OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Paul Gear <pa...@gear.dyndns.org>]

Hi folks,

I'm looking at different accounting/business management packages for use
in my small business, and i was excited when i found how comprehensive
and easy to install opentaps was.

However, it is a daunting application for the beginner, and it leads me
to ask: is it asking for trouble trying to use it as a small business
accounting package?  My requirements are fairly simple: invoicing
(services only, no inventory), general ledger, and GST tracking for the
Australian tax system.

I'm a novice Java developer, so i can get through most basic problems
OK, but understanding the framework is a bit more complex an
undertaking.  Am i just creating work for myself thinking that i can use
OFBiz/opentaps for my small business?

Thanks in advance,
Paul
<http://paulgear.webhop.net>
--
Did you know?  Using HTML email rather than plain text is less
efficient, taking anywhere from 2 to 20 times longer to download, and a
corresponding amount more space on disk.  Learn more about using email
efficiently at <http://www.expita.com/nomime.html>.

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>]

David,

I won't sledge-hammer the point about inadequacy of docs here. Users/engineers just have to see it 
for themselves (that I'm wrong, or you're right) :). It's easy to get an overview. But beyond that?

Also, I've been meaning to ask why docs are in video format. I can't search video formats, can't 
regexp them, can't annotate, etc. I guess my reverse-engineering ends where video formats start. I 
think I tried coding facial recognition algos, but failed that course. Hmm.

Jonathon

David E. Jones wrote:
> 
> On Jan 18, 2007, at 4:38 AM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> 
>> Er, Ian. I forgot to mention this.
>>
>> The docs for engineers aren't too comprehensive either. Try putting 
>> your best Java developers into picking up OFBiz. Take the screen 
>> widgets and form widgets for example. See how they fare. Like I said, 
>> Java is more documented than OFBiz-specific technologies.
>>
>> BUT.. but it's entirely possible to use Java only, plus 
>> non-OFBiz-specific technologies like Freemarker for front-end 
>> development convenience, and to skip Minilang and screen/form widgets 
>> to a large extent. Non-OFBiz-specific technologies are generally 
>> better documented since their developers focus develoment time solely 
>> on those techs, like Freemarker (front-end tool) developers don't 
>> delve into entity engines (backend tools).
>>
>> As I was telling my boss, it's actually easier to hire Java 
>> programmers than to hire Minilang or screen/form widget programmers.
>>
>> So, beware of the implications. Say I code customizations for you in 
>> Minilang and screen/form widgets, using almost or entirely zero Java. 
>> Future tech support could be an really hairy issue for you.
>>
>> BUT... at some point (I can't guarantee when), Minilang and 
>> screen/form widget docs will be complete, audited to be comprehensive, 
>> etc. You'll then probably find that programming in Minilang is more 
>> cost-effective than in Java. (Either that, or I get paid by someone to 
>> completely reverse-engineer and document all of Minilang and 
>> screen/form widget in a reasonable timeframe --- say a month. Not an 
>> impossible task, just a mountain of Java codes, is all).
> 
> Complete coverage of the framework already exists. Start at the link 
> below, and continue on to the advanced framework materials:
> 
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/PQM
> 
> -David
> 

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

David,

I'd agree with most everything you're saying here. I'd just want to edit 
it slightly and put things in a different order (my insertions in 
brackets where possible).

David E. Jones wrote:
> The OOTB solutions are way too limiting, making it impossible to scale 
> operations.
There are lots of ecommerce and small business systems (that are 
actively preventing business development rather than enabling it.)

There are (no) ecommerce and small business systems (offering the 
flexibility and potential for development and growth.)

The traditional enterprise systems can be customized to do exactly what 
they need, but cost more than their entire yearly revenue.

It is (therefore) a market (NOT) well served.

(There is therefore every) reason to compete there.

(Why are we) going after the tough market with medium sized businesses 
that need custom stuff to grow (when a much larger and more lucrative 
one seems to be sitting right under our noses?).

Apache OFBiz is NOT like oscommerce, ubuntu, (Microsoft, Intuit, Sage) 
etc. It is NOT meant to be a use as-is, out of the box, piece of software.

It is meant to be, is designed as, and is implemented as a foundation 
and starting point for (every kind of business solution you can 
imagine), be they for one (small) company or one thousand 
(enterprise-level) companies.
>
> Why would we want to be an OOTB project? 

(Giving away enterprise level software anybody could install and 
maintain themselves would cut the resources needed for development off 
at their roots.

This would NOT be a clever way to go.

What's needed is some kind of business model that makes entry level easy 
and affordable (preferably free) but comes with an easily understood 
roadmap, rate card, distributor supply chain or whatever for customizing 
and upgrading as businesses develop.)
>
> Looking around the OFBiz documents and such I don't think this 
> distinction is adequately represented,
(So what we need is a cut-down working model, like the $70 PC flight 
simulators that took the market by storm, with lots of nice big buttons 
to play with and all the heavy wiring buried under the dashboard. That 
way it will be clear that if you want to pull off the front panel and 
fiddle with the wiring, or want to turn it into the kind of flight 
simulator the big boys play with, then you either need to to start 
reading through the 3 foot long shelf of engineering manuals we've 
already produced, or call in the experts to do it for you at their usual 
rates.)

 >>>>>>>>>

That's it from me David. You've had all I've got to give. Head spinning 
again. I need to have another lie down ;)

Up to you. It's your baby. Who am I to tell you how I think you ought to 
be bringing it up?

Very best wishes,

Ian



David E. Jones wrote:
>
> Maybe all of this discussion is being difficult because of one simple 
> thing:
>
> Apache OFBiz is NOT like oscommerce, ubuntu, etc. It is NOT meant to 
> be a use as-is, out of the box, piece of software. It is meant to be, 
> is designed as, and is implemented as a foundation and starting point 
> for custom enterprise solutions, be they for one company or one 
> thousand companies.
>
> Why would we want to be an OOTB project? There are lots of those for 
> ecommerce and small business systems and I see no reason to compete 
> there. It is a market well served. We're going after the tough market 
> with medium sized businesses that need custom stuff to grow. The OOTB 
> solutions are way too limiting, making it impossible to scale 
> operations. The traditional enterprise systems can be customized to do 
> exactly what they need, but cost more than their entire yearly revenue.
>
> Looking around the OFBiz documents and such I don't think this 
> distinction is adequately represented, so I added some text similar to 
> the above to the home page of ofbiz.apache.org. It should be public 
> within a few hours, ie whenever the next deployment job runs.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Jan 20, 2007, at 3:49 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>
>> Chris, David, Everybody.
>>
>> One last thought on the subject before I have my porridge and another 
>> lie down ;)
>>
>> I'm wondering if any of you guys have ever taken a good hard look at 
>> the osCommerce, Zen Cart or Ubuntu forums?
>>
>> http://www.zen-cart.com/forum
>>
>> http://forums.oscommerce.com
>>
>> http://www.ubuntuforums.org/
>>
>> Yes. I know php is nasty. But that's not the point.
>>
>> Look at the accessibility and structure of the interface.
>>
>> All user levels are accommodated.
>>
>> All find their natural place.
>>
>> Nearly a quarter of a million members on Ubuntu. 120K on osCommerce. 
>> 2,347 and 824 currently active respectively at this very moment as we 
>> speak
>>
>> A working model of how to build a user base surely, if nothing else?
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris Howe wrote:
>>> Ian,
>>>
>>> While I certainly enjoy the analogies, who are you
>>> ultimately suggesting create these lowest common
>>> denominator (LCD) documents?
>>> As has already been mentioned, once you pass that
>>> "aha" moment in OFBiz, it's difficult to understand
>>> why the engineering documentation didn't make sense
>>> the first time around.  3D vector calculus, as you put
>>> it, seems so elementary obvious at that point that
>>> it's difficult to convey it in simpler terms; even
>>> though you remember it not being obvious when you
>>> started.  I don't think it's very time/quality
>>> productive for someone who's passed that "aha" moment
>>> to produce this documentation; at least not without
>>> the aid of an "uninitiated".
>>> If you'd like to be that test subject, I'm sure there
>>> are a mess of people, including myself, that would be
>>> willing to help explain things to you as you make your
>>> way through the concepts, documenting as you go.  But
>>> the POV of the documentation cannot be from someone
>>> who's already gotten the bird off the ground, because
>>> they're not really sure which button they pressed to
>>> make it all seem second nature.
>>>
>>>
>>> --- Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> David,
>>>>
>>>> I don't get the proposition that there are 100
>>>> different pilot roles.
>>>>
>>>> There are many 1,000s  of different destinations.
>>>> Maybe more than a dozen different pilot roles (commercial, fighter,
>>>> bomber, spotter, etc.). But but there IS a lowest common denominator.
>>>> They all fly planes. They all start off on fixed wing, single
>>>> engine props. They all need to understand basic navigation, 
>>>> aerodynamics,
>>>> flight-engineering etc.
>>>>
>>>> But it is very basic. The need to understand lift,
>>>> drag, how to calculate take off velocities etc. But I doubt if
>>>> they start of with 3D vector calculus or need to know what a Reynold's
>>>> number is.
>>>>
>>>> So why can't the target be whatever denominators are
>>>> common to all pilots?
>>>>
>>>> How to find the door handle and the start button
>>>> would be top of my list. If they can't find those then they ain't 
>>>> never
>>>> gonna fly.
>>>>
>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can see where you're coming from on this. This
>>>>>>
>>>> project is better
>>>>>> documented than anything else I've seen in the
>>>>>>
>>>> field.You yourself
>>>>>> have produced a truly awesome amount of
>>>>>>
>>>> documentation. I don't know
>>>>>> where you find the time. All are extremely well
>>>>>>
>>>> written, very clear,
>>>>>> very well laid out. A model of their kind. (No
>>>>>>
>>>> I'm not sucking up - I
>>>>>> mean it :) So what could possibly be the problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I found the Introduction Videos and Diagrams page
>>>>>>
>>>> you link to here a
>>>>>> couple of days ago myself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was whilst working through these videos that
>>>>>>
>>>> the light bulb went off.
>>>>
>>>>>> What you're talking us through is a diagram of
>>>>>>
>>>> the wiring harness of
>>>>>> a jumbo jet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Essential for the engineers who need to service
>>>>>>
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>>>> Absolutely the last kind of map a pilot wants to
>>>>>>
>>>> find on his lap.
>>>>
>>>>>> Know what I mean?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Uh, yeah, that's because it is meant to cover the
>>>>>
>>>> framework, not the
>>>>> applications. The two are very different, change
>>>>>
>>>> very differently,
>>>>> need to be understood by different people in
>>>>>
>>>> different ways, etc. My
>>>>> current estimate is that to produce something
>>>>>
>>>> adequate for a "pilot",
>>>>> given that there are about 100 different "pilot"
>>>>>
>>>> roles in OFBiz, would
>>>>> require many times the effort to produce that the
>>>>>
>>>> framework videos
>>>>> with their diagrams, reference materials,
>>>>>
>>>> transcriptions, etc. Right
>>>>> now I don't have the $500k to get into that... and
>>>>>
>>>> the $40k already
>>>>> spent on the documents which are now PDF-dumped
>>>>>
>>>> into the
>>>>> docs.ofbiz.org site was clearly inadequate,
>>>>>
>>>> especially as it is mostly
>>>>> reference materials (which is why you won't find
>>>>>
>>>> how-to stuff in the
>>>>> reference guides, they are references after all,
>>>>>
>>>> just for reference
>>>>> purposes). The Application Overview for Users is
>>>>>
>>>> probably more of what
>>>>> you're looking for, though that section only
>>>>>
>>>> represents maybe 3-5% of
>>>>> what is in OFBiz right now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, that's assuming such documents could
>>>>>
>>>> even be written in a
>>>>> way that is close to generally useful. How do I
>>>>>
>>>> use it? Well, that
>>>>> depends on what you want to do... and
>>>>>
>>>> unfortunately across a few
>>>>> different industries that list grows into hundreds
>>>>>
>>>> of thousands of
>>>>> activities...
>>>>>
>>>>> So, that's the big question with any document: who
>>>>>
>>>> is the target
>>>>> audience? The more specific the answer, the better
>>>>>
>>>> the document will
>>>>> address their needs. But who is the target
>>>>>
>>>> audience for OFBiz? ... ?
>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>
>>>
>>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>>> Durham
>>>> DH1 2UL
>>>>
>>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>
>>>
>>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the
>>>> intended recipient(s) named above and is
>>>> confidential. Any form of distribution, copying,
>>>> discussion or use of this communication, its
>>>> contents, or any information contained herein
>>>> without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you
>>>> receive this communication in error, please notify
>>>> the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191
>>>> 384 4736
>>>>
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we
>>>> cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of
>>>> software viruses and would recommend that you carry
>>>> out your own virus checks before opening any
>>>> attachment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>
>> mcnultyMEDIA
>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>> Durham
>> DH1 2UL
>>
>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>> ============================================================================================== 
>>
>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended 
>> recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of 
>> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its 
>> contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent 
>> is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, 
>> please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept 
>> any liability sustained as a result of software viruses and would 
>> recommend that you carry out your own virus checks before opening any 
>> attachment.
>> ============================================================================================== 
>>
>

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

t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736

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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

OK David. Maybe just one last thing.

No more soap-boxing. A simple question for a change :)

David E. Jones wrote:
>
> Looking around the OFBiz documents and such I don't think this 
> distinction is adequately represented, so I added some text similar to 
> the above to the home page of ofbiz.apache.org. It should be public 
> within a few hours, ie whenever the next deployment job runs.

Reading your new text, this stood out:

"OFBiz can certainly be used OOTB (out of the box), but if you're 
looking for something that works really well for that there are many 
open source projects that do a great job there."

OK. So maybe those projects might be more what I'm looking for.

I searched a couple of months ago and didn't find anything I thought 
could do a better job than OFBiz. What other open source projects are 
you thinking of here?

Ian




>
> -David
>
>
> On Jan 20, 2007, at 3:49 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>
>> Chris, David, Everybody.
>>
>> One last thought on the subject before I have my porridge and another 
>> lie down ;)
>>
>> I'm wondering if any of you guys have ever taken a good hard look at 
>> the osCommerce, Zen Cart or Ubuntu forums?
>>
>> http://www.zen-cart.com/forum
>>
>> http://forums.oscommerce.com
>>
>> http://www.ubuntuforums.org/
>>
>> Yes. I know php is nasty. But that's not the point.
>>
>> Look at the accessibility and structure of the interface.
>>
>> All user levels are accommodated.
>>
>> All find their natural place.
>>
>> Nearly a quarter of a million members on Ubuntu. 120K on osCommerce. 
>> 2,347 and 824 currently active respectively at this very moment as we 
>> speak
>>
>> A working model of how to build a user base surely, if nothing else?
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris Howe wrote:
>>> Ian,
>>>
>>> While I certainly enjoy the analogies, who are you
>>> ultimately suggesting create these lowest common
>>> denominator (LCD) documents?
>>> As has already been mentioned, once you pass that
>>> "aha" moment in OFBiz, it's difficult to understand
>>> why the engineering documentation didn't make sense
>>> the first time around.  3D vector calculus, as you put
>>> it, seems so elementary obvious at that point that
>>> it's difficult to convey it in simpler terms; even
>>> though you remember it not being obvious when you
>>> started.  I don't think it's very time/quality
>>> productive for someone who's passed that "aha" moment
>>> to produce this documentation; at least not without
>>> the aid of an "uninitiated".
>>> If you'd like to be that test subject, I'm sure there
>>> are a mess of people, including myself, that would be
>>> willing to help explain things to you as you make your
>>> way through the concepts, documenting as you go.  But
>>> the POV of the documentation cannot be from someone
>>> who's already gotten the bird off the ground, because
>>> they're not really sure which button they pressed to
>>> make it all seem second nature.
>>>
>>>
>>> --- Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> David,
>>>>
>>>> I don't get the proposition that there are 100
>>>> different pilot roles.
>>>>
>>>> There are many 1,000s  of different destinations.
>>>> Maybe more than a dozen different pilot roles (commercial, fighter,
>>>> bomber, spotter, etc.). But but there IS a lowest common denominator.
>>>> They all fly planes. They all start off on fixed wing, single
>>>> engine props. They all need to understand basic navigation, 
>>>> aerodynamics,
>>>> flight-engineering etc.
>>>>
>>>> But it is very basic. The need to understand lift,
>>>> drag, how to calculate take off velocities etc. But I doubt if
>>>> they start of with 3D vector calculus or need to know what a Reynold's
>>>> number is.
>>>>
>>>> So why can't the target be whatever denominators are
>>>> common to all pilots?
>>>>
>>>> How to find the door handle and the start button
>>>> would be top of my list. If they can't find those then they ain't 
>>>> never
>>>> gonna fly.
>>>>
>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can see where you're coming from on this. This
>>>>>>
>>>> project is better
>>>>>> documented than anything else I've seen in the
>>>>>>
>>>> field.You yourself
>>>>>> have produced a truly awesome amount of
>>>>>>
>>>> documentation. I don't know
>>>>>> where you find the time. All are extremely well
>>>>>>
>>>> written, very clear,
>>>>>> very well laid out. A model of their kind. (No
>>>>>>
>>>> I'm not sucking up - I
>>>>>> mean it :) So what could possibly be the problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I found the Introduction Videos and Diagrams page
>>>>>>
>>>> you link to here a
>>>>>> couple of days ago myself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was whilst working through these videos that
>>>>>>
>>>> the light bulb went off.
>>>>
>>>>>> What you're talking us through is a diagram of
>>>>>>
>>>> the wiring harness of
>>>>>> a jumbo jet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Essential for the engineers who need to service
>>>>>>
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>>>> Absolutely the last kind of map a pilot wants to
>>>>>>
>>>> find on his lap.
>>>>
>>>>>> Know what I mean?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Uh, yeah, that's because it is meant to cover the
>>>>>
>>>> framework, not the
>>>>> applications. The two are very different, change
>>>>>
>>>> very differently,
>>>>> need to be understood by different people in
>>>>>
>>>> different ways, etc. My
>>>>> current estimate is that to produce something
>>>>>
>>>> adequate for a "pilot",
>>>>> given that there are about 100 different "pilot"
>>>>>
>>>> roles in OFBiz, would
>>>>> require many times the effort to produce that the
>>>>>
>>>> framework videos
>>>>> with their diagrams, reference materials,
>>>>>
>>>> transcriptions, etc. Right
>>>>> now I don't have the $500k to get into that... and
>>>>>
>>>> the $40k already
>>>>> spent on the documents which are now PDF-dumped
>>>>>
>>>> into the
>>>>> docs.ofbiz.org site was clearly inadequate,
>>>>>
>>>> especially as it is mostly
>>>>> reference materials (which is why you won't find
>>>>>
>>>> how-to stuff in the
>>>>> reference guides, they are references after all,
>>>>>
>>>> just for reference
>>>>> purposes). The Application Overview for Users is
>>>>>
>>>> probably more of what
>>>>> you're looking for, though that section only
>>>>>
>>>> represents maybe 3-5% of
>>>>> what is in OFBiz right now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, that's assuming such documents could
>>>>>
>>>> even be written in a
>>>>> way that is close to generally useful. How do I
>>>>>
>>>> use it? Well, that
>>>>> depends on what you want to do... and
>>>>>
>>>> unfortunately across a few
>>>>> different industries that list grows into hundreds
>>>>>
>>>> of thousands of
>>>>> activities...
>>>>>
>>>>> So, that's the big question with any document: who
>>>>>
>>>> is the target
>>>>> audience? The more specific the answer, the better
>>>>>
>>>> the document will
>>>>> address their needs. But who is the target
>>>>>
>>>> audience for OFBiz? ... ?
>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>
>>>
>>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>>> Durham
>>>> DH1 2UL
>>>>
>>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>
>>>
>>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the
>>>> intended recipient(s) named above and is
>>>> confidential. Any form of distribution, copying,
>>>> discussion or use of this communication, its
>>>> contents, or any information contained herein
>>>> without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you
>>>> receive this communication in error, please notify
>>>> the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191
>>>> 384 4736
>>>>
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we
>>>> cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of
>>>> software viruses and would recommend that you carry
>>>> out your own virus checks before opening any
>>>> attachment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>
>> mcnultyMEDIA
>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>> Durham
>> DH1 2UL
>>
>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>> ============================================================================================== 
>>
>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended 
>> recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of 
>> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its 
>> contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent 
>> is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, 
>> please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept 
>> any liability sustained as a result of software viruses and would 
>> recommend that you carry out your own virus checks before opening any 
>> attachment.
>> ============================================================================================== 
>>
>

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

t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736

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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

David,
>
> So, the question that will answer your question is: what do you mean 
> by this? In other words, what are the details behind the statement 
> "OFBiz is not yet as fully developed as I first thought it to be"?

To me this is a no brainer. This is what started me off in the first 
place. Months later I've been picked up on practically everything else 
I've said, but nobody so far has thought it important to even comment 
about this:

1) I try creating a new party. I'm presented with a list of US states. 
This doesn't change when I  select a different country. It's easy to 
enter a non US address with a US state. OFBiz doesn't flag this up as a 
problem. According to Si there is no Java to connect country selection 
to regions and no plans to do so. This is a feature absolutely everybody 
everywhere needs. Why so much fuss about making it part of the standard 
install?

2) It doesn't handle VAT. Not a problem in the US perhaps. A very big 
problem almost anywhere else.

These are not small issues of individual customisation to specific niche 
applications. These are major lowest-common-denominator issues of 
relevance to the vast majority of any kind of user base.

CONCLUSION: This aeroplane might have what looks like a joystick, but if 
it isn't connected to all the necessary control surfaces then you're 
going to crash and burn. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to 
understand that is a very serious problem indeed.

Ian






David E. Jones wrote:
>
> Ian,
>
> About this question:
>
>> In my ignorance I kind of assumed that once I had a stable version 
>> running it would - like my old QuickBooks 3 - keep on going without 
>> too much trouble. Provided I didn't want to start customizing and 
>> upgrading that is.
>
>> OK. So new security breaches and the necessary patches to block them 
>> are to be expected. I have that already with existing Open Source 
>> LAMP e-commerce installations. The cost of keeping them secure is not 
>> particularly great. What is it about OFBiz that would make 
>> maintenance a luxury I might not be able to afford? Please expand.
>
> Unless you automate only a small part of what you do in your company, 
> which is usually the case for small companies, you will HAVE to change 
> the software to meet the needs of the company over time. Unfortunately 
> (for us software peoples) not every company does exactly the same 
> thing. Even more unfortunately is that the same company, large or 
> small, does not do the same thing from one year to the next (or even 
> smaller time periods). Small companies can get away with a single OOTB 
> system because they only automate a very small part of what they do. 
> As companies grow they MUST automate more and more of what they or the 
> company is likely to fail.
>
> As far as up-front and ongoing costs go for OFBiz in relation to what 
> you need, you hinted at an answer yourself in this paragraph:
>
>> When I first discovered OFBiz a couple of months ago I was 
>> thunderstruck. Not only did the e-commerce front-end look every bit 
>> as good as the LAMP systems I've been installing, but the whole 
>> concept and framework looked like it ought to knock both Microsoft 
>> and Sage into a cocked hat.
>>
>> I say 'looked like' because, of course, I have subsequently 
>> discovered from my short time on this list that OFBiz is not yet as 
>> fully developed as I first thought it to be.
>
> This means something different for everyone. Some companies are able 
> to use OFBiz 100% out of the box, but this is rare and usually means, 
> as mentioned above, that they are only automated a fairly small 
> percentage of what they do.
>
> So, the question that will answer your question is: what do you mean 
> by this? In other words, what are the details behind the statement 
> "OFBiz is not yet as fully developed as I first thought it to be"?
>
> The answer to that initially and over time, for your company or each 
> of your clients, is the answer to how much work will be necessary to 
> "install" and "support" the system (ie customize and maintain in more 
> honest terms).
>
> -David
>
>
>
> On Jan 21, 2007, at 9:50 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>
>> Andrew,
>>
>> I'm not looking for anything specific at the moment. Just trying to 
>> evaluate current options and keep on top of developments in the hope 
>> of offering clients the best, most flexible, most long-term solutions 
>> I can find.
>>
>> I checked out GnuCash and SQL Ledger before I discovered OFBiz. They 
>> both look fine, as far as small business accounting packages go. 
>> You're not going to believe this, but I personally still use 
>> QuickBooks 3 which I bought for less than $200 more than 15 years ago 
>> to run on Windows 3.1. Since then I've used it to produce budgets, 
>> VAT returns and year-end accounts for up to 4 different companies at 
>> the same time - some with turnovers around the $1M mark. It has its 
>> limitations and idiosyncrasies; but it runs like lightning on XP, has 
>> never crashed even once or given me any kind of problems at all 
>> (touch wood!!!)  So it's going to take something pretty special to 
>> persuade me to change to anything else.
>>
>> I started looking at OFBiz as a solution to problems I can see 
>> starting to appear on the horizon for clients with established 
>> bricks-and-mortar wholesale and retail businesses for whom I have 
>> been installing Open Source e-commerce solutions over the past few 
>> years.
>>
>> All started with no web presence, all are now finding online sales 
>> becoming a significant and in some cases the major part of their 
>> businesses.
>>
>> In the beginning, integration with existing in-store EPOS and 
>> accounting systems from the likes of MS, Intuit and Sage was not an 
>> issue. Now it is quickly becoming the main one as staff spend 
>> increasingly longer amounts of time transferring information on paper 
>> and re-keying the same data into 3 different systems running in 
>> parallel.
>>
>> I have been trying to keep on top of this by installing patches and 
>> plugins to get the different systems to talk to each other. But 
>> bespoke integration with closed-source, proprietary systems is an 
>> arduous and expensive business that few clients can afford. More to 
>> the point, it is a very 'tacky' and incomplete solution as it depends 
>> largely on staff following rigorously prescribed synchronisation 
>> routines to prevent transactions colliding, falling over each other 
>> and cancelling each other out. Most staff working at this level will 
>> ignore the rules and cut corners if they can, resulting in tangles of 
>> inaccurate data which threaten to bring the whole business crashing 
>> around everyone's ears.
>>
>> Microsoft and Sage spotted the problems and the opportunities several 
>> years ago, and are now offering their own e-commerce clones 
>> seamlessly integrated with their own back-ends. I lost my biggest 
>> client to them just before Christmas. If I can not offer equivalent 
>> backend Open Source integration then it won't be long before I lose 
>> all the rest.
>>
>> When I first discovered OFBiz a couple of months ago I was 
>> thunderstruck. Not only did the e-commerce front-end look every bit 
>> as good as the LAMP systems I've been installing, but the whole 
>> concept and framework looked like it ought to knock both Microsoft 
>> and Sage into a cocked hat.
>>
>> I say 'looked like' because, of course, I have subsequently 
>> discovered from my short time on this list that OFBiz is not yet as 
>> fully developed as I first thought it to be.
>>
>> Your analogy with office space is interesting but I'm not entirely 
>> convinced it compares like with like. The cost of over-capacity in 
>> bricks-and-mortar space is clearly very heavy. The cost of 
>> over-capacity in Open Source virtual software space, not necessarily so.
>>
>> On the other hand, the cost of not building into the virtual software 
>> space the option for future expansion could well be crippling. It 
>> isn't just the cost of new installations and transfer of data. The 
>> major cost is staff retraining. People who adapt easily to such 
>> things do not usually end up working as warehousemen or office clerks.
>>
>> Your Project-Open link looks like it might be able to do what I need. 
>> The use of virtualisation looks very attractive. The web site is 
>> clean and crisp. The lack of forums, user groups or mailing lists is 
>> not so encouraging. I haven't even scratched the surface yet so I 
>> have no idea how it compares with OFBiz. When I do I promise to let 
>> you know.
>>
>> One thing you say at the end of your posting really does concern me:
>>> Can you really afford the luxury of servicing
>>> something as large as OfBiz en route?
>>>
>> I was aware that the cost of installing a usable version of OFBiz 
>> might not be inconsiderable. But I had no idea that the cost of 
>> servicing it could be so high it could be a luxury I might not be 
>> able to afford.
>>
>> In my ignorance I kind of assumed that once I had a stable version 
>> running it would - like my old QuickBooks 3 - keep on going without 
>> too much trouble. Provided I didn't want to start customizing and 
>> upgrading that is.
>>
>> OK. So new security breaches and the necessary patches to block them 
>> are to be expected. I have that already with existing Open Source 
>> LAMP e-commerce installations. The cost of keeping them secure is not 
>> particularly great. What is it about OFBiz that would make 
>> maintenance a luxury I might not be able to afford? Please expand.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Andrew Sykes wrote:
>>> Ian,
>>>
>>> It depends on what you're looking for.
>>>
>>> If the focus is still a "small business accounting package" as the
>>> subject line says - I know I know, there have been a zillion posts to
>>> this thread, so perhaps not. - If it's accounting, two spring to 
>>> mind...
>>>
>>> For a desktop system, have a look at GnuCash...
>>> http://www.gnucash.org/
>>>
>>> For a web based system, SQLLedger seems good and I've heard a few
>>> favourable reports about it...
>>> http://www.sql-ledger.org/
>>>
>>> Finally, for a project which *seems* to have a more OOTB focus, 
>>> although
>>> I've really only started looking at it this weekend, take a look at the
>>> Project:Open stuff...
>>> http://www.project-open.com/
>>> I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this one as I've only just
>>> scratched the surface...
>>>
>>> One of the criteria you should consider is the cost of upgrading 
>>> from an
>>> OOTB solution sometime in the future versus the cost of implementing
>>> OfBiz now. Generally if you are at the stage of being an enterprise 
>>> with
>>> more "M" than "S" turnover (SME) and have implemented a lot of bespoke
>>> business processes which form part of you USP then OfBiz is a safe bet.
>>> If you plan to get to that point one day, it's probably better waiting
>>> for that day to come and using something OOTB in the meantime. Consider
>>> the analogy with office space, you wouldn't buy up half an industrial
>>> estate because the business plan you had written in your front room 
>>> said
>>> one day you'd be bigger than ICI! Even if you factored the cost of
>>> hiring a van to help with the move, it would still look a bit dodgy on
>>> the balance sheet!
>>>
>>> Choosing the right system is about being on top of your overall 
>>> business
>>> strategy, where are you going? how long and how much is it going to 
>>> take
>>> to get you there? Can you really afford the luxury of servicing
>>> something as large as OfBiz en route?
>>>
>>> - Andrew
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 09:58 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>
>>>> OK David. Maybe just one last thing.
>>>>
>>>> No more soap-boxing. A simple question for a change :)
>>>>
>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Looking around the OFBiz documents and such I don't think this 
>>>>> distinction is adequately represented, so I added some text 
>>>>> similar to the above to the home page of ofbiz.apache.org. It 
>>>>> should be public within a few hours, ie whenever the next 
>>>>> deployment job runs.
>>>>>
>>>> Reading your new text, this stood out:
>>>>
>>>> "OFBiz can certainly be used OOTB (out of the box), but if you're 
>>>> looking for something that works really well for that there are 
>>>> many open source projects that do a great job there."
>>>>
>>>> OK. So maybe those projects might be more what I'm looking for.
>>>>
>>>> I searched a couple of months ago and didn't find anything I 
>>>> thought could do a better job than OFBiz. What other open source 
>>>> projects are you thinking of here?
>>>>
>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 3:49 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris, David, Everybody.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One last thought on the subject before I have my porridge and 
>>>>>> another lie down ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm wondering if any of you guys have ever taken a good hard look 
>>>>>> at the osCommerce, Zen Cart or Ubuntu forums?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.zen-cart.com/forum
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://forums.oscommerce.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.ubuntuforums.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. I know php is nasty. But that's not the point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Look at the accessibility and structure of the interface.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All user levels are accommodated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All find their natural place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nearly a quarter of a million members on Ubuntu. 120K on 
>>>>>> osCommerce. 2,347 and 824 currently active respectively at this 
>>>>>> very moment as we speak
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A working model of how to build a user base surely, if nothing else?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris Howe wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ian,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While I certainly enjoy the analogies, who are you
>>>>>>> ultimately suggesting create these lowest common
>>>>>>> denominator (LCD) documents?
>>>>>>> As has already been mentioned, once you pass that
>>>>>>> "aha" moment in OFBiz, it's difficult to understand
>>>>>>> why the engineering documentation didn't make sense
>>>>>>> the first time around.  3D vector calculus, as you put
>>>>>>> it, seems so elementary obvious at that point that
>>>>>>> it's difficult to convey it in simpler terms; even
>>>>>>> though you remember it not being obvious when you
>>>>>>> started.  I don't think it's very time/quality
>>>>>>> productive for someone who's passed that "aha" moment
>>>>>>> to produce this documentation; at least not without
>>>>>>> the aid of an "uninitiated".
>>>>>>> If you'd like to be that test subject, I'm sure there
>>>>>>> are a mess of people, including myself, that would be
>>>>>>> willing to help explain things to you as you make your
>>>>>>> way through the concepts, documenting as you go.  But
>>>>>>> the POV of the documentation cannot be from someone
>>>>>>> who's already gotten the bird off the ground, because
>>>>>>> they're not really sure which button they pressed to
>>>>>>> make it all seem second nature.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --- Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't get the proposition that there are 100
>>>>>>>> different pilot roles.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are many 1,000s  of different destinations.
>>>>>>>> Maybe more than a dozen different pilot roles (commercial, 
>>>>>>>> fighter,
>>>>>>>> bomber, spotter, etc.). But but there IS a lowest common 
>>>>>>>> denominator.
>>>>>>>> They all fly planes. They all start off on fixed wing, single
>>>>>>>> engine props. They all need to understand basic navigation, 
>>>>>>>> aerodynamics,
>>>>>>>> flight-engineering etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But it is very basic. The need to understand lift,
>>>>>>>> drag, how to calculate take off velocities etc. But I doubt if
>>>>>>>> they start of with 3D vector calculus or need to know what a 
>>>>>>>> Reynold's
>>>>>>>> number is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So why can't the target be whatever denominators are
>>>>>>>> common to all pilots?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How to find the door handle and the start button
>>>>>>>> would be top of my list. If they can't find those then they 
>>>>>>>> ain't never
>>>>>>>> gonna fly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I can see where you're coming from on this. This
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> project is better
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> documented than anything else I've seen in the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> field.You yourself
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> have produced a truly awesome amount of
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> documentation. I don't know
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> where you find the time. All are extremely well
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> written, very clear,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> very well laid out. A model of their kind. (No
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sucking up - I
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> mean it :) So what could possibly be the problem.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I found the Introduction Videos and Diagrams page
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> you link to here a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> couple of days ago myself.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It was whilst working through these videos that
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the light bulb went off.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What you're talking us through is a diagram of
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the wiring harness of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> a jumbo jet.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Essential for the engineers who need to service
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely the last kind of map a pilot wants to
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> find on his lap.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Know what I mean?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Uh, yeah, that's because it is meant to cover the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> framework, not the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> applications. The two are very different, change
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> very differently,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> need to be understood by different people in
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> different ways, etc. My
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> current estimate is that to produce something
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> adequate for a "pilot",
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> given that there are about 100 different "pilot"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> roles in OFBiz, would
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> require many times the effort to produce that the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> framework videos
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> with their diagrams, reference materials,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> transcriptions, etc. Right
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> now I don't have the $500k to get into that... and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the $40k already
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> spent on the documents which are now PDF-dumped
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> into the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> docs.ofbiz.org site was clearly inadequate,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> especially as it is mostly
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> reference materials (which is why you won't find
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> how-to stuff in the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> reference guides, they are references after all,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> just for reference
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> purposes). The Application Overview for Users is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> probably more of what
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> you're looking for, though that section only
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> represents maybe 3-5% of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> what is in OFBiz right now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course, that's assuming such documents could
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> even be written in a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> way that is close to generally useful. How do I
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> use it? Well, that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> depends on what you want to do... and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> unfortunately across a few
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> different industries that list grows into hundreds
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> of thousands of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> activities...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, that's the big question with any document: who
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is the target
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> audience? The more specific the answer, the better
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the document will
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> address their needs. But who is the target
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> audience for OFBiz? ... ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>>>>>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>>>>>>> Durham
>>>>>>>> DH1 2UL
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the
>>>>>>>> intended recipient(s) named above and is
>>>>>>>> confidential. Any form of distribution, copying,
>>>>>>>> discussion or use of this communication, its
>>>>>>>> contents, or any information contained herein
>>>>>>>> without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you
>>>>>>>> receive this communication in error, please notify
>>>>>>>> the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191
>>>>>>>> 384 4736
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we
>>>>>>>> cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of
>>>>>>>> software viruses and would recommend that you carry
>>>>>>>> out your own virus checks before opening any
>>>>>>>> attachment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>>>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>>>>> Durham
>>>>>> DH1 2UL
>>>>>>
>>>>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended 
>>>>>> recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of 
>>>>>> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, 
>>>>>> its contents, or any information contained herein without prior 
>>>>>> consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication 
>>>>>> in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on 
>>>>>> +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot 
>>>>>> accept any liability sustained as a result of software viruses 
>>>>>> and would recommend that you carry out your own virus checks 
>>>>>> before opening any attachment.
>>>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>
>> mcnultyMEDIA
>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>> Durham
>> DH1 2UL
>>
>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>> ============================================================================================== 
>>
>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended 
>> recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of 
>> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its 
>> contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent 
>> is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, 
>> please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept 
>> any liability sustained as a result of software viruses and would 
>> recommend that you carry out your own virus checks before opening any 
>> attachment.
>> ============================================================================================== 
>>
>

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

t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736

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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

David E. Jones wrote:
>
> If I'm missing something and you really do need something from me, 
> just let me know what you have in mind.
>

OK David. Much appreciated. Will do.

