In my experience, end users don't care so much about the template as
> they do about actually just using it.
>
> Shop owners understand the value of attractive shop fronts and routinely
> pay experts to revamp and improve them.
>
> This is not the issue.
>
> Reducing overheads is.
>
> The costs of using any tool have to be balanced against the benefits
> that tool can bring.
>
> What I'm looking for is a solution to a problem more and more businesses
> are currently facing.
>
> Accounting systems, POS systems, ecommerce systems, client contact
> systems, warehouse management systems - all legacy systems with
> significant investment in staff trained to run them - all costing more
> by the minute - all supplied with a vested interest in not talking to
> the others.
>
> It's a nightmare in desperate need of some kind of sweet technical fix.
>
> Ian
>
>  

[Andrew Ballantine]

I think what David is saying is the OFBiz open source project can only
support and develop the framework in the direction that the major
contributors wish to go. And I fully understand that.

However this discussion has been most useful to me in firming up my vision
for OFBiz. I also find it encouraging that I am not entirely alone in what I
think we could do with OFBiz.

As an individual that has worked in the computer industry for over 30 years,
I do not have the financial muscle to do a project speculatively. However I
do think that we have an opportunity here to form a group within the OFBiz
community to further this cause and share the benefits with the OFBiz
project.

I am currently trying to get my major client to agree to start a development
project based on OFBiz and once that happens I can contribute a whole lot
more, but even if that doesn't go through I am very keen to set up an OFBiz
consultancy in the UK, but I don't want to do it on my own.

Some of you have commented that you would not like to see a fork and I most
definitely agree. There is no technical requirement for a fork. What I
envisage is a sub-project that works on the usability, presentation, sample
data, OOTB functionality and installability issues that we have been
discussing. The under-lying framework would be OFBiz. If different vertical
markets require different procedures within the framework, then I would
suggest that conditional code in the framework be used to handle different
"Flavours" of use. The advantage of this is that anyone modifying the
Framework code can see what effect their changes might have on a different
flavour of the framework.

Some obvious flavours might be:
USA accounting and taxation
EU accounting and VAT with various country flavours
Manufacturing
Direct Sales
Retail shop
eCommerce
...
These flavours would be set at install time in the configuration files, but
interpreted at run time.

Kind regards,

Andrew Ballantine.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian McNulty [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: 04 January 2007 09:32
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: What does "OOTB front-end accessibility" mean to you?




David E Jones wrote:

>
> On Jan 4, 2007, at 12:59 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>
>>> I think this is very much of interest, and to a lot of people. These
>>> all sound like they would make great derivative works of OFBiz,
>>> either commercial or open source. I'd say for right now that getting
>>> something very slick for any of these groups it outside the scope
>>> and current resources of OFBiz, but that doesn't mean these are a
>>> bad idea.
>>
>> Sounds good to me. Am now wondering where the necessary resources may
>> be?
>
> Yes, very good question... elusive little buggers these do seem to be
> at best!
>
> If you happen to find any, do ring me right away!

I'm no Mark Shuttleworth. But I'd bet there's more than one of them
around! The trick would be to have a door through which such a person
may feel comfortable walking.

>
> More seriously, I think there is some potential for open source
> communities based around certain industries, but my guess has been and
> remains to be that gathering resources to address these smaller
> markets will be more difficult than it was to attract a developer and
> contributor base to something more generic like OFBiz. So, in many of
> the small markets a more financial means of collaboration may be
> necessary.

I don't really get this at all.

Think of how Sage and Intuit started. I remember early versions of
Quicken as little more than colourful toys for desktops. They were in no
way aiming for the high end. That had been taken care of quite nicely
for decades by mainframes running true enterprise grade systems like
Unix and people who wouldn't have been seen dead with a Commodore in the
house.

I have more intimate knowledge of Sage, which was started only a few
miles away from where I live by a university undergraduate working a
summer job at a very small printing shop. He knocked up a quick demo in
BASIC to demonstrate how they could run the accounts department of  the
whole (very small) organisation on a Sinclair. Mainly jut for fun!

I was working mainframes at the time. I thought Intel made nothing but
toys. I thought the guy was wasting his time.

