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

[Andrew Ballantine]

Anil,

That sounds great. Can you possibly point us to a ISO image that we could
download? Or better still outline the method for generating the Live CD. I
think we have an opportunity for a sub-project to keep such a CD available
for new prospects to download or order on CD for a small fee. I would be
happy to burn and post DVD/CDs in my locality (UK) upon request from the
OFBiz website. I would hope we might get some other volunteers for other
countries.

Kind regards,

Andrew Ballantine.

PS I have been thinking of using gmail to reduce the amount of spam I get.
Is gmail any better than the rest and could you send me an invitation to
enrol?

-----Original Message-----
From: Anil Patel [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: 03 January 2007 20:13
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: What does "OOTB front-end accessibility" mean to you?


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

--
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]

I worked for a french bank 4 years ago.
A manager told me that for them the average cost of a person was around 750 euros (US$ 1000) by day (including all charges).
This day I discovered that as an independant I was not so expansive at all (I was well paid on these days, banks have the money you
know ;o)
This also one of the reasons why managers are always trying to reduce the number of people they work with.
Most of their own value is evaluated upper on this simple criterion (with recurrence to the top of course)
workDone divided by numberOfPeopleNeedeed
Life of managers is not so complicated finally

Sorry for this digression but this time I was not the starter ;o)

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

[Ian McNulty]

Sounds extremely good to me.

My major client is currently complaining about a £60 bill for travelling
300 miles to recce their current installation, so I'm wondering how much
more of this I can afford to be involved in.

I'd certainly be interested in joining a group heading in the direction
we've been discussing. But I'm not sure how much of a contribution I
could make.

I barely have a handle on much of OFBiz at the moment.

In my ignorance I assumed Andrew's list of 'flavours' was what it was
already supposed to do - give or take a few semi-functional features
along the way - which really ought to be no big deal to sort - for those
who understand such things.

As someone who has also been involved in computing for more than 30
years, I'd have to agree with the guy from MS who said that Open Source
is a cancer rotting everything it touches.

As a scientist who believes we see further only because we have licence
to stand on the shoulders of great men, I know he's got it completely
upside down.

Ian




Andrew Ballantine wrote:

> 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
> *****************************************************************
>
>
>  

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

Ian McNulty wrote:
>As someone who has also been involved in computing for more than 30
>years, I'd have to agree with the guy from MS who said that Open Source
>is a cancer rotting everything it touches.

Ian,

I sincerely hope this is NOT what you meant to say, especially in an open
source mailing list.

If anything MS is the rotting cancer that has afflicted the computer
industry.

Open source and the business model that surrounds it is quite difficult for
the new people to grasp. It certainly took me a while.

The whole point about open source is that if what you've got doesn't
entirely do what you want, you can modify it to suit and if you contribute
it back to the community, the community will help maintain it for you.
However one cannot always expect an open source project to jump to new
contributor's requests.

Contribution and discussion of ideas is also of benefit to the community and
your contribution of ideas is welcome, certainly by me.

I would hope you might clarify your statement.

Kind regards,

Andrew Ballantine.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ian McNulty [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: 04 January 2007 11:32
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: What does "OOTB front-end accessibility" mean to you?


Sounds extremely good to me.

My major client is currently complaining about a £60 bill for travelling
300 miles to recce their current installation, so I'm wondering how much
more of this I can afford to be involved in.

I'd certainly be interested in joining a group heading in the direction
we've been discussing. But I'm not sure how much of a contribution I
could make.

I barely have a handle on much of OFBiz at the moment.

In my ignorance I assumed Andrew's list of 'flavours' was what it was
already supposed to do - give or take a few semi-functional features
along the way - which really ought to be no big deal to sort - for those
who understand such things.

As someone who has also been involved in computing for more than 30
years, I'd have to agree with the guy from MS who said that Open Source
is a cancer rotting everything it touches.

As a scientist who believes we see further only because we have licence
to stand on the shoulders of great men, I know he's got it completely
upside down.

Ian




Andrew Ballantine wrote:
> 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
> *****************************************************************
>
>
>

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

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

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


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.4/615 - 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

[Jacques Le Roux]

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

[...snip...]

> 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.