Ian

----------------------------------------


David E. Jones wrote:
>
> On Jan 22, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>
>> David,
>>
>> I'm pleased Jonathon has been able to make such a positive 
>> contribution. I don't have his skill, talent or energy so can't 
>> contribute in the same way - much as I'd like to.
>>
>> What I have tried to contribute is a different perspective - the view 
>> from the opposite end of the telescope - what it's like trying to fly 
>> this thing rather than overhaul the engines.
>>
>> I understand completely the ready market you have for building 
>> executive Lear Jets. I've just been trying to put forward the 
>> proposition that there might be a bigger, more lucrative and in may 
>> ways easier one in building Jumbos for the Hoi Polloi.
>>
>> $10 profit from 10M seats = $100M
>>
>> $1M profit from 10 seats = $10M
>>
>> It's not just the numbers. Executives who can afford Lear Jets need 
>> to have everything just so. The Hoi Polloi loading on board Jumbos in 
>> batches of 500 will accept a standard package that only has to please 
>> some of the people some of the time. (I think Abraham Lincoln said 
>> that ;)
>>
>> That's the trick that all the big boys, from Intuit through Sage to 
>> Microsoft managed to pull off.
>>
>> I remember my contempt when I saw the first 8086 machine running DOS 
>> and the first versions of Windows, Sage, and Quicken. In comparison 
>> to the IBM mainframes and Cray Supercomputers around at the time they 
>> weren't even decent toys. The idea that you might be able to use 
>> those systems as the foundation for developing enterprise level 
>> systems to replace mainframes was dangerous insanity. Put the future 
>> of Wall Street and SAC in the hands of a kiddies bedroom toy? Do me a 
>> favour. Get out of here. If I'm not mistaken, that's exactly what 
>> Intel said to Bill Gates when he gave them first refusal on DOS.
>>
>> OK, so you've been very clear. You do not see it. And even if you did 
>> you probably wouldn't want to service that kind of market.
>
> I get it. I know very well how packaged software works, but what in 
> heavens does this have to do with OFBiz?
>
> Do you really want to compete with Intuit and Microsoft, and open 
> source projects like GnuCash, SQL Ledger, oscommerce, and to some 
> extend even SugarCRM? Isn't that market a bit crowded?
>
> Where's the "Blue Ocean" there? What I've been talking about is a real 
> "Blue Ocean Strategy", which is a good book for anyone who hasn't yet 
> had the pleasure.
>
>> So what's the harm in giving those of us who do your blessing and 
>> enough rope to hang ourselves?
>
> You don't need anything from me... Check out the Contributors Best 
> Practices page:
>
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/r
>
> If I'm missing something and you really do need something from me, 
> just let me know what you have in mind.
>
> -David
>
>
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> Jonathon,
>>>
>>> This is good feedback, and very unfortunate. It has been frustrating 
>>> to me for years that many users of OFBiz that even get it working 
>>> well for them in production real-world use simply don't get involved 
>>> and contribute back, and that happens to be the ONLY way anything 
>>> gets into the project.
>>>
>>> One way or another OFBiz really needs volunteers that are dedicated 
>>> and can contribute consistently and help moderate contributions as 
>>> well. The trick is getting people to help and commit. This is 
>>> actually the reason I'm not interested in investing in OOTB use for 
>>> small companies, they generally don't have the resources or 
>>> expertise to contribute much back.
>>>
>>> So, the project is what it is and moves as it does. Hundreds of 
>>> thousands of man-hours have gone into it, and as the project and 
>>> world progress we can really use more and more effort. We could 
>>> easily put in a million man-hours into this project and still have 
>>> work to do that would bring effective results that make a difference 
>>> in the world.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the patches you've submitted and such Jonathon, BTW. I 
>>> hope you do get a chance to be more involved and one way or another 
>>> I look forward to hearing more from you.
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 21, 2007, at 11:41 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>
>>>> David,
>>>>
>>>> > So, just to be clear and try to rephrase what you said: the 
>>>> problems you are
>>>> > running into are caused by the approach used to customize and 
>>>> install OFBiz
>>>> > rather than OFBiz itself.
>>>>
>>>> Sigh. Alright, I'll leave it at that. I concede that M2M could be 
>>>> an application that deviates wildly from best practices in 
>>>> manufacturing. Concede that I may be trying to enter building from 
>>>> the 3rd floor window instead of the front door. Concede even that 
>>>> my boss may be a dim-wit to have structured his operations such 
>>>> that it's not as "best practices" as OFBiz is. No more arguments 
>>>> from me on this front.
>>>>
>>>> > You should know, if you don't already, that OFBiz is being used 
>>>> effectively
>>>> > in various manufacturing operations.
>>>>
>>>> Good to know. That's one of my main arguments I throw at boss in 
>>>> every desperate situation I've had in defending OFBiz.
>>>>
>>>> > If you're having trouble and the free support of the community 
>>>> isn't meeting
>>>> > your needs,
>>>>
>>>> No, we don't have such trouble. I only have trouble comprehending 
>>>> why I need to fix so many bugs and non-intuitive workflows in OFBiz 
>>>> given that it's supposed to be "best practices" (or maybe I 
>>>> misrepresented OFBiz to boss?).
>>>>
>>>> In fact, my series of circus acts (correcting OFBiz rapidly, adding 
>>>> functionalities, etc, all faster than OFBiz community can cope 
>>>> with) has pacified my boss' fears for now (for now only). We have 
>>>> no trouble working OFBiz at all.
>>>>
>>>> My main concern is the management of development of SVN trunk (I 
>>>> trust you're holding the beast on course, so it won't trample the 
>>>> fields it just ploughed). In the worst case, not that it'll happen, 
>>>> if OFBiz does die off, at least I'm left with a SUBSTANTIAL amount 
>>>> of work from which I can start building stuff. And I say again that 
>>>> we must all remember where all that "stuff" came from (OFBiz 
>>>> contributors).
>>>>
>>>> > have you considered engaging people who have successfully 
>>>> deployed OFBiz in a
>>>> > manufacturing setting?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, we had. But after getting some answers from some veterans I 
>>>> will not name, I am convinced that we couldn't have done it cheaper 
>>>> AND FASTER if we went with OFBiz veterans (folks who can work OFBiz 
>>>> in manufacturing setting). Nothing to do with how OFBiz is, just to 
>>>> do with economics. Oh yes, has a lot to do with adoption (Ian's 
>>>> long thread). Given a wider adoption due to better docs (entry 
>>>> guides), there'd be a lot of human resources around that can do the 
>>>> job cheap and fast. I'm not saying that should be your or OFBiz's 
>>>> direction.
>>>>
>>>> As it is now, we're moving ahead faster than OFBiz is, and I'm not 
>>>> talking about our specific needs aspect. I'm talking about bugs, 
>>>> incomplete functionalities (scaffolding in database, but not used), 
>>>> etc. I'm not even an OFBiz veteran.
>>>>
>>>> Our decision here was just pure economics.
>>>>
>>>> > If your time weren't so tight or if you had the luxury of more 
>>>> time to plan
>>>> > you could probably even get help from Jacopo. As I understand it 
>>>> he is
>>>> > working on a couple of fairly big contracts right now which is 
>>>> why he hasn't
>>>> > been as involved in OFBiz in the last few weeks (which is a big 
>>>> difference
>>>> > from before, BTW, we all have Jacopo to thank for a goodly 
>>>> percentage of what
>>>> > exists in OFBiz, especially in the manufacturing area).
>>>>
>>>> No fault of yours or OFBiz's. Just a matter of economics, like I said.
>>>>
>>>> As for Jacopo, we're watching him. :)
>>>>
>>>> Jonathon
>>>>
>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>> Jonathon,
>>>>> So, just to be clear and try to rephrase what you said: the 
>>>>> problems you are running into are caused by the approach used to 
>>>>> customize and install OFBiz rather than OFBiz itself.
>>>>> You should know, if you don't already, that OFBiz is being used 
>>>>> effectively in various manufacturing operations. If you're having 
>>>>> trouble and the free support of the community isn't meeting your 
>>>>> needs, have you considered engaging people who have successfully 
>>>>> deployed OFBiz in a manufacturing setting? If your time weren't so 
>>>>> tight or if you had the luxury of more time to plan you could 
>>>>> probably even get help from Jacopo. As I understand it he is 
>>>>> working on a couple of fairly big contracts right now which is why 
>>>>> he hasn't been as involved in OFBiz in the last few weeks (which 
>>>>> is a big difference from before, BTW, we all have Jacopo to thank 
>>>>> for a goodly percentage of what exists in OFBiz, especially in the 
>>>>> manufacturing area).
>>>>> -David
>>>>> On Jan 21, 2007, at 8:50 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>>>> David, Ian,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe Ian has a point about "not yet fully developed". As 
>>>>>> discussed before, the OFBiz framework is fine, complete. It's 
>>>>>> what's built around the engine (car body, doors, windscreen 
>>>>>> wipers, seat ejection button, etc) that's incomplete, or to put 
>>>>>> it in a more PR way to potential customers, "buggy and requires 
>>>>>> debugging, is all". Let's make a distinction between OFBiz 
>>>>>> framework and OFBiz-ERP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David is right that OFBiz is hard, if not impossible, to use 
>>>>>> OOTB. That's not precisely because OFBiz-ERP is all done up but 
>>>>>> the market is so choosy and differentiated and finely-segmented, 
>>>>>> ie everybody has their own ways of doing business. It's because 
>>>>>> OFBiz-ERP functionalities are very much incomplete. Let's take 
>>>>>> Made2Manage, for instance. My first guesstimate for boss was:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I believe OFBiz-ERP is all there, best-practices way of doing 
>>>>>> things. So if M2M was any good for you at all, I believe we can 
>>>>>> move you to OFBiz-ERP easily. Only thing we have to work on is to 
>>>>>> cater for any special ways you do business, any proprietary 
>>>>>> secret ingenious workflows, any superstitious feng-shui 
>>>>>> requirements in your corporate culture, etc.".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm currently in really hot soup for that wrong guesstimate. Boss 
>>>>>> has every right to stick with M2M now (a very strong and 
>>>>>> well-developed and well-supported product too).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wish I didn't have to say the above out loud. I realize it'll 
>>>>>> possibly raise red flags for potential OFBiz customers. But I 
>>>>>> don't know if I can live with sitting by and watching them moths 
>>>>>> come to a hot flame advertised as "kool light". No, I'm not 
>>>>>> publicizing my findings, just speaking up here since it seems 
>>>>>> Ian's (and myself and boss many weeks ago) been asking precisely 
>>>>>> the above for some time now without getting upfront 
>>>>>> "honest-to-God and honest-to-good-service" answers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If only Ian would just focus on how fantastic the OFBiz framework 
>>>>>> is, such as the entity engine, widgets (if documented right), 
>>>>>> etc. But I guess Ian's just trying to push us to address a 
>>>>>> vacuum, a vacuum that could well be blocking OFBiz from explosive 
>>>>>> world-wide adoption and popularity. And my guesstimate here would 
>>>>>> be (please let me be right this time!), Ian's right. OFBiz still 
>>>>>> rocks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My boss asked me if I would bet my career on OFBiz. I'd say that 
>>>>>> if I weren't a reverse-engineer in my past life, I'd be better 
>>>>>> off pushing a real OOTB solution to him and work on impromptu 
>>>>>> patches/integration to get specialized functionalities welded 
>>>>>> into that OOTB solution. But bear in mind that I have impossible 
>>>>>> deadlines (barely a month to cut OFBiz for a sizeable 
>>>>>> manufacturing operation, didn't figure in bugfixes I had to do 
>>>>>> myself). So if you could get a sucker to pay $30,000 over 3 
>>>>>> months for you to tailor OFBiz, you're on safe(r) ground. Yes, I 
>>>>>> know, my cases are always close to crazy (that's the way I live).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't mind speaking this plainly. I'm intending to work with Ian 
>>>>>> on that vacuum. I hope we have some volunteers from the community 
>>>>>> veterans, but if not, we're going ahead ourselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But please EVERYBODY here be aware that whether we go it 
>>>>>> ourselves or with community's blessing/hand-holding, we will 
>>>>>> STILL be practically leeching off the community's charitable work 
>>>>>> in OFBiz (SVN trunk). Proper perspective. Just FYI. Remember that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jonathon
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>>>> Ian,
>>>>>>> About this question:
>>>>>>>> In my ignorance I kind of assumed that once I had a stable 
>>>>>>>> version running it would - like my old QuickBooks 3 - keep on 
>>>>>>>> going without too much trouble. Provided I didn't want to start 
>>>>>>>> customizing and upgrading that is.
>>>>>>>> OK. So new security breaches and the necessary patches to block 
>>>>>>>> them are to be expected. I have that already with existing Open 
>>>>>>>> Source LAMP e-commerce installations. The cost of keeping them 
>>>>>>>> secure is not particularly great. What is it about OFBiz that 
>>>>>>>> would make maintenance a luxury I might not be able to afford? 
>>>>>>>> Please expand.
>>>>>>> Unless you automate only a small part of what you do in your 
>>>>>>> company, which is usually the case for small companies, you will 
>>>>>>> HAVE to change the software to meet the needs of the company 
>>>>>>> over time. Unfortunately (for us software peoples) not every 
>>>>>>> company does exactly the same thing. Even more unfortunately is 
>>>>>>> that the same company, large or small, does not do the same 
>>>>>>> thing from one year to the next (or even smaller time periods). 
>>>>>>> Small companies can get away with a single OOTB system because 
>>>>>>> they only automate a very small part of what they do. As 
>>>>>>> companies grow they MUST automate more and more of what they or 
>>>>>>> the company is likely to fail.
>>>>>>> As far as up-front and ongoing costs go for OFBiz in relation to 
>>>>>>> what you need, you hinted at an answer yourself in this paragraph:
>>>>>>>> When I first discovered OFBiz a couple of months ago I was 
>>>>>>>> thunderstruck. Not only did the e-commerce front-end look every 
>>>>>>>> bit as good as the LAMP systems I've been installing, but the 
>>>>>>>> whole concept and framework looked like it ought to knock both 
>>>>>>>> Microsoft and Sage into a cocked hat.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I say 'looked like' because, of course, I have subsequently 
>>>>>>>> discovered from my short time on this list that OFBiz is not 
>>>>>>>> yet as fully developed as I first thought it to be.
>>>>>>> This means something different for everyone. Some companies are 
>>>>>>> able to use OFBiz 100% out of the box, but this is rare and 
>>>>>>> usually means, as mentioned above, that they are only automated 
>>>>>>> a fairly small percentage of what they do.
>>>>>>> So, the question that will answer your question is: what do you 
>>>>>>> mean by this? In other words, what are the details behind the 
>>>>>>> statement "OFBiz is not yet as fully developed as I first 
>>>>>>> thought it to be"?
>>>>>>> The answer to that initially and over time, for your company or 
>>>>>>> each of your clients, is the answer to how much work will be 
>>>>>>> necessary to "install" and "support" the system (ie customize 
>>>>>>> and maintain in more honest terms).
>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>> On Jan 21, 2007, at 9:50 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>>>> Andrew,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not looking for anything specific at the moment. Just 
>>>>>>>> trying to evaluate current options and keep on top of 
>>>>>>>> developments in the hope of offering clients the best, most 
>>>>>>>> flexible, most long-term solutions I can find.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I checked out GnuCash and SQL Ledger before I discovered OFBiz. 
>>>>>>>> They both look fine, as far as small business accounting 
>>>>>>>> packages go. You're not going to believe this, but I personally 
>>>>>>>> still use QuickBooks 3 which I bought for less than $200 more 
>>>>>>>> than 15 years ago to run on Windows 3.1. Since then I've used 
>>>>>>>> it to produce budgets, VAT returns and year-end accounts for up 
>>>>>>>> to 4 different companies at the same time - some with turnovers 
>>>>>>>> around the $1M mark. It has its limitations and idiosyncrasies; 
>>>>>>>> but it runs like lightning on XP, has never crashed even once 
>>>>>>>> or given me any kind of problems at all (touch wood!!!)  So 
>>>>>>>> it's going to take something pretty special to persuade me to 
>>>>>>>> change to anything else.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I started looking at OFBiz as a solution to problems I can see 
>>>>>>>> starting to appear on the horizon for clients with established 
>>>>>>>> bricks-and-mortar wholesale and retail businesses for whom I 
>>>>>>>> have been installing Open Source e-commerce solutions over the 
>>>>>>>> past few years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All started with no web presence, all are now finding online 
>>>>>>>> sales becoming a significant and in some cases the major part 
>>>>>>>> of their businesses.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the beginning, integration with existing in-store EPOS and 
>>>>>>>> accounting systems from the likes of MS, Intuit and Sage was 
>>>>>>>> not an issue. Now it is quickly becoming the main one as staff 
>>>>>>>> spend increasingly longer amounts of time transferring 
>>>>>>>> information on paper and re-keying the same data into 3 
>>>>>>>> different systems running in parallel.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have been trying to keep on top of this by installing patches 
>>>>>>>> and plugins to get the different systems to talk to each other. 
>>>>>>>> But bespoke integration with closed-source, proprietary systems 
>>>>>>>> is an arduous and expensive business that few clients can 
>>>>>>>> afford. More to the point, it is a very 'tacky' and incomplete 
>>>>>>>> solution as it depends largely on staff following rigorously 
>>>>>>>> prescribed synchronisation routines to prevent transactions 
>>>>>>>> colliding, falling over each other and cancelling each other 
>>>>>>>> out. Most staff working at this level will ignore the rules and 
>>>>>>>> cut corners if they can, resulting in tangles of inaccurate 
>>>>>>>> data which threaten to bring the whole business crashing around 
>>>>>>>> everyone's ears.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Microsoft and Sage spotted the problems and the opportunities 
>>>>>>>> several years ago, and are now offering their own e-commerce 
>>>>>>>> clones seamlessly integrated with their own back-ends. I lost 
>>>>>>>> my biggest client to them just before Christmas. If I can not 
>>>>>>>> offer equivalent backend Open Source integration then it won't 
>>>>>>>> be long before I lose all the rest.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When I first discovered OFBiz a couple of months ago I was 
>>>>>>>> thunderstruck. Not only did the e-commerce front-end look every 
>>>>>>>> bit as good as the LAMP systems I've been installing, but the 
>>>>>>>> whole concept and framework looked like it ought to knock both 
>>>>>>>> Microsoft and Sage into a cocked hat.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I say 'looked like' because, of course, I have subsequently 
>>>>>>>> discovered from my short time on this list that OFBiz is not 
>>>>>>>> yet as fully developed as I first thought it to be.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your analogy with office space is interesting but I'm not 
>>>>>>>> entirely convinced it compares like with like. The cost of 
>>>>>>>> over-capacity in bricks-and-mortar space is clearly very heavy. 
>>>>>>>> The cost of over-capacity in Open Source virtual software 
>>>>>>>> space, not necessarily so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On the other hand, the cost of not building into the virtual 
>>>>>>>> software space the option for future expansion could well be 
>>>>>>>> crippling. It isn't just the cost of new installations and 
>>>>>>>> transfer of data. The major cost is staff retraining. People 
>>>>>>>> who adapt easily to such things do not usually end up working 
>>>>>>>> as warehousemen or office clerks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your Project-Open link looks like it might be able to do what I 
>>>>>>>> need. The use of virtualisation looks very attractive. The web 
>>>>>>>> site is clean and crisp. The lack of forums, user groups or 
>>>>>>>> mailing lists is not so encouraging. I haven't even scratched 
>>>>>>>> the surface yet so I have no idea how it compares with OFBiz. 
>>>>>>>> When I do I promise to let you know.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One thing you say at the end of your posting really does 
>>>>>>>> concern me:
>>>>>>>>> Can you really afford the luxury of servicing
>>>>>>>>> something as large as OfBiz en route?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was aware that the cost of installing a usable version of 
>>>>>>>> OFBiz might not be inconsiderable. But I had no idea that the 
>>>>>>>> cost of servicing it could be so high it could be a luxury I 
>>>>>>>> might not be able to afford.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In my ignorance I kind of assumed that once I had a stable 
>>>>>>>> version running it would - like my old QuickBooks 3 - keep on 
>>>>>>>> going without too much trouble. Provided I didn't want to start 
>>>>>>>> customizing and upgrading that is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OK. So new security breaches and the necessary patches to block 
>>>>>>>> them are to be expected. I have that already with existing Open 
>>>>>>>> Source LAMP e-commerce installations. The cost of keeping them 
>>>>>>>> secure is not particularly great. What is it about OFBiz that 
>>>>>>>> would make maintenance a luxury I might not be able to afford? 
>>>>>>>> Please expand.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andrew Sykes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ian,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It depends on what you're looking for.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the focus is still a "small business accounting package" as 
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> subject line says - I know I know, there have been a zillion 
>>>>>>>>> posts to
>>>>>>>>> this thread, so perhaps not. - If it's accounting, two spring 
>>>>>>>>> to mind...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For a desktop system, have a look at GnuCash...
>>>>>>>>> http://www.gnucash.org/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For a web based system, SQLLedger seems good and I've heard a few
>>>>>>>>> favourable reports about it...
>>>>>>>>> http://www.sql-ledger.org/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Finally, for a project which *seems* to have a more OOTB 
>>>>>>>>> focus, although
>>>>>>>>> I've really only started looking at it this weekend, take a 
>>>>>>>>> look at the
>>>>>>>>> Project:Open stuff...
>>>>>>>>> http://www.project-open.com/
>>>>>>>>> I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this one as I've 
>>>>>>>>> only just
>>>>>>>>> scratched the surface...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One of the criteria you should consider is the cost of 
>>>>>>>>> upgrading from an
>>>>>>>>> OOTB solution sometime in the future versus the cost of 
>>>>>>>>> implementing
>>>>>>>>> OfBiz now. Generally if you are at the stage of being an 
>>>>>>>>> enterprise with
>>>>>>>>> more "M" than "S" turnover (SME) and have implemented a lot of 
>>>>>>>>> bespoke
>>>>>>>>> business processes which form part of you USP then OfBiz is a 
>>>>>>>>> safe bet.
>>>>>>>>> If you plan to get to that point one day, it's probably better 
>>>>>>>>> waiting
>>>>>>>>> for that day to come and using something OOTB in the meantime. 
>>>>>>>>> Consider
>>>>>>>>> the analogy with office space, you wouldn't buy up half an 
>>>>>>>>> industrial
>>>>>>>>> estate because the business plan you had written in your front 
>>>>>>>>> room said
>>>>>>>>> one day you'd be bigger than ICI! Even if you factored the 
>>>>>>>>> cost of
>>>>>>>>> hiring a van to help with the move, it would still look a bit 
>>>>>>>>> dodgy on
>>>>>>>>> the balance sheet!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Choosing the right system is about being on top of your 
>>>>>>>>> overall business
>>>>>>>>> strategy, where are you going? how long and how much is it 
>>>>>>>>> going to take
>>>>>>>>> to get you there? Can you really afford the luxury of servicing
>>>>>>>>> something as large as OfBiz en route?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Andrew
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 09:58 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> OK David. Maybe just one last thing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No more soap-boxing. A simple question for a change :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Looking around the OFBiz documents and such I don't think 
>>>>>>>>>>> this distinction is adequately represented, so I added some 
>>>>>>>>>>> text similar to the above to the home page of 
>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz.apache.org. It should be public within a few hours, ie 
>>>>>>>>>>> whenever the next deployment job runs.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Reading your new text, this stood out:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "OFBiz can certainly be used OOTB (out of the box), but if 
>>>>>>>>>> you're looking for something that works really well for that 
>>>>>>>>>> there are many open source projects that do a great job there."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> OK. So maybe those projects might be more what I'm looking for.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I searched a couple of months ago and didn't find anything I 
>>>>>>>>>> thought could do a better job than OFBiz. What other open 
>>>>>>>>>> source projects are you thinking of here?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 3:49 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris, David, Everybody.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> One last thought on the subject before I have my porridge 
>>>>>>>>>>>> and another lie down ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if any of you guys have ever taken a good 
>>>>>>>>>>>> hard look at the osCommerce, Zen Cart or Ubuntu forums?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.zen-cart.com/forum
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://forums.oscommerce.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ubuntuforums.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. I know php is nasty. But that's not the point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Look at the accessibility and structure of the interface.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> All user levels are accommodated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> All find their natural place.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nearly a quarter of a million members on Ubuntu. 120K on 
>>>>>>>>>>>> osCommerce. 2,347 and 824 currently active respectively at 
>>>>>>>>>>>> this very moment as we speak
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A working model of how to build a user base surely, if 
>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing else?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris Howe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ian,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> While I certainly enjoy the analogies, who are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimately suggesting create these lowest common
>>>>>>>>>>>>> denominator (LCD) documents?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As has already been mentioned, once you pass that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "aha" moment in OFBiz, it's difficult to understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>> why the engineering documentation didn't make sense
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first time around.  3D vector calculus, as you put
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it, seems so elementary obvious at that point that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's difficult to convey it in simpler terms; even
>>>>>>>>>>>>> though you remember it not being obvious when you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> started.  I don't think it's very time/quality
>>>>>>>>>>>>> productive for someone who's passed that "aha" moment
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to produce this documentation; at least not without
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the aid of an "uninitiated".
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you'd like to be that test subject, I'm sure there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are a mess of people, including myself, that would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> willing to help explain things to you as you make your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> way through the concepts, documenting as you go.  But
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the POV of the documentation cannot be from someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>> who's already gotten the bird off the ground, because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they're not really sure which button they pressed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> make it all seem second nature.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't get the proposition that there are 100
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different pilot roles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are many 1,000s  of different destinations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe more than a dozen different pilot roles 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (commercial, fighter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bomber, spotter, etc.). But but there IS a lowest common 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> denominator.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They all fly planes. They all start off on fixed wing, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engine props. They all need to understand basic 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> navigation, aerodynamics,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flight-engineering etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it is very basic. The need to understand lift,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drag, how to calculate take off velocities etc. But I 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doubt if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they start of with 3D vector calculus or need to know 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a Reynold's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So why can't the target be whatever denominators are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> common to all pilots?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How to find the door handle and the start button
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be top of my list. If they can't find those then 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they ain't never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gonna fly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see where you're coming from on this. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project is better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> documented than anything else I've seen in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field.You yourself
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have produced a truly awesome amount of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> documentation. I don't know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where you find the time. All are extremely well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> written, very clear,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very well laid out. A model of their kind. (No
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sucking up - I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean it :) So what could possibly be the problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I found the Introduction Videos and Diagrams page
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you link to here a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple of days ago myself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was whilst working through these videos that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the light bulb went off.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you're talking us through is a diagram of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the wiring harness of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a jumbo jet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Essential for the engineers who need to service
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely the last kind of map a pilot wants to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find on his lap.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Know what I mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Uh, yeah, that's because it is meant to cover the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> framework, not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applications. The two are very different, change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very differently,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to be understood by different people in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different ways, etc. My
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current estimate is that to produce something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adequate for a "pilot",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given that there are about 100 different "pilot"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> roles in OFBiz, would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require many times the effort to produce that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> framework videos
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with their diagrams, reference materials,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transcriptions, etc. Right
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now I don't have the $500k to get into that... and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the $40k already
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spent on the documents which are now PDF-dumped
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> docs.ofbiz.org site was clearly inadequate,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially as it is mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference materials (which is why you won't find
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how-to stuff in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference guides, they are references after all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just for reference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purposes). The Application Overview for Users is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably more of what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're looking for, though that section only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> represents maybe 3-5% of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what is in OFBiz right now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, that's assuming such documents could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even be written in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way that is close to generally useful. How do I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use it? Well, that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> depends on what you want to do... and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unfortunately across a few
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different industries that list grows into hundreds
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of thousands of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activities...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, that's the big question with any document: who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> audience? The more specific the answer, the better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the document will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> address their needs. But who is the target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> audience for OFBiz? ... ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Durham
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DH1 2UL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intended recipient(s) named above and is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confidential. Any form of distribution, copying,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion or use of this communication, its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contents, or any information contained herein
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> receive this communication in error, please notify
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 384 4736
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software viruses and would recommend that you carry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out your own virus checks before opening any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attachment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>>>>>>>>>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>>>>>>>>>>> Durham
>>>>>>>>>>>> DH1 2UL
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>>>>>>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>>>>>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>>>>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended 
>>>>>>>>>>>> recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of 
>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this 
>>>>>>>>>>>> communication, its contents, or any information contained 
>>>>>>>>>>>> herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you 
>>>>>>>>>>>> receive this communication in error, please notify the 
>>>>>>>>>>>> sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot 
>>>>>>>>>>>> accept any liability sustained as a result of software 
>>>>>>>>>>>> viruses and would recommend that you carry out your own 
>>>>>>>>>>>> virus checks before opening any attachment.
>>>>>>>>>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>>>>>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>>>>>>> Durham
>>>>>>>> DH1 2UL
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended 
>>>>>>>> recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of 
>>>>>>>> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, 
>>>>>>>> its contents, or any information contained herein without prior 
>>>>>>>> consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this 
>>>>>>>> communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by 
>>>>>>>> telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot 
>>>>>>>> accept any liability sustained as a result of software viruses 
>>>>>>>> and would recommend that you carry out your own virus checks 
>>>>>>>> before opening any attachment.
>>>>>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>
>> mcnultyMEDIA
>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>> Durham
>> DH1 2UL
>>
>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>> ============================================================================================== 
>>
>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended 
>> recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of 
>> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its 
>> contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent 
>> is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, 
>> please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept 
>> any liability sustained as a result of software viruses and would 
>> recommend that you carry out your own virus checks before opening any 
>> attachment.
>> ============================================================================================== 
>>
>

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

t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736

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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

["David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

On Jan 22, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:

> David,
>
> I'm pleased Jonathon has been able to make such a positive  
> contribution. I don't have his skill, talent or energy so can't  
> contribute in the same way - much as I'd like to.
>
> What I have tried to contribute is a different perspective - the  
> view from the opposite end of the telescope - what it's like trying  
> to fly this thing rather than overhaul the engines.
>
> I understand completely the ready market you have for building  
> executive Lear Jets. I've just been trying to put forward the  
> proposition that there might be a bigger, more lucrative and in may  
> ways easier one in building Jumbos for the Hoi Polloi.
>
> $10 profit from 10M seats = $100M
>
> $1M profit from 10 seats = $10M
>
> It's not just the numbers. Executives who can afford Lear Jets need  
> to have everything just so. The Hoi Polloi loading on board Jumbos  
> in batches of 500 will accept a standard package that only has to  
> please some of the people some of the time. (I think Abraham  
> Lincoln said that ;)
>
> That's the trick that all the big boys, from Intuit through Sage to  
> Microsoft managed to pull off.
>
> I remember my contempt when I saw the first 8086 machine running  
> DOS and the first versions of Windows, Sage, and Quicken. In  
> comparison to the IBM mainframes and Cray Supercomputers around at  
> the time they weren't even decent toys. The idea that you might be  
> able to use those systems as the foundation for developing  
> enterprise level systems to replace mainframes was dangerous  
> insanity. Put the future of Wall Street and SAC in the hands of a  
> kiddies bedroom toy? Do me a favour. Get out of here. If I'm not  
> mistaken, that's exactly what Intel said to Bill Gates when he gave  
> them first refusal on DOS.
>
> OK, so you've been very clear. You do not see it. And even if you  
> did you probably wouldn't want to service that kind of market.

I get it. I know very well how packaged software works, but what in  
heavens does this have to do with OFBiz?

Do you really want to compete with Intuit and Microsoft, and open  
source projects like GnuCash, SQL Ledger, oscommerce, and to some  
extend even SugarCRM? Isn't that market a bit crowded?

Where's the "Blue Ocean" there? What I've been talking about is a  
real "Blue Ocean Strategy", which is a good book for anyone who  
hasn't yet had the pleasure.

> So what's the harm in giving those of us who do your blessing and  
> enough rope to hang ourselves?

You don't need anything from me... Check out the Contributors Best  
Practices page:

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

If I'm missing something and you really do need something from me,  
just let me know what you have in mind.

-David


>
> Ian
>
>
>
> David E. Jones wrote:
>>
>> Jonathon,
>>
>> This is good feedback, and very unfortunate. It has been  
>> frustrating to me for years that many users of OFBiz that even get  
>> it working well for them in production real-world use simply don't  
>> get involved and contribute back, and that happens to be the ONLY  
>> way anything gets into the project.
>>
>> One way or another OFBiz really needs volunteers that are  
>> dedicated and can contribute consistently and help moderate  
>> contributions as well. The trick is getting people to help and  
>> commit. This is actually the reason I'm not interested in  
>> investing in OOTB use for small companies, they generally don't  
>> have the resources or expertise to contribute much back.
>>
>> So, the project is what it is and moves as it does. Hundreds of  
>> thousands of man-hours have gone into it, and as the project and  
>> world progress we can really use more and more effort. We could  
>> easily put in a million man-hours into this project and still have  
>> work to do that would bring effective results that make a  
>> difference in the world.
>>
>> Thanks for the patches you've submitted and such Jonathon, BTW. I  
>> hope you do get a chance to be more involved and one way or  
>> another I look forward to hearing more from you.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Jan 21, 2007, at 11:41 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>
>>> David,
>>>
>>> > So, just to be clear and try to rephrase what you said: the  
>>> problems you are
>>> > running into are caused by the approach used to customize and  
>>> install OFBiz
>>> > rather than OFBiz itself.
>>>
>>> Sigh. Alright, I'll leave it at that. I concede that M2M could be  
>>> an application that deviates wildly from best practices in  
>>> manufacturing. Concede that I may be trying to enter building  
>>> from the 3rd floor window instead of the front door. Concede even  
>>> that my boss may be a dim-wit to have structured his operations  
>>> such that it's not as "best practices" as OFBiz is. No more  
>>> arguments from me on this front.
>>>
>>> > You should know, if you don't already, that OFBiz is being used  
>>> effectively
>>> > in various manufacturing operations.
>>>
>>> Good to know. That's one of my main arguments I throw at boss in  
>>> every desperate situation I've had in defending OFBiz.
>>>
>>> > If you're having trouble and the free support of the community  
>>> isn't meeting
>>> > your needs,
>>>
>>> No, we don't have such trouble. I only have trouble comprehending  
>>> why I need to fix so many bugs and non-intuitive workflows in  
>>> OFBiz given that it's supposed to be "best practices" (or maybe I  
>>> misrepresented OFBiz to boss?).
>>>
>>> In fact, my series of circus acts (correcting OFBiz rapidly,  
>>> adding functionalities, etc, all faster than OFBiz community can  
>>> cope with) has pacified my boss' fears for now (for now only). We  
>>> have no trouble working OFBiz at all.
>>>
>>> My main concern is the management of development of SVN trunk (I  
>>> trust you're holding the beast on course, so it won't trample the  
>>> fields it just ploughed). In the worst case, not that it'll  
>>> happen, if OFBiz does die off, at least I'm left with a  
>>> SUBSTANTIAL amount of work from which I can start building stuff.  
>>> And I say again that we must all remember where all that "stuff"  
>>> came from (OFBiz contributors).
>>>
>>> > have you considered engaging people who have successfully  
>>> deployed OFBiz in a
>>> > manufacturing setting?
>>>
>>> Yes, we had. But after getting some answers from some veterans I  
>>> will not name, I am convinced that we couldn't have done it  
>>> cheaper AND FASTER if we went with OFBiz veterans (folks who can  
>>> work OFBiz in manufacturing setting). Nothing to do with how  
>>> OFBiz is, just to do with economics. Oh yes, has a lot to do with  
>>> adoption (Ian's long thread). Given a wider adoption due to  
>>> better docs (entry guides), there'd be a lot of human resources  
>>> around that can do the job cheap and fast. I'm not saying that  
>>> should be your or OFBiz's direction.
>>>
>>> As it is now, we're moving ahead faster than OFBiz is, and I'm  
>>> not talking about our specific needs aspect. I'm talking about  
>>> bugs, incomplete functionalities (scaffolding in database, but  
>>> not used), etc. I'm not even an OFBiz veteran.
>>>
>>> Our decision here was just pure economics.
>>>
>>> > If your time weren't so tight or if you had the luxury of more  
>>> time to plan
>>> > you could probably even get help from Jacopo. As I understand  
>>> it he is
>>> > working on a couple of fairly big contracts right now which is  
>>> why he hasn't
>>> > been as involved in OFBiz in the last few weeks (which is a big  
>>> difference
>>> > from before, BTW, we all have Jacopo to thank for a goodly  
>>> percentage of what
>>> > exists in OFBiz, especially in the manufacturing area).
>>>
>>> No fault of yours or OFBiz's. Just a matter of economics, like I  
>>> said.
>>>
>>> As for Jacopo, we're watching him. :)
>>>
>>> Jonathon
>>>
>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>> Jonathon,
>>>> So, just to be clear and try to rephrase what you said: the  
>>>> problems you are running into are caused by the approach used to  
>>>> customize and install OFBiz rather than OFBiz itself.
>>>> You should know, if you don't already, that OFBiz is being used  
>>>> effectively in various manufacturing operations. If you're  
>>>> having trouble and the free support of the community isn't  
>>>> meeting your needs, have you considered engaging people who have  
>>>> successfully deployed OFBiz in a manufacturing setting? If your  
>>>> time weren't so tight or if you had the luxury of more time to  
>>>> plan you could probably even get help from Jacopo. As I  
>>>> understand it he is working on a couple of fairly big contracts  
>>>> right now which is why he hasn't been as involved in OFBiz in  
>>>> the last few weeks (which is a big difference from before, BTW,  
>>>> we all have Jacopo to thank for a goodly percentage of what  
>>>> exists in OFBiz, especially in the manufacturing area).
>>>> -David
>>>> On Jan 21, 2007, at 8:50 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>>> David, Ian,
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe Ian has a point about "not yet fully developed". As  
>>>>> discussed before, the OFBiz framework is fine, complete. It's  
>>>>> what's built around the engine (car body, doors, windscreen  
>>>>> wipers, seat ejection button, etc) that's incomplete, or to put  
>>>>> it in a more PR way to potential customers, "buggy and requires  
>>>>> debugging, is all". Let's make a distinction between OFBiz  
>>>>> framework and OFBiz-ERP.
>>>>>
>>>>> David is right that OFBiz is hard, if not impossible, to use  
>>>>> OOTB. That's not precisely because OFBiz-ERP is all done up but  
>>>>> the market is so choosy and differentiated and finely- 
>>>>> segmented, ie everybody has their own ways of doing business.  
>>>>> It's because OFBiz-ERP functionalities are very much  
>>>>> incomplete. Let's take Made2Manage, for instance. My first  
>>>>> guesstimate for boss was:
>>>>>
>>>>> "I believe OFBiz-ERP is all there, best-practices way of doing  
>>>>> things. So if M2M was any good for you at all, I believe we can  
>>>>> move you to OFBiz-ERP easily. Only thing we have to work on is  
>>>>> to cater for any special ways you do business, any proprietary  
>>>>> secret ingenious workflows, any superstitious feng-shui  
>>>>> requirements in your corporate culture, etc.".
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm currently in really hot soup for that wrong guesstimate.  
>>>>> Boss has every right to stick with M2M now (a very strong and  
>>>>> well-developed and well-supported product too).
>>>>>
>>>>> I wish I didn't have to say the above out loud. I realize it'll  
>>>>> possibly raise red flags for potential OFBiz customers. But I  
>>>>> don't know if I can live with sitting by and watching them  
>>>>> moths come to a hot flame advertised as "kool light". No, I'm  
>>>>> not publicizing my findings, just speaking up here since it  
>>>>> seems Ian's (and myself and boss many weeks ago) been asking  
>>>>> precisely the above for some time now without getting upfront  
>>>>> "honest-to-God and honest-to-good-service" answers.
>>>>>
>>>>> If only Ian would just focus on how fantastic the OFBiz  
>>>>> framework is, such as the entity engine, widgets (if documented  
>>>>> right), etc. But I guess Ian's just trying to push us to  
>>>>> address a vacuum, a vacuum that could well be blocking OFBiz  
>>>>> from explosive world-wide adoption and popularity. And my  
>>>>> guesstimate here would be (please let me be right this time!),  
>>>>> Ian's right. OFBiz still rocks.
>>>>>
>>>>> My boss asked me if I would bet my career on OFBiz. I'd say  
>>>>> that if I weren't a reverse-engineer in my past life, I'd be  
>>>>> better off pushing a real OOTB solution to him and work on  
>>>>> impromptu patches/integration to get specialized  
>>>>> functionalities welded into that OOTB solution. But bear in  
>>>>> mind that I have impossible deadlines (barely a month to cut  
>>>>> OFBiz for a sizeable manufacturing operation, didn't figure in  
>>>>> bugfixes I had to do myself). So if you could get a sucker to  
>>>>> pay $30,000 over 3 months for you to tailor OFBiz, you're on  
>>>>> safe(r) ground. Yes, I know, my cases are always close to crazy  
>>>>> (that's the way I live).
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't mind speaking this plainly. I'm intending to work with  
>>>>> Ian on that vacuum. I hope we have some volunteers from the  
>>>>> community veterans, but if not, we're going ahead ourselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> But please EVERYBODY here be aware that whether we go it  
>>>>> ourselves or with community's blessing/hand-holding, we will  
>>>>> STILL be practically leeching off the community's charitable  
>>>>> work in OFBiz (SVN trunk). Proper perspective. Just FYI.  
>>>>> Remember that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jonathon
>>>>>
>>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>>> Ian,
>>>>>> About this question:
>>>>>>> In my ignorance I kind of assumed that once I had a stable  
>>>>>>> version running it would - like my old QuickBooks 3 - keep on  
>>>>>>> going without too much trouble. Provided I didn't want to  
>>>>>>> start customizing and upgrading that is.
>>>>>>> OK. So new security breaches and the necessary patches to  
>>>>>>> block them are to be expected. I have that already with  
>>>>>>> existing Open Source LAMP e-commerce installations. The cost  
>>>>>>> of keeping them secure is not particularly great. What is it  
>>>>>>> about OFBiz that would make maintenance a luxury I might not  
>>>>>>> be able to afford? Please expand.
>>>>>> Unless you automate only a small part of what you do in your  
>>>>>> company, which is usually the case for small companies, you  
>>>>>> will HAVE to change the software to meet the needs of the  
>>>>>> company over time. Unfortunately (for us software peoples) not  
>>>>>> every company does exactly the same thing. Even more  
>>>>>> unfortunately is that the same company, large or small, does  
>>>>>> not do the same thing from one year to the next (or even  
>>>>>> smaller time periods). Small companies can get away with a  
>>>>>> single OOTB system because they only automate a very small  
>>>>>> part of what they do. As companies grow they MUST automate  
>>>>>> more and more of what they or the company is likely to fail.
>>>>>> As far as up-front and ongoing costs go for OFBiz in relation  
>>>>>> to what you need, you hinted at an answer yourself in this  
>>>>>> paragraph:
>>>>>>> When I first discovered OFBiz a couple of months ago I was  
>>>>>>> thunderstruck. Not only did the e-commerce front-end look  
>>>>>>> every bit as good as the LAMP systems I've been installing,  
>>>>>>> but the whole concept and framework looked like it ought to  
>>>>>>> knock both Microsoft and Sage into a cocked hat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I say 'looked like' because, of course, I have subsequently  
>>>>>>> discovered from my short time on this list that OFBiz is not  
>>>>>>> yet as fully developed as I first thought it to be.
>>>>>> This means something different for everyone. Some companies  
>>>>>> are able to use OFBiz 100% out of the box, but this is rare  
>>>>>> and usually means, as mentioned above, that they are only  
>>>>>> automated a fairly small percentage of what they do.
>>>>>> So, the question that will answer your question is: what do  
>>>>>> you mean by this? In other words, what are the details behind  
>>>>>> the statement "OFBiz is not yet as fully developed as I first  
>>>>>> thought it to be"?
>>>>>> The answer to that initially and over time, for your company  
>>>>>> or each of your clients, is the answer to how much work will  
>>>>>> be necessary to "install" and "support" the system (ie  
>>>>>> customize and maintain in more honest terms).
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>> On Jan 21, 2007, at 9:50 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>>> Andrew,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not looking for anything specific at the moment. Just  
>>>>>>> trying to evaluate current options and keep on top of  
>>>>>>> developments in the hope of offering clients the best, most  
>>>>>>> flexible, most long-term solutions I can find.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I checked out GnuCash and SQL Ledger before I discovered  
>>>>>>> OFBiz. They both look fine, as far as small business  
>>>>>>> accounting packages go. You're not going to believe this, but  
>>>>>>> I personally still use QuickBooks 3 which I bought for less  
>>>>>>> than $200 more than 15 years ago to run on Windows 3.1. Since  
>>>>>>> then I've used it to produce budgets, VAT returns and year- 
>>>>>>> end accounts for up to 4 different companies at the same time  
>>>>>>> - some with turnovers around the $1M mark. It has its  
>>>>>>> limitations and idiosyncrasies; but it runs like lightning on  
>>>>>>> XP, has never crashed even once or given me any kind of  
>>>>>>> problems at all (touch wood!!!)  So it's going to take  
>>>>>>> something pretty special to persuade me to change to anything  
>>>>>>> else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I started looking at OFBiz as a solution to problems I can  
>>>>>>> see starting to appear on the horizon for clients with  
>>>>>>> established bricks-and-mortar wholesale and retail businesses  
>>>>>>> for whom I have been installing Open Source e-commerce  
>>>>>>> solutions over the past few years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All started with no web presence, all are now finding online  
>>>>>>> sales becoming a significant and in some cases the major part  
>>>>>>> of their businesses.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the beginning, integration with existing in-store EPOS and  
>>>>>>> accounting systems from the likes of MS, Intuit and Sage was  
>>>>>>> not an issue. Now it is quickly becoming the main one as  
>>>>>>> staff spend increasingly longer amounts of time transferring  
>>>>>>> information on paper and re-keying the same data into 3  
>>>>>>> different systems running in parallel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have been trying to keep on top of this by installing  
>>>>>>> patches and plugins to get the different systems to talk to  
>>>>>>> each other. But bespoke integration with closed-source,  
>>>>>>> proprietary systems is an arduous and expensive business that  
>>>>>>> few clients can afford. More to the point, it is a very  
>>>>>>> 'tacky' and incomplete solution as it depends largely on  
>>>>>>> staff following rigorously prescribed synchronisation  
>>>>>>> routines to prevent transactions colliding, falling over each  
>>>>>>> other and cancelling each other out. Most staff working at  
>>>>>>> this level will ignore the rules and cut corners if they can,  
>>>>>>> resulting in tangles of inaccurate data which threaten to  
>>>>>>> bring the whole business crashing around everyone's ears.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Microsoft and Sage spotted the problems and the opportunities  
>>>>>>> several years ago, and are now offering their own e-commerce  
>>>>>>> clones seamlessly integrated with their own back-ends. I lost  
>>>>>>> my biggest client to them just before Christmas. If I can not  
>>>>>>> offer equivalent backend Open Source integration then it  
>>>>>>> won't be long before I lose all the rest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I first discovered OFBiz a couple of months ago I was  
>>>>>>> thunderstruck. Not only did the e-commerce front-end look  
>>>>>>> every bit as good as the LAMP systems I've been installing,  
>>>>>>> but the whole concept and framework looked like it ought to  
>>>>>>> knock both Microsoft and Sage into a cocked hat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I say 'looked like' because, of course, I have subsequently  
>>>>>>> discovered from my short time on this list that OFBiz is not  
>>>>>>> yet as fully developed as I first thought it to be.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your analogy with office space is interesting but I'm not  
>>>>>>> entirely convinced it compares like with like. The cost of  
>>>>>>> over-capacity in bricks-and-mortar space is clearly very  
>>>>>>> heavy. The cost of over-capacity in Open Source virtual  
>>>>>>> software space, not necessarily so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On the other hand, the cost of not building into the virtual  
>>>>>>> software space the option for future expansion could well be  
>>>>>>> crippling. It isn't just the cost of new installations and  
>>>>>>> transfer of data. The major cost is staff retraining. People  
>>>>>>> who adapt easily to such things do not usually end up working  
>>>>>>> as warehousemen or office clerks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your Project-Open link looks like it might be able to do what  
>>>>>>> I need. The use of virtualisation looks very attractive. The  
>>>>>>> web site is clean and crisp. The lack of forums, user groups  
>>>>>>> or mailing lists is not so encouraging. I haven't even  
>>>>>>> scratched the surface yet so I have no idea how it compares  
>>>>>>> with OFBiz. When I do I promise to let you know.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One thing you say at the end of your posting really does  
>>>>>>> concern me:
>>>>>>>> Can you really afford the luxury of servicing
>>>>>>>> something as large as OfBiz en route?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was aware that the cost of installing a usable version of  
>>>>>>> OFBiz might not be inconsiderable. But I had no idea that the  
>>>>>>> cost of servicing it could be so high it could be a luxury I  
>>>>>>> might not be able to afford.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In my ignorance I kind of assumed that once I had a stable  
>>>>>>> version running it would - like my old QuickBooks 3 - keep on  
>>>>>>> going without too much trouble. Provided I didn't want to  
>>>>>>> start customizing and upgrading that is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK. So new security breaches and the necessary patches to  
>>>>>>> block them are to be expected. I have that already with  
>>>>>>> existing Open Source LAMP e-commerce installations. The cost  
>>>>>>> of keeping them secure is not particularly great. What is it  
>>>>>>> about OFBiz that would make maintenance a luxury I might not  
>>>>>>> be able to afford? Please expand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andrew Sykes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ian,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It depends on what you're looking for.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the focus is still a "small business accounting package"  
>>>>>>>> as the
>>>>>>>> subject line says - I know I know, there have been a zillion  
>>>>>>>> posts to
>>>>>>>> this thread, so perhaps not. - If it's accounting, two  
>>>>>>>> spring to mind...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For a desktop system, have a look at GnuCash...
>>>>>>>> http://www.gnucash.org/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For a web based system, SQLLedger seems good and I've heard  
>>>>>>>> a few
>>>>>>>> favourable reports about it...
>>>>>>>> http://www.sql-ledger.org/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Finally, for a project which *seems* to have a more OOTB  
>>>>>>>> focus, although
>>>>>>>> I've really only started looking at it this weekend, take a  
>>>>>>>> look at the
>>>>>>>> Project:Open stuff...
>>>>>>>> http://www.project-open.com/
>>>>>>>> I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this one as I've  
>>>>>>>> only just
>>>>>>>> scratched the surface...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One of the criteria you should consider is the cost of  
>>>>>>>> upgrading from an
>>>>>>>> OOTB solution sometime in the future versus the cost of  
>>>>>>>> implementing
>>>>>>>> OfBiz now. Generally if you are at the stage of being an  
>>>>>>>> enterprise with
>>>>>>>> more "M" than "S" turnover (SME) and have implemented a lot  
>>>>>>>> of bespoke
>>>>>>>> business processes which form part of you USP then OfBiz is  
>>>>>>>> a safe bet.
>>>>>>>> If you plan to get to that point one day, it's probably  
>>>>>>>> better waiting
>>>>>>>> for that day to come and using something OOTB in the  
>>>>>>>> meantime. Consider
>>>>>>>> the analogy with office space, you wouldn't buy up half an  
>>>>>>>> industrial
>>>>>>>> estate because the business plan you had written in your  
>>>>>>>> front room said
>>>>>>>> one day you'd be bigger than ICI! Even if you factored the  
>>>>>>>> cost of
>>>>>>>> hiring a van to help with the move, it would still look a  
>>>>>>>> bit dodgy on
>>>>>>>> the balance sheet!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Choosing the right system is about being on top of your  
>>>>>>>> overall business
>>>>>>>> strategy, where are you going? how long and how much is it  
>>>>>>>> going to take
>>>>>>>> to get you there? Can you really afford the luxury of servicing
>>>>>>>> something as large as OfBiz en route?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Andrew
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 09:58 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OK David. Maybe just one last thing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No more soap-boxing. A simple question for a change :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Looking around the OFBiz documents and such I don't think  
>>>>>>>>>> this distinction is adequately represented, so I added  
>>>>>>>>>> some text similar to the above to the home page of  
>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz.apache.org. It should be public within a few hours,  
>>>>>>>>>> ie whenever the next deployment job runs.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Reading your new text, this stood out:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "OFBiz can certainly be used OOTB (out of the box), but if  
>>>>>>>>> you're looking for something that works really well for  
>>>>>>>>> that there are many open source projects that do a great  
>>>>>>>>> job there."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OK. So maybe those projects might be more what I'm looking  
>>>>>>>>> for.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I searched a couple of months ago and didn't find anything  
>>>>>>>>> I thought could do a better job than OFBiz. What other open  
>>>>>>>>> source projects are you thinking of here?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 3:49 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Chris, David, Everybody.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One last thought on the subject before I have my porridge  
>>>>>>>>>>> and another lie down ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if any of you guys have ever taken a good  
>>>>>>>>>>> hard look at the osCommerce, Zen Cart or Ubuntu forums?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.zen-cart.com/forum
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://forums.oscommerce.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ubuntuforums.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. I know php is nasty. But that's not the point.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Look at the accessibility and structure of the interface.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> All user levels are accommodated.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> All find their natural place.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nearly a quarter of a million members on Ubuntu. 120K on  
>>>>>>>>>>> osCommerce. 2,347 and 824 currently active respectively  
>>>>>>>>>>> at this very moment as we speak
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A working model of how to build a user base surely, if  
>>>>>>>>>>> nothing else?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Chris Howe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ian,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> While I certainly enjoy the analogies, who are you
>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimately suggesting create these lowest common
>>>>>>>>>>>> denominator (LCD) documents?
>>>>>>>>>>>> As has already been mentioned, once you pass that
>>>>>>>>>>>> "aha" moment in OFBiz, it's difficult to understand
>>>>>>>>>>>> why the engineering documentation didn't make sense
>>>>>>>>>>>> the first time around.  3D vector calculus, as you put
>>>>>>>>>>>> it, seems so elementary obvious at that point that
>>>>>>>>>>>> it's difficult to convey it in simpler terms; even
>>>>>>>>>>>> though you remember it not being obvious when you
>>>>>>>>>>>> started.  I don't think it's very time/quality
>>>>>>>>>>>> productive for someone who's passed that "aha" moment
>>>>>>>>>>>> to produce this documentation; at least not without
>>>>>>>>>>>> the aid of an "uninitiated".
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you'd like to be that test subject, I'm sure there
>>>>>>>>>>>> are a mess of people, including myself, that would be
>>>>>>>>>>>> willing to help explain things to you as you make your
>>>>>>>>>>>> way through the concepts, documenting as you go.  But
>>>>>>>>>>>> the POV of the documentation cannot be from someone
>>>>>>>>>>>> who's already gotten the bird off the ground, because
>>>>>>>>>>>> they're not really sure which button they pressed to
>>>>>>>>>>>> make it all seem second nature.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --- Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't get the proposition that there are 100
>>>>>>>>>>>>> different pilot roles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are many 1,000s  of different destinations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe more than a dozen different pilot roles  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (commercial, fighter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bomber, spotter, etc.). But but there IS a lowest  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> common denominator.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> They all fly planes. They all start off on fixed wing,  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>>>>> engine props. They all need to understand basic  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> navigation, aerodynamics,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> flight-engineering etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it is very basic. The need to understand lift,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> drag, how to calculate take off velocities etc. But I  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> doubt if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they start of with 3D vector calculus or need to know  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a Reynold's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> number is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So why can't the target be whatever denominators are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> common to all pilots?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How to find the door handle and the start button
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be top of my list. If they can't find those then  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they ain't never
>>>>>>>>>>>>> gonna fly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see where you're coming from on this. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> project is better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> documented than anything else I've seen in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> field.You yourself
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have produced a truly awesome amount of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> documentation. I don't know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where you find the time. All are extremely well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> written, very clear,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very well laid out. A model of their kind. (No
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sucking up - I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean it :) So what could possibly be the problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I found the Introduction Videos and Diagrams page
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you link to here a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple of days ago myself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was whilst working through these videos that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the light bulb went off.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you're talking us through is a diagram of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the wiring harness of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a jumbo jet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Essential for the engineers who need to service
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely the last kind of map a pilot wants to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> find on his lap.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Know what I mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Uh, yeah, that's because it is meant to cover the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> framework, not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applications. The two are very different, change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> very differently,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to be understood by different people in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> different ways, etc. My
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current estimate is that to produce something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> adequate for a "pilot",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given that there are about 100 different "pilot"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> roles in OFBiz, would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require many times the effort to produce that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> framework videos
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with their diagrams, reference materials,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> transcriptions, etc. Right
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now I don't have the $500k to get into that... and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the $40k already
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spent on the documents which are now PDF-dumped
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> into the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> docs.ofbiz.org site was clearly inadequate,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially as it is mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference materials (which is why you won't find
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> how-to stuff in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference guides, they are references after all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> just for reference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purposes). The Application Overview for Users is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably more of what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're looking for, though that section only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> represents maybe 3-5% of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what is in OFBiz right now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, that's assuming such documents could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> even be written in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way that is close to generally useful. How do I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> use it? Well, that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> depends on what you want to do... and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unfortunately across a few
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different industries that list grows into hundreds
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of thousands of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activities...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, that's the big question with any document: who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> audience? The more specific the answer, the better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the document will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> address their needs. But who is the target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> audience for OFBiz? ... ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>>>>>>>>>> -----------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Durham
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DH1 2UL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>>>>>>>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>>>>>>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> =========================================================== 
>>>>>>>>>>>> ===================================
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> intended recipient(s) named above and is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> confidential. Any form of distribution, copying,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion or use of this communication, its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> contents, or any information contained herein
>>>>>>>>>>>>> without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> receive this communication in error, please notify
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 384 4736
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> software viruses and would recommend that you carry
>>>>>>>>>>>>> out your own virus checks before opening any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> attachment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> =========================================================== 
>>>>>>>>>>>> ===================================
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>>>>>>>>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>>>>>>>>>> Durham
>>>>>>>>>>> DH1 2UL
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>>>>>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>>>>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>>>>>> ============================================================ 
>>>>>>>>>>> ==================================
>>>>>>>>>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the  
>>>>>>>>>>> intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential.  
>>>>>>>>>>> Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of  
>>>>>>>>>>> this communication, its contents, or any information  
>>>>>>>>>>> contained herein without prior consent is strictly  
>>>>>>>>>>> prohibited. If you receive this communication in error,  
>>>>>>>>>>> please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44  
>>>>>>>>>>> (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we  
>>>>>>>>>>> cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of  
>>>>>>>>>>> software viruses and would recommend that you carry out  
>>>>>>>>>>> your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
>>>>>>>>>>> ============================================================ 
>>>>>>>>>>> ==================================
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>>>>> --------------------------------
>>>>>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>>>>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>>>>>> Durham
>>>>>>> DH1 2UL
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>> ================================================================ 
>>>>>>> ==============================
>>>>>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended  
>>>>>>> recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of  
>>>>>>> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this  
>>>>>>> communication, its contents, or any information contained  
>>>>>>> herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you  
>>>>>>> receive this communication in error, please notify the sender  
>>>>>>> by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot  
>>>>>>> accept any liability sustained as a result of software  
>>>>>>> viruses and would recommend that you carry out your own virus  
>>>>>>> checks before opening any attachment.
>>>>>>> ================================================================ 
>>>>>>> ==============================
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------------------------
> mcnultyMEDIA
> 60 Birkdale Gardens
> Durham
> DH1 2UL
>
> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
> ====================================================================== 
> ========================
> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended  
> recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of  
> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its  
> contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent  
> is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error,  
> please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384  
> 4736
>
> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept  
> any liability sustained as a result of software viruses and would  
> recommend that you carry out your own virus checks before opening  
> any attachment.
> ====================================================================== 
> ========================

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

David,

I'm pleased Jonathon has been able to make such a positive contribution. 
I don't have his skill, talent or energy so can't contribute in the same 
way - much as I'd like to.