That's exactly what Intel thought when Gates offered them DOS, or Decca
thought when Brian Epstein offered them the Beatles!

How wrong can you be?

The magic trick in all those instances was to get the timing exactly
right. To be in exactly the right place when the tide changed and the
microchip washed away the mainframe.

That was an engineering triumph. Carrying a toy operating system along
in its wake was not necessarily so. That's something all Microsoft users
are now starting to discover in one way or another. The tide is
beginning to turn!

>
> A lot of the discussion here seem to be around the fact that OFBiz is
> so distastefully generic,

Not from me it's not. I think this is it's major USP.

> and yet if it were too industry specific or meant to address only a
> small part of the world of enterprise automation functionality, the
> fact is most of us wouldn't be here...

That's true. And this mailing list is a core asset.

But the question is, how does this knowledge flow down the supply chain
and how does the cash flow back up?

Where are the toll-gates? Who pays for the highway, the wagons and
wagon-drivers tea?

Is it better to sell one thing with a margin of a million, or a million
things with a margin of just one?

I guess it's a lifestyle decision really. How many master chefs want
anything to do with McDonald's? And who could blame them?

> This is about the point where the end of loop n meets the beginning of
> loop n+1 and the search for a solution causes headaches, or at best
> teaches one a great deal about cautious optimism and patience.
>

Cautious optimism and patience I agree with. Not too sure about the
recursive loop thing. Might it not simply be a case of being too close
to the wood of the code to be able to get the full view of the outline
of the trees?

>>> In fact, even "in the beginning" we had the intent to build OFBiz in
>>> such a way that such things could be built on top of it (or from it,
>>> depending on how you look at things), and be done in either an open
>>> source or commercial model, or even a combination of the two like
>>> the CRMSFA application from Open Source Strategies. There are
>>> actually a few other open source and commercial applications that
>>> use different parts of OFBiz (see the User List page on
>>> docs.ofbiz.org).
>>
>> User List? Can't see that. Maybe I ought to try getting some sleep
>> myself :)
>
> Sorry for the nebulous reference. You can find such things using the
> search box, hidden away in the upper right corner. Here is the actual
> link:
>
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/ZQM

Thanks David. Sorry to be such a dummy. It takes a while to get into the
swing of such things. :)

>
> It should be noted that by our best guess this represents only a small
> percentage of OFBiz users. Many of these were found a long time ago by
> googling around for common URL patterns, which we really should do
> again some time. Still, it is an interesting thing to review to liven
> up a dreary winter day.

Sure does David.

What you've set me thinking about now is the difference between a fork
and a branch.

A fork is a parting of the roads, all of which take you  further from
the source.

But a branch is an addition to the total wealth of the tree.

Branches need to be attached to trees to grow, and roots need to grow to
balance them.

The analogy could be stretched in as many directions as there are
branches on trees.

But the point would be that any addition should add to the whole, not
distract from it.

As far as I can see,  the roots of OFBiz look as solid as roots can be.

Built on Java. Open Sourced by Sun. A high-tech company with an
immaculate pedigree, currently obliged to play Betacam to Microsoft's VHS.

Operating system independent.

Modular and scalable. From 1 to as many as you like.

Network-native.

All resources optimised to the bone.

Start your business in your bedroom for very little money and if you
should end up taking-over Virgin then we can deal with that too!

Is that too over-the-top or wot?

Ian



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.4/615 - Release Date: 03/01/2007
13:34


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.4/615 - Release Date: 03/01/2007
13:34

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.4/615 - Release Date: 03/01/2007
13:34



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

[Jacques Le Roux]

You may also enhance Nabble with this pluggins
http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBIZ/Plugin+search+tools+for+Firefox+using+Nabble

Jacques

----- Original Message -----
From: "David E Jones" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: What does "OOTB front-end accessibility" mean to you?

>
> On Jan 3, 2007, at 11:44 PM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>
> > You seem to have a pretty strong argument here, but I'm still not  
> > sure I've got all of it. Who exactly is saying what software should  
> > be worth $12K USD per person? In the UK most people aren't  
> > considered to be worth that!
>
> Te he. I'd say the same applies for the USA. Heck, my net worth is  
> not even near $12k, so I'm certainly in that category! ;)
>
> -David