There is really an interesting idea, I look forward to more design and implementation ;o)

Jacques

[Ian McNulty]

So, replace a person in a bank and you save $365K USD per year. That's a
lot of money. But I still don't understand where the $12K per person
comes in?

One thing's for sure. People cost a lot more in the banking business
than in a lot of other industries I could name! Which explains why the
Banks will pay so highly for any technology that gets rid of them.

But those kind of economics cannot apply too far outside the walls of
the banks, where people still count as something more than just overhead
(even if only just :)

Banking is just a small fraction of the potential market. Such a
high-end application, already well catered for by highly competitive
incumbents in the field, has got to be one of the most hostile
environments in which to get any kind of incubation to grow.

Ian



Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> I worked for a french bank 4 years ago.
> A manager told me that for them the average cost of a person was around 750 euros (US$ 1000) by day (including all charges).
> This day I discovered that as an independant I was not so expansive at all (I was well paid on these days, banks have the money you
> know ;o)
> This also one of the reasons why managers are always trying to reduce the number of people they work with.
> Most of their own value is evaluated upper on this simple criterion (with recurrence to the top of course)
> workDone divided by numberOfPeopleNeedeed
> Life of managers is not so complicated finally
>
> Sorry for this digression but this time I was not the starter ;o)
>
> 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
>>    
>
>  

[Walter Vaughan]

Ian McNulty wrote:
> So, replace a person in a bank and you save $365K USD per year. That's a
> lot of money. But I still don't understand where the $12K per person
> comes in?

I said earlier in the thread...

Sage's Mas500 ERP runs about $12,000USD per person if you have about 50 people
with access to all the functionality of the system.

If you need an extra seat of ofBiz your incremental cost is the cost of the
hardware.

Someone else related that number to the cost of a mythical employee at some bank
in France.

--
Walter

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Walter Vaughan" <[hidden email]>
[...snip...]
> Someone else related that number to the cost of a mythical employee at some bank
> in France.

Not mythical : average (allEmployeeIncludingUpperStaffCostIncludingCharges divided by numberOfAllEmployeeIncludingUpperStaff ;o) !

Jacques

> --
> Walter

[Ian McNulty]

Andrew,

Andrew Ballantine wrote:

> Ian McNulty wrote:
>  
>> As someone who has also been involved in computing for more than 30
>> years, I'd have to agree with the guy from MS who said that Open Source
>> is a cancer rotting everything it touches.
>>    
>
> Ian,
>
> I sincerely hope this is NOT what you meant to say, especially in an open
> source mailing list.
>  

Ehr. No. This is exactly what I meant to say. But I a apologise if this
has come over as exactly the opposite to that intended. The bit that I
perhaps ought to have emphasised "HAVE TO agree."

That  in the context of the discussion about the impoverished existence
I've been leading installing open source in comparison with the almighty
fees my equivalents in Sage or Microsoft are charging for delivering
inferior product.

More to the point, my second sentence means to say exactly the same as
yours. You say:
> If anything MS is the rotting cancer that has afflicted the computer
> industry.
>
>  

I said:

> As a scientist who believes we see further only because we have licence
> to stand on the shoulders of great men, I know he's got it completely
> upside down.
>  

Probably intoxication with my own verbosity concealed the message too
much here. But I hope it's now clear that we are singing from exactly
the same hymn sheet hear.

That aside, it's heartening to discover I'm not the only one who is
angry with MS!

In fact I may even be more of a swivel-eyed fundamentalist on this
matter than most. Imho, Bill's famous letter on software copyright to
the Home Brew Computer Club marked the beginning of the end for open
science and the free world. I still kinda hold out some hope that Open
Source might shed some kind of light on the end of that particularly
long, dark tunnel.

Everything else you say I agree with 100% - with knobs on!

Hope that explains it.