What I have tried to contribute is a different perspective - the view 
from the opposite end of the telescope - what it's like trying to fly 
this thing rather than overhaul the engines.

I understand completely the ready market you have for building executive 
Lear Jets. I've just been trying to put forward the proposition that 
there might be a bigger, more lucrative and in may ways easier one in 
building Jumbos for the Hoi Polloi.

$10 profit from 10M seats = $100M

$1M profit from 10 seats = $10M

It's not just the numbers. Executives who can afford Lear Jets need to 
have everything just so. The Hoi Polloi loading on board Jumbos in 
batches of 500 will accept a standard package that only has to please 
some of the people some of the time. (I think Abraham Lincoln said that ;)

That's the trick that all the big boys, from Intuit through Sage to 
Microsoft managed to pull off.

I remember my contempt when I saw the first 8086 machine running DOS and 
the first versions of Windows, Sage, and Quicken. In comparison to the 
IBM mainframes and Cray Supercomputers around at the time they weren't 
even decent toys. The idea that you might be able to use those systems 
as the foundation for developing enterprise level systems to replace 
mainframes was dangerous insanity. Put the future of Wall Street and SAC 
in the hands of a kiddies bedroom toy? Do me a favour. Get out of here. 
If I'm not mistaken, that's exactly what Intel said to Bill Gates when 
he gave them first refusal on DOS.

OK, so you've been very clear. You do not see it. And even if you did 
you probably wouldn't want to service that kind of market.

So what's the harm in giving those of us who do your blessing and enough 
rope to hang ourselves?

Ian



David E. Jones wrote:
>
> Jonathon,
>
> This is good feedback, and very unfortunate. It has been frustrating 
> to me for years that many users of OFBiz that even get it working well 
> for them in production real-world use simply don't get involved and 
> contribute back, and that happens to be the ONLY way anything gets 
> into the project.
>
> One way or another OFBiz really needs volunteers that are dedicated 
> and can contribute consistently and help moderate contributions as 
> well. The trick is getting people to help and commit. This is actually 
> the reason I'm not interested in investing in OOTB use for small 
> companies, they generally don't have the resources or expertise to 
> contribute much back.
>
> So, the project is what it is and moves as it does. Hundreds of 
> thousands of man-hours have gone into it, and as the project and world 
> progress we can really use more and more effort. We could easily put 
> in a million man-hours into this project and still have work to do 
> that would bring effective results that make a difference in the world.
>
> Thanks for the patches you've submitted and such Jonathon, BTW. I hope 
> you do get a chance to be more involved and one way or another I look 
> forward to hearing more from you.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Jan 21, 2007, at 11:41 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>
>> David,
>>
>> > So, just to be clear and try to rephrase what you said: the 
>> problems you are
>> > running into are caused by the approach used to customize and 
>> install OFBiz
>> > rather than OFBiz itself.
>>
>> Sigh. Alright, I'll leave it at that. I concede that M2M could be an 
>> application that deviates wildly from best practices in 
>> manufacturing. Concede that I may be trying to enter building from 
>> the 3rd floor window instead of the front door. Concede even that my 
>> boss may be a dim-wit to have structured his operations such that 
>> it's not as "best practices" as OFBiz is. No more arguments from me 
>> on this front.
>>
>> > You should know, if you don't already, that OFBiz is being used 
>> effectively
>> > in various manufacturing operations.
>>
>> Good to know. That's one of my main arguments I throw at boss in 
>> every desperate situation I've had in defending OFBiz.
>>
>> > If you're having trouble and the free support of the community 
>> isn't meeting
>> > your needs,
>>
>> No, we don't have such trouble. I only have trouble comprehending why 
>> I need to fix so many bugs and non-intuitive workflows in OFBiz given 
>> that it's supposed to be "best practices" (or maybe I misrepresented 
>> OFBiz to boss?).
>>
>> In fact, my series of circus acts (correcting OFBiz rapidly, adding 
>> functionalities, etc, all faster than OFBiz community can cope with) 
>> has pacified my boss' fears for now (for now only). We have no 
>> trouble working OFBiz at all.
>>
>> My main concern is the management of development of SVN trunk (I 
>> trust you're holding the beast on course, so it won't trample the 
>> fields it just ploughed). In the worst case, not that it'll happen, 
>> if OFBiz does die off, at least I'm left with a SUBSTANTIAL amount of 
>> work from which I can start building stuff. And I say again that we 
>> must all remember where all that "stuff" came from (OFBiz contributors).
>>
>> > have you considered engaging people who have successfully deployed 
>> OFBiz in a
>> > manufacturing setting?
>>
>> Yes, we had. But after getting some answers from some veterans I will 
>> not name, I am convinced that we couldn't have done it cheaper AND 
>> FASTER if we went with OFBiz veterans (folks who can work OFBiz in 
>> manufacturing setting). Nothing to do with how OFBiz is, just to do 
>> with economics. Oh yes, has a lot to do with adoption (Ian's long 
>> thread). Given a wider adoption due to better docs (entry guides), 
>> there'd be a lot of human resources around that can do the job cheap 
>> and fast. I'm not saying that should be your or OFBiz's direction.
>>
>> As it is now, we're moving ahead faster than OFBiz is, and I'm not 
>> talking about our specific needs aspect. I'm talking about bugs, 
>> incomplete functionalities (scaffolding in database, but not used), 
>> etc. I'm not even an OFBiz veteran.
>>
>> Our decision here was just pure economics.
>>
>> > If your time weren't so tight or if you had the luxury of more time 
>> to plan
>> > you could probably even get help from Jacopo. As I understand it he is
>> > working on a couple of fairly big contracts right now which is why 
>> he hasn't
>> > been as involved in OFBiz in the last few weeks (which is a big 
>> difference
>> > from before, BTW, we all have Jacopo to thank for a goodly 
>> percentage of what
>> > exists in OFBiz, especially in the manufacturing area).
>>
>> No fault of yours or OFBiz's. Just a matter of economics, like I said.
>>
>> As for Jacopo, we're watching him. :)
>>
>> Jonathon
>>
>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>> Jonathon,
>>> So, just to be clear and try to rephrase what you said: the problems 
>>> you are running into are caused by the approach used to customize 
>>> and install OFBiz rather than OFBiz itself.
>>> You should know, if you don't already, that OFBiz is being used 
>>> effectively in various manufacturing operations. If you're having 
>>> trouble and the free support of the community isn't meeting your 
>>> needs, have you considered engaging people who have successfully 
>>> deployed OFBiz in a manufacturing setting? If your time weren't so 
>>> tight or if you had the luxury of more time to plan you could 
>>> probably even get help from Jacopo. As I understand it he is working 
>>> on a couple of fairly big contracts right now which is why he hasn't 
>>> been as involved in OFBiz in the last few weeks (which is a big 
>>> difference from before, BTW, we all have Jacopo to thank for a 
>>> goodly percentage of what exists in OFBiz, especially in the 
>>> manufacturing area).
>>> -David
>>> On Jan 21, 2007, at 8:50 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>> David, Ian,
>>>>
>>>> I believe Ian has a point about "not yet fully developed". As 
>>>> discussed before, the OFBiz framework is fine, complete. It's 
>>>> what's built around the engine (car body, doors, windscreen wipers, 
>>>> seat ejection button, etc) that's incomplete, or to put it in a 
>>>> more PR way to potential customers, "buggy and requires debugging, 
>>>> is all". Let's make a distinction between OFBiz framework and 
>>>> OFBiz-ERP.
>>>>
>>>> David is right that OFBiz is hard, if not impossible, to use OOTB. 
>>>> That's not precisely because OFBiz-ERP is all done up but the 
>>>> market is so choosy and differentiated and finely-segmented, ie 
>>>> everybody has their own ways of doing business. It's because 
>>>> OFBiz-ERP functionalities are very much incomplete. Let's take 
>>>> Made2Manage, for instance. My first guesstimate for boss was:
>>>>
>>>> "I believe OFBiz-ERP is all there, best-practices way of doing 
>>>> things. So if M2M was any good for you at all, I believe we can 
>>>> move you to OFBiz-ERP easily. Only thing we have to work on is to 
>>>> cater for any special ways you do business, any proprietary secret 
>>>> ingenious workflows, any superstitious feng-shui requirements in 
>>>> your corporate culture, etc.".
>>>>
>>>> I'm currently in really hot soup for that wrong guesstimate. Boss 
>>>> has every right to stick with M2M now (a very strong and 
>>>> well-developed and well-supported product too).
>>>>
>>>> I wish I didn't have to say the above out loud. I realize it'll 
>>>> possibly raise red flags for potential OFBiz customers. But I don't 
>>>> know if I can live with sitting by and watching them moths come to 
>>>> a hot flame advertised as "kool light". No, I'm not publicizing my 
>>>> findings, just speaking up here since it seems Ian's (and myself 
>>>> and boss many weeks ago) been asking precisely the above for some 
>>>> time now without getting upfront "honest-to-God and 
>>>> honest-to-good-service" answers.
>>>>
>>>> If only Ian would just focus on how fantastic the OFBiz framework 
>>>> is, such as the entity engine, widgets (if documented right), etc. 
>>>> But I guess Ian's just trying to push us to address a vacuum, a 
>>>> vacuum that could well be blocking OFBiz from explosive world-wide 
>>>> adoption and popularity. And my guesstimate here would be (please 
>>>> let me be right this time!), Ian's right. OFBiz still rocks.
>>>>
>>>> My boss asked me if I would bet my career on OFBiz. I'd say that if 
>>>> I weren't a reverse-engineer in my past life, I'd be better off 
>>>> pushing a real OOTB solution to him and work on impromptu 
>>>> patches/integration to get specialized functionalities welded into 
>>>> that OOTB solution. But bear in mind that I have impossible 
>>>> deadlines (barely a month to cut OFBiz for a sizeable manufacturing 
>>>> operation, didn't figure in bugfixes I had to do myself). So if you 
>>>> could get a sucker to pay $30,000 over 3 months for you to tailor 
>>>> OFBiz, you're on safe(r) ground. Yes, I know, my cases are always 
>>>> close to crazy (that's the way I live).
>>>>
>>>> Don't mind speaking this plainly. I'm intending to work with Ian on 
>>>> that vacuum. I hope we have some volunteers from the community 
>>>> veterans, but if not, we're going ahead ourselves.
>>>>
>>>> But please EVERYBODY here be aware that whether we go it ourselves 
>>>> or with community's blessing/hand-holding, we will STILL be 
>>>> practically leeching off the community's charitable work in OFBiz 
>>>> (SVN trunk). Proper perspective. Just FYI. Remember that.
>>>>
>>>> Jonathon
>>>>
>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>> Ian,
>>>>> About this question:
>>>>>> In my ignorance I kind of assumed that once I had a stable 
>>>>>> version running it would - like my old QuickBooks 3 - keep on 
>>>>>> going without too much trouble. Provided I didn't want to start 
>>>>>> customizing and upgrading that is.
>>>>>> OK. So new security breaches and the necessary patches to block 
>>>>>> them are to be expected. I have that already with existing Open 
>>>>>> Source LAMP e-commerce installations. The cost of keeping them 
>>>>>> secure is not particularly great. What is it about OFBiz that 
>>>>>> would make maintenance a luxury I might not be able to afford? 
>>>>>> Please expand.
>>>>> Unless you automate only a small part of what you do in your 
>>>>> company, which is usually the case for small companies, you will 
>>>>> HAVE to change the software to meet the needs of the company over 
>>>>> time. Unfortunately (for us software peoples) not every company 
>>>>> does exactly the same thing. Even more unfortunately is that the 
>>>>> same company, large or small, does not do the same thing from one 
>>>>> year to the next (or even smaller time periods). Small companies 
>>>>> can get away with a single OOTB system because they only automate 
>>>>> a very small part of what they do. As companies grow they MUST 
>>>>> automate more and more of what they or the company is likely to fail.
>>>>> As far as up-front and ongoing costs go for OFBiz in relation to 
>>>>> what you need, you hinted at an answer yourself in this paragraph:
>>>>>> When I first discovered OFBiz a couple of months ago I was 
>>>>>> thunderstruck. Not only did the e-commerce front-end look every 
>>>>>> bit as good as the LAMP systems I've been installing, but the 
>>>>>> whole concept and framework looked like it ought to knock both 
>>>>>> Microsoft and Sage into a cocked hat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I say 'looked like' because, of course, I have subsequently 
>>>>>> discovered from my short time on this list that OFBiz is not yet 
>>>>>> as fully developed as I first thought it to be.
>>>>> This means something different for everyone. Some companies are 
>>>>> able to use OFBiz 100% out of the box, but this is rare and 
>>>>> usually means, as mentioned above, that they are only automated a 
>>>>> fairly small percentage of what they do.
>>>>> So, the question that will answer your question is: what do you 
>>>>> mean by this? In other words, what are the details behind the 
>>>>> statement "OFBiz is not yet as fully developed as I first thought 
>>>>> it to be"?
>>>>> The answer to that initially and over time, for your company or 
>>>>> each of your clients, is the answer to how much work will be 
>>>>> necessary to "install" and "support" the system (ie customize and 
>>>>> maintain in more honest terms).
>>>>> -David
>>>>> On Jan 21, 2007, at 9:50 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>> Andrew,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not looking for anything specific at the moment. Just trying 
>>>>>> to evaluate current options and keep on top of developments in 
>>>>>> the hope of offering clients the best, most flexible, most 
>>>>>> long-term solutions I can find.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I checked out GnuCash and SQL Ledger before I discovered OFBiz. 
>>>>>> They both look fine, as far as small business accounting packages 
>>>>>> go. You're not going to believe this, but I personally still use 
>>>>>> QuickBooks 3 which I bought for less than $200 more than 15 years 
>>>>>> ago to run on Windows 3.1. Since then I've used it to produce 
>>>>>> budgets, VAT returns and year-end accounts for up to 4 different 
>>>>>> companies at the same time - some with turnovers around the $1M 
>>>>>> mark. It has its limitations and idiosyncrasies; but it runs like 
>>>>>> lightning on XP, has never crashed even once or given me any kind 
>>>>>> of problems at all (touch wood!!!)  So it's going to take 
>>>>>> something pretty special to persuade me to change to anything else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I started looking at OFBiz as a solution to problems I can see 
>>>>>> starting to appear on the horizon for clients with established 
>>>>>> bricks-and-mortar wholesale and retail businesses for whom I have 
>>>>>> been installing Open Source e-commerce solutions over the past 
>>>>>> few years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All started with no web presence, all are now finding online 
>>>>>> sales becoming a significant and in some cases the major part of 
>>>>>> their businesses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the beginning, integration with existing in-store EPOS and 
>>>>>> accounting systems from the likes of MS, Intuit and Sage was not 
>>>>>> an issue. Now it is quickly becoming the main one as staff spend 
>>>>>> increasingly longer amounts of time transferring information on 
>>>>>> paper and re-keying the same data into 3 different systems 
>>>>>> running in parallel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have been trying to keep on top of this by installing patches 
>>>>>> and plugins to get the different systems to talk to each other. 
>>>>>> But bespoke integration with closed-source, proprietary systems 
>>>>>> is an arduous and expensive business that few clients can afford. 
>>>>>> More to the point, it is a very 'tacky' and incomplete solution 
>>>>>> as it depends largely on staff following rigorously prescribed 
>>>>>> synchronisation routines to prevent transactions colliding, 
>>>>>> falling over each other and cancelling each other out. Most staff 
>>>>>> working at this level will ignore the rules and cut corners if 
>>>>>> they can, resulting in tangles of inaccurate data which threaten 
>>>>>> to bring the whole business crashing around everyone's ears.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Microsoft and Sage spotted the problems and the opportunities 
>>>>>> several years ago, and are now offering their own e-commerce 
>>>>>> clones seamlessly integrated with their own back-ends. I lost my 
>>>>>> biggest client to them just before Christmas. If I can not offer 
>>>>>> equivalent backend Open Source integration then it won't be long 
>>>>>> before I lose all the rest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I first discovered OFBiz a couple of months ago I was 
>>>>>> thunderstruck. Not only did the e-commerce front-end look every 
>>>>>> bit as good as the LAMP systems I've been installing, but the 
>>>>>> whole concept and framework looked like it ought to knock both 
>>>>>> Microsoft and Sage into a cocked hat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I say 'looked like' because, of course, I have subsequently 
>>>>>> discovered from my short time on this list that OFBiz is not yet 
>>>>>> as fully developed as I first thought it to be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your analogy with office space is interesting but I'm not 
>>>>>> entirely convinced it compares like with like. The cost of 
>>>>>> over-capacity in bricks-and-mortar space is clearly very heavy. 
>>>>>> The cost of over-capacity in Open Source virtual software space, 
>>>>>> not necessarily so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the other hand, the cost of not building into the virtual 
>>>>>> software space the option for future expansion could well be 
>>>>>> crippling. It isn't just the cost of new installations and 
>>>>>> transfer of data. The major cost is staff retraining. People who 
>>>>>> adapt easily to such things do not usually end up working as 
>>>>>> warehousemen or office clerks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your Project-Open link looks like it might be able to do what I 
>>>>>> need. The use of virtualisation looks very attractive. The web 
>>>>>> site is clean and crisp. The lack of forums, user groups or 
>>>>>> mailing lists is not so encouraging. I haven't even scratched the 
>>>>>> surface yet so I have no idea how it compares with OFBiz. When I 
>>>>>> do I promise to let you know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One thing you say at the end of your posting really does concern me:
>>>>>>> Can you really afford the luxury of servicing
>>>>>>> something as large as OfBiz en route?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was aware that the cost of installing a usable version of OFBiz 
>>>>>> might not be inconsiderable. But I had no idea that the cost of 
>>>>>> servicing it could be so high it could be a luxury I might not be 
>>>>>> able to afford.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In my ignorance I kind of assumed that once I had a stable 
>>>>>> version running it would - like my old QuickBooks 3 - keep on 
>>>>>> going without too much trouble. Provided I didn't want to start 
>>>>>> customizing and upgrading that is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK. So new security breaches and the necessary patches to block 
>>>>>> them are to be expected. I have that already with existing Open 
>>>>>> Source LAMP e-commerce installations. The cost of keeping them 
>>>>>> secure is not particularly great. What is it about OFBiz that 
>>>>>> would make maintenance a luxury I might not be able to afford? 
>>>>>> Please expand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andrew Sykes wrote:
>>>>>>> Ian,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It depends on what you're looking for.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the focus is still a "small business accounting package" as the
>>>>>>> subject line says - I know I know, there have been a zillion 
>>>>>>> posts to
>>>>>>> this thread, so perhaps not. - If it's accounting, two spring to 
>>>>>>> mind...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For a desktop system, have a look at GnuCash...
>>>>>>> http://www.gnucash.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For a web based system, SQLLedger seems good and I've heard a few
>>>>>>> favourable reports about it...
>>>>>>> http://www.sql-ledger.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Finally, for a project which *seems* to have a more OOTB focus, 
>>>>>>> although
>>>>>>> I've really only started looking at it this weekend, take a look 
>>>>>>> at the
>>>>>>> Project:Open stuff...
>>>>>>> http://www.project-open.com/
>>>>>>> I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this one as I've only 
>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>> scratched the surface...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One of the criteria you should consider is the cost of upgrading 
>>>>>>> from an
>>>>>>> OOTB solution sometime in the future versus the cost of 
>>>>>>> implementing
>>>>>>> OfBiz now. Generally if you are at the stage of being an 
>>>>>>> enterprise with
>>>>>>> more "M" than "S" turnover (SME) and have implemented a lot of 
>>>>>>> bespoke
>>>>>>> business processes which form part of you USP then OfBiz is a 
>>>>>>> safe bet.
>>>>>>> If you plan to get to that point one day, it's probably better 
>>>>>>> waiting
>>>>>>> for that day to come and using something OOTB in the meantime. 
>>>>>>> Consider
>>>>>>> the analogy with office space, you wouldn't buy up half an 
>>>>>>> industrial
>>>>>>> estate because the business plan you had written in your front 
>>>>>>> room said
>>>>>>> one day you'd be bigger than ICI! Even if you factored the cost of
>>>>>>> hiring a van to help with the move, it would still look a bit 
>>>>>>> dodgy on
>>>>>>> the balance sheet!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Choosing the right system is about being on top of your overall 
>>>>>>> business
>>>>>>> strategy, where are you going? how long and how much is it going 
>>>>>>> to take
>>>>>>> to get you there? Can you really afford the luxury of servicing
>>>>>>> something as large as OfBiz en route?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Andrew
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 09:58 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OK David. Maybe just one last thing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No more soap-boxing. A simple question for a change :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Looking around the OFBiz documents and such I don't think this 
>>>>>>>>> distinction is adequately represented, so I added some text 
>>>>>>>>> similar to the above to the home page of ofbiz.apache.org. It 
>>>>>>>>> should be public within a few hours, ie whenever the next 
>>>>>>>>> deployment job runs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Reading your new text, this stood out:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "OFBiz can certainly be used OOTB (out of the box), but if 
>>>>>>>> you're looking for something that works really well for that 
>>>>>>>> there are many open source projects that do a great job there."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OK. So maybe those projects might be more what I'm looking for.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I searched a couple of months ago and didn't find anything I 
>>>>>>>> thought could do a better job than OFBiz. What other open 
>>>>>>>> source projects are you thinking of here?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 3:49 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Chris, David, Everybody.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> One last thought on the subject before I have my porridge and 
>>>>>>>>>> another lie down ;)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if any of you guys have ever taken a good hard 
>>>>>>>>>> look at the osCommerce, Zen Cart or Ubuntu forums?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.zen-cart.com/forum
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://forums.oscommerce.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ubuntuforums.org/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes. I know php is nasty. But that's not the point.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Look at the accessibility and structure of the interface.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All user levels are accommodated.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All find their natural place.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nearly a quarter of a million members on Ubuntu. 120K on 
>>>>>>>>>> osCommerce. 2,347 and 824 currently active respectively at 
>>>>>>>>>> this very moment as we speak
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A working model of how to build a user base surely, if 
>>>>>>>>>> nothing else?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Chris Howe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ian,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> While I certainly enjoy the analogies, who are you
>>>>>>>>>>> ultimately suggesting create these lowest common
>>>>>>>>>>> denominator (LCD) documents?
>>>>>>>>>>> As has already been mentioned, once you pass that
>>>>>>>>>>> "aha" moment in OFBiz, it's difficult to understand
>>>>>>>>>>> why the engineering documentation didn't make sense
>>>>>>>>>>> the first time around.  3D vector calculus, as you put
>>>>>>>>>>> it, seems so elementary obvious at that point that
>>>>>>>>>>> it's difficult to convey it in simpler terms; even
>>>>>>>>>>> though you remember it not being obvious when you
>>>>>>>>>>> started.  I don't think it's very time/quality
>>>>>>>>>>> productive for someone who's passed that "aha" moment
>>>>>>>>>>> to produce this documentation; at least not without
>>>>>>>>>>> the aid of an "uninitiated".
>>>>>>>>>>> If you'd like to be that test subject, I'm sure there
>>>>>>>>>>> are a mess of people, including myself, that would be
>>>>>>>>>>> willing to help explain things to you as you make your
>>>>>>>>>>> way through the concepts, documenting as you go.  But
>>>>>>>>>>> the POV of the documentation cannot be from someone
>>>>>>>>>>> who's already gotten the bird off the ground, because
>>>>>>>>>>> they're not really sure which button they pressed to
>>>>>>>>>>> make it all seem second nature.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --- Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't get the proposition that there are 100
>>>>>>>>>>>> different pilot roles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There are many 1,000s  of different destinations.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe more than a dozen different pilot roles (commercial, 
>>>>>>>>>>>> fighter,
>>>>>>>>>>>> bomber, spotter, etc.). But but there IS a lowest common 
>>>>>>>>>>>> denominator.
>>>>>>>>>>>> They all fly planes. They all start off on fixed wing, single
>>>>>>>>>>>> engine props. They all need to understand basic navigation, 
>>>>>>>>>>>> aerodynamics,
>>>>>>>>>>>> flight-engineering etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But it is very basic. The need to understand lift,
>>>>>>>>>>>> drag, how to calculate take off velocities etc. But I doubt if
>>>>>>>>>>>> they start of with 3D vector calculus or need to know what 
>>>>>>>>>>>> a Reynold's
>>>>>>>>>>>> number is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So why can't the target be whatever denominators are
>>>>>>>>>>>> common to all pilots?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How to find the door handle and the start button
>>>>>>>>>>>> would be top of my list. If they can't find those then they 
>>>>>>>>>>>> ain't never
>>>>>>>>>>>> gonna fly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see where you're coming from on this. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> project is better
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> documented than anything else I've seen in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> field.You yourself
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have produced a truly awesome amount of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> documentation. I don't know
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where you find the time. All are extremely well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> written, very clear,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very well laid out. A model of their kind. (No
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sucking up - I
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean it :) So what could possibly be the problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I found the Introduction Videos and Diagrams page
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> you link to here a
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple of days ago myself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was whilst working through these videos that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> the light bulb went off.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you're talking us through is a diagram of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> the wiring harness of
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a jumbo jet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Essential for the engineers who need to service
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely the last kind of map a pilot wants to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> find on his lap.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Know what I mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Uh, yeah, that's because it is meant to cover the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> framework, not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> applications. The two are very different, change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> very differently,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to be understood by different people in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> different ways, etc. My
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> current estimate is that to produce something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> adequate for a "pilot",
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> given that there are about 100 different "pilot"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> roles in OFBiz, would
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> require many times the effort to produce that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> framework videos
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with their diagrams, reference materials,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> transcriptions, etc. Right
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> now I don't have the $500k to get into that... and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> the $40k already
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> spent on the documents which are now PDF-dumped
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> into the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> docs.ofbiz.org site was clearly inadequate,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> especially as it is mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference materials (which is why you won't find
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> how-to stuff in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference guides, they are references after all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> just for reference
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> purposes). The Application Overview for Users is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> probably more of what
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're looking for, though that section only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> represents maybe 3-5% of
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what is in OFBiz right now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, that's assuming such documents could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> even be written in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> way that is close to generally useful. How do I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> use it? Well, that
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> depends on what you want to do... and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> unfortunately across a few
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> different industries that list grows into hundreds
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> of thousands of
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> activities...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, that's the big question with any document: who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> is the target
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> audience? The more specific the answer, the better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> the document will
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> address their needs. But who is the target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> audience for OFBiz? ... ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>>>>>>>>>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>>>>>>>>>>> Durham
>>>>>>>>>>>> DH1 2UL
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>>>>>>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>>>>>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> intended recipient(s) named above and is
>>>>>>>>>>>> confidential. Any form of distribution, copying,
>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion or use of this communication, its
>>>>>>>>>>>> contents, or any information contained herein
>>>>>>>>>>>> without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you
>>>>>>>>>>>> receive this communication in error, please notify
>>>>>>>>>>>> the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191
>>>>>>>>>>>> 384 4736
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we
>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of
>>>>>>>>>>>> software viruses and would recommend that you carry
>>>>>>>>>>>> out your own virus checks before opening any
>>>>>>>>>>>> attachment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>>>>>>>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>>>>>>>>> Durham
>>>>>>>>>> DH1 2UL
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>>>>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>>>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended 
>>>>>>>>>> recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of 
>>>>>>>>>> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this 
>>>>>>>>>> communication, its contents, or any information contained 
>>>>>>>>>> herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you 
>>>>>>>>>> receive this communication in error, please notify the sender 
>>>>>>>>>> by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot 
>>>>>>>>>> accept any liability sustained as a result of software 
>>>>>>>>>> viruses and would recommend that you carry out your own virus 
>>>>>>>>>> checks before opening any attachment.
>>>>>>>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>>>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>>>>> Durham
>>>>>> DH1 2UL
>>>>>>
>>>>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended 
>>>>>> recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of 
>>>>>> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, 
>>>>>> its contents, or any information contained herein without prior 
>>>>>> consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication 
>>>>>> in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on 
>>>>>> +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot 
>>>>>> accept any liability sustained as a result of software viruses 
>>>>>> and would recommend that you carry out your own virus checks 
>>>>>> before opening any attachment.
>>>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>

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

t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736

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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

["David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

Jonathon,

This is good feedback, and very unfortunate. It has been frustrating  
to me for years that many users of OFBiz that even get it working  
well for them in production real-world use simply don't get involved  
and contribute back, and that happens to be the ONLY way anything  
gets into the project.

One way or another OFBiz really needs volunteers that are dedicated  
and can contribute consistently and help moderate contributions as  
well. The trick is getting people to help and commit. This is  
actually the reason I'm not interested in investing in OOTB use for  
small companies, they generally don't have the resources or expertise  
to contribute much back.

So, the project is what it is and moves as it does. Hundreds of  
thousands of man-hours have gone into it, and as the project and  
world progress we can really use more and more effort. We could  
easily put in a million man-hours into this project and still have  
work to do that would bring effective results that make a difference  
in the world.

Thanks for the patches you've submitted and such Jonathon, BTW. I  
hope you do get a chance to be more involved and one way or another I  
look forward to hearing more from you.

-David


On Jan 21, 2007, at 11:41 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:

> David,
>
> > So, just to be clear and try to rephrase what you said: the  
> problems you are
> > running into are caused by the approach used to customize and  
> install OFBiz
> > rather than OFBiz itself.
>
> Sigh. Alright, I'll leave it at that. I concede that M2M could be  
> an application that deviates wildly from best practices in  
> manufacturing. Concede that I may be trying to enter building from  
> the 3rd floor window instead of the front door. Concede even that  
> my boss may be a dim-wit to have structured his operations such  
> that it's not as "best practices" as OFBiz is. No more arguments  
> from me on this front.
>
> > You should know, if you don't already, that OFBiz is being used  
> effectively
> > in various manufacturing operations.
>
> Good to know. That's one of my main arguments I throw at boss in  
> every desperate situation I've had in defending OFBiz.
>
> > If you're having trouble and the free support of the community  
> isn't meeting
> > your needs,
>
> No, we don't have such trouble. I only have trouble comprehending  
> why I need to fix so many bugs and non-intuitive workflows in OFBiz  
> given that it's supposed to be "best practices" (or maybe I  
> misrepresented OFBiz to boss?).
>
> In fact, my series of circus acts (correcting OFBiz rapidly, adding  
> functionalities, etc, all faster than OFBiz community can cope  
> with) has pacified my boss' fears for now (for now only). We have  
> no trouble working OFBiz at all.
>
> My main concern is the management of development of SVN trunk (I  
> trust you're holding the beast on course, so it won't trample the  
> fields it just ploughed). In the worst case, not that it'll happen,  
> if OFBiz does die off, at least I'm left with a SUBSTANTIAL amount  
> of work from which I can start building stuff. And I say again that  
> we must all remember where all that "stuff" came from (OFBiz  
> contributors).
>
> > have you considered engaging people who have successfully  
> deployed OFBiz in a
> > manufacturing setting?
>
> Yes, we had. But after getting some answers from some veterans I  
> will not name, I am convinced that we couldn't have done it cheaper  
> AND FASTER if we went with OFBiz veterans (folks who can work OFBiz  
> in manufacturing setting). Nothing to do with how OFBiz is, just to  
> do with economics. Oh yes, has a lot to do with adoption (Ian's  
> long thread). Given a wider adoption due to better docs (entry  
> guides), there'd be a lot of human resources around that can do the  
> job cheap and fast. I'm not saying that should be your or OFBiz's  
> direction.
>
> As it is now, we're moving ahead faster than OFBiz is, and I'm not  
> talking about our specific needs aspect. I'm talking about bugs,  
> incomplete functionalities (scaffolding in database, but not used),  
> etc. I'm not even an OFBiz veteran.
>
> Our decision here was just pure economics.
>
> > If your time weren't so tight or if you had the luxury of more  
> time to plan
> > you could probably even get help from Jacopo. As I understand it  
> he is
> > working on a couple of fairly big contracts right now which is  
> why he hasn't
> > been as involved in OFBiz in the last few weeks (which is a big  
> difference
> > from before, BTW, we all have Jacopo to thank for a goodly  
> percentage of what
> > exists in OFBiz, especially in the manufacturing area).
>
> No fault of yours or OFBiz's. Just a matter of economics, like I said.
>
> As for Jacopo, we're watching him. :)
>
> Jonathon
>
> David E. Jones wrote:
>> Jonathon,
>> So, just to be clear and try to rephrase what you said: the  
>> problems you are running into are caused by the approach used to  
>> customize and install OFBiz rather than OFBiz itself.
>> You should know, if you don't already, that OFBiz is being used  
>> effectively in various manufacturing operations. If you're having  
>> trouble and the free support of the community isn't meeting your  
>> needs, have you considered engaging people who have successfully  
>> deployed OFBiz in a manufacturing setting? If your time weren't so  
>> tight or if you had the luxury of more time to plan you could  
>> probably even get help from Jacopo. As I understand it he is  
>> working on a couple of fairly big contracts right now which is why  
>> he hasn't been as involved in OFBiz in the last few weeks (which  
>> is a big difference from before, BTW, we all have Jacopo to thank  
>> for a goodly percentage of what exists in OFBiz, especially in the  
>> manufacturing area).
>> -David
>> On Jan 21, 2007, at 8:50 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>> David, Ian,
>>>
>>> I believe Ian has a point about "not yet fully developed". As  
>>> discussed before, the OFBiz framework is fine, complete. It's  
>>> what's built around the engine (car body, doors, windscreen  
>>> wipers, seat ejection button, etc) that's incomplete, or to put  
>>> it in a more PR way to potential customers, "buggy and requires  
>>> debugging, is all". Let's make a distinction between OFBiz  
>>> framework and OFBiz-ERP.
>>>
>>> David is right that OFBiz is hard, if not impossible, to use  
>>> OOTB. That's not precisely because OFBiz-ERP is all done up but  
>>> the market is so choosy and differentiated and finely-segmented,  
>>> ie everybody has their own ways of doing business. It's because  
>>> OFBiz-ERP functionalities are very much incomplete. Let's take  
>>> Made2Manage, for instance. My first guesstimate for boss was:
>>>
>>> "I believe OFBiz-ERP is all there, best-practices way of doing  
>>> things. So if M2M was any good for you at all, I believe we can  
>>> move you to OFBiz-ERP easily. Only thing we have to work on is to  
>>> cater for any special ways you do business, any proprietary  
>>> secret ingenious workflows, any superstitious feng-shui  
>>> requirements in your corporate culture, etc.".
>>>
>>> I'm currently in really hot soup for that wrong guesstimate. Boss  
>>> has every right to stick with M2M now (a very strong and well- 
>>> developed and well-supported product too).
>>>
>>> I wish I didn't have to say the above out loud. I realize it'll  
>>> possibly raise red flags for potential OFBiz customers. But I  
>>> don't know if I can live with sitting by and watching them moths  
>>> come to a hot flame advertised as "kool light". No, I'm not  
>>> publicizing my findings, just speaking up here since it seems  
>>> Ian's (and myself and boss many weeks ago) been asking precisely  
>>> the above for some time now without getting upfront "honest-to- 
>>> God and honest-to-good-service" answers.
>>>
>>> If only Ian would just focus on how fantastic the OFBiz framework  
>>> is, such as the entity engine, widgets (if documented right),  
>>> etc. But I guess Ian's just trying to push us to address a  
>>> vacuum, a vacuum that could well be blocking OFBiz from explosive  
>>> world-wide adoption and popularity. And my guesstimate here would  
>>> be (please let me be right this time!), Ian's right. OFBiz still  
>>> rocks.
>>>
>>> My boss asked me if I would bet my career on OFBiz. I'd say that  
>>> if I weren't a reverse-engineer in my past life, I'd be better  
>>> off pushing a real OOTB solution to him and work on impromptu  
>>> patches/integration to get specialized functionalities welded  
>>> into that OOTB solution. But bear in mind that I have impossible  
>>> deadlines (barely a month to cut OFBiz for a sizeable  
>>> manufacturing operation, didn't figure in bugfixes I had to do  
>>> myself). So if you could get a sucker to pay $30,000 over 3  
>>> months for you to tailor OFBiz, you're on safe(r) ground. Yes, I  
>>> know, my cases are always close to crazy (that's the way I live).
>>>
>>> Don't mind speaking this plainly. I'm intending to work with Ian  
>>> on that vacuum. I hope we have some volunteers from the community  
>>> veterans, but if not, we're going ahead ourselves.
>>>
>>> But please EVERYBODY here be aware that whether we go it  
>>> ourselves or with community's blessing/hand-holding, we will  
>>> STILL be practically leeching off the community's charitable work  
>>> in OFBiz (SVN trunk). Proper perspective. Just FYI. Remember that.
>>>
>>> Jonathon
>>>
>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>> Ian,
>>>> About this question:
>>>>> In my ignorance I kind of assumed that once I had a stable  
>>>>> version running it would - like my old QuickBooks 3 - keep on  
>>>>> going without too much trouble. Provided I didn't want to start  
>>>>> customizing and upgrading that is.
>>>>> OK. So new security breaches and the necessary patches to block  
>>>>> them are to be expected. I have that already with existing Open  
>>>>> Source LAMP e-commerce installations. The cost of keeping them  
>>>>> secure is not particularly great. What is it about OFBiz that  
>>>>> would make maintenance a luxury I might not be able to afford?  
>>>>> Please expand.
>>>> Unless you automate only a small part of what you do in your  
>>>> company, which is usually the case for small companies, you will  
>>>> HAVE to change the software to meet the needs of the company  
>>>> over time. Unfortunately (for us software peoples) not every  
>>>> company does exactly the same thing. Even more unfortunately is  
>>>> that the same company, large or small, does not do the same  
>>>> thing from one year to the next (or even smaller time periods).  
>>>> Small companies can get away with a single OOTB system because  
>>>> they only automate a very small part of what they do. As  
>>>> companies grow they MUST automate more and more of what they or  
>>>> the company is likely to fail.
>>>> As far as up-front and ongoing costs go for OFBiz in relation to  
>>>> what you need, you hinted at an answer yourself in this paragraph:
>>>>> When I first discovered OFBiz a couple of months ago I was  
>>>>> thunderstruck. Not only did the e-commerce front-end look every  
>>>>> bit as good as the LAMP systems I've been installing, but the  
>>>>> whole concept and framework looked like it ought to knock both  
>>>>> Microsoft and Sage into a cocked hat.
>>>>>
>>>>> I say 'looked like' because, of course, I have subsequently  
>>>>> discovered from my short time on this list that OFBiz is not  
>>>>> yet as fully developed as I first thought it to be.
>>>> This means something different for everyone. Some companies are  
>>>> able to use OFBiz 100% out of the box, but this is rare and  
>>>> usually means, as mentioned above, that they are only automated  
>>>> a fairly small percentage of what they do.
>>>> So, the question that will answer your question is: what do you  
>>>> mean by this? In other words, what are the details behind the  
>>>> statement "OFBiz is not yet as fully developed as I first  
>>>> thought it to be"?
>>>> The answer to that initially and over time, for your company or  
>>>> each of your clients, is the answer to how much work will be  
>>>> necessary to "install" and "support" the system (ie customize  
>>>> and maintain in more honest terms).
>>>> -David
>>>> On Jan 21, 2007, at 9:50 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>> Andrew,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not looking for anything specific at the moment. Just  
>>>>> trying to evaluate current options and keep on top of  
>>>>> developments in the hope of offering clients the best, most  
>>>>> flexible, most long-term solutions I can find.
>>>>>
>>>>> I checked out GnuCash and SQL Ledger before I discovered OFBiz.  
>>>>> They both look fine, as far as small business accounting  
>>>>> packages go. You're not going to believe this, but I personally  
>>>>> still use QuickBooks 3 which I bought for less than $200 more  
>>>>> than 15 years ago to run on Windows 3.1. Since then I've used  
>>>>> it to produce budgets, VAT returns and year-end accounts for up  
>>>>> to 4 different companies at the same time - some with turnovers  
>>>>> around the $1M mark. It has its limitations and idiosyncrasies;  
>>>>> but it runs like lightning on XP, has never crashed even once  
>>>>> or given me any kind of problems at all (touch wood!!!)  So  
>>>>> it's going to take something pretty special to persuade me to  
>>>>> change to anything else.
>>>>>
>>>>> I started looking at OFBiz as a solution to problems I can see  
>>>>> starting to appear on the horizon for clients with established  
>>>>> bricks-and-mortar wholesale and retail businesses for whom I  
>>>>> have been installing Open Source e-commerce solutions over the  
>>>>> past few years.
>>>>>
>>>>> All started with no web presence, all are now finding online  
>>>>> sales becoming a significant and in some cases the major part  
>>>>> of their businesses.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the beginning, integration with existing in-store EPOS and  
>>>>> accounting systems from the likes of MS, Intuit and Sage was  
>>>>> not an issue. Now it is quickly becoming the main one as staff  
>>>>> spend increasingly longer amounts of time transferring  
>>>>> information on paper and re-keying the same data into 3  
>>>>> different systems running in parallel.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been trying to keep on top of this by installing patches  
>>>>> and plugins to get the different systems to talk to each other.  
>>>>> But bespoke integration with closed-source, proprietary systems  
>>>>> is an arduous and expensive business that few clients can  
>>>>> afford. More to the point, it is a very 'tacky' and incomplete  
>>>>> solution as it depends largely on staff following rigorously  
>>>>> prescribed synchronisation routines to prevent transactions  
>>>>> colliding, falling over each other and cancelling each other  
>>>>> out. Most staff working at this level will ignore the rules and  
>>>>> cut corners if they can, resulting in tangles of inaccurate  
>>>>> data which threaten to bring the whole business crashing around  
>>>>> everyone's ears.
>>>>>
>>>>> Microsoft and Sage spotted the problems and the opportunities  
>>>>> several years ago, and are now offering their own e-commerce  
>>>>> clones seamlessly integrated with their own back-ends. I lost  
>>>>> my biggest client to them just before Christmas. If I can not  
>>>>> offer equivalent backend Open Source integration then it won't  
>>>>> be long before I lose all the rest.
>>>>>
>>>>> When I first discovered OFBiz a couple of months ago I was  
>>>>> thunderstruck. Not only did the e-commerce front-end look every  
>>>>> bit as good as the LAMP systems I've been installing, but the  
>>>>> whole concept and framework looked like it ought to knock both  
>>>>> Microsoft and Sage into a cocked hat.
>>>>>
>>>>> I say 'looked like' because, of course, I have subsequently  
>>>>> discovered from my short time on this list that OFBiz is not  
>>>>> yet as fully developed as I first thought it to be.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your analogy with office space is interesting but I'm not  
>>>>> entirely convinced it compares like with like. The cost of over- 
>>>>> capacity in bricks-and-mortar space is clearly very heavy. The  
>>>>> cost of over-capacity in Open Source virtual software space,  
>>>>> not necessarily so.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other hand, the cost of not building into the virtual  
>>>>> software space the option for future expansion could well be  
>>>>> crippling. It isn't just the cost of new installations and  
>>>>> transfer of data. The major cost is staff retraining. People  
>>>>> who adapt easily to such things do not usually end up working  
>>>>> as warehousemen or office clerks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your Project-Open link looks like it might be able to do what I  
>>>>> need. The use of virtualisation looks very attractive. The web  
>>>>> site is clean and crisp. The lack of forums, user groups or  
>>>>> mailing lists is not so encouraging. I haven't even scratched  
>>>>> the surface yet so I have no idea how it compares with OFBiz.  
>>>>> When I do I promise to let you know.
>>>>>
>>>>> One thing you say at the end of your posting really does  
>>>>> concern me:
>>>>>> Can you really afford the luxury of servicing
>>>>>> something as large as OfBiz en route?
>>>>>>
>>>>> I was aware that the cost of installing a usable version of  
>>>>> OFBiz might not be inconsiderable. But I had no idea that the  
>>>>> cost of servicing it could be so high it could be a luxury I  
>>>>> might not be able to afford.
>>>>>
>>>>> In my ignorance I kind of assumed that once I had a stable  
>>>>> version running it would - like my old QuickBooks 3 - keep on  
>>>>> going without too much trouble. Provided I didn't want to start  
>>>>> customizing and upgrading that is.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK. So new security breaches and the necessary patches to block  
>>>>> them are to be expected. I have that already with existing Open  
>>>>> Source LAMP e-commerce installations. The cost of keeping them  
>>>>> secure is not particularly great. What is it about OFBiz that  
>>>>> would make maintenance a luxury I might not be able to afford?  
>>>>> Please expand.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrew Sykes wrote:
>>>>>> Ian,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It depends on what you're looking for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the focus is still a "small business accounting package" as  
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> subject line says - I know I know, there have been a zillion  
>>>>>> posts to
>>>>>> this thread, so perhaps not. - If it's accounting, two spring  
>>>>>> to mind...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For a desktop system, have a look at GnuCash...
>>>>>> http://www.gnucash.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For a web based system, SQLLedger seems good and I've heard a few
>>>>>> favourable reports about it...
>>>>>> http://www.sql-ledger.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Finally, for a project which *seems* to have a more OOTB  
>>>>>> focus, although
>>>>>> I've really only started looking at it this weekend, take a  
>>>>>> look at the
>>>>>> Project:Open stuff...
>>>>>> http://www.project-open.com/
>>>>>> I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this one as I've  
>>>>>> only just
>>>>>> scratched the surface...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One of the criteria you should consider is the cost of  
>>>>>> upgrading from an
>>>>>> OOTB solution sometime in the future versus the cost of  
>>>>>> implementing
>>>>>> OfBiz now. Generally if you are at the stage of being an  
>>>>>> enterprise with
>>>>>> more "M" than "S" turnover (SME) and have implemented a lot of  
>>>>>> bespoke
>>>>>> business processes which form part of you USP then OfBiz is a  
>>>>>> safe bet.
>>>>>> If you plan to get to that point one day, it's probably better  
>>>>>> waiting
>>>>>> for that day to come and using something OOTB in the meantime.  
>>>>>> Consider
>>>>>> the analogy with office space, you wouldn't buy up half an  
>>>>>> industrial
>>>>>> estate because the business plan you had written in your front  
>>>>>> room said
>>>>>> one day you'd be bigger than ICI! Even if you factored the  
>>>>>> cost of
>>>>>> hiring a van to help with the move, it would still look a bit  
>>>>>> dodgy on
>>>>>> the balance sheet!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Choosing the right system is about being on top of your  
>>>>>> overall business
>>>>>> strategy, where are you going? how long and how much is it  
>>>>>> going to take
>>>>>> to get you there? Can you really afford the luxury of servicing
>>>>>> something as large as OfBiz en route?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Andrew
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 09:58 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK David. Maybe just one last thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No more soap-boxing. A simple question for a change :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Looking around the OFBiz documents and such I don't think  
>>>>>>>> this distinction is adequately represented, so I added some  
>>>>>>>> text similar to the above to the home page of  
>>>>>>>> ofbiz.apache.org. It should be public within a few hours, ie  
>>>>>>>> whenever the next deployment job runs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reading your new text, this stood out:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "OFBiz can certainly be used OOTB (out of the box), but if  
>>>>>>> you're looking for something that works really well for that  
>>>>>>> there are many open source projects that do a great job there."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK. So maybe those projects might be more what I'm looking for.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I searched a couple of months ago and didn't find anything I  
>>>>>>> thought could do a better job than OFBiz. What other open  
>>>>>>> source projects are you thinking of here?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 3:49 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Chris, David, Everybody.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One last thought on the subject before I have my porridge  
>>>>>>>>> and another lie down ;)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if any of you guys have ever taken a good  
>>>>>>>>> hard look at the osCommerce, Zen Cart or Ubuntu forums?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.zen-cart.com/forum
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://forums.oscommerce.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.ubuntuforums.org/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes. I know php is nasty. But that's not the point.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Look at the accessibility and structure of the interface.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All user levels are accommodated.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All find their natural place.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nearly a quarter of a million members on Ubuntu. 120K on  
>>>>>>>>> osCommerce. 2,347 and 824 currently active respectively at  
>>>>>>>>> this very moment as we speak
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A working model of how to build a user base surely, if  
>>>>>>>>> nothing else?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Chris Howe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ian,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> While I certainly enjoy the analogies, who are you
>>>>>>>>>> ultimately suggesting create these lowest common
>>>>>>>>>> denominator (LCD) documents?
>>>>>>>>>> As has already been mentioned, once you pass that
>>>>>>>>>> "aha" moment in OFBiz, it's difficult to understand
>>>>>>>>>> why the engineering documentation didn't make sense
>>>>>>>>>> the first time around.  3D vector calculus, as you put
>>>>>>>>>> it, seems so elementary obvious at that point that
>>>>>>>>>> it's difficult to convey it in simpler terms; even
>>>>>>>>>> though you remember it not being obvious when you
>>>>>>>>>> started.  I don't think it's very time/quality
>>>>>>>>>> productive for someone who's passed that "aha" moment
>>>>>>>>>> to produce this documentation; at least not without
>>>>>>>>>> the aid of an "uninitiated".
>>>>>>>>>> If you'd like to be that test subject, I'm sure there
>>>>>>>>>> are a mess of people, including myself, that would be
>>>>>>>>>> willing to help explain things to you as you make your
>>>>>>>>>> way through the concepts, documenting as you go.  But
>>>>>>>>>> the POV of the documentation cannot be from someone
>>>>>>>>>> who's already gotten the bird off the ground, because
>>>>>>>>>> they're not really sure which button they pressed to
>>>>>>>>>> make it all seem second nature.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --- Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't get the proposition that there are 100
>>>>>>>>>>> different pilot roles.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There are many 1,000s  of different destinations.
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe more than a dozen different pilot roles  
>>>>>>>>>>> (commercial, fighter,
>>>>>>>>>>> bomber, spotter, etc.). But but there IS a lowest common  
>>>>>>>>>>> denominator.
>>>>>>>>>>> They all fly planes. They all start off on fixed wing,  
>>>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>>> engine props. They all need to understand basic  
>>>>>>>>>>> navigation, aerodynamics,
>>>>>>>>>>> flight-engineering etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But it is very basic. The need to understand lift,
>>>>>>>>>>> drag, how to calculate take off velocities etc. But I  
>>>>>>>>>>> doubt if
>>>>>>>>>>> they start of with 3D vector calculus or need to know  
>>>>>>>>>>> what a Reynold's
>>>>>>>>>>> number is.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So why can't the target be whatever denominators are
>>>>>>>>>>> common to all pilots?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How to find the door handle and the start button
>>>>>>>>>>> would be top of my list. If they can't find those then  
>>>>>>>>>>> they ain't never
>>>>>>>>>>> gonna fly.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see where you're coming from on this. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> project is better
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> documented than anything else I've seen in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> field.You yourself
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have produced a truly awesome amount of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> documentation. I don't know
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> where you find the time. All are extremely well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> written, very clear,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> very well laid out. A model of their kind. (No
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sucking up - I
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean it :) So what could possibly be the problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I found the Introduction Videos and Diagrams page
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> you link to here a
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple of days ago myself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was whilst working through these videos that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the light bulb went off.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you're talking us through is a diagram of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the wiring harness of
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a jumbo jet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Essential for the engineers who need to service
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely the last kind of map a pilot wants to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> find on his lap.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Know what I mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Uh, yeah, that's because it is meant to cover the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> framework, not the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> applications. The two are very different, change
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> very differently,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> need to be understood by different people in
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> different ways, etc. My
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> current estimate is that to produce something
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> adequate for a "pilot",
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> given that there are about 100 different "pilot"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> roles in OFBiz, would
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> require many times the effort to produce that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> framework videos
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> with their diagrams, reference materials,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> transcriptions, etc. Right
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> now I don't have the $500k to get into that... and
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the $40k already
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> spent on the documents which are now PDF-dumped
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> into the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> docs.ofbiz.org site was clearly inadequate,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> especially as it is mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> reference materials (which is why you won't find
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> how-to stuff in the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> reference guides, they are references after all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> just for reference
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> purposes). The Application Overview for Users is
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> probably more of what
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> you're looking for, though that section only
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> represents maybe 3-5% of
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> what is in OFBiz right now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, that's assuming such documents could
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> even be written in a
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> way that is close to generally useful. How do I
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> use it? Well, that
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> depends on what you want to do... and
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> unfortunately across a few
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> different industries that list grows into hundreds
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> of thousands of
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> activities...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, that's the big question with any document: who
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> is the target
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> audience? The more specific the answer, the better
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the document will
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> address their needs. But who is the target
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> audience for OFBiz? ... ?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>>>>>>>>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>>>>>>>>>> Durham
>>>>>>>>>>> DH1 2UL
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>>>>>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>>>>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ============================================================= 
>>>>>>>>>> =================================
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the
>>>>>>>>>>> intended recipient(s) named above and is
>>>>>>>>>>> confidential. Any form of distribution, copying,
>>>>>>>>>>> discussion or use of this communication, its
>>>>>>>>>>> contents, or any information contained herein
>>>>>>>>>>> without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you
>>>>>>>>>>> receive this communication in error, please notify
>>>>>>>>>>> the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191
>>>>>>>>>>> 384 4736
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we
>>>>>>>>>>> cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of
>>>>>>>>>>> software viruses and would recommend that you carry
>>>>>>>>>>> out your own virus checks before opening any
>>>>>>>>>>> attachment.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ============================================================= 
>>>>>>>>>> =================================
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>>>>>>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>>>>>>>> Durham
>>>>>>>>> DH1 2UL
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>>>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>>>> ============================================================== 
>>>>>>>>> ================================
>>>>>>>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended  
>>>>>>>>> recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of  
>>>>>>>>> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this  
>>>>>>>>> communication, its contents, or any information contained  
>>>>>>>>> herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you  
>>>>>>>>> receive this communication in error, please notify the  
>>>>>>>>> sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot  
>>>>>>>>> accept any liability sustained as a result of software  
>>>>>>>>> viruses and would recommend that you carry out your own  
>>>>>>>>> virus checks before opening any attachment.
>>>>>>>>> ============================================================== 
>>>>>>>>> ================================
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>>>> Durham
>>>>> DH1 2UL
>>>>>
>>>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>> ================================================================== 
>>>>> ============================
>>>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended  
>>>>> recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of  
>>>>> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication,  
>>>>> its contents, or any information contained herein without prior  
>>>>> consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this  
>>>>> communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by  
>>>>> telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>
>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot  
>>>>> accept any liability sustained as a result of software viruses  
>>>>> and would recommend that you carry out your own virus checks  
>>>>> before opening any attachment.
>>>>> ================================================================== 
>>>>> ============================
>>>
>

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>]

David,

 > So, just to be clear and try to rephrase what you said: the problems you are
 > running into are caused by the approach used to customize and install OFBiz
 > rather than OFBiz itself.

Sigh. Alright, I'll leave it at that. I concede that M2M could be an application that deviates 
wildly from best practices in manufacturing. Concede that I may be trying to enter building from 
the 3rd floor window instead of the front door. Concede even that my boss may be a dim-wit to have 
structured his operations such that it's not as "best practices" as OFBiz is. No more arguments 
from me on this front.

 > You should know, if you don't already, that OFBiz is being used effectively
 > in various manufacturing operations.

Good to know. That's one of my main arguments I throw at boss in every desperate situation I've 
had in defending OFBiz.

 > If you're having trouble and the free support of the community isn't meeting
 > your needs,

No, we don't have such trouble. I only have trouble comprehending why I need to fix so many bugs 
and non-intuitive workflows in OFBiz given that it's supposed to be "best practices" (or maybe I 
misrepresented OFBiz to boss?).

In fact, my series of circus acts (correcting OFBiz rapidly, adding functionalities, etc, all 
faster than OFBiz community can cope with) has pacified my boss' fears for now (for now only). We 
have no trouble working OFBiz at all.

My main concern is the management of development of SVN trunk (I trust you're holding the beast on 
course, so it won't trample the fields it just ploughed). In the worst case, not that it'll 
happen, if OFBiz does die off, at least I'm left with a SUBSTANTIAL amount of work from which I 
can start building stuff. And I say again that we must all remember where all that "stuff" came 
from (OFBiz contributors).

 > have you considered engaging people who have successfully deployed OFBiz in a
 > manufacturing setting?

Yes, we had. But after getting some answers from some veterans I will not name, I am convinced 
that we couldn't have done it cheaper AND FASTER if we went with OFBiz veterans (folks who can 
work OFBiz in manufacturing setting). Nothing to do with how OFBiz is, just to do with economics. 
Oh yes, has a lot to do with adoption (Ian's long thread). Given a wider adoption due to better 
docs (entry guides), there'd be a lot of human resources around that can do the job cheap and 
fast. I'm not saying that should be your or OFBiz's direction.

As it is now, we're moving ahead faster than OFBiz is, and I'm not talking about our specific 
needs aspect. I'm talking about bugs, incomplete functionalities (scaffolding in database, but not 
used), etc. I'm not even an OFBiz veteran.

Our decision here was just pure economics.

 > If your time weren't so tight or if you had the luxury of more time to plan
 > you could probably even get help from Jacopo. As I understand it he is
 > working on a couple of fairly big contracts right now which is why he hasn't
 > been as involved in OFBiz in the last few weeks (which is a big difference
 > from before, BTW, we all have Jacopo to thank for a goodly percentage of what
 > exists in OFBiz, especially in the manufacturing area).

No fault of yours or OFBiz's. Just a matter of economics, like I said.

As for Jacopo, we're watching him. :)

Jonathon

David E. Jones wrote:
> 
> Jonathon,
> 
> So, just to be clear and try to rephrase what you said: the problems you 
> are running into are caused by the approach used to customize and 
> install OFBiz rather than OFBiz itself.
> 
> You should know, if you don't already, that OFBiz is being used 
> effectively in various manufacturing operations. If you're having 
> trouble and the free support of the community isn't meeting your needs, 
> have you considered engaging people who have successfully deployed OFBiz 
> in a manufacturing setting? If your time weren't so tight or if you had 
> the luxury of more time to plan you could probably even get help from 
> Jacopo. As I understand it he is working on a couple of fairly big 
> contracts right now which is why he hasn't been as involved in OFBiz in 
> the last few weeks (which is a big difference from before, BTW, we all 
> have Jacopo to thank for a goodly percentage of what exists in OFBiz, 
> especially in the manufacturing area).
> 
> -David
> 
> 
> On Jan 21, 2007, at 8:50 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> 
>> David, Ian,
>>
>> I believe Ian has a point about "not yet fully developed". As 
>> discussed before, the OFBiz framework is fine, complete. It's what's 
>> built around the engine (car body, doors, windscreen wipers, seat 
>> ejection button, etc) that's incomplete, or to put it in a more PR way 
>> to potential customers, "buggy and requires debugging, is all". Let's 
>> make a distinction between OFBiz framework and OFBiz-ERP.
>>
>> David is right that OFBiz is hard, if not impossible, to use OOTB. 
>> That's not precisely because OFBiz-ERP is all done up but the market 
>> is so choosy and differentiated and finely-segmented, ie everybody has 
>> their own ways of doing business. It's because OFBiz-ERP 
>> functionalities are very much incomplete. Let's take Made2Manage, for 
>> instance. My first guesstimate for boss was:
>>
>> "I believe OFBiz-ERP is all there, best-practices way of doing things. 
>> So if M2M was any good for you at all, I believe we can move you to 
>> OFBiz-ERP easily. Only thing we have to work on is to cater for any 
>> special ways you do business, any proprietary secret ingenious 
>> workflows, any superstitious feng-shui requirements in your corporate 
>> culture, etc.".
>>
>> I'm currently in really hot soup for that wrong guesstimate. Boss has 
>> every right to stick with M2M now (a very strong and well-developed 
>> and well-supported product too).
>>
>> I wish I didn't have to say the above out loud. I realize it'll 
>> possibly raise red flags for potential OFBiz customers. But I don't 
>> know if I can live with sitting by and watching them moths come to a 
>> hot flame advertised as "kool light". No, I'm not publicizing my 
>> findings, just speaking up here since it seems Ian's (and myself and 
>> boss many weeks ago) been asking precisely the above for some time now 
>> without getting upfront "honest-to-God and honest-to-good-service" 
>> answers.
>>
>> If only Ian would just focus on how fantastic the OFBiz framework is, 
>> such as the entity engine, widgets (if documented right), etc. But I 
>> guess Ian's just trying to push us to address a vacuum, a vacuum that 
>> could well be blocking OFBiz from explosive world-wide adoption and 
>> popularity. And my guesstimate here would be (please let me be right 
>> this time!), Ian's right. OFBiz still rocks.
>>
>> My boss asked me if I would bet my career on OFBiz. I'd say that if I 
>> weren't a reverse-engineer in my past life, I'd be better off pushing 
>> a real OOTB solution to him and work on impromptu patches/integration 
>> to get specialized functionalities welded into that OOTB solution. But 
>> bear in mind that I have impossible deadlines (barely a month to cut 
>> OFBiz for a sizeable manufacturing operation, didn't figure in 
>> bugfixes I had to do myself). So if you could get a sucker to pay 
>> $30,000 over 3 months for you to tailor OFBiz, you're on safe(r) 
>> ground. Yes, I know, my cases are always close to crazy (that's the 
>> way I live).
>>
>> Don't mind speaking this plainly. I'm intending to work with Ian on 
>> that vacuum. I hope we have some volunteers from the community 
>> veterans, but if not, we're going ahead ourselves.
>>
>> But please EVERYBODY here be aware that whether we go it ourselves or 
>> with community's blessing/hand-holding, we will STILL be practically 
>> leeching off the community's charitable work in OFBiz (SVN trunk). 
>> Proper perspective. Just FYI. Remember that.
>>
>> Jonathon
>>
>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>> Ian,
>>> About this question:
>>>> In my ignorance I kind of assumed that once I had a stable version 
>>>> running it would - like my old QuickBooks 3 - keep on going without 
>>>> too much trouble. Provided I didn't want to start customizing and 
>>>> upgrading that is.
>>>> OK. So new security breaches and the necessary patches to block them 
>>>> are to be expected. I have that already with existing Open Source 
>>>> LAMP e-commerce installations. The cost of keeping them secure is 
>>>> not particularly great. What is it about OFBiz that would make 
>>>> maintenance a luxury I might not be able to afford? Please expand.
>>> Unless you automate only a small part of what you do in your company, 
>>> which is usually the case for small companies, you will HAVE to 
>>> change the software to meet the needs of the company over time. 
>>> Unfortunately (for us software peoples) not every company does 
>>> exactly the same thing. Even more unfortunately is that the same 
>>> company, large or small, does not do the same thing from one year to 
>>> the next (or even smaller time periods). Small companies can get away 
>>> with a single OOTB system because they only automate a very small 
>>> part of what they do. As companies grow they MUST automate more and 
>>> more of what they or the company is likely to fail.
>>> As far as up-front and ongoing costs go for OFBiz in relation to what 
>>> you need, you hinted at an answer yourself in this paragraph:
>>>> When I first discovered OFBiz a couple of months ago I was 
>>>> thunderstruck. Not only did the e-commerce front-end look every bit 
>>>> as good as the LAMP systems I've been installing, but the whole 
>>>> concept and framework looked like it ought to knock both Microsoft 
>>>> and Sage into a cocked hat.
>>>>
>>>> I say 'looked like' because, of course, I have subsequently 
>>>> discovered from my short time on this list that OFBiz is not yet as 
>>>> fully developed as I first thought it to be.
>>> This means something different for everyone. Some companies are able 
>>> to use OFBiz 100% out of the box, but this is rare and usually means, 
>>> as mentioned above, that they are only automated a fairly small 
>>> percentage of what they do.
>>> So, the question that will answer your question is: what do you mean 
>>> by this? In other words, what are the details behind the statement 
>>> "OFBiz is not yet as fully developed as I first thought it to be"?
>>> The answer to that initially and over time, for your company or each 
>>> of your clients, is the answer to how much work will be necessary to 
>>> "install" and "support" the system (ie customize and maintain in more 
>>> honest terms).
>>> -David
>>> On Jan 21, 2007, at 9:50 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>> Andrew,
>>>>
>>>> I'm not looking for anything specific at the moment. Just trying to 
>>>> evaluate current options and keep on top of developments in the hope 
>>>> of offering clients the best, most flexible, most long-term 
>>>> solutions I can find.
>>>>
>>>> I checked out GnuCash and SQL Ledger before I discovered OFBiz. They 
>>>> both look fine, as far as small business accounting packages go. 
>>>> You're not going to believe this, but I personally still use 
>>>> QuickBooks 3 which I bought for less than $200 more than 15 years 
>>>> ago to run on Windows 3.1. Since then I've used it to produce 
>>>> budgets, VAT returns and year-end accounts for up to 4 different 
>>>> companies at the same time - some with turnovers around the $1M 
>>>> mark. It has its limitations and idiosyncrasies; but it runs like 
>>>> lightning on XP, has never crashed even once or given me any kind of 
>>>> problems at all (touch wood!!!)  So it's going to take something 
>>>> pretty special to persuade me to change to anything else.
>>>>
>>>> I started looking at OFBiz as a solution to problems I can see 
>>>> starting to appear on the horizon for clients with established 
>>>> bricks-and-mortar wholesale and retail businesses for whom I have 
>>>> been installing Open Source e-commerce solutions over the past few 
>>>> years.
>>>>
>>>> All started with no web presence, all are now finding online sales 
>>>> becoming a significant and in some cases the major part of their 
>>>> businesses.
>>>>
>>>> In the beginning, integration with existing in-store EPOS and 
>>>> accounting systems from the likes of MS, Intuit and Sage was not an 
>>>> issue. Now it is quickly becoming the main one as staff spend 
>>>> increasingly longer amounts of time transferring information on 
>>>> paper and re-keying the same data into 3 different systems running 
>>>> in parallel.
>>>>
>>>> I have been trying to keep on top of this by installing patches and 
>>>> plugins to get the different systems to talk to each other. But 
>>>> bespoke integration with closed-source, proprietary systems is an 
>>>> arduous and expensive business that few clients can afford. More to 
>>>> the point, it is a very 'tacky' and incomplete solution as it 
>>>> depends largely on staff following rigorously prescribed 
>>>> synchronisation routines to prevent transactions colliding, falling 
>>>> over each other and cancelling each other out. Most staff working at 
>>>> this level will ignore the rules and cut corners if they can, 
>>>> resulting in tangles of inaccurate data which threaten to bring the 
>>>> whole business crashing around everyone's ears.
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft and Sage spotted the problems and the opportunities 
>>>> several years ago, and are now offering their own e-commerce clones 
>>>> seamlessly integrated with their own back-ends. I lost my biggest 
>>>> client to them just before Christmas. If I can not offer equivalent 
>>>> backend Open Source integration then it won't be long before I lose 
>>>> all the rest.
>>>>
>>>> When I first discovered OFBiz a couple of months ago I was 
>>>> thunderstruck. Not only did the e-commerce front-end look every bit 
>>>> as good as the LAMP systems I've been installing, but the whole 
>>>> concept and framework looked like it ought to knock both Microsoft 
>>>> and Sage into a cocked hat.
>>>>
>>>> I say 'looked like' because, of course, I have subsequently 
>>>> discovered from my short time on this list that OFBiz is not yet as 
>>>> fully developed as I first thought it to be.
>>>>
>>>> Your analogy with office space is interesting but I'm not entirely 
>>>> convinced it compares like with like. The cost of over-capacity in 
>>>> bricks-and-mortar space is clearly very heavy. The cost of 
>>>> over-capacity in Open Source virtual software space, not necessarily 
>>>> so.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, the cost of not building into the virtual 
>>>> software space the option for future expansion could well be 
>>>> crippling. It isn't just the cost of new installations and transfer 
>>>> of data. The major cost is staff retraining. People who adapt easily 
>>>> to such things do not usually end up working as warehousemen or 
>>>> office clerks.
>>>>
>>>> Your Project-Open link looks like it might be able to do what I 
>>>> need. The use of virtualisation looks very attractive. The web site 
>>>> is clean and crisp. The lack of forums, user groups or mailing lists 
>>>> is not so encouraging. I haven't even scratched the surface yet so I 
>>>> have no idea how it compares with OFBiz. When I do I promise to let 
>>>> you know.
>>>>
>>>> One thing you say at the end of your posting really does concern me:
>>>>> Can you really afford the luxury of servicing
>>>>> something as large as OfBiz en route?
>>>>>
>>>> I was aware that the cost of installing a usable version of OFBiz 
>>>> might not be inconsiderable. But I had no idea that the cost of 
>>>> servicing it could be so high it could be a luxury I might not be 
>>>> able to afford.
>>>>
>>>> In my ignorance I kind of assumed that once I had a stable version 
>>>> running it would - like my old QuickBooks 3 - keep on going without 
>>>> too much trouble. Provided I didn't want to start customizing and 
>>>> upgrading that is.
>>>>
>>>> OK. So new security breaches and the necessary patches to block them 
>>>> are to be expected. I have that already with existing Open Source 
>>>> LAMP e-commerce installations. The cost of keeping them secure is 
>>>> not particularly great. What is it about OFBiz that would make 
>>>> maintenance a luxury I might not be able to afford? Please expand.
>>>>
>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Andrew Sykes wrote:
>>>>> Ian,
>>>>>
>>>>> It depends on what you're looking for.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the focus is still a "small business accounting package" as the
>>>>> subject line says - I know I know, there have been a zillion posts to
>>>>> this thread, so perhaps not. - If it's accounting, two spring to 
>>>>> mind...
>>>>>
>>>>> For a desktop system, have a look at GnuCash...
>>>>> http://www.gnucash.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> For a web based system, SQLLedger seems good and I've heard a few
>>>>> favourable reports about it...
>>>>> http://www.sql-ledger.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, for a project which *seems* to have a more OOTB focus, 
>>>>> although
>>>>> I've really only started looking at it this weekend, take a look at 
>>>>> the
>>>>> Project:Open stuff...
>>>>> http://www.project-open.com/
>>>>> I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this one as I've only just
>>>>> scratched the surface...
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the criteria you should consider is the cost of upgrading 
>>>>> from an
>>>>> OOTB solution sometime in the future versus the cost of implementing
>>>>> OfBiz now. Generally if you are at the stage of being an enterprise 
>>>>> with
>>>>> more "M" than "S" turnover (SME) and have implemented a lot of bespoke
>>>>> business processes which form part of you USP then OfBiz is a safe 
>>>>> bet.
>>>>> If you plan to get to that point one day, it's probably better waiting
>>>>> for that day to come and using something OOTB in the meantime. 
>>>>> Consider
>>>>> the analogy with office space, you wouldn't buy up half an industrial
>>>>> estate because the business plan you had written in your front room 
>>>>> said
>>>>> one day you'd be bigger than ICI! Even if you factored the cost of
>>>>> hiring a van to help with the move, it would still look a bit dodgy on
>>>>> the balance sheet!
>>>>>
>>>>> Choosing the right system is about being on top of your overall 
>>>>> business
>>>>> strategy, where are you going? how long and how much is it going to 
>>>>> take
>>>>> to get you there? Can you really afford the luxury of servicing
>>>>> something as large as OfBiz en route?
>>>>>
>>>>> - Andrew
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 09:58 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> OK David. Maybe just one last thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No more soap-boxing. A simple question for a change :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looking around the OFBiz documents and such I don't think this 
>>>>>>> distinction is adequately represented, so I added some text 
>>>>>>> similar to the above to the home page of ofbiz.apache.org. It 
>>>>>>> should be public within a few hours, ie whenever the next 
>>>>>>> deployment job runs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reading your new text, this stood out:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "OFBiz can certainly be used OOTB (out of the box), but if you're 
>>>>>> looking for something that works really well for that there are 
>>>>>> many open source projects that do a great job there."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK. So maybe those projects might be more what I'm looking for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I searched a couple of months ago and didn't find anything I 
>>>>>> thought could do a better job than OFBiz. What other open source 
>>>>>> projects are you thinking of here?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 3:49 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chris, David, Everybody.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One last thought on the subject before I have my porridge and 
>>>>>>>> another lie down ;)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if any of you guys have ever taken a good hard 
>>>>>>>> look at the osCommerce, Zen Cart or Ubuntu forums?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.zen-cart.com/forum
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://forums.oscommerce.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.ubuntuforums.org/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes. I know php is nasty. But that's not the point.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Look at the accessibility and structure of the interface.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All user levels are accommodated.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All find their natural place.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nearly a quarter of a million members on Ubuntu. 120K on 
>>>>>>>> osCommerce. 2,347 and 824 currently active respectively at this 
>>>>>>>> very moment as we speak
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A working model of how to build a user base surely, if nothing 
>>>>>>>> else?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chris Howe wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ian,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> While I certainly enjoy the analogies, who are you
>>>>>>>>> ultimately suggesting create these lowest common
>>>>>>>>> denominator (LCD) documents?
>>>>>>>>> As has already been mentioned, once you pass that
>>>>>>>>> "aha" moment in OFBiz, it's difficult to understand
>>>>>>>>> why the engineering documentation didn't make sense
>>>>>>>>> the first time around.  3D vector calculus, as you put
>>>>>>>>> it, seems so elementary obvious at that point that
>>>>>>>>> it's difficult to convey it in simpler terms; even
>>>>>>>>> though you remember it not being obvious when you
>>>>>>>>> started.  I don't think it's very time/quality
>>>>>>>>> productive for someone who's passed that "aha" moment
>>>>>>>>> to produce this documentation; at least not without
>>>>>>>>> the aid of an "uninitiated".
>>>>>>>>> If you'd like to be that test subject, I'm sure there
>>>>>>>>> are a mess of people, including myself, that would be
>>>>>>>>> willing to help explain things to you as you make your
>>>>>>>>> way through the concepts, documenting as you go.  But
>>>>>>>>> the POV of the documentation cannot be from someone
>>>>>>>>> who's already gotten the bird off the ground, because
>>>>>>>>> they're not really sure which button they pressed to
>>>>>>>>> make it all seem second nature.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --- Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't get the proposition that there are 100
>>>>>>>>>> different pilot roles.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are many 1,000s  of different destinations.
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe more than a dozen different pilot roles (commercial, 
>>>>>>>>>> fighter,
>>>>>>>>>> bomber, spotter, etc.). But but there IS a lowest common 
>>>>>>>>>> denominator.
>>>>>>>>>> They all fly planes. They all start off on fixed wing, single
>>>>>>>>>> engine props. They all need to understand basic navigation, 
>>>>>>>>>> aerodynamics,
>>>>>>>>>> flight-engineering etc.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But it is very basic. The need to understand lift,
>>>>>>>>>> drag, how to calculate take off velocities etc. But I doubt if
>>>>>>>>>> they start of with 3D vector calculus or need to know what a 
>>>>>>>>>> Reynold's
>>>>>>>>>> number is.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So why can't the target be whatever denominators are
>>>>>>>>>> common to all pilots?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How to find the door handle and the start button
>>>>>>>>>> would be top of my list. If they can't find those then they 
>>>>>>>>>> ain't never
>>>>>>>>>> gonna fly.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see where you're coming from on this. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> project is better
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> documented than anything else I've seen in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> field.You yourself
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> have produced a truly awesome amount of
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> documentation. I don't know
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> where you find the time. All are extremely well
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> written, very clear,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> very well laid out. A model of their kind. (No
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sucking up - I
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> mean it :) So what could possibly be the problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I found the Introduction Videos and Diagrams page
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> you link to here a
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> couple of days ago myself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It was whilst working through these videos that
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the light bulb went off.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What you're talking us through is a diagram of
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the wiring harness of
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> a jumbo jet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Essential for the engineers who need to service
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely the last kind of map a pilot wants to
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> find on his lap.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Know what I mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Uh, yeah, that's because it is meant to cover the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> framework, not the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> applications. The two are very different, change
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> very differently,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> need to be understood by different people in
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> different ways, etc. My
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> current estimate is that to produce something
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> adequate for a "pilot",
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> given that there are about 100 different "pilot"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> roles in OFBiz, would
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> require many times the effort to produce that the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> framework videos
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> with their diagrams, reference materials,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> transcriptions, etc. Right
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> now I don't have the $500k to get into that... and
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the $40k already
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> spent on the documents which are now PDF-dumped
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> into the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> docs.ofbiz.org site was clearly inadequate,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> especially as it is mostly
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> reference materials (which is why you won't find
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> how-to stuff in the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> reference guides, they are references after all,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> just for reference
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> purposes). The Application Overview for Users is
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> probably more of what
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> you're looking for, though that section only
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> represents maybe 3-5% of
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> what is in OFBiz right now.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, that's assuming such documents could
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> even be written in a
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> way that is close to generally useful. How do I
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> use it? Well, that
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> depends on what you want to do... and
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> unfortunately across a few
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> different industries that list grows into hundreds
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> of thousands of
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> activities...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, that's the big question with any document: who
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> is the target
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> audience? The more specific the answer, the better
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the document will
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> address their needs. But who is the target
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> audience for OFBiz? ... ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>>>>>>>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>>>>>>>>> Durham
>>>>>>>>>> DH1 2UL
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>>>>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>>>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the
>>>>>>>>>> intended recipient(s) named above and is
>>>>>>>>>> confidential. Any form of distribution, copying,
>>>>>>>>>> discussion or use of this communication, its
>>>>>>>>>> contents, or any information contained herein
>>>>>>>>>> without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you
>>>>>>>>>> receive this communication in error, please notify
>>>>>>>>>> the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191
>>>>>>>>>> 384 4736
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we
>>>>>>>>>> cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of
>>>>>>>>>> software viruses and would recommend that you carry
>>>>>>>>>> out your own virus checks before opening any
>>>>>>>>>> attachment.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>>>>>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>>>>>>> Durham
>>>>>>>> DH1 2UL
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended 
>>>>>>>> recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of 
>>>>>>>> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, 
>>>>>>>> its contents, or any information contained herein without prior 
>>>>>>>> consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this 
>>>>>>>> communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by 
>>>>>>>> telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot 
>>>>>>>> accept any liability sustained as a result of software viruses 
>>>>>>>> and would recommend that you carry out your own virus checks 
>>>>>>>> before opening any attachment.
>>>>>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>>
>>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>>> Durham
>>>> DH1 2UL
>>>>
>>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>
>>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended 
>>>> recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of 
>>>> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its 
>>>> contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent 
>>>> is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, 
>>>> please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 
>>>> 4736
>>>>
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept 
>>>> any liability sustained as a result of software viruses and would 
>>>> recommend that you carry out your own virus checks before opening 
>>>> any attachment.
>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>
>>
> 

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

["David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

Jonathon,

So, just to be clear and try to rephrase what you said: the problems  
you are running into are caused by the approach used to customize and  
install OFBiz rather than OFBiz itself.

You should know, if you don't already, that OFBiz is being used  
effectively in various manufacturing operations. If you're having  
trouble and the free support of the community isn't meeting your  
needs, have you considered engaging people who have successfully  
deployed OFBiz in a manufacturing setting? If your time weren't so  
tight or if you had the luxury of more time to plan you could  
probably even get help from Jacopo. As I understand it he is working  
on a couple of fairly big contracts right now which is why he hasn't  
been as involved in OFBiz in the last few weeks (which is a big  
difference from before, BTW, we all have Jacopo to thank for a goodly  
percentage of what exists in OFBiz, especially in the manufacturing  
area).

-David


On Jan 21, 2007, at 8:50 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:

> David, Ian,
>
> I believe Ian has a point about "not yet fully developed". As  
> discussed before, the OFBiz framework is fine, complete. It's  
> what's built around the engine (car body, doors, windscreen wipers,  
> seat ejection button, etc) that's incomplete, or to put it in a  
> more PR way to potential customers, "buggy and requires debugging,  
> is all". Let's make a distinction between OFBiz framework and OFBiz- 
> ERP.
>
> David is right that OFBiz is hard, if not impossible, to use OOTB.  
> That's not precisely because OFBiz-ERP is all done up but the  
> market is so choosy and differentiated and finely-segmented, ie  
> everybody has their own ways of doing business. It's because OFBiz- 
> ERP functionalities are very much incomplete. Let's take  
> Made2Manage, for instance. My first guesstimate for boss was:
>
> "I believe OFBiz-ERP is all there, best-practices way of doing  
> things. So if M2M was any good for you at all, I believe we can  
> move you to OFBiz-ERP easily. Only thing we have to work on is to  
> cater for any special ways you do business, any proprietary secret  
> ingenious workflows, any superstitious feng-shui requirements in  
> your corporate culture, etc.".
>
> I'm currently in really hot soup for that wrong guesstimate. Boss  
> has every right to stick with M2M now (a very strong and well- 
> developed and well-supported product too).
>
> I wish I didn't have to say the above out loud. I realize it'll  
> possibly raise red flags for potential OFBiz customers. But I don't  
> know if I can live with sitting by and watching them moths come to  
> a hot flame advertised as "kool light". No, I'm not publicizing my  
> findings, just speaking up here since it seems Ian's (and myself  
> and boss many weeks ago) been asking precisely the above for some  
> time now without getting upfront "honest-to-God and honest-to-good- 
> service" answers.
>
> If only Ian would just focus on how fantastic the OFBiz framework  
> is, such as the entity engine, widgets (if documented right), etc.  
> But I guess Ian's just trying to push us to address a vacuum, a  
> vacuum that could well be blocking OFBiz from explosive world-wide  
> adoption and popularity. And my guesstimate here would be (please  
> let me be right this time!), Ian's right. OFBiz still rocks.
>
> My boss asked me if I would bet my career on OFBiz. I'd say that if  
> I weren't a reverse-engineer in my past life, I'd be better off  
> pushing a real OOTB solution to him and work on impromptu patches/ 
> integration to get specialized functionalities welded into that  
> OOTB solution. But bear in mind that I have impossible deadlines  
> (barely a month to cut OFBiz for a sizeable manufacturing  
> operation, didn't figure in bugfixes I had to do myself). So if you  
> could get a sucker to pay $30,000 over 3 months for you to tailor  
> OFBiz, you're on safe(r) ground. Yes, I know, my cases are always  
> close to crazy (that's the way I live).
>
> Don't mind speaking this plainly. I'm intending to work with Ian on  
> that vacuum. I hope we have some volunteers from the community  
> veterans, but if not, we're going ahead ourselves.
>
> But please EVERYBODY here be aware that whether we go it ourselves  
> or with community's blessing/hand-holding, we will STILL be  
> practically leeching off the community's charitable work in OFBiz  
> (SVN trunk). Proper perspective. Just FYI. Remember that.
>
> Jonathon
>
> David E. Jones wrote:
>> Ian,
>> About this question:
>>> In my ignorance I kind of assumed that once I had a stable  
>>> version running it would - like my old QuickBooks 3 - keep on  
>>> going without too much trouble. Provided I didn't want to start  
>>> customizing and upgrading that is.
>>> OK. So new security breaches and the necessary patches to block  
>>> them are to be expected. I have that already with existing Open  
>>> Source LAMP e-commerce installations. The cost of keeping them  
>>> secure is not particularly great. What is it about OFBiz that  
>>> would make maintenance a luxury I might not be able to afford?  
>>> Please expand.
>> Unless you automate only a small part of what you do in your  
>> company, which is usually the case for small companies, you will  
>> HAVE to change the software to meet the needs of the company over  
>> time. Unfortunately (for us software peoples) not every company  
>> does exactly the same thing. Even more unfortunately is that the  
>> same company, large or small, does not do the same thing from one  
>> year to the next (or even smaller time periods). Small companies  
>> can get away with a single OOTB system because they only automate  
>> a very small part of what they do. As companies grow they MUST  
>> automate more and more of what they or the company is likely to fail.
>> As far as up-front and ongoing costs go for OFBiz in relation to  
>> what you need, you hinted at an answer yourself in this paragraph:
>>> When I first discovered OFBiz a couple of months ago I was  
>>> thunderstruck. Not only did the e-commerce front-end look every  
>>> bit as good as the LAMP systems I've been installing, but the  
>>> whole concept and framework looked like it ought to knock both  
>>> Microsoft and Sage into a cocked hat.
>>>
>>> I say 'looked like' because, of course, I have subsequently  
>>> discovered from my short time on this list that OFBiz is not yet  
>>> as fully developed as I first thought it to be.
>> This means something different for everyone. Some companies are  
>> able to use OFBiz 100% out of the box, but this is rare and  
>> usually means, as mentioned above, that they are only automated a  
>> fairly small percentage of what they do.
>> So, the question that will answer your question is: what do you  
>> mean by this? In other words, what are the details behind the  
>> statement "OFBiz is not yet as fully developed as I first thought  
>> it to be"?
>> The answer to that initially and over time, for your company or  
>> each of your clients, is the answer to how much work will be  
>> necessary to "install" and "support" the system (ie customize and  
>> maintain in more honest terms).
>> -David
>> On Jan 21, 2007, at 9:50 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>> Andrew,
>>>
>>> I'm not looking for anything specific at the moment. Just trying  
>>> to evaluate current options and keep on top of developments in  
>>> the hope of offering clients the best, most flexible, most long- 
>>> term solutions I can find.
>>>
>>> I checked out GnuCash and SQL Ledger before I discovered OFBiz.  
>>> They both look fine, as far as small business accounting packages  
>>> go. You're not going to believe this, but I personally still use  
>>> QuickBooks 3 which I bought for less than $200 more than 15 years  
>>> ago to run on Windows 3.1. Since then I've used it to produce  
>>> budgets, VAT returns and year-end accounts for up to 4 different  
>>> companies at the same time - some with turnovers around the $1M  
>>> mark. It has its limitations and idiosyncrasies; but it runs like  
>>> lightning on XP, has never crashed even once or given me any kind  
>>> of problems at all (touch wood!!!)  So it's going to take  
>>> something pretty special to persuade me to change to anything else.
>>>
>>> I started looking at OFBiz as a solution to problems I can see  
>>> starting to appear on the horizon for clients with established  
>>> bricks-and-mortar wholesale and retail businesses for whom I have  
>>> been installing Open Source e-commerce solutions over the past  
>>> few years.
>>>
>>> All started with no web presence, all are now finding online  
>>> sales becoming a significant and in some cases the major part of  
>>> their businesses.
>>>
>>> In the beginning, integration with existing in-store EPOS and  
>>> accounting systems from the likes of MS, Intuit and Sage was not  
>>> an issue. Now it is quickly becoming the main one as staff spend  
>>> increasingly longer amounts of time transferring information on  
>>> paper and re-keying the same data into 3 different systems  
>>> running in parallel.
>>>
>>> I have been trying to keep on top of this by installing patches  
>>> and plugins to get the different systems to talk to each other.  
>>> But bespoke integration with closed-source, proprietary systems  
>>> is an arduous and expensive business that few clients can afford.  
>>> More to the point, it is a very 'tacky' and incomplete solution  
>>> as it depends largely on staff following rigorously prescribed  
>>> synchronisation routines to prevent transactions colliding,  
>>> falling over each other and cancelling each other out. Most staff  
>>> working at this level will ignore the rules and cut corners if  
>>> they can, resulting in tangles of inaccurate data which threaten  
>>> to bring the whole business crashing around everyone's ears.
>>>
>>> Microsoft and Sage spotted the problems and the opportunities  
>>> several years ago, and are now offering their own e-commerce  
>>> clones seamlessly integrated with their own back-ends. I lost my  
>>> biggest client to them just before Christmas. If I can not offer  
>>> equivalent backend Open Source integration then it won't be long  
>>> before I lose all the rest.
>>>
>>> When I first discovered OFBiz a couple of months ago I was  
>>> thunderstruck. Not only did the e-commerce front-end look every  
>>> bit as good as the LAMP systems I've been installing, but the  
>>> whole concept and framework looked like it ought to knock both  
>>> Microsoft and Sage into a cocked hat.
>>>
>>> I say 'looked like' because, of course, I have subsequently  
>>> discovered from my short time on this list that OFBiz is not yet  
>>> as fully developed as I first thought it to be.
>>>
>>> Your analogy with office space is interesting but I'm not  
>>> entirely convinced it compares like with like. The cost of over- 
>>> capacity in bricks-and-mortar space is clearly very heavy. The  
>>> cost of over-capacity in Open Source virtual software space, not  
>>> necessarily so.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, the cost of not building into the virtual  
>>> software space the option for future expansion could well be  
>>> crippling. It isn't just the cost of new installations and  
>>> transfer of data. The major cost is staff retraining. People who  
>>> adapt easily to such things do not usually end up working as  
>>> warehousemen or office clerks.
>>>
>>> Your Project-Open link looks like it might be able to do what I  
>>> need. The use of virtualisation looks very attractive. The web  
>>> site is clean and crisp. The lack of forums, user groups or  
>>> mailing lists is not so encouraging. I haven't even scratched the  
>>> surface yet so I have no idea how it compares with OFBiz. When I  
>>> do I promise to let you know.
>>>
>>> One thing you say at the end of your posting really does concern me:
>>>> Can you really afford the luxury of servicing
>>>> something as large as OfBiz en route?
>>>>
>>> I was aware that the cost of installing a usable version of OFBiz  
>>> might not be inconsiderable. But I had no idea that the cost of  
>>> servicing it could be so high it could be a luxury I might not be  
>>> able to afford.
>>>
>>> In my ignorance I kind of assumed that once I had a stable  
>>> version running it would - like my old QuickBooks 3 - keep on  
>>> going without too much trouble. Provided I didn't want to start  
>>> customizing and upgrading that is.
>>>
>>> OK. So new security breaches and the necessary patches to block  
>>> them are to be expected. I have that already with existing Open  
>>> Source LAMP e-commerce installations. The cost of keeping them  
>>> secure is not particularly great. What is it about OFBiz that  
>>> would make maintenance a luxury I might not be able to afford?  
>>> Please expand.
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Andrew Sykes wrote:
>>>> Ian,
>>>>
>>>> It depends on what you're looking for.
>>>>
>>>> If the focus is still a "small business accounting package" as the
>>>> subject line says - I know I know, there have been a zillion  
>>>> posts to
>>>> this thread, so perhaps not. - If it's accounting, two spring to  
>>>> mind...
>>>>
>>>> For a desktop system, have a look at GnuCash...
>>>> http://www.gnucash.org/
>>>>
>>>> For a web based system, SQLLedger seems good and I've heard a few
>>>> favourable reports about it...
>>>> http://www.sql-ledger.org/
>>>>
>>>> Finally, for a project which *seems* to have a more OOTB focus,  
>>>> although
>>>> I've really only started looking at it this weekend, take a look  
>>>> at the
>>>> Project:Open stuff...
>>>> http://www.project-open.com/
>>>> I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this one as I've only  
>>>> just
>>>> scratched the surface...
>>>>
>>>> One of the criteria you should consider is the cost of upgrading  
>>>> from an
>>>> OOTB solution sometime in the future versus the cost of  
>>>> implementing
>>>> OfBiz now. Generally if you are at the stage of being an  
>>>> enterprise with
>>>> more "M" than "S" turnover (SME) and have implemented a lot of  
>>>> bespoke
>>>> business processes which form part of you USP then OfBiz is a  
>>>> safe bet.
>>>> If you plan to get to that point one day, it's probably better  
>>>> waiting
>>>> for that day to come and using something OOTB in the meantime.  
>>>> Consider
>>>> the analogy with office space, you wouldn't buy up half an  
>>>> industrial
>>>> estate because the business plan you had written in your front  
>>>> room said
>>>> one day you'd be bigger than ICI! Even if you factored the cost of
>>>> hiring a van to help with the move, it would still look a bit  
>>>> dodgy on
>>>> the balance sheet!
>>>>
>>>> Choosing the right system is about being on top of your overall  
>>>> business
>>>> strategy, where are you going? how long and how much is it going  
>>>> to take
>>>> to get you there? Can you really afford the luxury of servicing
>>>> something as large as OfBiz en route?
>>>>
>>>> - Andrew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 09:58 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> OK David. Maybe just one last thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> No more soap-boxing. A simple question for a change :)
>>>>>
>>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Looking around the OFBiz documents and such I don't think this  
>>>>>> distinction is adequately represented, so I added some text  
>>>>>> similar to the above to the home page of ofbiz.apache.org. It  
>>>>>> should be public within a few hours, ie whenever the next  
>>>>>> deployment job runs.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Reading your new text, this stood out:
>>>>>
>>>>> "OFBiz can certainly be used OOTB (out of the box), but if  
>>>>> you're looking for something that works really well for that  
>>>>> there are many open source projects that do a great job there."
>>>>>
>>>>> OK. So maybe those projects might be more what I'm looking for.
>>>>>
>>>>> I searched a couple of months ago and didn't find anything I  
>>>>> thought could do a better job than OFBiz. What other open  
>>>>> source projects are you thinking of here?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 3:49 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chris, David, Everybody.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One last thought on the subject before I have my porridge and  
>>>>>>> another lie down ;)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm wondering if any of you guys have ever taken a good hard  
>>>>>>> look at the osCommerce, Zen Cart or Ubuntu forums?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.zen-cart.com/forum
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://forums.oscommerce.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.ubuntuforums.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes. I know php is nasty. But that's not the point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Look at the accessibility and structure of the interface.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All user levels are accommodated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All find their natural place.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nearly a quarter of a million members on Ubuntu. 120K on  
>>>>>>> osCommerce. 2,347 and 824 currently active respectively at  
>>>>>>> this very moment as we speak
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A working model of how to build a user base surely, if  
>>>>>>> nothing else?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chris Howe wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ian,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While I certainly enjoy the analogies, who are you
>>>>>>>> ultimately suggesting create these lowest common
>>>>>>>> denominator (LCD) documents?
>>>>>>>> As has already been mentioned, once you pass that
>>>>>>>> "aha" moment in OFBiz, it's difficult to understand
>>>>>>>> why the engineering documentation didn't make sense
>>>>>>>> the first time around.  3D vector calculus, as you put
>>>>>>>> it, seems so elementary obvious at that point that
>>>>>>>> it's difficult to convey it in simpler terms; even
>>>>>>>> though you remember it not being obvious when you
>>>>>>>> started.  I don't think it's very time/quality
>>>>>>>> productive for someone who's passed that "aha" moment
>>>>>>>> to produce this documentation; at least not without
>>>>>>>> the aid of an "uninitiated".
>>>>>>>> If you'd like to be that test subject, I'm sure there
>>>>>>>> are a mess of people, including myself, that would be
>>>>>>>> willing to help explain things to you as you make your
>>>>>>>> way through the concepts, documenting as you go.  But
>>>>>>>> the POV of the documentation cannot be from someone
>>>>>>>> who's already gotten the bird off the ground, because
>>>>>>>> they're not really sure which button they pressed to
>>>>>>>> make it all seem second nature.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't get the proposition that there are 100
>>>>>>>>> different pilot roles.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are many 1,000s  of different destinations.
>>>>>>>>> Maybe more than a dozen different pilot roles (commercial,  
>>>>>>>>> fighter,
>>>>>>>>> bomber, spotter, etc.). But but there IS a lowest common  
>>>>>>>>> denominator.
>>>>>>>>> They all fly planes. They all start off on fixed wing, single
>>>>>>>>> engine props. They all need to understand basic navigation,  
>>>>>>>>> aerodynamics,
>>>>>>>>> flight-engineering etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But it is very basic. The need to understand lift,
>>>>>>>>> drag, how to calculate take off velocities etc. But I doubt if
>>>>>>>>> they start of with 3D vector calculus or need to know what  
>>>>>>>>> a Reynold's
>>>>>>>>> number is.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So why can't the target be whatever denominators are
>>>>>>>>> common to all pilots?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How to find the door handle and the start button
>>>>>>>>> would be top of my list. If they can't find those then they  
>>>>>>>>> ain't never
>>>>>>>>> gonna fly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I can see where you're coming from on this. This
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> project is better
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> documented than anything else I've seen in the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> field.You yourself
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> have produced a truly awesome amount of
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> documentation. I don't know
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> where you find the time. All are extremely well
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> written, very clear,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> very well laid out. A model of their kind. (No
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not sucking up - I
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> mean it :) So what could possibly be the problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I found the Introduction Videos and Diagrams page
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> you link to here a
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> couple of days ago myself.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It was whilst working through these videos that
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the light bulb went off.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What you're talking us through is a diagram of
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the wiring harness of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> a jumbo jet.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Essential for the engineers who need to service
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely the last kind of map a pilot wants to
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> find on his lap.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Know what I mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Uh, yeah, that's because it is meant to cover the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> framework, not the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> applications. The two are very different, change
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> very differently,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> need to be understood by different people in
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> different ways, etc. My
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> current estimate is that to produce something
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> adequate for a "pilot",
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> given that there are about 100 different "pilot"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> roles in OFBiz, would
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> require many times the effort to produce that the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> framework videos
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> with their diagrams, reference materials,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> transcriptions, etc. Right
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> now I don't have the $500k to get into that... and
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the $40k already
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> spent on the documents which are now PDF-dumped
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> into the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> docs.ofbiz.org site was clearly inadequate,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> especially as it is mostly
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> reference materials (which is why you won't find
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> how-to stuff in the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> reference guides, they are references after all,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> just for reference
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> purposes). The Application Overview for Users is
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> probably more of what
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> you're looking for, though that section only
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> represents maybe 3-5% of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> what is in OFBiz right now.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of course, that's assuming such documents could
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> even be written in a
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> way that is close to generally useful. How do I
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> use it? Well, that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> depends on what you want to do... and
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> unfortunately across a few
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> different industries that list grows into hundreds
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of thousands of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> activities...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, that's the big question with any document: who
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> is the target
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> audience? The more specific the answer, the better
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the document will
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> address their needs. But who is the target
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> audience for OFBiz? ... ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>>>>>> -------------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>>>>>>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>>>>>>>> Durham
>>>>>>>>> DH1 2UL
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>>>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> =============================================================== 
>>>>>>>> ===============================
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the
>>>>>>>>> intended recipient(s) named above and is
>>>>>>>>> confidential. Any form of distribution, copying,
>>>>>>>>> discussion or use of this communication, its
>>>>>>>>> contents, or any information contained herein
>>>>>>>>> without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you
>>>>>>>>> receive this communication in error, please notify
>>>>>>>>> the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191
>>>>>>>>> 384 4736
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we
>>>>>>>>> cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of
>>>>>>>>> software viruses and would recommend that you carry
>>>>>>>>> out your own virus checks before opening any
>>>>>>>>> attachment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> =============================================================== 
>>>>>>>> ===============================
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>>>>> --------------------------------
>>>>>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>>>>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>>>>>> Durham
>>>>>>> DH1 2UL
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>> ================================================================ 
>>>>>>> ==============================
>>>>>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended  
>>>>>>> recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of  
>>>>>>> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this  
>>>>>>> communication, its contents, or any information contained  
>>>>>>> herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you  
>>>>>>> receive this communication in error, please notify the sender  
>>>>>>> by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot  
>>>>>>> accept any liability sustained as a result of software  
>>>>>>> viruses and would recommend that you carry out your own virus  
>>>>>>> checks before opening any attachment.
>>>>>>> ================================================================ 
>>>>>>> ==============================
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>> ----------------------------
>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>> Durham
>>> DH1 2UL
>>>
>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>> ==================================================================== 
>>> ==========================
>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended  
>>> recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of  
>>> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication,  
>>> its contents, or any information contained herein without prior  
>>> consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication  
>>> in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on  
>>> +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>
>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot  
>>> accept any liability sustained as a result of software viruses  
>>> and would recommend that you carry out your own virus checks  
>>> before opening any attachment.
>>> ==================================================================== 
>>> ==========================
>