Best,

Ian

> Open source and the business model that surrounds it is quite difficult for
> the new people to grasp. It certainly took me a while.
>
> The whole point about open source is that if what you've got doesn't
> entirely do what you want, you can modify it to suit and if you contribute
> it back to the community, the community will help maintain it for you.
> However one cannot always expect an open source project to jump to new
> contributor's requests.
>
> Contribution and discussion of ideas is also of benefit to the community and
> your contribution of ideas is welcome, certainly by me.
>
> I would hope you might clarify your statement.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Andrew Ballantine.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian McNulty [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: 04 January 2007 11:32
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: What does "OOTB front-end accessibility" mean to you?
>
>
> Sounds extremely good to me.
>
> My major client is currently complaining about a £60 bill for travelling
> 300 miles to recce their current installation, so I'm wondering how much
> more of this I can afford to be involved in.
>
> I'd certainly be interested in joining a group heading in the direction
> we've been discussing. But I'm not sure how much of a contribution I
> could make.
>
> I barely have a handle on much of OFBiz at the moment.
>
> In my ignorance I assumed Andrew's list of 'flavours' was what it was
> already supposed to do - give or take a few semi-functional features
> along the way - which really ought to be no big deal to sort - for those
> who understand such things.
>
> As someone who has also been involved in computing for more than 30
> years, I'd have to agree with the guy from MS who said that Open Source
> is a cancer rotting everything it touches.
>
> As a scientist who believes we see further only because we have licence
> to stand on the shoulders of great men, I know he's got it completely
> upside down.
>
> Ian
>
>
>  

[Ian McNulty]

Thanks Walter. Just wasn't clear what exactly the 12K related to. Am
now. Thanks for pointing it out.

Ian



Walter Vaughan wrote:

> Ian McNulty wrote:
>> So, replace a person in a bank and you save $365K USD per year.
>> That's a lot of money. But I still don't understand where the $12K
>> per person comes in?
>
> I said earlier in the thread...
>
> Sage's Mas500 ERP runs about $12,000USD per person if you have about
> 50 people with access to all the functionality of the system.
>
> If you need an extra seat of ofBiz your incremental cost is the cost
> of the hardware.
>
> Someone else related that number to the cost of a mythical employee at
> some bank in France.
>
> --
> Walter
>
>

[Andrew Sykes]

Ian,

On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 06:44 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
> 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!

That one made me laugh!

I guess the reality is to do with traditional business philosophy around
supply and demand - i.e. if you can charge that without adversely
effecting your client base it would be mad not to!

The reality is that running a big company that guarantees super fast
support and accepts a big degree of liability is that it costs a lot of
money to do it. If you look at all the commitments these big guys have,
i.e. everything from plush offices to make the right impression; through
huge staffing costs; insurance; marketing etc, it soon adds up to a lot
of $12k's

Raising visibility using a traditional business model is a VERY costly
enterprise. I suspect that part of that visibility strategy is to be
reassuringly expensive.

So, er, what am I trying to say here? I guess my point is that the very
best strategy for OfBiz is to provide a great product, everything else
is costly. If your due diligence when choosing software is to order by
price and then choose one that appears at the pricier end then perhaps
you deserve to pay a premium for buying someone else's vision! If, on
the other hand, you have your own vision, perhaps OfBiz is for you.
--
Kind Regards
Andrew Sykes <[hidden email]>
Sykes Development Ltd
http://www.sykesdevelopment.com

[Daniel Kunkel]

Hi Ian

Excellent idea.

The one issue I'd like to revisit before we got too far down this road
and create more work later.

Could we embed more of the company/instance configuration information
into the database.

Right now quite a few of the configuration settings that are associated
with a particular company are hard coded into files rather than being in
the database. Some examples are the default currency, email connection
settings, ups and usps connection details, etc.

I think having the configuration settings defined in the database are
needed to create a truly user friendly product. Remember when of every
single little change of an PC's network configuration required a reboot.
Furthermore, it will support the conglomerates where different divisions
each have their own UPS or USPS account, credit card account, or e-mail
templates.

Thanks

Daniel


On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 22:44 -0800, 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
> >
> >
> >
> > 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]

Andrew,

Andrew Sykes wrote:
>
> That one made me laugh!
>  


Pleased I managed to raise a titter somewhere :)

And lot of food for thought too.

> The reality is that running a big company that guarantees super fast
> support and accepts a big degree of liability is that it costs a lot of
> money to do it.

I guess it does. Which would beg the question: How could any application
that did not set out to at least match that level of support and
liability in some way or another ever be considered credible competition?

>  If you look at all the commitments these big guys have,
> i.e. everything from plush offices to make the right impression; through
> huge staffing costs; insurance; marketing etc, it soon adds up to a lot
> of $12k's
>  

It certainly does. But you can't judge a book by its cover. Expenditure
on plush offices, marketing and staff certainly improve the position of
the supplier, but do not necessarily add up to better support, security,
insurance or quality of service for the end-user. In fact there's lots
of evidence to show that, past a certain size, increased isolation from
the customer, increased inertial mass and corporate self-survival can
turn pathogenic for both customer and corporation. The Rust Belt of the
80s would be a good example of those kind of dynamics.

> Raising visibility using a traditional business model is a VERY costly
> enterprise. I suspect that part of that visibility strategy is to be
> reassuringly expensive.
>  

I think that's very true. They used to say that nobody ever got sacked
for buying IBM. But that was before the microchip appeared on the scene!
And before the guys at Enron got locked up for being all mouth and no
trousers.

> So, er, what am I trying to say here? I guess my point is that the very
> best strategy for OfBiz is to provide a great product,

That would have to take first priority, no doubt.

>  everything else is costly.

Need that necessarily always be the case?

In the old days when TV was the only screen in the house, radio the only
loudspeaker or Newspapers the only news, it was certainly true.

But, now that an unknown kid playing classical music on a guitar in his
bedroom can attract more fans than Girls Aloud, even the old media
dinosaurs are suddenly not so sure.

The net is still relatively wide-open.

Good products can still get through.

Apache is just one shining example.

Why so much doubt that OFBiz can get there too?

>  If your due diligence when choosing software is to order by
> price and then choose one that appears at the pricier end then perhaps
> you deserve to pay a premium for buying someone else's vision!

Too true. They deserve everything they get, as my grandmother would have
said.

>  If, on the other hand, you have your own vision, perhaps OfBiz is for you.

Well now, this is kindof like the whole of where I'm coming from here
really.

I think that's the kind of proposition that radical, talented artistes
and engineers love to rise to. But, to the average, increasingly
insecure, corporate play-safer, this is more likely to come over as an
invitation to be branded as a loose-canon, irresponsible, risk-taking,
left-of-field, swivel-eyed loon, who most probably believes in pink
elephants and crop circles too. To most this is not a sales proposition,
it's a curse that could bring an end to their career. Remember. Nobody
ever got sacked for buying IBM.

Which is what leads me to the conclusion that large corporations could
be amongst the most hostile environment you could find for incubating a
market. The only point in favour being the New York interpretation: if
you make it there you'll make it anywhere.

But offer an affordable, entry-level system to start-ups, small
businesses and the average kid in their bedrooms - something equivalent
to entry-level Sage or Intuit as Firefox is equivalent to IE - and you
might find you're pushing against an open door!

Your granny should know, as the sainted Mr Mills-McCartney never said :)

Ian



Andrew Sykes wrote:

> Ian,
>
> On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 06:44 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
>  
>> 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!
>>    
>
> That one made me laugh!
>
> I guess the reality is to do with traditional business philosophy around
> supply and demand - i.e. if you can charge that without adversely
> effecting your client base it would be mad not to!
>
> The reality is that running a big company that guarantees super fast
> support and accepts a big degree of liability is that it costs a lot of
> money to do it. If you look at all the commitments these big guys have,
> i.e. everything from plush offices to make the right impression; through
> huge staffing costs; insurance; marketing etc, it soon adds up to a lot
> of $12k's
>
> Raising visibility using a traditional business model is a VERY costly
> enterprise. I suspect that part of that visibility strategy is to be
> reassuringly expensive.
>
> So, er, what am I trying to say here? I guess my point is that the very
> best strategy for OfBiz is to provide a great product, everything else
> is costly. If your due diligence when choosing software is to order by
> price and then choose one that appears at the pricier end then perhaps
> you deserve to pay a premium for buying someone else's vision! If, on
> the other hand, you have your own vision, perhaps OfBiz is for you.
>  

[davidnwelton]

> > The reality is that running a big company that guarantees super fast
> > support and accepts a big degree of liability is that it costs a lot of
> > money to do it.
>
> I guess it does. Which would beg the question: How could any application
> that did not set out to at least match that level of support and
> liability in some way or another ever be considered credible competition?