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>]

David, Ian,

I believe Ian has a point about "not yet fully developed". As discussed before, the OFBiz 
framework is fine, complete. It's what's built around the engine (car body, doors, windscreen 
wipers, seat ejection button, etc) that's incomplete, or to put it in a more PR way to potential 
customers, "buggy and requires debugging, is all". Let's make a distinction between OFBiz 
framework and OFBiz-ERP.

David is right that OFBiz is hard, if not impossible, to use OOTB. That's not precisely because 
OFBiz-ERP is all done up but the market is so choosy and differentiated and finely-segmented, ie 
everybody has their own ways of doing business. It's because OFBiz-ERP functionalities are very 
much incomplete. Let's take Made2Manage, for instance. My first guesstimate for boss was:

"I believe OFBiz-ERP is all there, best-practices way of doing things. So if M2M was any good for 
you at all, I believe we can move you to OFBiz-ERP easily. Only thing we have to work on is to 
cater for any special ways you do business, any proprietary secret ingenious workflows, any 
superstitious feng-shui requirements in your corporate culture, etc.".

I'm currently in really hot soup for that wrong guesstimate. Boss has every right to stick with 
M2M now (a very strong and well-developed and well-supported product too).

I wish I didn't have to say the above out loud. I realize it'll possibly raise red flags for 
potential OFBiz customers. But I don't know if I can live with sitting by and watching them moths 
come to a hot flame advertised as "kool light". No, I'm not publicizing my findings, just speaking 
up here since it seems Ian's (and myself and boss many weeks ago) been asking precisely the above 
for some time now without getting upfront "honest-to-God and honest-to-good-service" answers.

If only Ian would just focus on how fantastic the OFBiz framework is, such as the entity engine, 
widgets (if documented right), etc. But I guess Ian's just trying to push us to address a vacuum, 
a vacuum that could well be blocking OFBiz from explosive world-wide adoption and popularity. And 
my guesstimate here would be (please let me be right this time!), Ian's right. OFBiz still rocks.

My boss asked me if I would bet my career on OFBiz. I'd say that if I weren't a reverse-engineer 
in my past life, I'd be better off pushing a real OOTB solution to him and work on impromptu 
patches/integration to get specialized functionalities welded into that OOTB solution. But bear in 
mind that I have impossible deadlines (barely a month to cut OFBiz for a sizeable manufacturing 
operation, didn't figure in bugfixes I had to do myself). So if you could get a sucker to pay 
$30,000 over 3 months for you to tailor OFBiz, you're on safe(r) ground. Yes, I know, my cases are 
always close to crazy (that's the way I live).

Don't mind speaking this plainly. I'm intending to work with Ian on that vacuum. I hope we have 
some volunteers from the community veterans, but if not, we're going ahead ourselves.

But please EVERYBODY here be aware that whether we go it ourselves or with community's 
blessing/hand-holding, we will STILL be practically leeching off the community's charitable work 
in OFBiz (SVN trunk). Proper perspective. Just FYI. Remember that.

Jonathon

David E. Jones wrote:
> 
> Ian,
> 
> About this question:
> 
>> In my ignorance I kind of assumed that once I had a stable version 
>> running it would - like my old QuickBooks 3 - keep on going without 
>> too much trouble. Provided I didn't want to start customizing and 
>> upgrading that is.
> 
>> OK. So new security breaches and the necessary patches to block them 
>> are to be expected. I have that already with existing Open Source LAMP 
>> e-commerce installations. The cost of keeping them secure is not 
>> particularly great. What is it about OFBiz that would make maintenance 
>> a luxury I might not be able to afford? Please expand.
> 
> Unless you automate only a small part of what you do in your company, 
> which is usually the case for small companies, you will HAVE to change 
> the software to meet the needs of the company over time. Unfortunately 
> (for us software peoples) not every company does exactly the same thing. 
> Even more unfortunately is that the same company, large or small, does 
> not do the same thing from one year to the next (or even smaller time 
> periods). Small companies can get away with a single OOTB system because 
> they only automate a very small part of what they do. As companies grow 
> they MUST automate more and more of what they or the company is likely 
> to fail.
> 
> As far as up-front and ongoing costs go for OFBiz in relation to what 
> you need, you hinted at an answer yourself in this paragraph:
> 
>> When I first discovered OFBiz a couple of months ago I was 
>> thunderstruck. Not only did the e-commerce front-end look every bit as 
>> good as the LAMP systems I've been installing, but the whole concept 
>> and framework looked like it ought to knock both Microsoft and Sage 
>> into a cocked hat.
>>
>> I say 'looked like' because, of course, I have subsequently discovered 
>> from my short time on this list that OFBiz is not yet as fully 
>> developed as I first thought it to be.
> 
> This means something different for everyone. Some companies are able to 
> use OFBiz 100% out of the box, but this is rare and usually means, as 
> mentioned above, that they are only automated a fairly small percentage 
> of what they do.
> 
> So, the question that will answer your question is: what do you mean by 
> this? In other words, what are the details behind the statement "OFBiz 
> is not yet as fully developed as I first thought it to be"?
> 
> The answer to that initially and over time, for your company or each of 
> your clients, is the answer to how much work will be necessary to 
> "install" and "support" the system (ie customize and maintain in more 
> honest terms).
> 
> -David
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 21, 2007, at 9:50 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
> 
>> Andrew,
>>
>> I'm not looking for anything specific at the moment. Just trying to 
>> evaluate current options and keep on top of developments in the hope 
>> of offering clients the best, most flexible, most long-term solutions 
>> I can find.
>>
>> I checked out GnuCash and SQL Ledger before I discovered OFBiz. They 
>> both look fine, as far as small business accounting packages go. 
>> You're not going to believe this, but I personally still use 
>> QuickBooks 3 which I bought for less than $200 more than 15 years ago 
>> to run on Windows 3.1. Since then I've used it to produce budgets, VAT 
>> returns and year-end accounts for up to 4 different companies at the 
>> same time - some with turnovers around the $1M mark. It has its 
>> limitations and idiosyncrasies; but it runs like lightning on XP, has 
>> never crashed even once or given me any kind of problems at all (touch 
>> wood!!!)  So it's going to take something pretty special to persuade 
>> me to change to anything else.
>>
>> I started looking at OFBiz as a solution to problems I can see 
>> starting to appear on the horizon for clients with established 
>> bricks-and-mortar wholesale and retail businesses for whom I have been 
>> installing Open Source e-commerce solutions over the past few years.
>>
>> All started with no web presence, all are now finding online sales 
>> becoming a significant and in some cases the major part of their 
>> businesses.
>>
>> In the beginning, integration with existing in-store EPOS and 
>> accounting systems from the likes of MS, Intuit and Sage was not an 
>> issue. Now it is quickly becoming the main one as staff spend 
>> increasingly longer amounts of time transferring information on paper 
>> and re-keying the same data into 3 different systems running in parallel.
>>
>> I have been trying to keep on top of this by installing patches and 
>> plugins to get the different systems to talk to each other. But 
>> bespoke integration with closed-source, proprietary systems is an 
>> arduous and expensive business that few clients can afford. More to 
>> the point, it is a very 'tacky' and incomplete solution as it depends 
>> largely on staff following rigorously prescribed synchronisation 
>> routines to prevent transactions colliding, falling over each other 
>> and cancelling each other out. Most staff working at this level will 
>> ignore the rules and cut corners if they can, resulting in tangles of 
>> inaccurate data which threaten to bring the whole business crashing 
>> around everyone's ears.
>>
>> Microsoft and Sage spotted the problems and the opportunities several 
>> years ago, and are now offering their own e-commerce clones seamlessly 
>> integrated with their own back-ends. I lost my biggest client to them 
>> just before Christmas. If I can not offer equivalent backend Open 
>> Source integration then it won't be long before I lose all the rest.
>>
>> When I first discovered OFBiz a couple of months ago I was 
>> thunderstruck. Not only did the e-commerce front-end look every bit as 
>> good as the LAMP systems I've been installing, but the whole concept 
>> and framework looked like it ought to knock both Microsoft and Sage 
>> into a cocked hat.
>>
>> I say 'looked like' because, of course, I have subsequently discovered 
>> from my short time on this list that OFBiz is not yet as fully 
>> developed as I first thought it to be.
>>
>> Your analogy with office space is interesting but I'm not entirely 
>> convinced it compares like with like. The cost of over-capacity in 
>> bricks-and-mortar space is clearly very heavy. The cost of 
>> over-capacity in Open Source virtual software space, not necessarily so.
>>
>> On the other hand, the cost of not building into the virtual software 
>> space the option for future expansion could well be crippling. It 
>> isn't just the cost of new installations and transfer of data. The 
>> major cost is staff retraining. People who adapt easily to such things 
>> do not usually end up working as warehousemen or office clerks.
>>
>> Your Project-Open link looks like it might be able to do what I need. 
>> The use of virtualisation looks very attractive. The web site is clean 
>> and crisp. The lack of forums, user groups or mailing lists is not so 
>> encouraging. I haven't even scratched the surface yet so I have no 
>> idea how it compares with OFBiz. When I do I promise to let you know.
>>
>> One thing you say at the end of your posting really does concern me:
>>> Can you really afford the luxury of servicing
>>> something as large as OfBiz en route?
>>>
>> I was aware that the cost of installing a usable version of OFBiz 
>> might not be inconsiderable. But I had no idea that the cost of 
>> servicing it could be so high it could be a luxury I might not be able 
>> to afford.
>>
>> In my ignorance I kind of assumed that once I had a stable version 
>> running it would - like my old QuickBooks 3 - keep on going without 
>> too much trouble. Provided I didn't want to start customizing and 
>> upgrading that is.
>>
>> OK. So new security breaches and the necessary patches to block them 
>> are to be expected. I have that already with existing Open Source LAMP 
>> e-commerce installations. The cost of keeping them secure is not 
>> particularly great. What is it about OFBiz that would make maintenance 
>> a luxury I might not be able to afford? Please expand.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Andrew Sykes wrote:
>>> Ian,
>>>
>>> It depends on what you're looking for.
>>>
>>> If the focus is still a "small business accounting package" as the
>>> subject line says - I know I know, there have been a zillion posts to
>>> this thread, so perhaps not. - If it's accounting, two spring to mind...
>>>
>>> For a desktop system, have a look at GnuCash...
>>> http://www.gnucash.org/
>>>
>>> For a web based system, SQLLedger seems good and I've heard a few
>>> favourable reports about it...
>>> http://www.sql-ledger.org/
>>>
>>> Finally, for a project which *seems* to have a more OOTB focus, although
>>> I've really only started looking at it this weekend, take a look at the
>>> Project:Open stuff...
>>> http://www.project-open.com/
>>> I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this one as I've only just
>>> scratched the surface...
>>>
>>> One of the criteria you should consider is the cost of upgrading from an
>>> OOTB solution sometime in the future versus the cost of implementing
>>> OfBiz now. Generally if you are at the stage of being an enterprise with
>>> more "M" than "S" turnover (SME) and have implemented a lot of bespoke
>>> business processes which form part of you USP then OfBiz is a safe bet.
>>> If you plan to get to that point one day, it's probably better waiting
>>> for that day to come and using something OOTB in the meantime. Consider
>>> the analogy with office space, you wouldn't buy up half an industrial
>>> estate because the business plan you had written in your front room said
>>> one day you'd be bigger than ICI! Even if you factored the cost of
>>> hiring a van to help with the move, it would still look a bit dodgy on
>>> the balance sheet!
>>>
>>> Choosing the right system is about being on top of your overall business
>>> strategy, where are you going? how long and how much is it going to take
>>> to get you there? Can you really afford the luxury of servicing
>>> something as large as OfBiz en route?
>>>
>>> - Andrew
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 09:58 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>
>>>> OK David. Maybe just one last thing.
>>>>
>>>> No more soap-boxing. A simple question for a change :)
>>>>
>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Looking around the OFBiz documents and such I don't think this 
>>>>> distinction is adequately represented, so I added some text similar 
>>>>> to the above to the home page of ofbiz.apache.org. It should be 
>>>>> public within a few hours, ie whenever the next deployment job runs.
>>>>>
>>>> Reading your new text, this stood out:
>>>>
>>>> "OFBiz can certainly be used OOTB (out of the box), but if you're 
>>>> looking for something that works really well for that there are many 
>>>> open source projects that do a great job there."
>>>>
>>>> OK. So maybe those projects might be more what I'm looking for.
>>>>
>>>> I searched a couple of months ago and didn't find anything I thought 
>>>> could do a better job than OFBiz. What other open source projects 
>>>> are you thinking of here?
>>>>
>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 3:49 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris, David, Everybody.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One last thought on the subject before I have my porridge and 
>>>>>> another lie down ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm wondering if any of you guys have ever taken a good hard look 
>>>>>> at the osCommerce, Zen Cart or Ubuntu forums?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.zen-cart.com/forum
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://forums.oscommerce.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.ubuntuforums.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. I know php is nasty. But that's not the point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Look at the accessibility and structure of the interface.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All user levels are accommodated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All find their natural place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nearly a quarter of a million members on Ubuntu. 120K on 
>>>>>> osCommerce. 2,347 and 824 currently active respectively at this 
>>>>>> very moment as we speak
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A working model of how to build a user base surely, if nothing else?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris Howe wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ian,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While I certainly enjoy the analogies, who are you
>>>>>>> ultimately suggesting create these lowest common
>>>>>>> denominator (LCD) documents?
>>>>>>> As has already been mentioned, once you pass that
>>>>>>> "aha" moment in OFBiz, it's difficult to understand
>>>>>>> why the engineering documentation didn't make sense
>>>>>>> the first time around.  3D vector calculus, as you put
>>>>>>> it, seems so elementary obvious at that point that
>>>>>>> it's difficult to convey it in simpler terms; even
>>>>>>> though you remember it not being obvious when you
>>>>>>> started.  I don't think it's very time/quality
>>>>>>> productive for someone who's passed that "aha" moment
>>>>>>> to produce this documentation; at least not without
>>>>>>> the aid of an "uninitiated".
>>>>>>> If you'd like to be that test subject, I'm sure there
>>>>>>> are a mess of people, including myself, that would be
>>>>>>> willing to help explain things to you as you make your
>>>>>>> way through the concepts, documenting as you go.  But
>>>>>>> the POV of the documentation cannot be from someone
>>>>>>> who's already gotten the bird off the ground, because
>>>>>>> they're not really sure which button they pressed to
>>>>>>> make it all seem second nature.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --- Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't get the proposition that there are 100
>>>>>>>> different pilot roles.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are many 1,000s  of different destinations.
>>>>>>>> Maybe more than a dozen different pilot roles (commercial, fighter,
>>>>>>>> bomber, spotter, etc.). But but there IS a lowest common 
>>>>>>>> denominator.
>>>>>>>> They all fly planes. They all start off on fixed wing, single
>>>>>>>> engine props. They all need to understand basic navigation, 
>>>>>>>> aerodynamics,
>>>>>>>> flight-engineering etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But it is very basic. The need to understand lift,
>>>>>>>> drag, how to calculate take off velocities etc. But I doubt if
>>>>>>>> they start of with 3D vector calculus or need to know what a 
>>>>>>>> Reynold's
>>>>>>>> number is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So why can't the target be whatever denominators are
>>>>>>>> common to all pilots?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How to find the door handle and the start button
>>>>>>>> would be top of my list. If they can't find those then they 
>>>>>>>> ain't never
>>>>>>>> gonna fly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I can see where you're coming from on this. This
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> project is better
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> documented than anything else I've seen in the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> field.You yourself
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> have produced a truly awesome amount of
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> documentation. I don't know
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> where you find the time. All are extremely well
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> written, very clear,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> very well laid out. A model of their kind. (No
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sucking up - I
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> mean it :) So what could possibly be the problem.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I found the Introduction Videos and Diagrams page
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> you link to here a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> couple of days ago myself.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It was whilst working through these videos that
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the light bulb went off.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What you're talking us through is a diagram of
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the wiring harness of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> a jumbo jet.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Essential for the engineers who need to service
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely the last kind of map a pilot wants to
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> find on his lap.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Know what I mean?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Uh, yeah, that's because it is meant to cover the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> framework, not the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> applications. The two are very different, change
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> very differently,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> need to be understood by different people in
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> different ways, etc. My
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> current estimate is that to produce something
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> adequate for a "pilot",
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> given that there are about 100 different "pilot"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> roles in OFBiz, would
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> require many times the effort to produce that the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> framework videos
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> with their diagrams, reference materials,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> transcriptions, etc. Right
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> now I don't have the $500k to get into that... and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the $40k already
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> spent on the documents which are now PDF-dumped
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> into the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> docs.ofbiz.org site was clearly inadequate,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> especially as it is mostly
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> reference materials (which is why you won't find
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> how-to stuff in the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> reference guides, they are references after all,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> just for reference
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> purposes). The Application Overview for Users is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> probably more of what
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> you're looking for, though that section only
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> represents maybe 3-5% of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> what is in OFBiz right now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course, that's assuming such documents could
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> even be written in a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> way that is close to generally useful. How do I
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> use it? Well, that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> depends on what you want to do... and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> unfortunately across a few
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> different industries that list grows into hundreds
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> of thousands of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> activities...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, that's the big question with any document: who
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is the target
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> audience? The more specific the answer, the better
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the document will
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> address their needs. But who is the target
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> audience for OFBiz? ... ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>>>>>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>>>>>>> Durham
>>>>>>>> DH1 2UL
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the
>>>>>>>> intended recipient(s) named above and is
>>>>>>>> confidential. Any form of distribution, copying,
>>>>>>>> discussion or use of this communication, its
>>>>>>>> contents, or any information contained herein
>>>>>>>> without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you
>>>>>>>> receive this communication in error, please notify
>>>>>>>> the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191
>>>>>>>> 384 4736
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we
>>>>>>>> cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of
>>>>>>>> software viruses and would recommend that you carry
>>>>>>>> out your own virus checks before opening any
>>>>>>>> attachment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>>>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>>>>> Durham
>>>>>> DH1 2UL
>>>>>>
>>>>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended 
>>>>>> recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of 
>>>>>> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, 
>>>>>> its contents, or any information contained herein without prior 
>>>>>> consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication 
>>>>>> in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 
>>>>>> (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept 
>>>>>> any liability sustained as a result of software viruses and would 
>>>>>> recommend that you carry out your own virus checks before opening 
>>>>>> any attachment.
>>>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>
>> mcnultyMEDIA
>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>> Durham
>> DH1 2UL
>>
>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>> ============================================================================================== 
>>
>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended 
>> recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of 
>> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its 
>> contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is 
>> strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, 
>> please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept any 
>> liability sustained as a result of software viruses and would 
>> recommend that you carry out your own virus checks before opening any 
>> attachment.
>> ============================================================================================== 
>>
> 

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

["David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

Ian,

About this question:

> In my ignorance I kind of assumed that once I had a stable version  
> running it would - like my old QuickBooks 3 - keep on going without  
> too much trouble. Provided I didn't want to start customizing and  
> upgrading that is.

> OK. So new security breaches and the necessary patches to block  
> them are to be expected. I have that already with existing Open  
> Source LAMP e-commerce installations. The cost of keeping them  
> secure is not particularly great. What is it about OFBiz that would  
> make maintenance a luxury I might not be able to afford? Please  
> expand.

Unless you automate only a small part of what you do in your company,  
which is usually the case for small companies, you will HAVE to  
change the software to meet the needs of the company over time.  
Unfortunately (for us software peoples) not every company does  
exactly the same thing. Even more unfortunately is that the same  
company, large or small, does not do the same thing from one year to  
the next (or even smaller time periods). Small companies can get away  
with a single OOTB system because they only automate a very small  
part of what they do. As companies grow they MUST automate more and  
more of what they or the company is likely to fail.

As far as up-front and ongoing costs go for OFBiz in relation to what  
you need, you hinted at an answer yourself in this paragraph:

> When I first discovered OFBiz a couple of months ago I was  
> thunderstruck. Not only did the e-commerce front-end look every bit  
> as good as the LAMP systems I've been installing, but the whole  
> concept and framework looked like it ought to knock both Microsoft  
> and Sage into a cocked hat.
>
> I say 'looked like' because, of course, I have subsequently  
> discovered from my short time on this list that OFBiz is not yet as  
> fully developed as I first thought it to be.

This means something different for everyone. Some companies are able  
to use OFBiz 100% out of the box, but this is rare and usually means,  
as mentioned above, that they are only automated a fairly small  
percentage of what they do.

So, the question that will answer your question is: what do you mean  
by this? In other words, what are the details behind the statement  
"OFBiz is not yet as fully developed as I first thought it to be"?

The answer to that initially and over time, for your company or each  
of your clients, is the answer to how much work will be necessary to  
"install" and "support" the system (ie customize and maintain in more  
honest terms).

-David



On Jan 21, 2007, at 9:50 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> I'm not looking for anything specific at the moment. Just trying to  
> evaluate current options and keep on top of developments in the  
> hope of offering clients the best, most flexible, most long-term  
> solutions I can find.
>
> I checked out GnuCash and SQL Ledger before I discovered OFBiz.  
> They both look fine, as far as small business accounting packages  
> go. You're not going to believe this, but I personally still use  
> QuickBooks 3 which I bought for less than $200 more than 15 years  
> ago to run on Windows 3.1. Since then I've used it to produce  
> budgets, VAT returns and year-end accounts for up to 4 different  
> companies at the same time - some with turnovers around the $1M  
> mark. It has its limitations and idiosyncrasies; but it runs like  
> lightning on XP, has never crashed even once or given me any kind  
> of problems at all (touch wood!!!)  So it's going to take something  
> pretty special to persuade me to change to anything else.
>
> I started looking at OFBiz as a solution to problems I can see  
> starting to appear on the horizon for clients with established  
> bricks-and-mortar wholesale and retail businesses for whom I have  
> been installing Open Source e-commerce solutions over the past few  
> years.
>
> All started with no web presence, all are now finding online sales  
> becoming a significant and in some cases the major part of their  
> businesses.
>
> In the beginning, integration with existing in-store EPOS and  
> accounting systems from the likes of MS, Intuit and Sage was not an  
> issue. Now it is quickly becoming the main one as staff spend  
> increasingly longer amounts of time transferring information on  
> paper and re-keying the same data into 3 different systems running  
> in parallel.
>
> I have been trying to keep on top of this by installing patches and  
> plugins to get the different systems to talk to each other. But  
> bespoke integration with closed-source, proprietary systems is an  
> arduous and expensive business that few clients can afford. More to  
> the point, it is a very 'tacky' and incomplete solution as it  
> depends largely on staff following rigorously prescribed  
> synchronisation routines to prevent transactions colliding, falling  
> over each other and cancelling each other out. Most staff working  
> at this level will ignore the rules and cut corners if they can,  
> resulting in tangles of inaccurate data which threaten to bring the  
> whole business crashing around everyone's ears.
>
> Microsoft and Sage spotted the problems and the opportunities  
> several years ago, and are now offering their own e-commerce clones  
> seamlessly integrated with their own back-ends. I lost my biggest  
> client to them just before Christmas. If I can not offer equivalent  
> backend Open Source integration then it won't be long before I lose  
> all the rest.
>
> When I first discovered OFBiz a couple of months ago I was  
> thunderstruck. Not only did the e-commerce front-end look every bit  
> as good as the LAMP systems I've been installing, but the whole  
> concept and framework looked like it ought to knock both Microsoft  
> and Sage into a cocked hat.
>
> I say 'looked like' because, of course, I have subsequently  
> discovered from my short time on this list that OFBiz is not yet as  
> fully developed as I first thought it to be.
>
> Your analogy with office space is interesting but I'm not entirely  
> convinced it compares like with like. The cost of over-capacity in  
> bricks-and-mortar space is clearly very heavy. The cost of over- 
> capacity in Open Source virtual software space, not necessarily so.
>
> On the other hand, the cost of not building into the virtual  
> software space the option for future expansion could well be  
> crippling. It isn't just the cost of new installations and transfer  
> of data. The major cost is staff retraining. People who adapt  
> easily to such things do not usually end up working as warehousemen  
> or office clerks.
>
> Your Project-Open link looks like it might be able to do what I  
> need. The use of virtualisation looks very attractive. The web site  
> is clean and crisp. The lack of forums, user groups or mailing  
> lists is not so encouraging. I haven't even scratched the surface  
> yet so I have no idea how it compares with OFBiz. When I do I  
> promise to let you know.
>
> One thing you say at the end of your posting really does concern me:
>> Can you really afford the luxury of servicing
>> something as large as OfBiz en route?
>>
> I was aware that the cost of installing a usable version of OFBiz  
> might not be inconsiderable. But I had no idea that the cost of  
> servicing it could be so high it could be a luxury I might not be  
> able to afford.
>
> In my ignorance I kind of assumed that once I had a stable version  
> running it would - like my old QuickBooks 3 - keep on going without  
> too much trouble. Provided I didn't want to start customizing and  
> upgrading that is.
>
> OK. So new security breaches and the necessary patches to block  
> them are to be expected. I have that already with existing Open  
> Source LAMP e-commerce installations. The cost of keeping them  
> secure is not particularly great. What is it about OFBiz that would  
> make maintenance a luxury I might not be able to afford? Please  
> expand.
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> Andrew Sykes wrote:
>> Ian,
>>
>> It depends on what you're looking for.
>>
>> If the focus is still a "small business accounting package" as the
>> subject line says - I know I know, there have been a zillion posts to
>> this thread, so perhaps not. - If it's accounting, two spring to  
>> mind...
>>
>> For a desktop system, have a look at GnuCash...
>> http://www.gnucash.org/
>>
>> For a web based system, SQLLedger seems good and I've heard a few
>> favourable reports about it...
>> http://www.sql-ledger.org/
>>
>> Finally, for a project which *seems* to have a more OOTB focus,  
>> although
>> I've really only started looking at it this weekend, take a look  
>> at the
>> Project:Open stuff...
>> http://www.project-open.com/
>> I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this one as I've only just
>> scratched the surface...
>>
>> One of the criteria you should consider is the cost of upgrading  
>> from an
>> OOTB solution sometime in the future versus the cost of implementing
>> OfBiz now. Generally if you are at the stage of being an  
>> enterprise with
>> more "M" than "S" turnover (SME) and have implemented a lot of  
>> bespoke
>> business processes which form part of you USP then OfBiz is a safe  
>> bet.
>> If you plan to get to that point one day, it's probably better  
>> waiting
>> for that day to come and using something OOTB in the meantime.  
>> Consider
>> the analogy with office space, you wouldn't buy up half an industrial
>> estate because the business plan you had written in your front  
>> room said
>> one day you'd be bigger than ICI! Even if you factored the cost of
>> hiring a van to help with the move, it would still look a bit  
>> dodgy on
>> the balance sheet!
>>
>> Choosing the right system is about being on top of your overall  
>> business
>> strategy, where are you going? how long and how much is it going  
>> to take
>> to get you there? Can you really afford the luxury of servicing
>> something as large as OfBiz en route?
>>
>> - Andrew
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 09:58 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>
>>> OK David. Maybe just one last thing.
>>>
>>> No more soap-boxing. A simple question for a change :)
>>>
>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>> Looking around the OFBiz documents and such I don't think this  
>>>> distinction is adequately represented, so I added some text  
>>>> similar to the above to the home page of ofbiz.apache.org. It  
>>>> should be public within a few hours, ie whenever the next  
>>>> deployment job runs.
>>>>
>>> Reading your new text, this stood out:
>>>
>>> "OFBiz can certainly be used OOTB (out of the box), but if you're  
>>> looking for something that works really well for that there are  
>>> many open source projects that do a great job there."
>>>
>>> OK. So maybe those projects might be more what I'm looking for.
>>>
>>> I searched a couple of months ago and didn't find anything I  
>>> thought could do a better job than OFBiz. What other open source  
>>> projects are you thinking of here?
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 3:49 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Chris, David, Everybody.
>>>>>
>>>>> One last thought on the subject before I have my porridge and  
>>>>> another lie down ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm wondering if any of you guys have ever taken a good hard  
>>>>> look at the osCommerce, Zen Cart or Ubuntu forums?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.zen-cart.com/forum
>>>>>
>>>>> http://forums.oscommerce.com
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ubuntuforums.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. I know php is nasty. But that's not the point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Look at the accessibility and structure of the interface.
>>>>>
>>>>> All user levels are accommodated.
>>>>>
>>>>> All find their natural place.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nearly a quarter of a million members on Ubuntu. 120K on  
>>>>> osCommerce. 2,347 and 824 currently active respectively at this  
>>>>> very moment as we speak
>>>>>
>>>>> A working model of how to build a user base surely, if nothing  
>>>>> else?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris Howe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ian,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While I certainly enjoy the analogies, who are you
>>>>>> ultimately suggesting create these lowest common
>>>>>> denominator (LCD) documents?
>>>>>> As has already been mentioned, once you pass that
>>>>>> "aha" moment in OFBiz, it's difficult to understand
>>>>>> why the engineering documentation didn't make sense
>>>>>> the first time around.  3D vector calculus, as you put
>>>>>> it, seems so elementary obvious at that point that
>>>>>> it's difficult to convey it in simpler terms; even
>>>>>> though you remember it not being obvious when you
>>>>>> started.  I don't think it's very time/quality
>>>>>> productive for someone who's passed that "aha" moment
>>>>>> to produce this documentation; at least not without
>>>>>> the aid of an "uninitiated".
>>>>>> If you'd like to be that test subject, I'm sure there
>>>>>> are a mess of people, including myself, that would be
>>>>>> willing to help explain things to you as you make your
>>>>>> way through the concepts, documenting as you go.  But
>>>>>> the POV of the documentation cannot be from someone
>>>>>> who's already gotten the bird off the ground, because
>>>>>> they're not really sure which button they pressed to
>>>>>> make it all seem second nature.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't get the proposition that there are 100
>>>>>>> different pilot roles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are many 1,000s  of different destinations.
>>>>>>> Maybe more than a dozen different pilot roles (commercial,  
>>>>>>> fighter,
>>>>>>> bomber, spotter, etc.). But but there IS a lowest common  
>>>>>>> denominator.
>>>>>>> They all fly planes. They all start off on fixed wing, single
>>>>>>> engine props. They all need to understand basic navigation,  
>>>>>>> aerodynamics,
>>>>>>> flight-engineering etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But it is very basic. The need to understand lift,
>>>>>>> drag, how to calculate take off velocities etc. But I doubt if
>>>>>>> they start of with 3D vector calculus or need to know what a  
>>>>>>> Reynold's
>>>>>>> number is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So why can't the target be whatever denominators are
>>>>>>> common to all pilots?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How to find the door handle and the start button
>>>>>>> would be top of my list. If they can't find those then they  
>>>>>>> ain't never
>>>>>>> gonna fly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can see where you're coming from on this. This
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> project is better
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> documented than anything else I've seen in the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> field.You yourself
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> have produced a truly awesome amount of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> documentation. I don't know
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> where you find the time. All are extremely well
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> written, very clear,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> very well laid out. A model of their kind. (No
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not sucking up - I
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> mean it :) So what could possibly be the problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I found the Introduction Videos and Diagrams page
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you link to here a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> couple of days ago myself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It was whilst working through these videos that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the light bulb went off.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What you're talking us through is a diagram of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the wiring harness of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> a jumbo jet.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Essential for the engineers who need to service
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Absolutely the last kind of map a pilot wants to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> find on his lap.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Know what I mean?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Uh, yeah, that's because it is meant to cover the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> framework, not the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> applications. The two are very different, change
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> very differently,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> need to be understood by different people in
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> different ways, etc. My
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> current estimate is that to produce something
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> adequate for a "pilot",
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> given that there are about 100 different "pilot"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> roles in OFBiz, would
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> require many times the effort to produce that the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> framework videos
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> with their diagrams, reference materials,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> transcriptions, etc. Right
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> now I don't have the $500k to get into that... and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the $40k already
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> spent on the documents which are now PDF-dumped
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> into the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> docs.ofbiz.org site was clearly inadequate,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> especially as it is mostly
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> reference materials (which is why you won't find
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> how-to stuff in the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> reference guides, they are references after all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> just for reference
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> purposes). The Application Overview for Users is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> probably more of what
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> you're looking for, though that section only
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> represents maybe 3-5% of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> what is in OFBiz right now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course, that's assuming such documents could
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> even be written in a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> way that is close to generally useful. How do I
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> use it? Well, that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> depends on what you want to do... and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> unfortunately across a few
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> different industries that list grows into hundreds
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of thousands of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> activities...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, that's the big question with any document: who
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is the target
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> audience? The more specific the answer, the better
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the document will
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> address their needs. But who is the target
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> audience for OFBiz? ... ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>>>> -----------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>>>>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>>>>>> Durham
>>>>>>> DH1 2UL
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ================================================================= 
>>>>>> =============================
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the
>>>>>>> intended recipient(s) named above and is
>>>>>>> confidential. Any form of distribution, copying,
>>>>>>> discussion or use of this communication, its
>>>>>>> contents, or any information contained herein
>>>>>>> without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you
>>>>>>> receive this communication in error, please notify
>>>>>>> the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191
>>>>>>> 384 4736
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we
>>>>>>> cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of
>>>>>>> software viruses and would recommend that you carry
>>>>>>> out your own virus checks before opening any
>>>>>>> attachment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ================================================================= 
>>>>>> =============================
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>>>> Durham
>>>>> DH1 2UL
>>>>>
>>>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>> ================================================================== 
>>>>> ============================
>>>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended  
>>>>> recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of  
>>>>> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication,  
>>>>> its contents, or any information contained herein without prior  
>>>>> consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this  
>>>>> communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by  
>>>>> telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>
>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot  
>>>>> accept any liability sustained as a result of software viruses  
>>>>> and would recommend that you carry out your own virus checks  
>>>>> before opening any attachment.
>>>>> ================================================================== 
>>>>> ============================
>>>>>
>
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------------------------
> mcnultyMEDIA
> 60 Birkdale Gardens
> Durham
> DH1 2UL
>
> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
> ====================================================================== 
> ========================
> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended  
> recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of  
> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its  
> contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent  
> is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error,  
> please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384  
> 4736
>
> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept  
> any liability sustained as a result of software viruses and would  
> recommend that you carry out your own virus checks before opening  
> any attachment.
> ====================================================================== 
> ========================

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

Jonathon,

> It's hard to pick up OFBiz framework (I don't know, but IMHO, it's 
> easy enough for me). But once you do, you forget how you ever 
> struggled with like manual stick shifts (I still hate auto-geared 
> cars, so this might not apply to me; and that's why I really don't 
> mind having to reverse-engineer OFBiz to learn it).

IMHO this is a VERY important point.

Automation is not always a good thing. Like everything it has very real 
downsides which need to be factored into the cost-benefit equation.

First would be the loss of subtlety that comes with manual control - the 
reason why many of us wouldn't swap a stick shift for an automatic under 
any circumstances.

Second is vulnerability. The more complex the system, the easier it is 
to crash.

Last but not least are the consequences of imperfect implementation and 
system failure. The more powerful the automation the greater the damage 
if it slips. A hand saw might take off a finger. A chain saw can easily 
take off your head. If there's even the slightest possibility that a new 
fly-by-wire system might flip the aircraft over (as they did in the 
early days) then you really wouldn't want to be going there at all.

Ian




>
> > In my ignorance I kind of assumed that once I had a stable version 
> running it
> > would - like my old QuickBooks 3 - keep on going without too much
> > trouble. Provided I didn't want to start customizing and upgrading 
> that is.
>
> In your... "ignorance", you assumed right. The OFBiz framework is 
> solid, I checked it. No problems with sessions (long-standing Java 
> technology), database access (ok, maybe a few kinks but not even 
> noticeable), and such. Even if there were problems here, a patch from 
> OFBiz rocket scientists will fix it in no time. Why so easy? Like I 
> said so many times, OFBiz framework is very well-organized. 
> Upgrading/updating the core engine does not make your windscreen 
> wipers fall off (unless you drive it at speed of plane, perhaps).
>
> Jonathon
>
> Ian McNulty wrote:
>> Andrew,
>>
>> I'm not looking for anything specific at the moment. Just trying to 
>> evaluate current options and keep on top of developments in the hope 
>> of offering clients the best, most flexible, most long-term solutions 
>> I can find.
>>
>> I checked out GnuCash and SQL Ledger before I discovered OFBiz. They 
>> both look fine, as far as small business accounting packages go. 
>> You're not going to believe this, but I personally still use 
>> QuickBooks 3 which I bought for less than $200 more than 15 years ago 
>> to run on Windows 3.1. Since then I've used it to produce budgets, 
>> VAT returns and year-end accounts for up to 4 different companies at 
>> the same time - some with turnovers around the $1M mark. It has its 
>> limitations and idiosyncrasies; but it runs like lightning on XP, has 
>> never crashed even once or given me any kind of problems at all 
>> (touch wood!!!)  So it's going to take something pretty special to 
>> persuade me to change to anything else.
>>
>> I started looking at OFBiz as a solution to problems I can see 
>> starting to appear on the horizon for clients with established 
>> bricks-and-mortar wholesale and retail businesses for whom I have 
>> been installing Open Source e-commerce solutions over the past few 
>> years.
>>
>> All started with no web presence, all are now finding online sales 
>> becoming a significant and in some cases the major part of their 
>> businesses.
>>
>> In the beginning, integration with existing in-store EPOS and 
>> accounting systems from the likes of MS, Intuit and Sage was not an 
>> issue. Now it is quickly becoming the main one as staff spend 
>> increasingly longer amounts of time transferring information on paper 
>> and re-keying the same data into 3 different systems running in 
>> parallel.
>>
>> I have been trying to keep on top of this by installing patches and 
>> plugins to get the different systems to talk to each other. But 
>> bespoke integration with closed-source, proprietary systems is an 
>> arduous and expensive business that few clients can afford. More to 
>> the point, it is a very 'tacky' and incomplete solution as it depends 
>> largely on staff following rigorously prescribed synchronisation 
>> routines to prevent transactions colliding, falling over each other 
>> and cancelling each other out. Most staff working at this level will 
>> ignore the rules and cut corners if they can, resulting in tangles of 
>> inaccurate data which threaten to bring the whole business crashing 
>> around everyone's ears.
>>
>> Microsoft and Sage spotted the problems and the opportunities several 
>> years ago, and are now offering their own e-commerce clones 
>> seamlessly integrated with their own back-ends. I lost my biggest 
>> client to them just before Christmas. If I can not offer equivalent 
>> backend Open Source integration then it won't be long before I lose 
>> all the rest.
>>
>> When I first discovered OFBiz a couple of months ago I was 
>> thunderstruck. Not only did the e-commerce front-end look every bit 
>> as good as the LAMP systems I've been installing, but the whole 
>> concept and framework looked like it ought to knock both Microsoft 
>> and Sage into a cocked hat.
>>
>> I say 'looked like' because, of course, I have subsequently 
>> discovered from my short time on this list that OFBiz is not yet as 
>> fully developed as I first thought it to be.
>>
>> Your analogy with office space is interesting but I'm not entirely 
>> convinced it compares like with like. The cost of over-capacity in 
>> bricks-and-mortar space is clearly very heavy. The cost of 
>> over-capacity in Open Source virtual software space, not necessarily so.
>>
>> On the other hand, the cost of not building into the virtual software 
>> space the option for future expansion could well be crippling. It 
>> isn't just the cost of new installations and transfer of data. The 
>> major cost is staff retraining. People who adapt easily to such 
>> things do not usually end up working as warehousemen or office clerks.
>>
>> Your Project-Open link looks like it might be able to do what I need. 
>> The use of virtualisation looks very attractive. The web site is 
>> clean and crisp. The lack of forums, user groups or mailing lists is 
>> not so encouraging. I haven't even scratched the surface yet so I 
>> have no idea how it compares with OFBiz. When I do I promise to let 
>> you know.
>>
>> One thing you say at the end of your posting really does concern me:
>>> Can you really afford the luxury of servicing
>>> something as large as OfBiz en route?
>>>   
>> I was aware that the cost of installing a usable version of OFBiz 
>> might not be inconsiderable. But I had no idea that the cost of 
>> servicing it could be so high it could be a luxury I might not be 
>> able to afford.
>>
>> In my ignorance I kind of assumed that once I had a stable version 
>> running it would - like my old QuickBooks 3 - keep on going without 
>> too much trouble. Provided I didn't want to start customizing and 
>> upgrading that is.
>>
>> OK. So new security breaches and the necessary patches to block them 
>> are to be expected. I have that already with existing Open Source 
>> LAMP e-commerce installations. The cost of keeping them secure is not 
>> particularly great. What is it about OFBiz that would make 
>> maintenance a luxury I might not be able to afford? Please expand.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Andrew Sykes wrote:
>>> Ian,
>>>
>>> It depends on what you're looking for.
>>>
>>> If the focus is still a "small business accounting package" as the
>>> subject line says - I know I know, there have been a zillion posts to
>>> this thread, so perhaps not. - If it's accounting, two spring to 
>>> mind...
>>>
>>> For a desktop system, have a look at GnuCash...
>>> http://www.gnucash.org/
>>>
>>> For a web based system, SQLLedger seems good and I've heard a few
>>> favourable reports about it...
>>> http://www.sql-ledger.org/
>>>
>>> Finally, for a project which *seems* to have a more OOTB focus, 
>>> although
>>> I've really only started looking at it this weekend, take a look at the
>>> Project:Open stuff...
>>> http://www.project-open.com/
>>> I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this one as I've only just
>>> scratched the surface...
>>>
>>> One of the criteria you should consider is the cost of upgrading 
>>> from an
>>> OOTB solution sometime in the future versus the cost of implementing
>>> OfBiz now. Generally if you are at the stage of being an enterprise 
>>> with
>>> more "M" than "S" turnover (SME) and have implemented a lot of bespoke
>>> business processes which form part of you USP then OfBiz is a safe bet.
>>> If you plan to get to that point one day, it's probably better waiting
>>> for that day to come and using something OOTB in the meantime. Consider
>>> the analogy with office space, you wouldn't buy up half an industrial
>>> estate because the business plan you had written in your front room 
>>> said
>>> one day you'd be bigger than ICI! Even if you factored the cost of
>>> hiring a van to help with the move, it would still look a bit dodgy on
>>> the balance sheet!
>>>
>>> Choosing the right system is about being on top of your overall 
>>> business
>>> strategy, where are you going? how long and how much is it going to 
>>> take
>>> to get you there? Can you really afford the luxury of servicing
>>> something as large as OfBiz en route?
>>>
>>> - Andrew
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 09:58 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>  
>>>> OK David. Maybe just one last thing.
>>>>
>>>> No more soap-boxing. A simple question for a change :)
>>>>
>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>   
>>>>> Looking around the OFBiz documents and such I don't think this 
>>>>> distinction is adequately represented, so I added some text 
>>>>> similar to the above to the home page of ofbiz.apache.org. It 
>>>>> should be public within a few hours, ie whenever the next 
>>>>> deployment job runs.
>>>>>       
>>>> Reading your new text, this stood out:
>>>>
>>>> "OFBiz can certainly be used OOTB (out of the box), but if you're 
>>>> looking for something that works really well for that there are 
>>>> many open source projects that do a great job there."
>>>>
>>>> OK. So maybe those projects might be more what I'm looking for.
>>>>
>>>> I searched a couple of months ago and didn't find anything I 
>>>> thought could do a better job than OFBiz. What other open source 
>>>> projects are you thinking of here?
>>>>
>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 3:49 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>     
>>>>>> Chris, David, Everybody.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One last thought on the subject before I have my porridge and 
>>>>>> another lie down ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm wondering if any of you guys have ever taken a good hard look 
>>>>>> at the osCommerce, Zen Cart or Ubuntu forums?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.zen-cart.com/forum
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://forums.oscommerce.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.ubuntuforums.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. I know php is nasty. But that's not the point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Look at the accessibility and structure of the interface.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All user levels are accommodated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All find their natural place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nearly a quarter of a million members on Ubuntu. 120K on 
>>>>>> osCommerce. 2,347 and 824 currently active respectively at this 
>>>>>> very moment as we speak
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A working model of how to build a user base surely, if nothing else?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris Howe wrote:
>>>>>>       
>>>>>>> Ian,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While I certainly enjoy the analogies, who are you
>>>>>>> ultimately suggesting create these lowest common
>>>>>>> denominator (LCD) documents?
>>>>>>> As has already been mentioned, once you pass that
>>>>>>> "aha" moment in OFBiz, it's difficult to understand
>>>>>>> why the engineering documentation didn't make sense
>>>>>>> the first time around.  3D vector calculus, as you put
>>>>>>> it, seems so elementary obvious at that point that
>>>>>>> it's difficult to convey it in simpler terms; even
>>>>>>> though you remember it not being obvious when you
>>>>>>> started.  I don't think it's very time/quality
>>>>>>> productive for someone who's passed that "aha" moment
>>>>>>> to produce this documentation; at least not without
>>>>>>> the aid of an "uninitiated".
>>>>>>> If you'd like to be that test subject, I'm sure there
>>>>>>> are a mess of people, including myself, that would be
>>>>>>> willing to help explain things to you as you make your
>>>>>>> way through the concepts, documenting as you go.  But
>>>>>>> the POV of the documentation cannot be from someone
>>>>>>> who's already gotten the bird off the ground, because
>>>>>>> they're not really sure which button they pressed to
>>>>>>> make it all seem second nature.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --- Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         
>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't get the proposition that there are 100
>>>>>>>> different pilot roles.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are many 1,000s  of different destinations.
>>>>>>>> Maybe more than a dozen different pilot roles (commercial, 
>>>>>>>> fighter,
>>>>>>>> bomber, spotter, etc.). But but there IS a lowest common 
>>>>>>>> denominator.
>>>>>>>> They all fly planes. They all start off on fixed wing, single
>>>>>>>> engine props. They all need to understand basic navigation, 
>>>>>>>> aerodynamics,
>>>>>>>> flight-engineering etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But it is very basic. The need to understand lift,
>>>>>>>> drag, how to calculate take off velocities etc. But I doubt if
>>>>>>>> they start of with 3D vector calculus or need to know what a 
>>>>>>>> Reynold's
>>>>>>>> number is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So why can't the target be whatever denominators are
>>>>>>>> common to all pilots?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How to find the door handle and the start button
>>>>>>>> would be top of my list. If they can't find those then they 
>>>>>>>> ain't never
>>>>>>>> gonna fly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I can see where you're coming from on this. This
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>> project is better
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>>> documented than anything else I've seen in the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>> field.You yourself
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>>> have produced a truly awesome amount of
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>> documentation. I don't know
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>>> where you find the time. All are extremely well
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>> written, very clear,
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>>> very well laid out. A model of their kind. (No
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>> I'm not sucking up - I
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>>> mean it :) So what could possibly be the problem.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I found the Introduction Videos and Diagrams page
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>> you link to here a
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>>> couple of days ago myself.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It was whilst working through these videos that
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>> the light bulb went off.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>>> What you're talking us through is a diagram of
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>> the wiring harness of
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>>> a jumbo jet.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Essential for the engineers who need to service
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely the last kind of map a pilot wants to
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>> find on his lap.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>>> Know what I mean?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>>> Uh, yeah, that's because it is meant to cover the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> framework, not the
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>> applications. The two are very different, change
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> very differently,
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>> need to be understood by different people in
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> different ways, etc. My
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>> current estimate is that to produce something
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> adequate for a "pilot",
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>> given that there are about 100 different "pilot"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> roles in OFBiz, would
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>> require many times the effort to produce that the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> framework videos
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>> with their diagrams, reference materials,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> transcriptions, etc. Right
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>> now I don't have the $500k to get into that... and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> the $40k already
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>> spent on the documents which are now PDF-dumped
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> into the
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>> docs.ofbiz.org site was clearly inadequate,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> especially as it is mostly
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>> reference materials (which is why you won't find
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> how-to stuff in the
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>> reference guides, they are references after all,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> just for reference
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>> purposes). The Application Overview for Users is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> probably more of what
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>> you're looking for, though that section only
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> represents maybe 3-5% of
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>> what is in OFBiz right now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course, that's assuming such documents could
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> even be written in a
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>> way that is close to generally useful. How do I
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> use it? Well, that
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>> depends on what you want to do... and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> unfortunately across a few
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>> different industries that list grows into hundreds
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> of thousands of
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>> activities...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, that's the big question with any document: who
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> is the target
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>> audience? The more specific the answer, the better
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> the document will
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>> address their needs. But who is the target
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> audience for OFBiz? ... ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         
>>>>>>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>>>>>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>>>>>>> Durham
>>>>>>>> DH1 2UL
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         
>>>>>>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the
>>>>>>>> intended recipient(s) named above and is
>>>>>>>> confidential. Any form of distribution, copying,
>>>>>>>> discussion or use of this communication, its
>>>>>>>> contents, or any information contained herein
>>>>>>>> without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you
>>>>>>>> receive this communication in error, please notify
>>>>>>>> the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191
>>>>>>>> 384 4736
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we
>>>>>>>> cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of
>>>>>>>> software viruses and would recommend that you carry
>>>>>>>> out your own virus checks before opening any
>>>>>>>> attachment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>>>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>>>>> Durham
>>>>>> DH1 2UL
>>>>>>
>>>>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended 
>>>>>> recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of 
>>>>>> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, 
>>>>>> its contents, or any information contained herein without prior 
>>>>>> consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication 
>>>>>> in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on 
>>>>>> +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot 
>>>>>> accept any liability sustained as a result of software viruses 
>>>>>> and would recommend that you carry out your own virus checks 
>>>>>> before opening any attachment.
>>>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         
>>
>
>
>

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>]

 > bespoke integration with closed-source, proprietary systems is an arduous and
 > expensive business that few clients can afford.

That's my business! :) Plus some IT managers screw things up big time, so we move in, sign NDAs, 
and set things right, and then hush...

 > Microsoft and Sage spotted the problems and the opportunities several years
 > ago, and are now offering their own e-commerce clones seamlessly integrated
 > with their own back-ends.

Let's hope they don't do it too well. :)

 > I was aware that the cost of installing a usable version of OFBiz might not
 > be inconsiderable. But I had no idea that the cost of servicing it could be
 > so high it could be a luxury I might not be able to afford.

IMHO, it's not expensive at all. I don't know where Andrew got that idea, but I sure would like 
that idea to be reality! (Boss, I know it cost you arm and leg to install OFBiz, but can I charge 
you your remaining arm and leg for future enhancements? Please?)

Like I said, the OFBiz framework is a darling. Once you get to know it by heart (or somebody draws 
up REALLY comprehensive and audited docs of it), it's like adding a new set of client files in 
your well-organized file storeroom. I probably should bring this analogy home. Ok, consider that 
it's expensive to install automated robots (automatons, whatever) to help file files in a file 
storeroom; once installed, new files go in easy. It's hard to pick up OFBiz framework (I don't 
know, but IMHO, it's easy enough for me). But once you do, you forget how you ever struggled with 
like manual stick shifts (I still hate auto-geared cars, so this might not apply to me; and that's 
why I really don't mind having to reverse-engineer OFBiz to learn it).

 > In my ignorance I kind of assumed that once I had a stable version running it
 > would - like my old QuickBooks 3 - keep on going without too much
 > trouble. Provided I didn't want to start customizing and upgrading that is.

In your... "ignorance", you assumed right. The OFBiz framework is solid, I checked it. No problems 
with sessions (long-standing Java technology), database access (ok, maybe a few kinks but not even 
noticeable), and such. Even if there were problems here, a patch from OFBiz rocket scientists will 
fix it in no time. Why so easy? Like I said so many times, OFBiz framework is very well-organized. 
Upgrading/updating the core engine does not make your windscreen wipers fall off (unless you drive 
it at speed of plane, perhaps).

Jonathon

Ian McNulty wrote:
> Andrew,
> 
> I'm not looking for anything specific at the moment. Just trying to 
> evaluate current options and keep on top of developments in the hope of 
> offering clients the best, most flexible, most long-term solutions I can 
> find.
> 
> I checked out GnuCash and SQL Ledger before I discovered OFBiz. They 
> both look fine, as far as small business accounting packages go. You're 
> not going to believe this, but I personally still use QuickBooks 3 which 
> I bought for less than $200 more than 15 years ago to run on Windows 
> 3.1. Since then I've used it to produce budgets, VAT returns and 
> year-end accounts for up to 4 different companies at the same time - 
> some with turnovers around the $1M mark. It has its limitations and 
> idiosyncrasies; but it runs like lightning on XP, has never crashed even 
> once or given me any kind of problems at all (touch wood!!!)  So it's 
> going to take something pretty special to persuade me to change to 
> anything else.
> 
> I started looking at OFBiz as a solution to problems I can see starting 
> to appear on the horizon for clients with established bricks-and-mortar 
> wholesale and retail businesses for whom I have been installing Open 
> Source e-commerce solutions over the past few years.
> 
> All started with no web presence, all are now finding online sales 
> becoming a significant and in some cases the major part of their 
> businesses.
> 
> In the beginning, integration with existing in-store EPOS and accounting 
> systems from the likes of MS, Intuit and Sage was not an issue. Now it 
> is quickly becoming the main one as staff spend increasingly longer 
> amounts of time transferring information on paper and re-keying the same 
> data into 3 different systems running in parallel.
> 
> I have been trying to keep on top of this by installing patches and 
> plugins to get the different systems to talk to each other. But bespoke 
> integration with closed-source, proprietary systems is an arduous and 
> expensive business that few clients can afford. More to the point, it is 
> a very 'tacky' and incomplete solution as it depends largely on staff 
> following rigorously prescribed synchronisation routines to prevent 
> transactions colliding, falling over each other and cancelling each 
> other out. Most staff working at this level will ignore the rules and 
> cut corners if they can, resulting in tangles of inaccurate data which 
> threaten to bring the whole business crashing around everyone's ears.
> 
> Microsoft and Sage spotted the problems and the opportunities several 
> years ago, and are now offering their own e-commerce clones seamlessly 
> integrated with their own back-ends. I lost my biggest client to them 
> just before Christmas. If I can not offer equivalent backend Open Source 
> integration then it won't be long before I lose all the rest.
> 
> When I first discovered OFBiz a couple of months ago I was 
> thunderstruck. Not only did the e-commerce front-end look every bit as 
> good as the LAMP systems I've been installing, but the whole concept and 
> framework looked like it ought to knock both Microsoft and Sage into a 
> cocked hat.
> 
> I say 'looked like' because, of course, I have subsequently discovered 
> from my short time on this list that OFBiz is not yet as fully developed 
> as I first thought it to be.
> 
> Your analogy with office space is interesting but I'm not entirely 
> convinced it compares like with like. The cost of over-capacity in 
> bricks-and-mortar space is clearly very heavy. The cost of over-capacity 
> in Open Source virtual software space, not necessarily so.
> 
> On the other hand, the cost of not building into the virtual software 
> space the option for future expansion could well be crippling. It isn't 
> just the cost of new installations and transfer of data. The major cost 
> is staff retraining. People who adapt easily to such things do not 
> usually end up working as warehousemen or office clerks.
> 
> Your Project-Open link looks like it might be able to do what I need. 
> The use of virtualisation looks very attractive. The web site is clean 
> and crisp. The lack of forums, user groups or mailing lists is not so 
> encouraging. I haven't even scratched the surface yet so I have no idea 
> how it compares with OFBiz. When I do I promise to let you know.
> 
> One thing you say at the end of your posting really does concern me:
>> Can you really afford the luxury of servicing
>> something as large as OfBiz en route?
>>   
> I was aware that the cost of installing a usable version of OFBiz might 
> not be inconsiderable. But I had no idea that the cost of servicing it 
> could be so high it could be a luxury I might not be able to afford.
> 
> In my ignorance I kind of assumed that once I had a stable version 
> running it would - like my old QuickBooks 3 - keep on going without too 
> much trouble. Provided I didn't want to start customizing and upgrading 
> that is.
> 
> OK. So new security breaches and the necessary patches to block them are 
> to be expected. I have that already with existing Open Source LAMP 
> e-commerce installations. The cost of keeping them secure is not 
> particularly great. What is it about OFBiz that would make maintenance a 
> luxury I might not be able to afford? Please expand.
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew Sykes wrote:
>> Ian,
>>
>> It depends on what you're looking for.
>>
>> If the focus is still a "small business accounting package" as the
>> subject line says - I know I know, there have been a zillion posts to
>> this thread, so perhaps not. - If it's accounting, two spring to mind...
>>
>> For a desktop system, have a look at GnuCash...
>> http://www.gnucash.org/
>>
>> For a web based system, SQLLedger seems good and I've heard a few
>> favourable reports about it...
>> http://www.sql-ledger.org/
>>
>> Finally, for a project which *seems* to have a more OOTB focus, although
>> I've really only started looking at it this weekend, take a look at the
>> Project:Open stuff...
>> http://www.project-open.com/
>> I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this one as I've only just
>> scratched the surface...
>>
>> One of the criteria you should consider is the cost of upgrading from an
>> OOTB solution sometime in the future versus the cost of implementing
>> OfBiz now. Generally if you are at the stage of being an enterprise with
>> more "M" than "S" turnover (SME) and have implemented a lot of bespoke
>> business processes which form part of you USP then OfBiz is a safe bet.
>> If you plan to get to that point one day, it's probably better waiting
>> for that day to come and using something OOTB in the meantime. Consider
>> the analogy with office space, you wouldn't buy up half an industrial
>> estate because the business plan you had written in your front room said
>> one day you'd be bigger than ICI! Even if you factored the cost of
>> hiring a van to help with the move, it would still look a bit dodgy on
>> the balance sheet!
>>
>> Choosing the right system is about being on top of your overall business
>> strategy, where are you going? how long and how much is it going to take
>> to get you there? Can you really afford the luxury of servicing
>> something as large as OfBiz en route?
>>
>> - Andrew
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 09:58 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>  
>>> OK David. Maybe just one last thing.
>>>
>>> No more soap-boxing. A simple question for a change :)
>>>
>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>    
>>>> Looking around the OFBiz documents and such I don't think this 
>>>> distinction is adequately represented, so I added some text similar 
>>>> to the above to the home page of ofbiz.apache.org. It should be 
>>>> public within a few hours, ie whenever the next deployment job runs.
>>>>       
>>> Reading your new text, this stood out:
>>>
>>> "OFBiz can certainly be used OOTB (out of the box), but if you're 
>>> looking for something that works really well for that there are many 
>>> open source projects that do a great job there."
>>>
>>> OK. So maybe those projects might be more what I'm looking for.
>>>
>>> I searched a couple of months ago and didn't find anything I thought 
>>> could do a better job than OFBiz. What other open source projects are 
>>> you thinking of here?
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 3:49 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>>> Chris, David, Everybody.
>>>>>
>>>>> One last thought on the subject before I have my porridge and 
>>>>> another lie down ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm wondering if any of you guys have ever taken a good hard look 
>>>>> at the osCommerce, Zen Cart or Ubuntu forums?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.zen-cart.com/forum
>>>>>
>>>>> http://forums.oscommerce.com
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ubuntuforums.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. I know php is nasty. But that's not the point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Look at the accessibility and structure of the interface.
>>>>>
>>>>> All user levels are accommodated.
>>>>>
>>>>> All find their natural place.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nearly a quarter of a million members on Ubuntu. 120K on 
>>>>> osCommerce. 2,347 and 824 currently active respectively at this 
>>>>> very moment as we speak
>>>>>
>>>>> A working model of how to build a user base surely, if nothing else?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris Howe wrote:
>>>>>        
>>>>>> Ian,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While I certainly enjoy the analogies, who are you
>>>>>> ultimately suggesting create these lowest common
>>>>>> denominator (LCD) documents?
>>>>>> As has already been mentioned, once you pass that
>>>>>> "aha" moment in OFBiz, it's difficult to understand
>>>>>> why the engineering documentation didn't make sense
>>>>>> the first time around.  3D vector calculus, as you put
>>>>>> it, seems so elementary obvious at that point that
>>>>>> it's difficult to convey it in simpler terms; even
>>>>>> though you remember it not being obvious when you
>>>>>> started.  I don't think it's very time/quality
>>>>>> productive for someone who's passed that "aha" moment
>>>>>> to produce this documentation; at least not without
>>>>>> the aid of an "uninitiated".
>>>>>> If you'd like to be that test subject, I'm sure there
>>>>>> are a mess of people, including myself, that would be
>>>>>> willing to help explain things to you as you make your
>>>>>> way through the concepts, documenting as you go.  But
>>>>>> the POV of the documentation cannot be from someone
>>>>>> who's already gotten the bird off the ground, because
>>>>>> they're not really sure which button they pressed to
>>>>>> make it all seem second nature.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          
>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't get the proposition that there are 100
>>>>>>> different pilot roles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are many 1,000s  of different destinations.
>>>>>>> Maybe more than a dozen different pilot roles (commercial, fighter,
>>>>>>> bomber, spotter, etc.). But but there IS a lowest common 
>>>>>>> denominator.
>>>>>>> They all fly planes. They all start off on fixed wing, single
>>>>>>> engine props. They all need to understand basic navigation, 
>>>>>>> aerodynamics,
>>>>>>> flight-engineering etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But it is very basic. The need to understand lift,
>>>>>>> drag, how to calculate take off velocities etc. But I doubt if
>>>>>>> they start of with 3D vector calculus or need to know what a 
>>>>>>> Reynold's
>>>>>>> number is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So why can't the target be whatever denominators are
>>>>>>> common to all pilots?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How to find the door handle and the start button
>>>>>>> would be top of my list. If they can't find those then they ain't 
>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>> gonna fly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can see where you're coming from on this. This
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>> project is better
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>> documented than anything else I've seen in the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>> field.You yourself
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>> have produced a truly awesome amount of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>> documentation. I don't know
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>> where you find the time. All are extremely well
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>> written, very clear,
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>> very well laid out. A model of their kind. (No
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>> I'm not sucking up - I
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>> mean it :) So what could possibly be the problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I found the Introduction Videos and Diagrams page
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>> you link to here a
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>> couple of days ago myself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It was whilst working through these videos that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>> the light bulb went off.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>> What you're talking us through is a diagram of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>> the wiring harness of
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>> a jumbo jet.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Essential for the engineers who need to service
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>> Absolutely the last kind of map a pilot wants to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>> find on his lap.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>> Know what I mean?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>> Uh, yeah, that's because it is meant to cover the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>> framework, not the
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>> applications. The two are very different, change
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>> very differently,
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>> need to be understood by different people in
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>> different ways, etc. My
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>> current estimate is that to produce something
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>> adequate for a "pilot",
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>> given that there are about 100 different "pilot"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>> roles in OFBiz, would
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>> require many times the effort to produce that the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>> framework videos
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>> with their diagrams, reference materials,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>> transcriptions, etc. Right
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>> now I don't have the $500k to get into that... and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>> the $40k already
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>> spent on the documents which are now PDF-dumped
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>> into the
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>> docs.ofbiz.org site was clearly inadequate,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>> especially as it is mostly
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>> reference materials (which is why you won't find
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>> how-to stuff in the
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>> reference guides, they are references after all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>> just for reference
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>> purposes). The Application Overview for Users is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>> probably more of what
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>> you're looking for, though that section only
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>> represents maybe 3-5% of
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>> what is in OFBiz right now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course, that's assuming such documents could
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>> even be written in a
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>> way that is close to generally useful. How do I
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>> use it? Well, that
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>> depends on what you want to do... and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>> unfortunately across a few
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>> different industries that list grows into hundreds
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>> of thousands of
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>> activities...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, that's the big question with any document: who
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>> is the target
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>> audience? The more specific the answer, the better
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>> the document will
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>> address their needs. But who is the target
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>> audience for OFBiz? ... ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          
>>>>>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>>>>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>>>>>> Durham
>>>>>>> DH1 2UL
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             
>>>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          
>>>>>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the
>>>>>>> intended recipient(s) named above and is
>>>>>>> confidential. Any form of distribution, copying,
>>>>>>> discussion or use of this communication, its
>>>>>>> contents, or any information contained herein
>>>>>>> without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you
>>>>>>> receive this communication in error, please notify
>>>>>>> the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191
>>>>>>> 384 4736
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we
>>>>>>> cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of
>>>>>>> software viruses and would recommend that you carry
>>>>>>> out your own virus checks before opening any
>>>>>>> attachment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             
>>>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>>>
>>>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>>>> Durham
>>>>> DH1 2UL
>>>>>
>>>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>>
>>>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended 
>>>>> recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of 
>>>>> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its 
>>>>> contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent 
>>>>> is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, 
>>>>> please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 
>>>>> 4736
>>>>>
>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept 
>>>>> any liability sustained as a result of software viruses and would 
>>>>> recommend that you carry out your own virus checks before opening 
>>>>> any attachment.
>>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>>
>>>>>         
> 

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

Andrew,

I'm not looking for anything specific at the moment. Just trying to 
evaluate current options and keep on top of developments in the hope of 
offering clients the best, most flexible, most long-term solutions I can 
find.

I checked out GnuCash and SQL Ledger before I discovered OFBiz. They 
both look fine, as far as small business accounting packages go. You're 
not going to believe this, but I personally still use QuickBooks 3 which 
I bought for less than $200 more than 15 years ago to run on Windows 
3.1. Since then I've used it to produce budgets, VAT returns and 
year-end accounts for up to 4 different companies at the same time - 
some with turnovers around the $1M mark. It has its limitations and 
idiosyncrasies; but it runs like lightning on XP, has never crashed even 
once or given me any kind of problems at all (touch wood!!!)  So it's 
going to take something pretty special to persuade me to change to 
anything else.

I started looking at OFBiz as a solution to problems I can see starting 
to appear on the horizon for clients with established bricks-and-mortar 
wholesale and retail businesses for whom I have been installing Open 
Source e-commerce solutions over the past few years.

All started with no web presence, all are now finding online sales 
becoming a significant and in some cases the major part of their businesses.

In the beginning, integration with existing in-store EPOS and accounting 
systems from the likes of MS, Intuit and Sage was not an issue. Now it 
is quickly becoming the main one as staff spend increasingly longer 
amounts of time transferring information on paper and re-keying the same 
data into 3 different systems running in parallel.

I have been trying to keep on top of this by installing patches and 
plugins to get the different systems to talk to each other. But bespoke 
integration with closed-source, proprietary systems is an arduous and 
expensive business that few clients can afford. More to the point, it is 
a very 'tacky' and incomplete solution as it depends largely on staff 
following rigorously prescribed synchronisation routines to prevent 
transactions colliding, falling over each other and cancelling each 
other out. Most staff working at this level will ignore the rules and 
cut corners if they can, resulting in tangles of inaccurate data which 
threaten to bring the whole business crashing around everyone's ears.

Microsoft and Sage spotted the problems and the opportunities several 
years ago, and are now offering their own e-commerce clones seamlessly 
integrated with their own back-ends. I lost my biggest client to them 
just before Christmas. If I can not offer equivalent backend Open Source 
integration then it won't be long before I lose all the rest.

When I first discovered OFBiz a couple of months ago I was 
thunderstruck. Not only did the e-commerce front-end look every bit as 
good as the LAMP systems I've been installing, but the whole concept and 
framework looked like it ought to knock both Microsoft and Sage into a 
cocked hat.

I say 'looked like' because, of course, I have subsequently discovered 
from my short time on this list that OFBiz is not yet as fully developed 
as I first thought it to be.

Your analogy with office space is interesting but I'm not entirely 
convinced it compares like with like. The cost of over-capacity in 
bricks-and-mortar space is clearly very heavy. The cost of over-capacity 
in Open Source virtual software space, not necessarily so.

On the other hand, the cost of not building into the virtual software 
space the option for future expansion could well be crippling. It isn't 
just the cost of new installations and transfer of data. The major cost 
is staff retraining. People who adapt easily to such things do not 
usually end up working as warehousemen or office clerks.

Your Project-Open link looks like it might be able to do what I need. 
The use of virtualisation looks very attractive. The web site is clean 
and crisp. The lack of forums, user groups or mailing lists is not so 
encouraging. I haven't even scratched the surface yet so I have no idea 
how it compares with OFBiz. When I do I promise to let you know.

One thing you say at the end of your posting really does concern me:
> Can you really afford the luxury of servicing
> something as large as OfBiz en route?
>   
I was aware that the cost of installing a usable version of OFBiz might 
not be inconsiderable. But I had no idea that the cost of servicing it 
could be so high it could be a luxury I might not be able to afford.

In my ignorance I kind of assumed that once I had a stable version 
running it would - like my old QuickBooks 3 - keep on going without too 
much trouble. Provided I didn't want to start customizing and upgrading 
that is.

OK. So new security breaches and the necessary patches to block them are 
to be expected. I have that already with existing Open Source LAMP 
e-commerce installations. The cost of keeping them secure is not 
particularly great. What is it about OFBiz that would make maintenance a 
luxury I might not be able to afford? Please expand.

Ian




Andrew Sykes wrote:
> Ian,
>
> It depends on what you're looking for.
>
> If the focus is still a "small business accounting package" as the
> subject line says - I know I know, there have been a zillion posts to
> this thread, so perhaps not. - If it's accounting, two spring to mind...
>
> For a desktop system, have a look at GnuCash...
> http://www.gnucash.org/
>
> For a web based system, SQLLedger seems good and I've heard a few
> favourable reports about it...
> http://www.sql-ledger.org/
>
> Finally, for a project which *seems* to have a more OOTB focus, although
> I've really only started looking at it this weekend, take a look at the
> Project:Open stuff...
> http://www.project-open.com/
> I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this one as I've only just
> scratched the surface...
>
> One of the criteria you should consider is the cost of upgrading from an
> OOTB solution sometime in the future versus the cost of implementing
> OfBiz now. Generally if you are at the stage of being an enterprise with
> more "M" than "S" turnover (SME) and have implemented a lot of bespoke
> business processes which form part of you USP then OfBiz is a safe bet.
> If you plan to get to that point one day, it's probably better waiting
> for that day to come and using something OOTB in the meantime. Consider
> the analogy with office space, you wouldn't buy up half an industrial
> estate because the business plan you had written in your front room said
> one day you'd be bigger than ICI! Even if you factored the cost of
> hiring a van to help with the move, it would still look a bit dodgy on
> the balance sheet!
>
> Choosing the right system is about being on top of your overall business
> strategy, where are you going? how long and how much is it going to take
> to get you there? Can you really afford the luxury of servicing
> something as large as OfBiz en route?
>
> - Andrew
>
>
> On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 09:58 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
>   
>> OK David. Maybe just one last thing.
>>
>> No more soap-boxing. A simple question for a change :)
>>
>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>     
>>> Looking around the OFBiz documents and such I don't think this 
>>> distinction is adequately represented, so I added some text similar to 
>>> the above to the home page of ofbiz.apache.org. It should be public 
>>> within a few hours, ie whenever the next deployment job runs.
>>>       
>> Reading your new text, this stood out:
>>
>> "OFBiz can certainly be used OOTB (out of the box), but if you're 
>> looking for something that works really well for that there are many 
>> open source projects that do a great job there."
>>
>> OK. So maybe those projects might be more what I'm looking for.
>>
>> I searched a couple of months ago and didn't find anything I thought 
>> could do a better job than OFBiz. What other open source projects are 
>> you thinking of here?
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 3:49 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Chris, David, Everybody.
>>>>
>>>> One last thought on the subject before I have my porridge and another 
>>>> lie down ;)
>>>>
>>>> I'm wondering if any of you guys have ever taken a good hard look at 
>>>> the osCommerce, Zen Cart or Ubuntu forums?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.zen-cart.com/forum
>>>>
>>>> http://forums.oscommerce.com
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ubuntuforums.org/
>>>>
>>>> Yes. I know php is nasty. But that's not the point.
>>>>
>>>> Look at the accessibility and structure of the interface.
>>>>
>>>> All user levels are accommodated.
>>>>
>>>> All find their natural place.
>>>>
>>>> Nearly a quarter of a million members on Ubuntu. 120K on osCommerce. 
>>>> 2,347 and 824 currently active respectively at this very moment as we 
>>>> speak
>>>>
>>>> A working model of how to build a user base surely, if nothing else?
>>>>
>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chris Howe wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> Ian,
>>>>>
>>>>> While I certainly enjoy the analogies, who are you
>>>>> ultimately suggesting create these lowest common
>>>>> denominator (LCD) documents?
>>>>> As has already been mentioned, once you pass that
>>>>> "aha" moment in OFBiz, it's difficult to understand
>>>>> why the engineering documentation didn't make sense
>>>>> the first time around.  3D vector calculus, as you put
>>>>> it, seems so elementary obvious at that point that
>>>>> it's difficult to convey it in simpler terms; even
>>>>> though you remember it not being obvious when you
>>>>> started.  I don't think it's very time/quality
>>>>> productive for someone who's passed that "aha" moment
>>>>> to produce this documentation; at least not without
>>>>> the aid of an "uninitiated".
>>>>> If you'd like to be that test subject, I'm sure there
>>>>> are a mess of people, including myself, that would be
>>>>> willing to help explain things to you as you make your
>>>>> way through the concepts, documenting as you go.  But
>>>>> the POV of the documentation cannot be from someone
>>>>> who's already gotten the bird off the ground, because
>>>>> they're not really sure which button they pressed to
>>>>> make it all seem second nature.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --- Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't get the proposition that there are 100
>>>>>> different pilot roles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are many 1,000s  of different destinations.
>>>>>> Maybe more than a dozen different pilot roles (commercial, fighter,
>>>>>> bomber, spotter, etc.). But but there IS a lowest common denominator.
>>>>>> They all fly planes. They all start off on fixed wing, single
>>>>>> engine props. They all need to understand basic navigation, 
>>>>>> aerodynamics,
>>>>>> flight-engineering etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it is very basic. The need to understand lift,
>>>>>> drag, how to calculate take off velocities etc. But I doubt if
>>>>>> they start of with 3D vector calculus or need to know what a Reynold's
>>>>>> number is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So why can't the target be whatever denominators are
>>>>>> common to all pilots?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How to find the door handle and the start button
>>>>>> would be top of my list. If they can't find those then they ain't 
>>>>>> never
>>>>>> gonna fly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can see where you're coming from on this. This
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>> project is better
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>> documented than anything else I've seen in the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>> field.You yourself
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>> have produced a truly awesome amount of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>> documentation. I don't know
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>> where you find the time. All are extremely well
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>> written, very clear,
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>> very well laid out. A model of their kind. (No
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>> I'm not sucking up - I
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>> mean it :) So what could possibly be the problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I found the Introduction Videos and Diagrams page
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>> you link to here a
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>> couple of days ago myself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It was whilst working through these videos that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>> the light bulb went off.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>> What you're talking us through is a diagram of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>> the wiring harness of
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>> a jumbo jet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Essential for the engineers who need to service
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>> Absolutely the last kind of map a pilot wants to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>> find on his lap.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>> Know what I mean?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>> Uh, yeah, that's because it is meant to cover the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> framework, not the
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> applications. The two are very different, change
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> very differently,
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> need to be understood by different people in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> different ways, etc. My
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> current estimate is that to produce something
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> adequate for a "pilot",
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> given that there are about 100 different "pilot"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> roles in OFBiz, would
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> require many times the effort to produce that the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> framework videos
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> with their diagrams, reference materials,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> transcriptions, etc. Right
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> now I don't have the $500k to get into that... and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> the $40k already
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> spent on the documents which are now PDF-dumped
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> into the
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> docs.ofbiz.org site was clearly inadequate,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> especially as it is mostly
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> reference materials (which is why you won't find
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> how-to stuff in the
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> reference guides, they are references after all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> just for reference
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> purposes). The Application Overview for Users is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> probably more of what
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> you're looking for, though that section only
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> represents maybe 3-5% of
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> what is in OFBiz right now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course, that's assuming such documents could
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> even be written in a
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> way that is close to generally useful. How do I
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> use it? Well, that
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> depends on what you want to do... and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> unfortunately across a few
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> different industries that list grows into hundreds
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> of thousands of
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> activities...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, that's the big question with any document: who
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> is the target
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> audience? The more specific the answer, the better
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> the document will
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> address their needs. But who is the target
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> audience for OFBiz? ... ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>>>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>>>>> Durham
>>>>>> DH1 2UL
>>>>>>
>>>>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the
>>>>>> intended recipient(s) named above and is
>>>>>> confidential. Any form of distribution, copying,
>>>>>> discussion or use of this communication, its
>>>>>> contents, or any information contained herein
>>>>>> without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you
>>>>>> receive this communication in error, please notify
>>>>>> the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191
>>>>>> 384 4736
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we
>>>>>> cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of
>>>>>> software viruses and would recommend that you carry
>>>>>> out your own virus checks before opening any
>>>>>> attachment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>>
>>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>>> Durham
>>>> DH1 2UL
>>>>
>>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>
>>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended 
>>>> recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of 
>>>> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its 
>>>> contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent 
>>>> is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, 
>>>> please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>>
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept 
>>>> any liability sustained as a result of software viruses and would 
>>>> recommend that you carry out your own virus checks before opening any 
>>>> attachment.
>>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>>
>>>>         

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

t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736

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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Andrew Sykes <an...@sykesdevelopment.com>]

Ian,

It depends on what you're looking for.

If the focus is still a "small business accounting package" as the
subject line says - I know I know, there have been a zillion posts to
this thread, so perhaps not. - If it's accounting, two spring to mind...

For a desktop system, have a look at GnuCash...
http://www.gnucash.org/

For a web based system, SQLLedger seems good and I've heard a few
favourable reports about it...
http://www.sql-ledger.org/

Finally, for a project which *seems* to have a more OOTB focus, although
I've really only started looking at it this weekend, take a look at the
Project:Open stuff...
http://www.project-open.com/
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this one as I've only just
scratched the surface...

One of the criteria you should consider is the cost of upgrading from an
OOTB solution sometime in the future versus the cost of implementing
OfBiz now. Generally if you are at the stage of being an enterprise with
more "M" than "S" turnover (SME) and have implemented a lot of bespoke
business processes which form part of you USP then OfBiz is a safe bet.
If you plan to get to that point one day, it's probably better waiting
for that day to come and using something OOTB in the meantime. Consider
the analogy with office space, you wouldn't buy up half an industrial
estate because the business plan you had written in your front room said
one day you'd be bigger than ICI! Even if you factored the cost of
hiring a van to help with the move, it would still look a bit dodgy on
the balance sheet!

Choosing the right system is about being on top of your overall business
strategy, where are you going? how long and how much is it going to take
to get you there? Can you really afford the luxury of servicing
something as large as OfBiz en route?

- Andrew


On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 09:58 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
> OK David. Maybe just one last thing.
> 
> No more soap-boxing. A simple question for a change :)
> 
> David E. Jones wrote:
> >
> > Looking around the OFBiz documents and such I don't think this 
> > distinction is adequately represented, so I added some text similar to 
> > the above to the home page of ofbiz.apache.org. It should be public 
> > within a few hours, ie whenever the next deployment job runs.
> 
> Reading your new text, this stood out:
> 
> "OFBiz can certainly be used OOTB (out of the box), but if you're 
> looking for something that works really well for that there are many 
> open source projects that do a great job there."
> 
> OK. So maybe those projects might be more what I'm looking for.
> 
> I searched a couple of months ago and didn't find anything I thought 
> could do a better job than OFBiz. What other open source projects are 
> you thinking of here?
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > -David
> >
> >
> > On Jan 20, 2007, at 3:49 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
> >
> >> Chris, David, Everybody.
> >>
> >> One last thought on the subject before I have my porridge and another 
> >> lie down ;)
> >>
> >> I'm wondering if any of you guys have ever taken a good hard look at 
> >> the osCommerce, Zen Cart or Ubuntu forums?
> >>
> >> http://www.zen-cart.com/forum
> >>
> >> http://forums.oscommerce.com
> >>
> >> http://www.ubuntuforums.org/
> >>
> >> Yes. I know php is nasty. But that's not the point.
> >>
> >> Look at the accessibility and structure of the interface.
> >>
> >> All user levels are accommodated.
> >>
> >> All find their natural place.
> >>
> >> Nearly a quarter of a million members on Ubuntu. 120K on osCommerce. 
> >> 2,347 and 824 currently active respectively at this very moment as we 
> >> speak
> >>
> >> A working model of how to build a user base surely, if nothing else?
> >>
> >> Ian
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Chris Howe wrote:
> >>> Ian,
> >>>
> >>> While I certainly enjoy the analogies, who are you
> >>> ultimately suggesting create these lowest common
> >>> denominator (LCD) documents?
> >>> As has already been mentioned, once you pass that
> >>> "aha" moment in OFBiz, it's difficult to understand
> >>> why the engineering documentation didn't make sense
> >>> the first time around.  3D vector calculus, as you put
> >>> it, seems so elementary obvious at that point that
> >>> it's difficult to convey it in simpler terms; even
> >>> though you remember it not being obvious when you
> >>> started.  I don't think it's very time/quality
> >>> productive for someone who's passed that "aha" moment
> >>> to produce this documentation; at least not without
> >>> the aid of an "uninitiated".
> >>> If you'd like to be that test subject, I'm sure there
> >>> are a mess of people, including myself, that would be
> >>> willing to help explain things to you as you make your
> >>> way through the concepts, documenting as you go.  But
> >>> the POV of the documentation cannot be from someone
> >>> who's already gotten the bird off the ground, because
> >>> they're not really sure which button they pressed to
> >>> make it all seem second nature.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --- Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> David,
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't get the proposition that there are 100
> >>>> different pilot roles.
> >>>>
> >>>> There are many 1,000s  of different destinations.
> >>>> Maybe more than a dozen different pilot roles (commercial, fighter,
> >>>> bomber, spotter, etc.). But but there IS a lowest common denominator.
> >>>> They all fly planes. They all start off on fixed wing, single
> >>>> engine props. They all need to understand basic navigation, 
> >>>> aerodynamics,
> >>>> flight-engineering etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> But it is very basic. The need to understand lift,
> >>>> drag, how to calculate take off velocities etc. But I doubt if
> >>>> they start of with 3D vector calculus or need to know what a Reynold's
> >>>> number is.
> >>>>
> >>>> So why can't the target be whatever denominators are
> >>>> common to all pilots?
> >>>>
> >>>> How to find the door handle and the start button
> >>>> would be top of my list. If they can't find those then they ain't 
> >>>> never
> >>>> gonna fly.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ian
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> David E. Jones wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> David,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I can see where you're coming from on this. This
> >>>>>>
> >>>> project is better
> >>>>>> documented than anything else I've seen in the
> >>>>>>
> >>>> field.You yourself
> >>>>>> have produced a truly awesome amount of
> >>>>>>
> >>>> documentation. I don't know
> >>>>>> where you find the time. All are extremely well
> >>>>>>
> >>>> written, very clear,
> >>>>>> very well laid out. A model of their kind. (No
> >>>>>>
> >>>> I'm not sucking up - I
> >>>>>> mean it :) So what could possibly be the problem.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I found the Introduction Videos and Diagrams page
> >>>>>>
> >>>> you link to here a
> >>>>>> couple of days ago myself.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It was whilst working through these videos that
> >>>>>>
> >>>> the light bulb went off.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> What you're talking us through is a diagram of
> >>>>>>
> >>>> the wiring harness of
> >>>>>> a jumbo jet.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Essential for the engineers who need to service
> >>>>>>
> >>>> it.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Absolutely the last kind of map a pilot wants to
> >>>>>>
> >>>> find on his lap.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Know what I mean?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Uh, yeah, that's because it is meant to cover the
> >>>>>
> >>>> framework, not the
> >>>>> applications. The two are very different, change
> >>>>>
> >>>> very differently,
> >>>>> need to be understood by different people in
> >>>>>
> >>>> different ways, etc. My
> >>>>> current estimate is that to produce something
> >>>>>
> >>>> adequate for a "pilot",
> >>>>> given that there are about 100 different "pilot"
> >>>>>
> >>>> roles in OFBiz, would
> >>>>> require many times the effort to produce that the
> >>>>>
> >>>> framework videos
> >>>>> with their diagrams, reference materials,
> >>>>>
> >>>> transcriptions, etc. Right
> >>>>> now I don't have the $500k to get into that... and
> >>>>>
> >>>> the $40k already
> >>>>> spent on the documents which are now PDF-dumped
> >>>>>
> >>>> into the
> >>>>> docs.ofbiz.org site was clearly inadequate,
> >>>>>
> >>>> especially as it is mostly
> >>>>> reference materials (which is why you won't find
> >>>>>
> >>>> how-to stuff in the
> >>>>> reference guides, they are references after all,
> >>>>>
> >>>> just for reference
> >>>>> purposes). The Application Overview for Users is
> >>>>>
> >>>> probably more of what
> >>>>> you're looking for, though that section only
> >>>>>
> >>>> represents maybe 3-5% of
> >>>>> what is in OFBiz right now.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Of course, that's assuming such documents could
> >>>>>
> >>>> even be written in a
> >>>>> way that is close to generally useful. How do I
> >>>>>
> >>>> use it? Well, that
> >>>>> depends on what you want to do... and
> >>>>>
> >>>> unfortunately across a few
> >>>>> different industries that list grows into hundreds
> >>>>>
> >>>> of thousands of
> >>>>> activities...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, that's the big question with any document: who
> >>>>>
> >>>> is the target
> >>>>> audience? The more specific the answer, the better
> >>>>>
> >>>> the document will
> >>>>> address their needs. But who is the target
> >>>>>
> >>>> audience for OFBiz? ... ?
> >>>>
> >>>>> -David
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> -- 
> >>>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> mcnultyMEDIA
> >>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
> >>>> Durham
> >>>> DH1 2UL
> >>>>
> >>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
> >>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
> >>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> ============================================================================================== 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the
> >>>> intended recipient(s) named above and is
> >>>> confidential. Any form of distribution, copying,
> >>>> discussion or use of this communication, its
> >>>> contents, or any information contained herein
> >>>> without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you
> >>>> receive this communication in error, please notify
> >>>> the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191
> >>>> 384 4736
> >>>>
> >>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we
> >>>> cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of
> >>>> software viruses and would recommend that you carry
> >>>> out your own virus checks before opening any
> >>>> attachment.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> ============================================================================================== 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
> >>
> >> mcnultyMEDIA
> >> 60 Birkdale Gardens
> >> Durham
> >> DH1 2UL
> >>
> >> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
> >> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
> >> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
> >> ============================================================================================== 
> >>
> >> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended 
> >> recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of 
> >> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its 
> >> contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent 
> >> is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, 
> >> please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736
> >>
> >> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept 
> >> any liability sustained as a result of software viruses and would 
> >> recommend that you carry out your own virus checks before opening any 
> >> attachment.
> >> ============================================================================================== 
> >>
> >
> 
-- 
Kind Regards
Andrew Sykes <an...@sykesdevelopment.com>
Sykes Development Ltd
http://www.sykesdevelopment.com

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

["David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

Maybe all of this discussion is being difficult because of one simple  
thing:

Apache OFBiz is NOT like oscommerce, ubuntu, etc. It is NOT meant to  
be a use as-is, out of the box, piece of software. It is meant to be,  
is designed as, and is implemented as a foundation and starting point  
for custom enterprise solutions, be they for one company or one  
thousand companies.

Why would we want to be an OOTB project? There are lots of those for  
ecommerce and small business systems and I see no reason to compete  
there. It is a market well served. We're going after the tough market  
with medium sized businesses that need custom stuff to grow. The OOTB  
solutions are way too limiting, making it impossible to scale  
operations. The traditional enterprise systems can be customized to  
do exactly what they need, but cost more than their entire yearly  
revenue.