The book "The Innovator's Dilemma" is a great read.  The main point is
summarized here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology

--
David N. Welton
 - http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/

Linux, Open Source Consulting
 - http://www.dedasys.com/

[Ian McNulty]

Daniel Kunkel wrote:
> Hi Ian
>
> Excellent idea.
>  

Pleased you think so :)

> The one issue I'd like to revisit before we got too far down this road
> and create more work later.
>
> Could we embed more of the company/instance configuration information
> into the database.
>  

Could I?
No.
I'm getting too old.
The learning curve would be too great.

Could you?
I don't know.
You tell me.

Could anybody else?
Ditto

Is it worth doing anyway?

Well.... Now you're talking!

> Right now quite a few of the configuration settings that are associated
> with a particular company are hard coded into files rather than being in
> the database. Some examples are the default currency, email connection
> settings, ups and usps connection details, etc.
>
> I think having the configuration settings defined in the database are
> needed to create a truly user friendly product.

Perhaps.

Or some kind of a web interface for writing directly to the XML might
incur less overhead?

I don't know enough to say.

> Remember when of every single little change of an PC's network configuration required a reboot.
>  

You bet your boots I do! And I still have the bunions to prove it!

> Furthermore, it will support the conglomerates where different divisions
> each have their own UPS or USPS account, credit card account, or e-mail
> templates.
>  

A way of configuring without having to get into the component/file
structure or the XML would certainly help the average grandmother and
would certainly be a good way to go as far as I'm concerned.

Rewriting XML by hand is not such a terrifically difficult skill to learn.

Making that part of the business more user-friendly would succeed in
removing some of the more tedious aspects of the setup, but leave the
wonders of the core even more mysterious to behold. What could be wrong
with that?

The exact method by which this would be most easily achieved with
minimum additional overhead is not a matter on which I am in any way
qualified to judge.

By any means necessary would be the generic conclusion.

Ian

>
>
> On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 22:44 -0800, 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 ===
>>
>>    
>
>
>
>  

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

David,

Thank you so much.

You are so on-the-money.

This is so much fun.

But how long before we get rain on the parade?

That's the parameter I'm measuring at the moment!

Ian




David Welton wrote:

>> > The reality is that running a big company that guarantees super fast
>> > support and accepts a big degree of liability is that it costs a
>> lot of
>> > money to do it.
>>
>> I guess it does. Which would beg the question: How could any application
>> that did not set out to at least match that level of support and
>> liability in some way or another ever be considered credible
>> competition?
>
> The book "The Innovator's Dilemma" is a great read.  The main point is
> summarized here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology
>

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

David,

What chance do you reckon of OFBiz achieving DTO Certification?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_Technologies_Office

Ian



David Welton wrote:

>> > The reality is that running a big company that guarantees super fast
>> > support and accepts a big degree of liability is that it costs a
>> lot of
>> > money to do it.
>>
>> I guess it does. Which would beg the question: How could any application
>> that did not set out to at least match that level of support and
>> liability in some way or another ever be considered credible
>> competition?
>
> The book "The Innovator's Dilemma" is a great read.  The main point is
> summarized here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology
>

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 10:13 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:

>>  If, on the other hand, you have your own vision, perhaps OfBiz is  
>> for you.
>
> Well now, this is kindof like the whole of where I'm coming from  
> here really.
>
> I think that's the kind of proposition that radical, talented  
> artistes and engineers love to rise to. But, to the average,  
> increasingly insecure, corporate play-safer, this is more likely to  
> come over as an invitation to be branded as a loose-canon,  
> irresponsible, risk-taking, left-of-field, swivel-eyed loon, who  
> most probably believes in pink elephants and crop circles too. To  
> most this is not a sales proposition, it's a curse that could bring  
> an end to their career. Remember. Nobody ever got sacked for buying  
> IBM.
>
> Which is what leads me to the conclusion that large corporations  
> could be amongst the most hostile environment you could find for  
> incubating a market. The only point in favour being the New York  
> interpretation: if you make it there you'll make it anywhere.
>
> But offer an affordable, entry-level system to start-ups, small  
> businesses and the average kid in their bedrooms - something  
> equivalent to entry-level Sage or Intuit as Firefox is equivalent  
> to IE - and you might find you're pushing against an open door!
>
> Your granny should know, as the sainted Mr Mills-McCartney never  
> said :)

This is an interesting analogy, but perhaps not as close to OFBiz  
versus the world as you might think (in my opinion, of course).