Looking around the OFBiz documents and such I don't think this  
distinction is adequately represented, so I added some text similar  
to the above to the home page of ofbiz.apache.org. It should be  
public within a few hours, ie whenever the next deployment job runs.

-David


On Jan 20, 2007, at 3:49 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:

> Chris, David, Everybody.
>
> One last thought on the subject before I have my porridge and  
> another lie down ;)
>
> I'm wondering if any of you guys have ever taken a good hard look  
> at the osCommerce, Zen Cart or Ubuntu forums?
>
> http://www.zen-cart.com/forum
>
> http://forums.oscommerce.com
>
> http://www.ubuntuforums.org/
>
> Yes. I know php is nasty. But that's not the point.
>
> Look at the accessibility and structure of the interface.
>
> All user levels are accommodated.
>
> All find their natural place.
>
> Nearly a quarter of a million members on Ubuntu. 120K on  
> osCommerce. 2,347 and 824 currently active respectively at this  
> very moment as we speak
>
> A working model of how to build a user base surely, if nothing else?
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> Chris Howe wrote:
>> Ian,
>>
>> While I certainly enjoy the analogies, who are you
>> ultimately suggesting create these lowest common
>> denominator (LCD) documents?
>> As has already been mentioned, once you pass that
>> "aha" moment in OFBiz, it's difficult to understand
>> why the engineering documentation didn't make sense
>> the first time around.  3D vector calculus, as you put
>> it, seems so elementary obvious at that point that
>> it's difficult to convey it in simpler terms; even
>> though you remember it not being obvious when you
>> started.  I don't think it's very time/quality
>> productive for someone who's passed that "aha" moment
>> to produce this documentation; at least not without
>> the aid of an "uninitiated".
>> If you'd like to be that test subject, I'm sure there
>> are a mess of people, including myself, that would be
>> willing to help explain things to you as you make your
>> way through the concepts, documenting as you go.  But
>> the POV of the documentation cannot be from someone
>> who's already gotten the bird off the ground, because
>> they're not really sure which button they pressed to
>> make it all seem second nature.
>>
>>
>> --- Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> David,
>>>
>>> I don't get the proposition that there are 100
>>> different pilot roles.
>>>
>>> There are many 1,000s  of different destinations.
>>> Maybe more than a dozen different pilot roles (commercial, fighter,
>>> bomber, spotter, etc.). But but there IS a lowest common  
>>> denominator.
>>> They all fly planes. They all start off on fixed wing, single
>>> engine props. They all need to understand basic navigation,  
>>> aerodynamics,
>>> flight-engineering etc.
>>>
>>> But it is very basic. The need to understand lift,
>>> drag, how to calculate take off velocities etc. But I doubt if
>>> they start of with 3D vector calculus or need to know what a  
>>> Reynold's
>>> number is.
>>>
>>> So why can't the target be whatever denominators are
>>> common to all pilots?
>>>
>>> How to find the door handle and the start button
>>> would be top of my list. If they can't find those then they ain't  
>>> never
>>> gonna fly.
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> David,
>>>>>
>>>>> I can see where you're coming from on this. This
>>>>>
>>> project is better
>>>>> documented than anything else I've seen in the
>>>>>
>>> field.You yourself
>>>>> have produced a truly awesome amount of
>>>>>
>>> documentation. I don't know
>>>>> where you find the time. All are extremely well
>>>>>
>>> written, very clear,
>>>>> very well laid out. A model of their kind. (No
>>>>>
>>> I'm not sucking up - I
>>>>> mean it :) So what could possibly be the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> I found the Introduction Videos and Diagrams page
>>>>>
>>> you link to here a
>>>>> couple of days ago myself.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was whilst working through these videos that
>>>>>
>>> the light bulb went off.
>>>
>>>>> What you're talking us through is a diagram of
>>>>>
>>> the wiring harness of
>>>>> a jumbo jet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Essential for the engineers who need to service
>>>>>
>>> it.
>>>
>>>>> Absolutely the last kind of map a pilot wants to
>>>>>
>>> find on his lap.
>>>
>>>>> Know what I mean?
>>>>>
>>>> Uh, yeah, that's because it is meant to cover the
>>>>
>>> framework, not the
>>>> applications. The two are very different, change
>>>>
>>> very differently,
>>>> need to be understood by different people in
>>>>
>>> different ways, etc. My
>>>> current estimate is that to produce something
>>>>
>>> adequate for a "pilot",
>>>> given that there are about 100 different "pilot"
>>>>
>>> roles in OFBiz, would
>>>> require many times the effort to produce that the
>>>>
>>> framework videos
>>>> with their diagrams, reference materials,
>>>>
>>> transcriptions, etc. Right
>>>> now I don't have the $500k to get into that... and
>>>>
>>> the $40k already
>>>> spent on the documents which are now PDF-dumped
>>>>
>>> into the
>>>> docs.ofbiz.org site was clearly inadequate,
>>>>
>>> especially as it is mostly
>>>> reference materials (which is why you won't find
>>>>
>>> how-to stuff in the
>>>> reference guides, they are references after all,
>>>>
>>> just for reference
>>>> purposes). The Application Overview for Users is
>>>>
>>> probably more of what
>>>> you're looking for, though that section only
>>>>
>>> represents maybe 3-5% of
>>>> what is in OFBiz right now.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, that's assuming such documents could
>>>>
>>> even be written in a
>>>> way that is close to generally useful. How do I
>>>>
>>> use it? Well, that
>>>> depends on what you want to do... and
>>>>
>>> unfortunately across a few
>>>> different industries that list grows into hundreds
>>>>
>>> of thousands of
>>>> activities...
>>>>
>>>> So, that's the big question with any document: who
>>>>
>>> is the target
>>>> audience? The more specific the answer, the better
>>>>
>>> the document will
>>>> address their needs. But who is the target
>>>>
>>> audience for OFBiz? ... ?
>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> -------------------------
>>
>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>> Durham
>>> DH1 2UL
>>>
>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>
>>>
>> ===================================================================== 
>> =========================
>>
>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the
>>> intended recipient(s) named above and is
>>> confidential. Any form of distribution, copying,
>>> discussion or use of this communication, its
>>> contents, or any information contained herein
>>> without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you
>>> receive this communication in error, please notify
>>> the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191
>>> 384 4736
>>>
>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we
>>> cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of
>>> software viruses and would recommend that you carry
>>> out your own virus checks before opening any
>>> attachment.
>>>
>>>
>> ===================================================================== 
>> =========================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------------------------
> mcnultyMEDIA
> 60 Birkdale Gardens
> Durham
> DH1 2UL
>
> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
> ====================================================================== 
> ========================
> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended  
> recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of  
> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its  
> contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent  
> is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error,  
> please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384  
> 4736
>
> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept  
> any liability sustained as a result of software viruses and would  
> recommend that you carry out your own virus checks before opening  
> any attachment.
> ====================================================================== 
> ========================

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

Chris, David, Everybody.

One last thought on the subject before I have my porridge and another 
lie down ;)

I'm wondering if any of you guys have ever taken a good hard look at the 
osCommerce, Zen Cart or Ubuntu forums?

http://www.zen-cart.com/forum

http://forums.oscommerce.com

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/

Yes. I know php is nasty. But that's not the point.

Look at the accessibility and structure of the interface.

All user levels are accommodated.

All find their natural place.

Nearly a quarter of a million members on Ubuntu. 120K on osCommerce. 
2,347 and 824 currently active respectively at this very moment as we speak

A working model of how to build a user base surely, if nothing else?

Ian




Chris Howe wrote:
> Ian,
>
> While I certainly enjoy the analogies, who are you
> ultimately suggesting create these lowest common
> denominator (LCD) documents?  
>
> As has already been mentioned, once you pass that
> "aha" moment in OFBiz, it's difficult to understand
> why the engineering documentation didn't make sense
> the first time around.  3D vector calculus, as you put
> it, seems so elementary obvious at that point that
> it's difficult to convey it in simpler terms; even
> though you remember it not being obvious when you
> started.  I don't think it's very time/quality
> productive for someone who's passed that "aha" moment
> to produce this documentation; at least not without
> the aid of an "uninitiated".  
>
> If you'd like to be that test subject, I'm sure there
> are a mess of people, including myself, that would be
> willing to help explain things to you as you make your
> way through the concepts, documenting as you go.  But
> the POV of the documentation cannot be from someone
> who's already gotten the bird off the ground, because
> they're not really sure which button they pressed to
> make it all seem second nature.
>
>
> --- Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk> wrote:
>
>   
>> David,
>>
>> I don't get the proposition that there are 100
>> different pilot roles.
>>
>> There are many 1,000s  of different destinations.
>> Maybe more than a 
>> dozen different pilot roles (commercial, fighter,
>> bomber, spotter, 
>> etc.). But but there IS a lowest common denominator.
>> They all fly 
>> planes. They all start off on fixed wing, single
>> engine props. They all 
>> need to understand basic navigation, aerodynamics,
>> flight-engineering etc.
>>
>> But it is very basic. The need to understand lift,
>> drag, how to 
>> calculate take off velocities etc. But I doubt if
>> they start of with 3D 
>> vector calculus or need to know what a Reynold's
>> number is.
>>
>> So why can't the target be whatever denominators are
>> common to all pilots?
>>
>> How to find the door handle and the start button
>> would be top of my 
>> list. If they can't find those then they ain't never
>> gonna fly.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>     
>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> David,
>>>>
>>>> I can see where you're coming from on this. This
>>>>         
>> project is better 
>>     
>>>> documented than anything else I've seen in the
>>>>         
>> field.You yourself 
>>     
>>>> have produced a truly awesome amount of
>>>>         
>> documentation. I don't know 
>>     
>>>> where you find the time. All are extremely well
>>>>         
>> written, very clear, 
>>     
>>>> very well laid out. A model of their kind. (No
>>>>         
>> I'm not sucking up - I 
>>     
>>>> mean it :) So what could possibly be the problem.
>>>>
>>>> I found the Introduction Videos and Diagrams page
>>>>         
>> you link to here a 
>>     
>>>> couple of days ago myself.
>>>>
>>>> It was whilst working through these videos that
>>>>         
>> the light bulb went off.
>>     
>>>> What you're talking us through is a diagram of
>>>>         
>> the wiring harness of 
>>     
>>>> a jumbo jet.
>>>>
>>>> Essential for the engineers who need to service
>>>>         
>> it.
>>     
>>>> Absolutely the last kind of map a pilot wants to
>>>>         
>> find on his lap.
>>     
>>>> Know what I mean?
>>>>         
>>> Uh, yeah, that's because it is meant to cover the
>>>       
>> framework, not the 
>>     
>>> applications. The two are very different, change
>>>       
>> very differently, 
>>     
>>> need to be understood by different people in
>>>       
>> different ways, etc. My 
>>     
>>> current estimate is that to produce something
>>>       
>> adequate for a "pilot", 
>>     
>>> given that there are about 100 different "pilot"
>>>       
>> roles in OFBiz, would 
>>     
>>> require many times the effort to produce that the
>>>       
>> framework videos 
>>     
>>> with their diagrams, reference materials,
>>>       
>> transcriptions, etc. Right 
>>     
>>> now I don't have the $500k to get into that... and
>>>       
>> the $40k already 
>>     
>>> spent on the documents which are now PDF-dumped
>>>       
>> into the 
>>     
>>> docs.ofbiz.org site was clearly inadequate,
>>>       
>> especially as it is mostly 
>>     
>>> reference materials (which is why you won't find
>>>       
>> how-to stuff in the 
>>     
>>> reference guides, they are references after all,
>>>       
>> just for reference 
>>     
>>> purposes). The Application Overview for Users is
>>>       
>> probably more of what 
>>     
>>> you're looking for, though that section only
>>>       
>> represents maybe 3-5% of 
>>     
>>> what is in OFBiz right now.
>>>
>>> Of course, that's assuming such documents could
>>>       
>> even be written in a 
>>     
>>> way that is close to generally useful. How do I
>>>       
>> use it? Well, that 
>>     
>>> depends on what you want to do... and
>>>       
>> unfortunately across a few 
>>     
>>> different industries that list grows into hundreds
>>>       
>> of thousands of 
>>     
>>> activities...
>>>
>>> So, that's the big question with any document: who
>>>       
>> is the target 
>>     
>>> audience? The more specific the answer, the better
>>>       
>> the document will 
>>     
>>> address their needs. But who is the target
>>>       
>> audience for OFBiz? ... ?
>>     
>>> -David
>>>
>>>       
>> -- 
>>
>>     
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   
>> mcnultyMEDIA
>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>> Durham
>> DH1 2UL
>>
>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>
>>     
> ==============================================================================================
>   
>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the
>> intended recipient(s) named above and is
>> confidential. Any form of distribution, copying,
>> discussion or use of this communication, its
>> contents, or any information contained herein
>> without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you
>> receive this communication in error, please notify
>> the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191
>> 384 4736
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we
>> cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of
>> software viruses and would recommend that you carry
>> out your own virus checks before opening any
>> attachment.
>>
>>     
> ==============================================================================================
>   
>
>
>
>   

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

t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736

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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> It means more "to go far go slowly". 
Good one Jacques. I'm pinning that one on my wall.

Plodding on. One step at a time. A journey of a thousand miles begins 
with the first step ... :)

> "Rain drops beats rain drops". When you begin to think at such things (I
> mean really, like visualizing it), peace is near...
> Finally, I discovered OFBiz and now I have no time to read Lao-tseu anymore... Will get peace later.
>   

Why can't we try to apply those principles to OFBiz and give peace a 
chance now? ;)

>
> Wooww.. we are totally out of subject at this point, sorry dear user ML readers :o
>   

IMHO this is completely on-topic. But what do I know? :)

Ian

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>]

Ian,

From: "Ian McNulty" <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>

> I'm guessing  it might mean something like the less you do the more you
> achieve - which is a kind of Taoist principle, with which I would most
> heartily agree  http://www.chinapage.com/gnl.html

It means more "to go far go slowly". BTW sometimes ago my wife offered me Lao-tseu "Tao-tö king" because when I knew her I spoke
about something I had read a long time ago and that was always in my mind at this moment (I'm not sure it's from Lao-tseu, but it's
Tao) : in french "La pluie frappe la pluie" something like "Rain drops beats rain drops". When you begin to think at such things (I
mean really, like visualizing it), peace is near...
Finally, I discovered OFBiz and now I have no time to read Lao-tseu anymore... Will get peace later.

> >> My plan would be to clear the space for it to happen. A blank page with
> >> only one mission. To put absolutely nothing there that isn't necessary,
> >> remove every  possible obstacle in the way.

> > OK, do you want an idea here, a tool ? Please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_map. If you prefer a quick trip :
> > http://www.thinksmart.com/mission/workout/mindmapping_intro.html
> >
> > A free tool  ? http://freemind.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

> Funny you should mention that. In a previous life I was a TV producer
> and moved on to making management training films. The company I worked
> for in the 80s made a series featuring Tony Buzan - the inventor of Mind
> Mapping and author of 'Master Your Memory' - so I worked with him
> several times. The joke around the office was that when he phoned home
> he had to look up his own number in his Filofax. I never saw him doing
> that myself. But one day he did leave without his briefcase :)  Which
> reminds me of Florin Jurcovici's signature 'Why do psychics have to ask
> you for your name?'

What made me discovered mind-map was a documentary film on TV about schools in Finland which are using a sort of Mind-maping for
children with great results. And I like this idea of having a complete set of colored pencils and drawing circles and such
progressively when ideas come... But I have no ideas :/

Wooww.. we are totally out of subject at this point, sorry dear user ML readers :o

> Joking aside. I'm not knocking it. It is a very useful tool. I didn't
> know about freemind on sourceforge, but I will certainly be checking it
> out. That's my weekend taken care of then :) Hope you have a good one too.

Thanks, I will try, promised. Have a great week-end !

Jacques

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

Jacques,

Well... Actually... I think you're actually offering quite a lot here.


>>> I don't think it's very time/quality
>>> productive for someone who's passed that "aha" moment
>>> to produce this documentation; at least not without
>>> the aid of an "uninitiated".
>>>       
>> I'd agree with that all the way. You need a dummy to ask where the keys
>> are and an expert to show him the way.
>>     
>
> That's a good point. I learnt something like that back in school about man-machine interface (UI). It suggested to always put an
> option in UI allowing to hide options not needed for a beginners and the reverse to show what is needed for an expert (it was about
> expert systems, you remember that one ;o). I did not have the luck to work in AI business but I always tried to persuade my
> successive bosses to adopt this idea, I failed. Perhaps one day we will see that in OFBiz now that I'm my own boss...
>   

Had forgotten about UI and expert systems. But that's exactly what I've 
been trying to say.

> I'm not an italian but I like "Chi va piano va
> sano". In french we say also "Qui veut aller loin, ménage sa monture", in this case we are our own "monture".
>   

Jacques. I'm a Brit. Don't you know they teach us to shout louder, not 
to learn other languages ;)

Shameful certainly, but unfortunately very true. So I had to look it up 
in Babel Fish, which tells me:

'Qui veut aller loin, ménage sa monture' means 'Who wants to go far, household his mounting'

' Chi va piano va sano' means 'Who goes flat goes healthy'

Isn't technology wonderful :-\

I'm guessing  it might mean something like the less you do the more you 
achieve - which is a kind of Taoist principle, with which I would most 
heartily agree  http://www.chinapage.com/gnl.html

>> My plan would be to clear the space for it to happen. A blank page with
>> only one mission. To put absolutely nothing there that isn't necessary,
>> remove every  possible obstacle in the way.
>>     
>
> OK, do you want an idea here, a tool ? Please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_map. If you prefer a quick trip :
> http://www.thinksmart.com/mission/workout/mindmapping_intro.html
>
> A free tool  ? http://freemind.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
>   

Funny you should mention that. In a previous life I was a TV producer 
and moved on to making management training films. The company I worked 
for in the 80s made a series featuring Tony Buzan - the inventor of Mind 
Mapping and author of 'Master Your Memory' - so I worked with him 
several times. The joke around the office was that when he phoned home 
he had to look up his own number in his Filofax. I never saw him doing 
that myself. But one day he did leave without his briefcase :)  Which 
reminds me of Florin Jurcovici's signature 'Why do psychics have to ask 
you for your name?'

Joking aside. I'm not knocking it. It is a very useful tool. I didn't 
know about freemind on sourceforge, but I will certainly be checking it 
out. That's my weekend taken care of then :) Hope you have a good one too.

Ian



> HTH
>
> Jacques
>
>   
>> We are in the age of Web 2.0 and user-generated content.
>>
>> Clearing the brush from the landing strip is not such a huge undertaking.
>>
>> Letting it be know all visitors are welcome not such an expensive
>> message to convey.
>>
>> Nature abhors a vacuum.
>>
>> They will arrive.
>>
>> When they do, they'll tell you what they need.
>>
>> Just try stopping them :)
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>>> --- Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> David,
>>>>
>>>> I don't get the proposition that there are 100
>>>> different pilot roles.
>>>>
>>>> There are many 1,000s  of different destinations.
>>>> Maybe more than a
>>>> dozen different pilot roles (commercial, fighter,
>>>> bomber, spotter,
>>>> etc.). But but there IS a lowest common denominator.
>>>> They all fly
>>>> planes. They all start off on fixed wing, single
>>>> engine props. They all
>>>> need to understand basic navigation, aerodynamics,
>>>> flight-engineering etc.
>>>>
>>>> But it is very basic. The need to understand lift,
>>>> drag, how to
>>>> calculate take off velocities etc. But I doubt if
>>>> they start of with 3D
>>>> vector calculus or need to know what a Reynold's
>>>> number is.
>>>>
>>>> So why can't the target be whatever denominators are
>>>> common to all pilots?
>>>>
>>>> How to find the door handle and the start button
>>>> would be top of my
>>>> list. If they can't find those then they ain't never
>>>> gonna fly.
>>>>
>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can see where you're coming from on this. This
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>> project is better
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>> documented than anything else I've seen in the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>> field.You yourself
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>> have produced a truly awesome amount of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>> documentation. I don't know
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>> where you find the time. All are extremely well
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>> written, very clear,
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>> very well laid out. A model of their kind. (No
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>> I'm not sucking up - I
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>> mean it :) So what could possibly be the problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I found the Introduction Videos and Diagrams page
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>> you link to here a
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>> couple of days ago myself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was whilst working through these videos that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>> the light bulb went off.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>> What you're talking us through is a diagram of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>> the wiring harness of
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>> a jumbo jet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Essential for the engineers who need to service
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>> Absolutely the last kind of map a pilot wants to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>> find on his lap.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>> Know what I mean?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>> Uh, yeah, that's because it is meant to cover the
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> framework, not the
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> applications. The two are very different, change
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> very differently,
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> need to be understood by different people in
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> different ways, etc. My
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> current estimate is that to produce something
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> adequate for a "pilot",
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> given that there are about 100 different "pilot"
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> roles in OFBiz, would
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> require many times the effort to produce that the
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> framework videos
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> with their diagrams, reference materials,
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> transcriptions, etc. Right
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> now I don't have the $500k to get into that... and
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> the $40k already
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> spent on the documents which are now PDF-dumped
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> into the
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> docs.ofbiz.org site was clearly inadequate,
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> especially as it is mostly
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> reference materials (which is why you won't find
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> how-to stuff in the
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> reference guides, they are references after all,
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> just for reference
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> purposes). The Application Overview for Users is
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> probably more of what
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> you're looking for, though that section only
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> represents maybe 3-5% of
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> what is in OFBiz right now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, that's assuming such documents could
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> even be written in a
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> way that is close to generally useful. How do I
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> use it? Well, that
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> depends on what you want to do... and
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> unfortunately across a few
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> different industries that list grows into hundreds
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> of thousands of
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> activities...
>>>>>
>>>>> So, that's the big question with any document: who
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> is the target
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> audience? The more specific the answer, the better
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> the document will
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> address their needs. But who is the target
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> audience for OFBiz? ... ?
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> -- 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>       
>>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>>> Durham
>>>> DH1 2UL
>>>>
>>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> ==============================================================================================
>>>
>>>       
>>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the
>>>> intended recipient(s) named above and is
>>>> confidential. Any form of distribution, copying,
>>>> discussion or use of this communication, its
>>>> contents, or any information contained herein
>>>> without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you
>>>> receive this communication in error, please notify
>>>> the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191
>>>> 384 4736
>>>>
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we
>>>> cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of
>>>> software viruses and would recommend that you carry
>>>> out your own virus checks before opening any
>>>> attachment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> ==============================================================================================
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> -- 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> mcnultyMEDIA
>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>> Durham
>> DH1 2UL
>>
>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>> ==============================================================================================
>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of
>>     
> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior
> consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44
> (0)191 384 4736
>   
>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of software viruses and
>>     
> would recommend that you carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
>   
>> ==============================================================================================
>>     
>
>
>
>   

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

t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736

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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>]

Ian,

I'm afraid I have not a lot to offer, Nevertheless I try :

From: "Ian McNulty" <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>
> Chris,
> > I don't think it's very time/quality
> > productive for someone who's passed that "aha" moment
> > to produce this documentation; at least not without
> > the aid of an "uninitiated".
>
> I'd agree with that all the way. You need a dummy to ask where the keys
> are and an expert to show him the way.

That's a good point. I learnt something like that back in school about man-machine interface (UI). It suggested to always put an
option in UI allowing to hide options not needed for a beginners and the reverse to show what is needed for an expert (it was about
expert systems, you remember that one ;o). I did not have the luck to work in AI business but I always tried to persuade my
successive bosses to adopt this idea, I failed. Perhaps one day we will see that in OFBiz now that I'm my own boss...

> That's why I'm deliberately standing here on the tarmac complaining that
> I can't find the door.
>
> Trouble is that, in expert communities like this, normal protocol is to
> give the dummy an RTFM to help kick him off down the road to learning to
> become an engineer.
>
> I'm not saying that's happened here. Far from it. This group is an
> exception. I've been surprised nobody has yet shown me the door (as in
> exit, not cockpit ;)
>
> But this is why I've been saying from the very beginning that we need a
> real users group. Where dummy questions are welcomed, not just tolerated.

Yes good idea IMHO, but how, where to set it up, do the community agree ?

> >
> >
> > If you'd like to be that test subject, I'm sure there
> > are a mess of people, including myself, that would be
> > willing to help explain things to you as you make your
> > way through the concepts, documenting as you go.
>
> Pleased to hear it :) Like I said. This group seems to be the exception,
> not the rule.
>
> >   But
> > the POV of the documentation cannot be from someone
> > who's already gotten the bird off the ground, because
> > they're not really sure which button they pressed to
> > make it all seem second nature.
> >
>
> Very, very true. Which brings us back to your first question,
>
> > While I certainly enjoy the analogies, who are you
> > ultimately suggesting create these lowest common
> > denominator (LCD) documents?
> >
>
> To begin with I thought that might be me. Now I'm not so sure.
>
> I'd love to do it but...
>
> Look. I have to be honest. Don't want to promise anything I can't
> deliver. I'm on oldy. Brought up in the 50s. Already half shagged out.
> Can't do 18 hour days anymore. I'm finding dealing with the emails
> difficult enough. They leave my head spinning. I need frequent lie downs :-\

I never did 18 hours a day, that would have been a nighmare for me (Ok I did some but only under huge pressure ;o).
But anway it's no required that you work 18 hours a day to achieve some you know... I'm not an italian but I like "Chi va piano va
sano". In french we say also "Qui veut aller loin, ménage sa monture", in this case we are our own "monture". Ok, in reality I'm a
workalcoolic, but I know that's bad !

> My plan would be to clear the space for it to happen. A blank page with
> only one mission. To put absolutely nothing there that isn't necessary,
> remove every  possible obstacle in the way.

OK, do you want an idea here, a tool ? Please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_map. If you prefer a quick trip :
http://www.thinksmart.com/mission/workout/mindmapping_intro.html

A free tool  ? http://freemind.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

HTH

Jacques

> We are in the age of Web 2.0 and user-generated content.
>
> Clearing the brush from the landing strip is not such a huge undertaking.
>
> Letting it be know all visitors are welcome not such an expensive
> message to convey.
>
> Nature abhors a vacuum.
>
> They will arrive.
>
> When they do, they'll tell you what they need.
>
> Just try stopping them :)
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> >
> > --- Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> David,
> >>
> >> I don't get the proposition that there are 100
> >> different pilot roles.
> >>
> >> There are many 1,000s  of different destinations.
> >> Maybe more than a
> >> dozen different pilot roles (commercial, fighter,
> >> bomber, spotter,
> >> etc.). But but there IS a lowest common denominator.
> >> They all fly
> >> planes. They all start off on fixed wing, single
> >> engine props. They all
> >> need to understand basic navigation, aerodynamics,
> >> flight-engineering etc.
> >>
> >> But it is very basic. The need to understand lift,
> >> drag, how to
> >> calculate take off velocities etc. But I doubt if
> >> they start of with 3D
> >> vector calculus or need to know what a Reynold's
> >> number is.
> >>
> >> So why can't the target be whatever denominators are
> >> common to all pilots?
> >>
> >> How to find the door handle and the start button
> >> would be top of my
> >> list. If they can't find those then they ain't never
> >> gonna fly.
> >>
> >> Ian
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> David E. Jones wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> David,
> >>>>
> >>>> I can see where you're coming from on this. This
> >>>>
> >> project is better
> >>
> >>>> documented than anything else I've seen in the
> >>>>
> >> field.You yourself
> >>
> >>>> have produced a truly awesome amount of
> >>>>
> >> documentation. I don't know
> >>
> >>>> where you find the time. All are extremely well
> >>>>
> >> written, very clear,
> >>
> >>>> very well laid out. A model of their kind. (No
> >>>>
> >> I'm not sucking up - I
> >>
> >>>> mean it :) So what could possibly be the problem.
> >>>>
> >>>> I found the Introduction Videos and Diagrams page
> >>>>
> >> you link to here a
> >>
> >>>> couple of days ago myself.
> >>>>
> >>>> It was whilst working through these videos that
> >>>>
> >> the light bulb went off.
> >>
> >>>> What you're talking us through is a diagram of
> >>>>
> >> the wiring harness of
> >>
> >>>> a jumbo jet.
> >>>>
> >>>> Essential for the engineers who need to service
> >>>>
> >> it.
> >>
> >>>> Absolutely the last kind of map a pilot wants to
> >>>>
> >> find on his lap.
> >>
> >>>> Know what I mean?
> >>>>
> >>> Uh, yeah, that's because it is meant to cover the
> >>>
> >> framework, not the
> >>
> >>> applications. The two are very different, change
> >>>
> >> very differently,
> >>
> >>> need to be understood by different people in
> >>>
> >> different ways, etc. My
> >>
> >>> current estimate is that to produce something
> >>>
> >> adequate for a "pilot",
> >>
> >>> given that there are about 100 different "pilot"
> >>>
> >> roles in OFBiz, would
> >>
> >>> require many times the effort to produce that the
> >>>
> >> framework videos
> >>
> >>> with their diagrams, reference materials,
> >>>
> >> transcriptions, etc. Right
> >>
> >>> now I don't have the $500k to get into that... and
> >>>
> >> the $40k already
> >>
> >>> spent on the documents which are now PDF-dumped
> >>>
> >> into the
> >>
> >>> docs.ofbiz.org site was clearly inadequate,
> >>>
> >> especially as it is mostly
> >>
> >>> reference materials (which is why you won't find
> >>>
> >> how-to stuff in the
> >>
> >>> reference guides, they are references after all,
> >>>
> >> just for reference
> >>
> >>> purposes). The Application Overview for Users is
> >>>
> >> probably more of what
> >>
> >>> you're looking for, though that section only
> >>>
> >> represents maybe 3-5% of
> >>
> >>> what is in OFBiz right now.
> >>>
> >>> Of course, that's assuming such documents could
> >>>
> >> even be written in a
> >>
> >>> way that is close to generally useful. How do I
> >>>
> >> use it? Well, that
> >>
> >>> depends on what you want to do... and
> >>>
> >> unfortunately across a few
> >>
> >>> different industries that list grows into hundreds
> >>>
> >> of thousands of
> >>
> >>> activities...
> >>>
> >>> So, that's the big question with any document: who
> >>>
> >> is the target
> >>
> >>> audience? The more specific the answer, the better
> >>>
> >> the document will
> >>
> >>> address their needs. But who is the target
> >>>
> >> audience for OFBiz? ... ?
> >>
> >>> -David
> >>>
> >>>
> >> -- 
> >>
> >>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >> mcnultyMEDIA
> >> 60 Birkdale Gardens
> >> Durham
> >> DH1 2UL
> >>
> >> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
> >> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
> >> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
> >>
> >>
> > ==============================================================================================
> >
> >> This communication is for the exclusive use of the
> >> intended recipient(s) named above and is
> >> confidential. Any form of distribution, copying,
> >> discussion or use of this communication, its
> >> contents, or any information contained herein
> >> without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you
> >> receive this communication in error, please notify
> >> the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191
> >> 384 4736
> >>
> >> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we
> >> cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of
> >> software viruses and would recommend that you carry
> >> out your own virus checks before opening any
> >> attachment.
> >>
> >>
> > ==============================================================================================
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> -- 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> mcnultyMEDIA
> 60 Birkdale Gardens
> Durham
> DH1 2UL
>
> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
> ==============================================================================================
> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of
distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior
consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44
(0)191 384 4736
>
> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of software viruses and
would recommend that you carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
> ==============================================================================================

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

Chris,
> I don't think it's very time/quality
> productive for someone who's passed that "aha" moment
> to produce this documentation; at least not without
> the aid of an "uninitiated".

I'd agree with that all the way. You need a dummy to ask where the keys 
are and an expert to show him the way.

That's why I'm deliberately standing here on the tarmac complaining that 
I can't find the door.

Trouble is that, in expert communities like this, normal protocol is to 
give the dummy an RTFM to help kick him off down the road to learning to 
become an engineer.

I'm not saying that's happened here. Far from it. This group is an 
exception. I've been surprised nobody has yet shown me the door (as in 
exit, not cockpit ;)

But this is why I've been saying from the very beginning that we need a 
real users group. Where dummy questions are welcomed, not just tolerated.

>   
>
> If you'd like to be that test subject, I'm sure there
> are a mess of people, including myself, that would be
> willing to help explain things to you as you make your
> way through the concepts, documenting as you go.

Pleased to hear it :) Like I said. This group seems to be the exception, 
not the rule.

>   But
> the POV of the documentation cannot be from someone
> who's already gotten the bird off the ground, because
> they're not really sure which button they pressed to
> make it all seem second nature.
>   

Very, very true. Which brings us back to your first question,

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

To begin with I thought that might be me. Now I'm not so sure.

I'd love to do it but...

Look. I have to be honest. Don't want to promise anything I can't 
deliver. I'm on oldy. Brought up in the 50s. Already half shagged out. 
Can't do 18 hour days anymore. I'm finding dealing with the emails 
difficult enough. They leave my head spinning. I need frequent lie downs :-\

My plan would be to clear the space for it to happen. A blank page with 
only one mission. To put absolutely nothing there that isn't necessary, 
remove every  possible obstacle in the way.

We are in the age of Web 2.0 and user-generated content.

Clearing the brush from the landing strip is not such a huge undertaking.

Letting it be know all visitors are welcome not such an expensive 
message to convey.

Nature abhors a vacuum.

They will arrive.

When they do, they'll tell you what they need.

Just try stopping them :)

Ian




>
> --- Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk> wrote:
>
>   
>> David,
>>
>> I don't get the proposition that there are 100
>> different pilot roles.
>>
>> There are many 1,000s  of different destinations.
>> Maybe more than a 
>> dozen different pilot roles (commercial, fighter,
>> bomber, spotter, 
>> etc.). But but there IS a lowest common denominator.
>> They all fly 
>> planes. They all start off on fixed wing, single
>> engine props. They all 
>> need to understand basic navigation, aerodynamics,
>> flight-engineering etc.
>>
>> But it is very basic. The need to understand lift,
>> drag, how to 
>> calculate take off velocities etc. But I doubt if
>> they start of with 3D 
>> vector calculus or need to know what a Reynold's
>> number is.
>>
>> So why can't the target be whatever denominators are
>> common to all pilots?
>>
>> How to find the door handle and the start button
>> would be top of my 
>> list. If they can't find those then they ain't never
>> gonna fly.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>     
>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> David,
>>>>
>>>> I can see where you're coming from on this. This
>>>>         
>> project is better 
>>     
>>>> documented than anything else I've seen in the
>>>>         
>> field.You yourself 
>>     
>>>> have produced a truly awesome amount of
>>>>         
>> documentation. I don't know 
>>     
>>>> where you find the time. All are extremely well
>>>>         
>> written, very clear, 
>>     
>>>> very well laid out. A model of their kind. (No
>>>>         
>> I'm not sucking up - I 
>>     
>>>> mean it :) So what could possibly be the problem.
>>>>
>>>> I found the Introduction Videos and Diagrams page
>>>>         
>> you link to here a 
>>     
>>>> couple of days ago myself.
>>>>
>>>> It was whilst working through these videos that
>>>>         
>> the light bulb went off.
>>     
>>>> What you're talking us through is a diagram of
>>>>         
>> the wiring harness of 
>>     
>>>> a jumbo jet.
>>>>
>>>> Essential for the engineers who need to service
>>>>         
>> it.
>>     
>>>> Absolutely the last kind of map a pilot wants to
>>>>         
>> find on his lap.
>>     
>>>> Know what I mean?
>>>>         
>>> Uh, yeah, that's because it is meant to cover the
>>>       
>> framework, not the 
>>     
>>> applications. The two are very different, change
>>>       
>> very differently, 
>>     
>>> need to be understood by different people in
>>>       
>> different ways, etc. My 
>>     
>>> current estimate is that to produce something
>>>       
>> adequate for a "pilot", 
>>     
>>> given that there are about 100 different "pilot"
>>>       
>> roles in OFBiz, would 
>>     
>>> require many times the effort to produce that the
>>>       
>> framework videos 
>>     
>>> with their diagrams, reference materials,
>>>       
>> transcriptions, etc. Right 
>>     
>>> now I don't have the $500k to get into that... and
>>>       
>> the $40k already 
>>     
>>> spent on the documents which are now PDF-dumped
>>>       
>> into the 
>>     
>>> docs.ofbiz.org site was clearly inadequate,
>>>       
>> especially as it is mostly 
>>     
>>> reference materials (which is why you won't find
>>>       
>> how-to stuff in the 
>>     
>>> reference guides, they are references after all,
>>>       
>> just for reference 
>>     
>>> purposes). The Application Overview for Users is
>>>       
>> probably more of what 
>>     
>>> you're looking for, though that section only
>>>       
>> represents maybe 3-5% of 
>>     
>>> what is in OFBiz right now.
>>>
>>> Of course, that's assuming such documents could
>>>       
>> even be written in a 
>>     
>>> way that is close to generally useful. How do I
>>>       
>> use it? Well, that 
>>     
>>> depends on what you want to do... and
>>>       
>> unfortunately across a few 
>>     
>>> different industries that list grows into hundreds
>>>       
>> of thousands of 
>>     
>>> activities...
>>>
>>> So, that's the big question with any document: who
>>>       
>> is the target 
>>     
>>> audience? The more specific the answer, the better
>>>       
>> the document will 
>>     
>>> address their needs. But who is the target
>>>       
>> audience for OFBiz? ... ?
>>     
>>> -David
>>>
>>>       
>> -- 
>>
>>     
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   
>> mcnultyMEDIA
>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>> Durham
>> DH1 2UL
>>
>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>
>>     
> ==============================================================================================
>   
>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the
>> intended recipient(s) named above and is
>> confidential. Any form of distribution, copying,
>> discussion or use of this communication, its
>> contents, or any information contained herein
>> without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you
>> receive this communication in error, please notify
>> the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191
>> 384 4736
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we
>> cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of
>> software viruses and would recommend that you carry
>> out your own virus checks before opening any
>> attachment.
>>
>>     
> ==============================================================================================
>   
>
>
>
>   

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

t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736

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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Chris Howe <cj...@yahoo.com>]

This thread has gone on for a while now, and has become unproductive
for many. Is there a point of action at some point or is everyone just
waiting around for someone else to do the work?

I'll say it again, hopefully a little more clearly this time.  If you
are unhappy with the state of the current documentation and feel it
could be better explained, please do so.  The wiki is available for
you. The mailing list is here if you need any clarification in your
efforts.  Your efforts will be much appreciated.

To answer Ian's three questions without boring with another post...
>Who does speak for the community?
Those that are doing at the time a decision is to be made.  Absent that
no one speaks for the community, they only speak for themselves.

>How does the community decide?
By having someone do.  And critiquing what has been done.

>Is there some kind of vote or what?
There can be to coordinate efforts, but most of the time someone just
does something.

Thanks!
Chris

--- Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk> wrote:

> Andrew,
> 
> That would be an Ahaaaaaa from me on that too.
> 
> Except, if OFBiz ever ends up in my delete bucket it's more likely to
> be 
> with an Ahhggggrrrrr!!!$&?£??rrr than an Eh!  ;)
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew Ballantine wrote:
> > Chris,
> >
> > I would be impossible to back with statistics, but in the history
> of OFBiz
> > and there are many downloads that ended up in the delete bucket
> because they
> > never reached your AHA moment.
> >
> > Ian and I are trying to change the Eh! into Ahaaaaaa
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Andrew Ballantine.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Howe [mailto:cjhowe76013@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: 20 January 2007 09:44
> > To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
> >
> >
> > Ian,
> >
> > While I certainly enjoy the analogies, who are you
> > ultimately suggesting create these lowest common
> > denominator (LCD) documents?
> >
> > As has already been mentioned, once you pass that
> > "aha" moment in OFBiz, it's difficult to understand
> > why the engineering documentation didn't make sense
> > the first time around.  3D vector calculus, as you put
> > it, seems so elementary obvious at that point that
> > it's difficult to convey it in simpler terms; even
> > though you remember it not being obvious when you
> > started.  I don't think it's very time/quality
> > productive for someone who's passed that "aha" moment
> > to produce this documentation; at least not without
> > the aid of an "uninitiated".
> >
> > If you'd like to be that test subject, I'm sure there
> > are a mess of people, including myself, that would be
> > willing to help explain things to you as you make your
> > way through the concepts, documenting as you go.  But
> > the POV of the documentation cannot be from someone
> > who's already gotten the bird off the ground, because
> > they're not really sure which button they pressed to
> > make it all seem second nature.
> >
> >
> > --- Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >   
> >> David,
> >>
> >> I don't get the proposition that there are 100
> >> different pilot roles.
> >>
> >> There are many 1,000s  of different destinations.
> >> Maybe more than a
> >> dozen different pilot roles (commercial, fighter,
> >> bomber, spotter,
> >> etc.). But but there IS a lowest common denominator.
> >> They all fly
> >> planes. They all start off on fixed wing, single
> >> engine props. They all
> >> need to understand basic navigation, aerodynamics,
> >> flight-engineering etc.
> >>
> >> But it is very basic. The need to understand lift,
> >> drag, how to
> >> calculate take off velocities etc. But I doubt if
> >> they start of with 3D
> >> vector calculus or need to know what a Reynold's
> >> number is.
> >>
> >> So why can't the target be whatever denominators are
> >> common to all pilots?
> >>
> >> How to find the door handle and the start button
> >> would be top of my
> >> list. If they can't find those then they ain't never
> >> gonna fly.
> >>
> >> Ian
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> David E. Jones wrote:
> >>     
> >>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
> >>>
> >>>       
> >>>> David,
> >>>>
> >>>> I can see where you're coming from on this. This
> >>>>         
> >> project is better
> >>     
> >>>> documented than anything else I've seen in the
> >>>>         
> >> field.You yourself
> >>     
> >>>> have produced a truly awesome amount of
> >>>>         
> >> documentation. I don't know
> >>     
> >>>> where you find the time. All are extremely well
> >>>>         
> >> written, very clear,
> >>     
> >>>> very well laid out. A model of their kind. (No
> >>>>         
> >> I'm not sucking up - I
> >>     
> >>>> mean it :) So what could possibly be the problem.
> >>>>
> >>>> I found the Introduction Videos and Diagrams page
> >>>>         
> >> you link to here a
> >>     
> >>>> couple of days ago myself.
> >>>>
> >>>> It was whilst working through these videos that
> >>>>         
> >> the light bulb went off.
> >>     
> >>>> What you're talking us through is a diagram of
> >>>>         
> >> the wiring harness of
> >>     
> >>>> a jumbo jet.
> >>>>
> >>>> Essential for the engineers who need to service
> >>>>         
> >> it.
> >>     
> >>>> Absolutely the last kind of map a pilot wants to
> >>>>         
> >> find on his lap.
> >>     
> >>>> Know what I mean?
> >>>>         
> >>> Uh, yeah, that's because it is meant to cover the
> >>>       
> >> framework, not the
> >>     
> >>> applications. The two are very different, change
> >>>       
> >> very differently,
> >>     
> >>> need to be understood by different people in
> >>>       
> >> different ways, etc. My
> >>     
> >>> current estimate is that to produce something
> >>>       
> >> adequate for a "pilot",
> >>     
> >>> given that there are about 100 different "pilot"
> >>>       
> >> roles in OFBiz, would
> >>     
> >>> require many times the effort to produce that the
> >>>       
> >> framework videos
> >>     
> >>> with their diagrams, reference materials,
> >>>       
> >> transcriptions, etc. Right
> >>     
> >>> now I don't have the $500k to get into that... and
> >>>       
> >> the $40k already
> >>     
> >>> spent on the documents which are now PDF-dumped
> >>>       
> >> into the
> >>     
> >>> docs.ofbiz.org site was clearly inadequate,
> >>>       
> >> especially as it is mostly
> >>     
> >>> reference materials (which is why you won't find
> >>>       
> >> how-to stuff in the
> >>     
> >>> reference guides, they are references after all,
> 
=== message truncated ===

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

Andrew,

That would be an Ahaaaaaa from me on that too.

Except, if OFBiz ever ends up in my delete bucket it's more likely to be 
with an Ahhggggrrrrr!!!$&?£??rrr than an Eh!  ;)

Ian



Andrew Ballantine wrote:
> Chris,
>
> I would be impossible to back with statistics, but in the history of OFBiz
> and there are many downloads that ended up in the delete bucket because they
> never reached your AHA moment.
>
> Ian and I are trying to change the Eh! into Ahaaaaaa
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Andrew Ballantine.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Howe [mailto:cjhowe76013@yahoo.com]
> Sent: 20 January 2007 09:44
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
>
>
> Ian,
>
> While I certainly enjoy the analogies, who are you
> ultimately suggesting create these lowest common
> denominator (LCD) documents?
>
> As has already been mentioned, once you pass that
> "aha" moment in OFBiz, it's difficult to understand
> why the engineering documentation didn't make sense
> the first time around.  3D vector calculus, as you put
> it, seems so elementary obvious at that point that
> it's difficult to convey it in simpler terms; even
> though you remember it not being obvious when you
> started.  I don't think it's very time/quality
> productive for someone who's passed that "aha" moment
> to produce this documentation; at least not without
> the aid of an "uninitiated".
>
> If you'd like to be that test subject, I'm sure there
> are a mess of people, including myself, that would be
> willing to help explain things to you as you make your
> way through the concepts, documenting as you go.  But
> the POV of the documentation cannot be from someone
> who's already gotten the bird off the ground, because
> they're not really sure which button they pressed to
> make it all seem second nature.
>
>
> --- Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk> wrote:
>
>   
>> David,
>>
>> I don't get the proposition that there are 100
>> different pilot roles.
>>
>> There are many 1,000s  of different destinations.
>> Maybe more than a
>> dozen different pilot roles (commercial, fighter,
>> bomber, spotter,
>> etc.). But but there IS a lowest common denominator.
>> They all fly
>> planes. They all start off on fixed wing, single
>> engine props. They all
>> need to understand basic navigation, aerodynamics,
>> flight-engineering etc.
>>
>> But it is very basic. The need to understand lift,
>> drag, how to
>> calculate take off velocities etc. But I doubt if
>> they start of with 3D
>> vector calculus or need to know what a Reynold's
>> number is.
>>
>> So why can't the target be whatever denominators are
>> common to all pilots?
>>
>> How to find the door handle and the start button
>> would be top of my
>> list. If they can't find those then they ain't never
>> gonna fly.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>     
>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> David,
>>>>
>>>> I can see where you're coming from on this. This
>>>>         
>> project is better
>>     
>>>> documented than anything else I've seen in the
>>>>         
>> field.You yourself
>>     
>>>> have produced a truly awesome amount of
>>>>         
>> documentation. I don't know
>>     
>>>> where you find the time. All are extremely well
>>>>         
>> written, very clear,
>>     
>>>> very well laid out. A model of their kind. (No
>>>>         
>> I'm not sucking up - I
>>     
>>>> mean it :) So what could possibly be the problem.
>>>>
>>>> I found the Introduction Videos and Diagrams page
>>>>         
>> you link to here a
>>     
>>>> couple of days ago myself.
>>>>
>>>> It was whilst working through these videos that
>>>>         
>> the light bulb went off.
>>     
>>>> What you're talking us through is a diagram of
>>>>         
>> the wiring harness of
>>     
>>>> a jumbo jet.
>>>>
>>>> Essential for the engineers who need to service
>>>>         
>> it.
>>     
>>>> Absolutely the last kind of map a pilot wants to
>>>>         
>> find on his lap.
>>     
>>>> Know what I mean?
>>>>         
>>> Uh, yeah, that's because it is meant to cover the
>>>       
>> framework, not the
>>     
>>> applications. The two are very different, change
>>>       
>> very differently,
>>     
>>> need to be understood by different people in
>>>       
>> different ways, etc. My
>>     
>>> current estimate is that to produce something
>>>       
>> adequate for a "pilot",
>>     
>>> given that there are about 100 different "pilot"
>>>       
>> roles in OFBiz, would
>>     
>>> require many times the effort to produce that the
>>>       
>> framework videos
>>     
>>> with their diagrams, reference materials,
>>>       
>> transcriptions, etc. Right
>>     
>>> now I don't have the $500k to get into that... and
>>>       
>> the $40k already
>>     
>>> spent on the documents which are now PDF-dumped
>>>       
>> into the
>>     
>>> docs.ofbiz.org site was clearly inadequate,
>>>       
>> especially as it is mostly
>>     
>>> reference materials (which is why you won't find
>>>       
>> how-to stuff in the
>>     
>>> reference guides, they are references after all,
>>>       
>> just for reference
>>     
>>> purposes). The Application Overview for Users is
>>>       
>> probably more of what
>>     
>>> you're looking for, though that section only
>>>       
>> represents maybe 3-5% of
>>     
>>> what is in OFBiz right now.
>>>
>>> Of course, that's assuming such documents could
>>>       
>> even be written in a
>>     
>>> way that is close to generally useful. How do I
>>>       
>> use it? Well, that
>>     
>>> depends on what you want to do... and
>>>       
>> unfortunately across a few
>>     
>>> different industries that list grows into hundreds
>>>       
>> of thousands of
>>     
>>> activities...
>>>
>>> So, that's the big question with any document: who
>>>       
>> is the target
>>     
>>> audience? The more specific the answer, the better
>>>       
>> the document will
>>     
>>> address their needs. But who is the target
>>>       
>> audience for OFBiz? ... ?
>>     
>>> -David
>>>
>>>       
>> --
>>
>>     
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
>   
>> mcnultyMEDIA
>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>> Durham
>> DH1 2UL
>>
>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>
>>     
> ============================================================================
> ==================
>   
>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the
>> intended recipient(s) named above and is
>> confidential. Any form of distribution, copying,
>> discussion or use of this communication, its
>> contents, or any information contained herein
>> without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you
>> receive this communication in error, please notify
>> the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191
>> 384 4736
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we
>> cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of
>> software viruses and would recommend that you carry
>> out your own virus checks before opening any
>> attachment.
>>
>>     
> ============================================================================
> ==================
>   
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
> 03:36
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
> 03:36
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
> 03:36
>
>
>
> *****************************************************************
> This email has been checked by the altohiway Mailcontroller Service
> *****************************************************************
>
>
>   

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

t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736

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

RE: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Andrew Ballantine <ac...@willowbrook.co.uk>]

Chris,

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

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

Kind regards,

Andrew Ballantine.