I should clear the air here and make it clear that large businesses  
are NOT and have not been the target for OFBiz. Some large businesses  
are using parts of OFBiz, even rather large parts, in places where  
they need significant customization and such, but not to run or track  
the core of their business. Being more specific, some big companies  
are using it for ecommerce, but not for ERP and CRM types of activities.

The real sweet spot of the world that has funded the development of  
OFBiz is medium sized companies, usually ecommerce or another variety  
of retail organization that has an income or 10-100 million USD per  
year. That means a new system to them is at least a few hundred  
thousand dollars, which is about the minimum range of budget to be  
able to develop lots of cool stuff and make it free.

There are certainly much smaller users using OFBiz, but they really  
can't contribute to it's development. The resources are just too  
scattered and small to effectively participate in any non-financial  
way, and their ability to contribute in a financial way is a bit like  
the grandmother you mentioned... very warm hearted and appreciative  
and who has a severe need for help, but really can't offer more than  
a gift of a few dollars here and there, adding up to no more than a  
couple/few hundred per month.

On that scale you just can't build something like OFBiz, and so we  
haven't been able to target companies of that scale in OOTB  
functionality.

Of course, as OFBiz matures the OOTB stuff is getting better and  
better and small companies can conceivably do more and more.

-David

[David E Jones-2]

Just a quick thought on this: yes.

Okay, maybe that was too quick. ;)

This is a matter of refinement and improvement and in order to have  
OOTB configurations for different industries would be necessary.

Thinking about this more, and adding on to what I wrote earlier, I  
think 2 things are needed in OFBiz for an effective "OOTB"  
configuration, and this is true of many other apps that have industry-
specific templates or variations (all the way from QuickBooks to SAP):

1. base data (initial/recommended chart of accounts, Parties,  
Facilities, Store(s), etc, etc)
2. a setup wizard to get through at least the most necessary and  
important settings for a given type of company; some of this could be  
generic too: like company name, contact info, etc, etc; beyond those  
basic things it would be industry, or "flavour", specific

If anyone wanted to invest in this you'd have my full support as this  
is a direction that has been discussed before and that it would be  
great to eventually go.

-David


On Jan 4, 2007, at 9:43 AM, Daniel Kunkel wrote:

> Hi Ian
>
> Excellent idea.
>
> The one issue I'd like to revisit before we got too far down this road
> and create more work later.
>
> Could we embed more of the company/instance configuration information
> into the database.
>
> Right now quite a few of the configuration settings that are  
> associated
> with a particular company are hard coded into files rather than  
> being in
> the database. Some examples are the default currency, email connection
> settings, ups and usps connection details, etc.
>
> I think having the configuration settings defined in the database are
> needed to create a truly user friendly product. Remember when of every
> single little change of an PC's network configuration required a  
> reboot.
> Furthermore, it will support the conglomerates where different  
> divisions
> each have their own UPS or USPS account, credit card account, or e-
> mail
> templates.
>
> Thanks
>
> Daniel
>
>
> On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 22:44 -0800, 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 ===
>>
>

[David E Jones-2]

Hmmm... would we really _want_ that? Sometimes such folks are not  
terribly friendly and while something good could come of their  
increased awareness of our little group, who's to say their real  
purpose is not to suppress certain forms of disruptive technology?

-David


On Jan 4, 2007, at 12:12 PM, Ian McNulty wrote:

> David,
>
> What chance do you reckon of OFBiz achieving DTO Certification?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_Technologies_Office
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> David Welton wrote:
>>> > The reality is that running a big company that guarantees super  
>>> fast
>>> > support and accepts a big degree of liability is that it costs  
>>> a lot of
>>> > money to do it.
>>>
>>> I guess it does. Which would beg the question: How could any  
>>> application
>>> that did not set out to at least match that level of support and
>>> liability in some way or another ever be considered credible  
>>> competition?
>>
>> The book "The Innovator's Dilemma" is a great read.  The main  
>> point is
>> summarized here:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology
>>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------
> 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]  
> 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.
> ======================================================================
> ========================