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Howe [mailto:cjhowe76013@yahoo.com]
Sent: 20 January 2007 09:44
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?


Ian,

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

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

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


--- Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk> wrote:

> David,
>
> I don't get the proposition that there are 100
> different pilot roles.
>
> There are many 1,000s  of different destinations.
> Maybe more than a
> dozen different pilot roles (commercial, fighter,
> bomber, spotter,
> etc.). But but there IS a lowest common denominator.
> They all fly
> planes. They all start off on fixed wing, single
> engine props. They all
> need to understand basic navigation, aerodynamics,
> flight-engineering etc.
>
> But it is very basic. The need to understand lift,
> drag, how to
> calculate take off velocities etc. But I doubt if
> they start of with 3D
> vector calculus or need to know what a Reynold's
> number is.
>
> So why can't the target be whatever denominators are
> common to all pilots?
>
> How to find the door handle and the start button
> would be top of my
> list. If they can't find those then they ain't never
> gonna fly.
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> David E. Jones wrote:
> >
> > On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
> >
> >> David,
> >>
> >> I can see where you're coming from on this. This
> project is better
> >> documented than anything else I've seen in the
> field.You yourself
> >> have produced a truly awesome amount of
> documentation. I don't know
> >> where you find the time. All are extremely well
> written, very clear,
> >> very well laid out. A model of their kind. (No
> I'm not sucking up - I
> >> mean it :) So what could possibly be the problem.
> >>
> >> I found the Introduction Videos and Diagrams page
> you link to here a
> >> couple of days ago myself.
> >>
> >> It was whilst working through these videos that
> the light bulb went off.
> >>
> >> What you're talking us through is a diagram of
> the wiring harness of
> >> a jumbo jet.
> >>
> >> Essential for the engineers who need to service
> it.
> >>
> >> Absolutely the last kind of map a pilot wants to
> find on his lap.
> >>
> >> Know what I mean?
> >
> > Uh, yeah, that's because it is meant to cover the
> framework, not the
> > applications. The two are very different, change
> very differently,
> > need to be understood by different people in
> different ways, etc. My
> > current estimate is that to produce something
> adequate for a "pilot",
> > given that there are about 100 different "pilot"
> roles in OFBiz, would
> > require many times the effort to produce that the
> framework videos
> > with their diagrams, reference materials,
> transcriptions, etc. Right
> > now I don't have the $500k to get into that... and
> the $40k already
> > spent on the documents which are now PDF-dumped
> into the
> > docs.ofbiz.org site was clearly inadequate,
> especially as it is mostly
> > reference materials (which is why you won't find
> how-to stuff in the
> > reference guides, they are references after all,
> just for reference
> > purposes). The Application Overview for Users is
> probably more of what
> > you're looking for, though that section only
> represents maybe 3-5% of
> > what is in OFBiz right now.
> >
> > Of course, that's assuming such documents could
> even be written in a
> > way that is close to generally useful. How do I
> use it? Well, that
> > depends on what you want to do... and
> unfortunately across a few
> > different industries that list grows into hundreds
> of thousands of
> > activities...
> >
> > So, that's the big question with any document: who
> is the target
> > audience? The more specific the answer, the better
> the document will
> > address their needs. But who is the target
> audience for OFBiz? ... ?
> >
> > -David
> >
>
> --
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
> mcnultyMEDIA
> 60 Birkdale Gardens
> Durham
> DH1 2UL
>
> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>
============================================================================
==================
> This communication is for the exclusive use of the
> intended recipient(s) named above and is
> confidential. Any form of distribution, copying,
> discussion or use of this communication, its
> contents, or any information contained herein
> without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you
> receive this communication in error, please notify
> the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191
> 384 4736
>
> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we
> cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of
> software viruses and would recommend that you carry
> out your own virus checks before opening any
> attachment.
>
============================================================================
==================
>



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


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

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



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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Chris Howe <cj...@yahoo.com>]

Ian,

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

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

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


--- Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk> wrote:

> David,
> 
> I don't get the proposition that there are 100
> different pilot roles.
> 
> There are many 1,000s  of different destinations.
> Maybe more than a 
> dozen different pilot roles (commercial, fighter,
> bomber, spotter, 
> etc.). But but there IS a lowest common denominator.
> They all fly 
> planes. They all start off on fixed wing, single
> engine props. They all 
> need to understand basic navigation, aerodynamics,
> flight-engineering etc.
> 
> But it is very basic. The need to understand lift,
> drag, how to 
> calculate take off velocities etc. But I doubt if
> they start of with 3D 
> vector calculus or need to know what a Reynold's
> number is.
> 
> So why can't the target be whatever denominators are
> common to all pilots?
> 
> How to find the door handle and the start button
> would be top of my 
> list. If they can't find those then they ain't never
> gonna fly.
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David E. Jones wrote:
> >
> > On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
> >
> >> David,
> >>
> >> I can see where you're coming from on this. This
> project is better 
> >> documented than anything else I've seen in the
> field.You yourself 
> >> have produced a truly awesome amount of
> documentation. I don't know 
> >> where you find the time. All are extremely well
> written, very clear, 
> >> very well laid out. A model of their kind. (No
> I'm not sucking up - I 
> >> mean it :) So what could possibly be the problem.
> >>
> >> I found the Introduction Videos and Diagrams page
> you link to here a 
> >> couple of days ago myself.
> >>
> >> It was whilst working through these videos that
> the light bulb went off.
> >>
> >> What you're talking us through is a diagram of
> the wiring harness of 
> >> a jumbo jet.
> >>
> >> Essential for the engineers who need to service
> it.
> >>
> >> Absolutely the last kind of map a pilot wants to
> find on his lap.
> >>
> >> Know what I mean?
> >
> > Uh, yeah, that's because it is meant to cover the
> framework, not the 
> > applications. The two are very different, change
> very differently, 
> > need to be understood by different people in
> different ways, etc. My 
> > current estimate is that to produce something
> adequate for a "pilot", 
> > given that there are about 100 different "pilot"
> roles in OFBiz, would 
> > require many times the effort to produce that the
> framework videos 
> > with their diagrams, reference materials,
> transcriptions, etc. Right 
> > now I don't have the $500k to get into that... and
> the $40k already 
> > spent on the documents which are now PDF-dumped
> into the 
> > docs.ofbiz.org site was clearly inadequate,
> especially as it is mostly 
> > reference materials (which is why you won't find
> how-to stuff in the 
> > reference guides, they are references after all,
> just for reference 
> > purposes). The Application Overview for Users is
> probably more of what 
> > you're looking for, though that section only
> represents maybe 3-5% of 
> > what is in OFBiz right now.
> >
> > Of course, that's assuming such documents could
> even be written in a 
> > way that is close to generally useful. How do I
> use it? Well, that 
> > depends on what you want to do... and
> unfortunately across a few 
> > different industries that list grows into hundreds
> of thousands of 
> > activities...
> >
> > So, that's the big question with any document: who
> is the target 
> > audience? The more specific the answer, the better
> the document will 
> > address their needs. But who is the target
> audience for OFBiz? ... ?
> >
> > -David
> >
> 
> -- 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> mcnultyMEDIA
> 60 Birkdale Gardens
> Durham
> DH1 2UL
> 
> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>
==============================================================================================
> This communication is for the exclusive use of the
> intended recipient(s) named above and is
> confidential. Any form of distribution, copying,
> discussion or use of this communication, its
> contents, or any information contained herein
> without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you
> receive this communication in error, please notify
> the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191
> 384 4736
> 
> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we
> cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of
> software viruses and would recommend that you carry
> out your own virus checks before opening any
> attachment.
>
==============================================================================================
> 

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

David,

I don't get the proposition that there are 100 different pilot roles.

There are many 1,000s  of different destinations. Maybe more than a 
dozen different pilot roles (commercial, fighter, bomber, spotter, 
etc.). But but there IS a lowest common denominator. They all fly 
planes. They all start off on fixed wing, single engine props. They all 
need to understand basic navigation, aerodynamics, flight-engineering etc.

But it is very basic. The need to understand lift, drag, how to 
calculate take off velocities etc. But I doubt if they start of with 3D 
vector calculus or need to know what a Reynold's number is.

So why can't the target be whatever denominators are common to all pilots?

How to find the door handle and the start button would be top of my 
list. If they can't find those then they ain't never gonna fly.

Ian




David E. Jones wrote:
>
> On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>
>> David,
>>
>> I can see where you're coming from on this. This project is better 
>> documented than anything else I've seen in the field.You yourself 
>> have produced a truly awesome amount of documentation. I don't know 
>> where you find the time. All are extremely well written, very clear, 
>> very well laid out. A model of their kind. (No I'm not sucking up - I 
>> mean it :) So what could possibly be the problem.
>>
>> I found the Introduction Videos and Diagrams page you link to here a 
>> couple of days ago myself.
>>
>> It was whilst working through these videos that the light bulb went off.
>>
>> What you're talking us through is a diagram of the wiring harness of 
>> a jumbo jet.
>>
>> Essential for the engineers who need to service it.
>>
>> Absolutely the last kind of map a pilot wants to find on his lap.
>>
>> Know what I mean?
>
> Uh, yeah, that's because it is meant to cover the framework, not the 
> applications. The two are very different, change very differently, 
> need to be understood by different people in different ways, etc. My 
> current estimate is that to produce something adequate for a "pilot", 
> given that there are about 100 different "pilot" roles in OFBiz, would 
> require many times the effort to produce that the framework videos 
> with their diagrams, reference materials, transcriptions, etc. Right 
> now I don't have the $500k to get into that... and the $40k already 
> spent on the documents which are now PDF-dumped into the 
> docs.ofbiz.org site was clearly inadequate, especially as it is mostly 
> reference materials (which is why you won't find how-to stuff in the 
> reference guides, they are references after all, just for reference 
> purposes). The Application Overview for Users is probably more of what 
> you're looking for, though that section only represents maybe 3-5% of 
> what is in OFBiz right now.
>
> Of course, that's assuming such documents could even be written in a 
> way that is close to generally useful. How do I use it? Well, that 
> depends on what you want to do... and unfortunately across a few 
> different industries that list grows into hundreds of thousands of 
> activities...
>
> So, that's the big question with any document: who is the target 
> audience? The more specific the answer, the better the document will 
> address their needs. But who is the target audience for OFBiz? ... ?
>
> -David
>

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

t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736

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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

["David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:

> David,
>
> I can see where you're coming from on this. This project is better  
> documented than anything else I've seen in the field.You yourself  
> have produced a truly awesome amount of documentation. I don't know  
> where you find the time. All are extremely well written, very  
> clear, very well laid out. A model of their kind. (No I'm not  
> sucking up - I mean it :) So what could possibly be the problem.
>
> I found the Introduction Videos and Diagrams page you link to here  
> a couple of days ago myself.
>
> It was whilst working through these videos that the light bulb went  
> off.
>
> What you're talking us through is a diagram of the wiring harness  
> of a jumbo jet.
>
> Essential for the engineers who need to service it.
>
> Absolutely the last kind of map a pilot wants to find on his lap.
>
> Know what I mean?

Uh, yeah, that's because it is meant to cover the framework, not the  
applications. The two are very different, change very differently,  
need to be understood by different people in different ways, etc. My  
current estimate is that to produce something adequate for a "pilot",  
given that there are about 100 different "pilot" roles in OFBiz,  
would require many times the effort to produce that the framework  
videos with their diagrams, reference materials, transcriptions, etc.  
Right now I don't have the $500k to get into that... and the $40k  
already spent on the documents which are now PDF-dumped into the  
docs.ofbiz.org site was clearly inadequate, especially as it is  
mostly reference materials (which is why you won't find how-to stuff  
in the reference guides, they are references after all, just for  
reference purposes). The Application Overview for Users is probably  
more of what you're looking for, though that section only represents  
maybe 3-5% of what is in OFBiz right now.

Of course, that's assuming such documents could even be written in a  
way that is close to generally useful. How do I use it? Well, that  
depends on what you want to do... and unfortunately across a few  
different industries that list grows into hundreds of thousands of  
activities...

So, that's the big question with any document: who is the target  
audience? The more specific the answer, the better the document will  
address their needs. But who is the target audience for OFBiz? ... ?

-David

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

David,

I can see where you're coming from on this. This project is better 
documented than anything else I've seen in the field.You yourself have 
produced a truly awesome amount of documentation. I don't know where you 
find the time. All are extremely well written, very clear, very well 
laid out. A model of their kind. (No I'm not sucking up - I mean it :) 
So what could possibly be the problem.

I found the Introduction Videos and Diagrams page you link to here a 
couple of days ago myself.

It was whilst working through these videos that the light bulb went off.

What you're talking us through is a diagram of the wiring harness of a 
jumbo jet.

Essential for the engineers who need to service it.

Absolutely the last kind of map a pilot wants to find on his lap.

Know what I mean?

Ian




David E. Jones wrote:
>
> On Jan 18, 2007, at 4:38 AM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>
>> Er, Ian. I forgot to mention this.
>>
>> The docs for engineers aren't too comprehensive either. Try putting 
>> your best Java developers into picking up OFBiz. Take the screen 
>> widgets and form widgets for example. See how they fare. Like I said, 
>> Java is more documented than OFBiz-specific technologies.
>>
>> BUT.. but it's entirely possible to use Java only, plus 
>> non-OFBiz-specific technologies like Freemarker for front-end 
>> development convenience, and to skip Minilang and screen/form widgets 
>> to a large extent. Non-OFBiz-specific technologies are generally 
>> better documented since their developers focus develoment time solely 
>> on those techs, like Freemarker (front-end tool) developers don't 
>> delve into entity engines (backend tools).
>>
>> As I was telling my boss, it's actually easier to hire Java 
>> programmers than to hire Minilang or screen/form widget programmers.
>>
>> So, beware of the implications. Say I code customizations for you in 
>> Minilang and screen/form widgets, using almost or entirely zero Java. 
>> Future tech support could be an really hairy issue for you.
>>
>> BUT... at some point (I can't guarantee when), Minilang and 
>> screen/form widget docs will be complete, audited to be 
>> comprehensive, etc. You'll then probably find that programming in 
>> Minilang is more cost-effective than in Java. (Either that, or I get 
>> paid by someone to completely reverse-engineer and document all of 
>> Minilang and screen/form widget in a reasonable timeframe --- say a 
>> month. Not an impossible task, just a mountain of Java codes, is all).
>
> Complete coverage of the framework already exists. Start at the link 
> below, and continue on to the advanced framework materials:
>
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/PQM
>
> -David
>

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

t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736

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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

["David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

On Jan 18, 2007, at 4:38 AM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:

> Er, Ian. I forgot to mention this.
>
> The docs for engineers aren't too comprehensive either. Try putting  
> your best Java developers into picking up OFBiz. Take the screen  
> widgets and form widgets for example. See how they fare. Like I  
> said, Java is more documented than OFBiz-specific technologies.
>
> BUT.. but it's entirely possible to use Java only, plus non-OFBiz- 
> specific technologies like Freemarker for front-end development  
> convenience, and to skip Minilang and screen/form widgets to a  
> large extent. Non-OFBiz-specific technologies are generally better  
> documented since their developers focus develoment time solely on  
> those techs, like Freemarker (front-end tool) developers don't  
> delve into entity engines (backend tools).
>
> As I was telling my boss, it's actually easier to hire Java  
> programmers than to hire Minilang or screen/form widget programmers.
>
> So, beware of the implications. Say I code customizations for you  
> in Minilang and screen/form widgets, using almost or entirely zero  
> Java. Future tech support could be an really hairy issue for you.
>
> BUT... at some point (I can't guarantee when), Minilang and screen/ 
> form widget docs will be complete, audited to be comprehensive,  
> etc. You'll then probably find that programming in Minilang is more  
> cost-effective than in Java. (Either that, or I get paid by someone  
> to completely reverse-engineer and document all of Minilang and  
> screen/form widget in a reasonable timeframe --- say a month. Not  
> an impossible task, just a mountain of Java codes, is all).

Complete coverage of the framework already exists. Start at the link  
below, and continue on to the advanced framework materials:

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

-David

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>]

Ian,

 > That would be great. Problem is that I need help on so many areas of
 > OFBiz, it's difficult to know where to start.

Start with your first question. "Where is the door??". Then "ok, doorknob?". It always has to 
start somewhere.

The trick is to make sure you give some (reasonable) lead time for the response to come. Ie, don't 
go to your tailor 1 hour before closing time to ask for a new suit for the night!

Well, "reasonable" is pretty much tied to "motivation". So if you ask me what I think about 
Martians, and all I care about are Mermaids, you'll probably hear from me when the Martians 
finally visit us 50 years from now.

But since we're "hot" on cooperating, I'm all ears now. :)

 > You sound much too busy at the moment to get into such things, so
 > probably best left till the heat is off. I haven't even figured out if
 > there is a PM system on this mailing list. How best can we get in touch?

Busy yes. Liability, plenty. But you could be the X-factor I need to take the heat off! Just email 
me at my email adress.

 > I guess the first thing would have to be the concept and the framework.
 >  From what I can see, this isn't just another hack job.

No, it isn't. From the entity engine to the front-end widgets and Minilang, you'll see that an 
entire ecosystem has been grown just to make it easy to work OFBiz (I know, irony here, hold on 
for a bit, I'll help).

Anyway, Java APIs have always been easy to handle. There are lots of solid 3rd-party modules 
integrated into OFBiz, and tested. There's now talk of integrating telephony functions into OFBiz.

 > There are some pretty obvious, straightforward, superficial
 > red-flags that nobody seems too concerned about sorting.

I can't speak for the rest. But I'll tell you that someone here once said he liked OFBiz precisely 
because of it's high cost of entry! I don't remember who. It's just human, you know? How would you 
like to give arm and leg to help the next newbie understand your competitive advantage? :) That's 
my job, by the way, to break vendor-lock.

 > As I've said before. The last thing the guys in the workshop want to see
 > is a moron standing on the forecourt complaining he can't open the door.
 > It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it :)

I know the veterans here will hate me for saying this, but this is the truth. It's not just 
opening the door to the workshop. Speaking from a rather techie point of view, I'd say it's more 
like new engineers are asking for access to the "documentation store" (only to find it somewhat 
empty after prying it open).

One thing you need to know is that the veterans and community just went through a gruelling 
initiation into ASF (apache software foundation). Many are burned out. Many need to get back to 
work that piled up.

I believe that the "documentation store" will fill up over time, probably 1-2 years from now, 
depending on how charitable the community feels with their spare time.

 > I guess what I'd like to see is a team of engineers who are prepared to
 > take up that kind of challenge. What does the average driver need to get
 > on the road. What can we do to remove the obstacles in his way.
 >
 > If anybody is interested in working in that direction, that's certainly
 > the way I'd like to go.

I don't know, actually. What are the motivations for investing in docs that catapult OFBiz idiots 
(newbies) to status of OFBiz users? I'll only comment on this privately. Sorry.

But you're absolutely right. Getting OFBiz to average drivers will mean very easy sells. Tell you 
something. My boss was about to give up on OFBiz several times already (yes, the functions have 
problems, issues). I begged, oh I begged!

Just to let you know how buggy or polished OFBiz is. OFBiz framework should be considered separate 
from the ERP functions that has been built with that framework. So, there's OFBiz framework, and 
there's OFBiz ERP. OFBiz framework is marvelous, very tight and robust codes. It's what's built 
with it, the "application layer" (not framework layer) so to speak, that's the problem.

It's like I give you a terribly buggy Java application. It can mean 2 things: either Java is 
horrible, or I am incompetent. In OFBiz's case, the core framework is tight.

 >> That's alright. You can help to testdrive and complain! I love
 >> complainers! That's the best way I'll know to fix something.
 >
 > Great. So how do we begin?

Hmm. We can start with personal emails. Then I could set up a.. er... private Mantis (simple bug 
reporter, like JIRA) for you. I'll guide you on how to get started real quick.

What I need from you is user-testing time, that's all. Enter data, test, thrash, comment, complain.

It's not that I want your inputs for myself only. It's just that there really isn't anywhere we 
can put your contributions for now. You already know where this mailing list stands (after 
listening for weeks now?).

I'm looking to document OFBiz to a large extent. You can help me in documenting the ERP aspects of 
OFBiz; I can work on the core.

 >> Oh? I didn't realize that. Yeah, if you need help taking on that piece
 >> of pie, we can help each other. But you might have to go through my
 >> boss first.
 >
 > OK. So what do I have to do? Flying out to Singapore is not an option
 > for me at the moment. What would your boss need me to do?

I'm working in Singapore (or Malaysia or Asia generally), my boss is in USA. Welcome to internet 
connectivity.

To tell you the truth, my boss is one of those who are absolutely too busy with his business to do 
a lot of comprehensive user-testing. I want my boss to be successful at what he does, so I 
wouldn't want to take him away from his job. That's where you can help me! I'll help you in 
return, of course. I mean, how can you do user-testing without a running instance of OFBiz??

Hey wait. Come to think of it, why don't you use one of my many "virtual OFBiz instances" instead? 
No setup cost (time or money) for you! Yes, in case you're wondering, it IS possible to run many 
virtual instances serving many domains owned by separate people. My boss has 1 virtual instance, I 
have 1. Would you like 1 too? :)

 > The trick would be to have some kind of filtering process, where easily
 > solved dummy problems are dealt with by those with base-level skills,
 > and really difficult ones can be referred upwards for the A-team to solve.

Volunteers volunteers volunteers, needed at every stratum. You don't always get enough volunteers 
at every stratum. For example, how would you like to be labeled an OFBiz idiot and told to swim in 
base-level forums? (Or conversely, you might hate being called "expert".) For example, in Asian 
governments, it's not uncommon to see low-level competence in high-level staff. It's a very human 
problem. Many people want to be where they cannot be. (I think White House has a room with my name 
on it? Ha!)

I think private motivations (profit) generally drive advances even in opensource arena. Even 
Mantis has sponsors (but I have a simple critical bug submitted some months ago that isn't fixed!).

I understand your ecosystem of "worldwide users" plus "phenomenal market awareness" fuelling "more 
adoption". All that takes preparatory investments, capital/effort outlay. I believe many OFBiz 
veterans here are already earning money selling small (compared to your vision), and probably 
struggling to garner more support for OFBiz in their spare time.

But sure, we can go it ourselves, serve the average drivers market (which should be many times 
more massive than race car driver market!).

Over time, we may have enough docs to form a repository that we can publish somewhere. I'd hope to 
put that back to OFBiz community, but as you said, OFBiz veterans seem to have very different 
focus than us average drivers.

We might put up a "sister/brother site" dishing out stable releases of OFBiz (just like what 
OpenTaps is doing). Someone could manage community-building. We could have a definitive site 
containing generous insider-tips, latest and greatest customizations, critical bugfixes that 
aren't in OFBiz yet, etc.

Then you'll have contributed to OFBiz in a way you wanted to. And leave the rocket scientists to 
enhance the core in peace (since many of my customizations and bugfixes will probably not see the 
light of day in OFBiz, due to what?). But at end of day, all that at what costs to yourself?

 >> OFBiz's Minilang (coupled with widget XMLs), when properly documented,
 >> will be an extremely strong pull factor. If we could somehow breach
 >> the divide between developers and users, OFBiz will certainly be
 >> wildly successful and widely popularized virtually overnight.
 >
 > I'm with you 110% there too.
 >
 > So. How do we get this thing going?
 >
 > Can reverse-engineering solve that one too?  :)

Absolutely. We're not even talking about compiled binaries! The source codes are open for all to 
see. It's like having a mountain of blueprints, blueprints that when fed into a factory will 
produce the product (so that eliminates problem of discrepancy between blueprint and actual product).

If you're willing to go at it, I can show you how it can be done. Have you done functional 
programming and regular expressions? Need that at least to start. Well, ok, to cut to chase, you'd 
be looking good if you have experience writing compilers and interpreters.

 > This reverse-engineering thing sounds fascinating. Not sure what
 > that is exactly. Do you mean looking at the effect and trying to
 > figure out the cause?

Hmm. Something like that, for simpler cases.

You know how you can trace through an application's codes (follow code execution path) to figure 
out how the application works? That's the brute-force way.

But very often, you can leap from point to point in pseudo-tracing through the application. Simple 
detective games. You need to look at the effect, shotgun-assess chunks of codes, rapidly eliminate 
false positives, pinpoint a few candidate causes, then work backwards from there to the effect 
(that started the journey) to verify each candidate cause.

Pattern recognition. Work backwards.

Jonathon

Ian McNulty wrote:
> Jonathon,
> 
> Got to say that I like where you're coming from here. Particularly your 
> attitude to complaints. I'm thinking Toyota production system and the 
> Honda ads. here - "Hate Something, Change Something, Make Something 
> Better."
> 
>>
>> > Can we all help each other? It would be great if we could.
>>
>> Sure. We'll let each other know where we need help.
>>
> 
> That would be great. Problem is that I need help on so many areas of 
> OFBiz, it's difficult to know where to start.
> 
> You sound much too busy at the moment to get into such things, so 
> probably best left till the heat is off. I haven't even figured out if 
> there is a PM system on this mailing list. How best can we get in touch?
> 
>>
>> I'm not exactly a programmer myself, Ian. Do I know all of Java? 
>> Probably just 1% (well, ok, I did know 99% once). 
> 
> Aha. There you go. I've forgotten most of what I knew too. But I never 
> knew any Java. So I'm trying to run from a completely cold start.
> 
>> If I do happen to score well, it's because I worked on 
>> reverse-engineering my memory faculties, not the programming topic at 
>> hand. I went through school studying my learning faculties rather than 
>> the topics at hand.
> 
> This reverse-engineering thing sounds fascinating. Not sure what that is 
> exactly. Do you mean looking at the effect and trying to figure out the 
> cause?
> 
>> Yeah, shame on me. But you can say the same of many Singaporeans! 
>> (Dispassionate, robotic, relentless bunch of soulless creatures.)
> 
> Yeah. I've heard such things said. But I never believe anything I see on 
> TV :)
> 
>>
>> What I'm saying is you, given your prior engineering experience plus 
>> some sense of adventure and clever experimentation, can more than pick 
>> up any concepts or tools you need to work OFBiz. Probably more than I 
>> can. I'm just a simple reverse-engineer (problem-solver in general), 
>> not a real engineer. I'm also one of those "average weekend drivers", 
>> not just someone in overalls. Just focus on "whatever is relevant to 
>> you at the moment", and you'll get started quick. I can try to show 
>> you how if you'd like. Try my methods of picking up OFBiz or anything 
>> in general. Won't hurt (I think). Take Andrew Sykes' advice to Andrew 
>> Ballantine: "take a part of the code that is of interest to you 
>> (you'll need relevance to stay motivated) and then work through 
>> artifact by artifact".
> 
> I doubt I could pick it up faster than you. But nice of you to say so 
> anyway. Words of encouragement are always appreciated  :)
> 
> That aside, I guess my attitude has always been pretty much as you 
> describe. The only computer language learned formally - Algol - was out 
> of date before I'd finished reading the manual. From then on I decided 
> not to worry about how much I understood. Just grab what I could, hack 
> it together and knock any bits that didn't fit into shape. Just get the 
> thing running. By any means necessary.
> 
> But there's something different about OFBiz that made me want to try a 
> completely different tack.
> 
> Hard to describe what that is exactly.
> 
> I guess the first thing would have to be the concept and the framework. 
>  From what I can see, this isn't just another hack job. It's been so 
> beautifully designed from the ground up. A real leap forward and a world 
> beater if I ever saw one. I could be wrong. But I keep thinking that the 
> potential is just awesome!
> 
> The second thing would be how easy it was to get started, but how 
> difficult to get past first gear. I've never encountered anything like 
> that before. I manage to pin one problem down to something I think I can 
> handle, then suddenly another bigger one pops up somewhere else. And yet 
> none of this shakes my confidence in the original design. Very curious!!!
> 
> I guess my conclusion from all this is that the details are all sortable 
> in one way or another, but the main thing that seems to be missing from 
> the picture is the long view. OK, so all the bits seem to be roughly in 
> place. But step back and see what it looks like on the garage 
> forecourt.  There are some pretty obvious, straightforward, superficial 
> red-flags that nobody seems too concerned about sorting.
> 
> How could that be, unless everybody was so busy concentrating on the 
> details of the trees that nobody had time to step back and look at the 
> general outline of the forest?
> 
> That's all that seems to be missing from this project, and the only real 
> contribution I thought I might be able to make:
> 
> Assume infinite ignorance and unlimited intelligence. Supposing I take 
> off my overalls and put on my business suit? Approach this thing as 
> someone who doesn't want to know how to use a spanner, just how to drive 
> it to work. What obstacles are standing in my way? Stop trying to hop 
> over obstacles, the way most of us usually do. Adopt a zero tolerance 
> policy. Don't move on until the problem is isolated, pinned down, boxed 
> up, and written down in the handbook.
> 
> As I've said before. The last thing the guys in the workshop want to see 
> is a moron standing on the forecourt complaining he can't open the door. 
> It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it :)
> 
> Having said that, I think this group has been much more patient than any 
> other I have encountered to date. But I don't want to push it much further.
> 
> I guess what I'd like to see is a team of engineers who are prepared to 
> take up that kind of challenge. What does the average driver need to get 
> on the road. What can we do to remove the obstacles in his way.
> 
> If anybody is interested in working in that direction, that's certainly 
> the way I'd like to go.
> 
> But I do think we need another forum for doing this, so we don't get in 
> the way of the guys who are working on building an even better mousetrap 
> than what's already there.
> 
> Exactly what that forum could be is something I'm still not clear about. 
> All ideas greatly appreciated.
> 
>>
>> I believe that you'll be customizing OFBiz within a day of research, 
>> just like I did. Just like many folks here did, I believe.
>>
>> Join us! (or *hynotically* "join... us... join... us..."). Heh.
> 
> I appreciate your encouragement and think you're probably right.
> 
> But I really do believe that somebody has to step back from all this and 
> play the average driver on the forecourt.
> 
> I believe this is the most useful thing I can do at the moment and am 
> determined to try and keep doing it until somebody chucks a spanner in 
> my works :)
> 
>>
>> Well, my boss (and previous bosses) will probably tell you I can be 
>> irritating when I kept trying to make a software engineer out of him. 
>> But I'm seriously telling you that OFBiz is a solid framework you can 
>> easily build on/with. No kidding.
> 
> I have absolutely no doubt about that too.
>>
>> We just need to get the documentation and user manuals in place...
> 
> Absolutely my opinion too.
> 
>>
>> That's alright. You can help to testdrive and complain! I love 
>> complainers! That's the best way I'll know to fix something.
> 
> Great. So how do we begin?
> 
>>
>> > For the past few years I've been installing Open Source e-commerce for
>> > SMEs. It's a huge and expanding sector. 150,000 members on 
>> osCommerce and Zen
>> > Cart forums alone! With up to 2,000 online at any one time! But the 
>> problem
>> > they are all now facing is, now they have a successful website, how 
>> do they
>> > integrate the back end with in-house accounting and POS? Which is how I
>> > discovered OFbiz in the first place.
>>
>> Oh? I didn't realize that. Yeah, if you need help taking on that piece 
>> of pie, we can help each other. But you might have to go through my 
>> boss first.
> 
> OK. So what do I have to do? Flying out to Singapore is not an option 
> for me at the moment. What would your boss need me to do?
> 
>>
>> > I care deeply about Open Source and want to see it grow. I understand
>> > why Formula One racers might not see what weekend drivers and
>> > glove-compartment handbooks have got to do with them. My point is 
>> that a
>> > wider user base increases the market, the need for all levels of
>> > mechanics, and the bargaining power of the top class engineers.
>>
>> We'll need a really solid effort to do all that, multi-tiered forums 
>> and all. Lots of work in forum moderation (but sure, we can recruit 
>> solid volunteers to help in every stratum). And then OFBiz might 
>> become like MySQL. Or sellout eventually like Compiere?
> 
> I suspect that once the framework of some kind of open forum was 
> established, there would be no end of volunteers to moderate it.
> 
> The problem with all such forums I've seen is the level of contact with 
> the core developers.
> 
> In Zen Cart for instance, the core team seem to be online all the time 
> and must be worked half to death trying to keep on top of it all. I 
> can't believe that one day they aren't just going to give up and walk 
> away. So this would not be a great way to go.
> 
> On the other hand, on Ubuntu, there seems to be no route through to the 
> developers at all. So big issues are left hanging for months unresolved.
> 
> The trick would be to have some kind of filtering process, where easily 
> solved dummy problems are dealt with by those with base-level skills, 
> and really difficult ones can be referred upwards for the A-team to solve.
> 
>>
>> OFBiz's Minilang (coupled with widget XMLs), when properly documented, 
>> will be an extremely strong pull factor. If we could somehow breach 
>> the divide between developers and users, OFBiz will certainly be 
>> wildly successful and widely popularized virtually overnight.
> 
> I'm with you 110% there too.
> 
> So. How do we get this thing going?
> 
> Can reverse-engineering solve that one too?  :)
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> Argh. Last ounce of energy. 2am. Later.
>>
>> Jonathon
>>
>> Ian McNulty wrote:
>>> Jonathon,
>>>
>>> Your words of comfort are much appreciated. My instincts tell me 
>>> OFbiz rules and I suspect God may too. So Amen from me too!
>>>
>>> Can we all help each other? It would be great if we could.
>>>
>>> But I think I need to make my position clear at the outset, to avoid 
>>> possible disappointment further down the line.
>>>
>>> I've been working with computers on and off since the late 60s and 
>>> have had to learn to hack various languages, from Algol through to 
>>> php. But it was never my major area of expertise. I never got into C, 
>>> so OOP and Java is still entirely new territory for me. Java, 
>>> Minilang, or Freemarker, I'd have to learn them all from scratch, 
>>> will always be miles behind everyone else, and could be in serious 
>>> danger of being more of a cost than a benefit. I've just starting 
>>> reading Bruce Eckel's Thinking in Java and starting thinking, maybe 
>>> there just aren't enough years left to get up to speed on all this?
>>>
>>> This could be either a major weakness or a strength, depending on 
>>> where I'm standing and what people might be relying on me to do.
>>>
>>>  From what I've seen on this group over the past few weeks, there is 
>>> no shortage of top class engineers who I have no doubt could strip 
>>> down the engine and stick it back together again working better than 
>>> ever, before I'd finished making the morning tea (or coffee, 
>>> depending on what side of the pond you're on. :)
>>>
>>> I'm enough of an engineer to know how utterly irritating it is to 
>>> have people whittering on about irrelevancies like sticking door 
>>> locks when you've been up all night regrinding the cylinder head. But 
>>> I've also been down that road enough times to know how crucial it can 
>>> be to have someone fresh to take over, to wipe the grease off the 
>>> bonnet, polish the chrome work and wheel it out onto the forecourt, 
>>> after you've done your bit and just need to go home to bed.
>>>
>>> So I guess what I'm saying is that, for the moment at least, I'm 
>>> better off leaving the engineering to the experts and focussing on 
>>> what the average driver needs to see.
>>>
>>> For the past few years I've been installing Open Source e-commerce 
>>> for SMEs. It's a huge and expanding sector. 150,000 members on 
>>> osCommerce and Zen Cart forums alone! With up to 2,000 online at any 
>>> one time! But the problem they are all now facing is, now they have a 
>>> successful website, how do they integrate the back end with in-house 
>>> accounting and POS? Which is how I discovered  OFbiz in the first place.
>>>
>>> There are many points that come out of this. Too many to properly 
>>> discuss here.
>>>
>>> First  would be a huge potential market with installation fees of $3K 
>>> upwards, and with very little heavy engineering required at all. 
>>> Store owners care mainly about the look of their shop windows, the 
>>> learning curve for their staff, reducing staff overheads and the 
>>> reliability of the whole thing, and are prepared to pay for it. After 
>>> a while they start to understand the benefits of tuning the engine, 
>>> which is where the heavy engineering work kicks in. But this is 
>>> something they will not even contemplate until they are confident 
>>> they have a solid vehicle that will take them reliably from A to B.
>>>
>>> Second would be how the structure of these forums cultivate many 
>>> levels of users, from Formula One engineers all the way through to 
>>> those who don't even want to fill up the windscreen washer 
>>> themselves. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. For every one 
>>> member on these forums there are 9 others who can't even handle the 
>>> log in and just want somebody to take care of it all for them.
>>>
>>> I care deeply about Open Source and want to see it grow. I understand 
>>> why Formula One racers might not see what weekend drivers and 
>>> glove-compartment handbooks have got to do with them. My point is 
>>> that a wider user base increases the market, the need for all levels 
>>> of mechanics, and the bargaining power of the top class engineers.
>>>
>>> If anybody thinks this make some kind of sense, please let me know.
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>> Er, Ian. I forgot to mention this.
>>>>
>>>> The docs for engineers aren't too comprehensive either. Try putting 
>>>> your best Java developers into picking up OFBiz. Take the screen 
>>>> widgets and form widgets for example. See how they fare. Like I 
>>>> said, Java is more documented than OFBiz-specific technologies.
>>>>
>>>> BUT.. but it's entirely possible to use Java only, plus 
>>>> non-OFBiz-specific technologies like Freemarker for front-end 
>>>> develo

ent convenience, and to skip Minilang and screen/form
>>>> widgets to a large extent. Non-OFBiz-specific technologies are 
>>>> generally better documented since their developers focus develoment 
>>>> time solely on those techs, like Freemarker (front-end tool) 
>>>> developers don't delve into entity engines (backend tools).
>>>>
>>>> As I was telling my boss, it's actually easier to hire Java 
>>>> programmers than to hire Minilang or screen/form widget programmers.
>>>>
>>>> So, beware of the implications. Say I code customizations for you in 
>>>> Minilang and screen/form widgets, using almost or entirely zero 
>>>> Java. Future tech support could be an really hairy issue for you.
>>>>
>>>> BUT... at some point (I can't guarantee when), Minilang and 
>>>> screen/form widget docs will be complete, audited to be 
>>>> comprehensive, etc. You'll then probably find that programming in 
>>>> Minilang is more cost-effective than in Java. (Either that, or I get 
>>>> paid by someone to completely reverse-engineer and document all of 
>>>> Minilang and screen/form widget in a reasonable timeframe --- say a 
>>>> month. Not an impossible task, just a mountain of Java codes, is all).
>>>>
>>>> For now, Java is perhaps your best bet.
>>>>
>>>> To the other folks in overalls, I've been meaning to ask this. Is 
>>>> there any way at all to insert debug messages inside of Minilang and 
>>>> screen/form widget codes? I find it easier to debug Java codes for now.
>>>>
>>>> Jonathon
>>>>
>>>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>>> Ian,
>>>>>
>>>>> Amen! Yeah, God is good. OFBiz is good. Both can be hard to 
>>>>> understand. But I do believe that both are loving, very loving. Amen.
>>>>>
>>>>> If there's any way we can all help each other (Paul, Ian, 
>>>>> Jonathon), let me know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jonathon
>>>>>
>>>>> Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Jonathon and Paul,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could I dive in here and say I'm currently trying to get a working 
>>>>>> model up and running that I could demo to small business clients 
>>>>>> in the UK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OFbiz looks so beautifully designed from the ground up, streets 
>>>>>> ahead of the competition and adaptable to almost any situation 
>>>>>> from running a one-man consultancy  to a multinational enterprise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It looks like the most awesome super-car you've ever seen. I can't 
>>>>>> believe everybody won't want one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As Jonathon says, the community seems entirely focussed on moving 
>>>>>> forward rapidly and winning the next Le Mans. Which is how it 
>>>>>> should be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Imo this explains the lack of docs and the small bugs. The mass of 
>>>>>> available documentation is actually almost as awesome as the 
>>>>>> framework itself. Problem is that it is all aimed at engineers who 
>>>>>> need to understand how it works ... not how to work it. Enough 
>>>>>> workshop manuals to fill shelves in the garage, but no simple 
>>>>>> driver handbooks you can put in the glove compartment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a very fundamental difference. An entirely opposite point 
>>>>>> of view.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try talking to the average driver about the thermodynamics of 
>>>>>> combustion and they glaze over in seconds. They neither need nor 
>>>>>> want to know. They simply want to drive it. They pay the garage to 
>>>>>> take care of all that for them so they can free themselves up to 
>>>>>> deal with other things - like where to drive to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's the little, superficial things that are most important. How 
>>>>>> does the door latch sound? Where is the gear shift and indicator 
>>>>>> switch? How often does it break down?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is true for all levels of users. More so in fact for the 
>>>>>> President of a large Corporation to whom image arriving at the 
>>>>>> golf club is everything, than to the small businessman in the 
>>>>>> street who accepts he may have to get his hands dirty occasionally.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Winning the Le Mans is obviously a huge selling point and an 
>>>>>> essential place to start. In those circumstance, a door latch 
>>>>>> which needs a knack to open, the absence of a drivers handbook and 
>>>>>> the need for team of mechanics to tune it before every race is 
>>>>>> absolutely par for the course. And a racing driver who complains 
>>>>>> about such things will - quite rightly - be quickly shown the door.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But for the average driver in the street it's exactly the 
>>>>>> opposite. One sticking door latch, one miss-start, one breakdown 
>>>>>> on the first test drive and they've had their one bite of the 
>>>>>> cherry and ain't never coming back for more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Imo this is the only problem I'd like to see solved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I started out a few weeks ago trying to point out that this list 
>>>>>> is more for users in overalls at the pit stop than drivers in 
>>>>>> business suits on their way to the office.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Imo a forum for user-drivers rather than user-engineers would help 
>>>>>> focus the view from the other end of the telescope and prevent 
>>>>>> discussion of such superficial issues from clogging the inboxes of 
>>>>>> the rocket scientists who really need to be concentrating on 
>>>>>> getting us to Mars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I personally would like to contribute towards the development of 
>>>>>> some kind of drivers handbook. But if I can't get a working model 
>>>>>> going for myself then it's hard to know where to start.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believe I'm currently doing it for a small business as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You'll need to customize. Customization in this case involves 
>>>>>>> defaulting many values and code execution paths for a more 
>>>>>>> condensed workflow. That is, you can cut out some unnecessary 
>>>>>>> steps in the workflow and also auto-populate default values for 
>>>>>>> some fields (or leave them blank and unused).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I propose that we work together on this? I have yet to hit the 
>>>>>>> accounting and GL side of things. I have figured out the 
>>>>>>> ecommerce (PO, SO) and product configuration side of things, 
>>>>>>> though. And also manufacturing, because my boss does manufacture 
>>>>>>> stuff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You'll find that being a novice Java developer is ALL you need to 
>>>>>>> be, the framework is that easy to use. Well, you also need acute 
>>>>>>> reverse-engineering skills because the only way you'll find out 
>>>>>>> how things work is by diving into the framework source codes (see 
>>>>>>> GenericDelegator.java for entity-related functions). No docs. 
>>>>>>> Community is too being moving OFBiz forward rapidly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In fact, you may find it easily initially to use Java instead of 
>>>>>>> Minilang. Java is a lot more documented than Minilang.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tell you what. I can offer you very quick answers to "how do I do 
>>>>>>> this or that". I'm a reverse-engineer by trade; I have small 
>>>>>>> crack teams that mathematically take apart legacy system codes to 
>>>>>>> break vendor-lock for my clients. So, figuring out OFBiz, given 
>>>>>>> that it's opensource no less, is really... an interesting 
>>>>>>> exercise, not a tedious impractical one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can help me with your accounting knowledge. (Yes, help me!! I 
>>>>>>> beg you!)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How about that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One warning, though. There are quite a few bugs in OFBiz. They're 
>>>>>>> small issues if you can dive in to fix them yourself. But if 
>>>>>>> you're waiting for the community to fix them, you could be 
>>>>>>> looking at weeks before a patch goes in, especially for 
>>>>>>> non-trivial fixes that take time to review/audit. I'm currently 
>>>>>>> holding quite a number of fixes in-house, not yet reviewed by 
>>>>>>> community and merged back into OFBiz.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm deploying a customized system for my boss inside of 1 month. 
>>>>>>> And he has quite a bit of customizations to do, particularly for 
>>>>>>> the manufacturing side of things. Oh, the Manufacturing module is 
>>>>>>> very feature-rich (thanks Jacopo!), just that my boss has special 
>>>>>>> needs. I'd say we could work together and customize OFBiz for you 
>>>>>>> inside of 2 weeks?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jonathon
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul Gear wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm looking at different accounting/business management packages 
>>>>>>>> for use
>>>>>>>> in my small business, and i was excited when i found how 
>>>>>>>> comprehensive
>>>>>>>> and easy to install opentaps was.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, it is a daunting application for the beginner, and it 
>>>>>>>> leads me
>>>>>>>> to ask: is it asking for trouble trying to use it as a small 
>>>>>>>> business
>>>>>>>> accounting package?  My requirements are fairly simple: invoicing
>>>>>>>> (services only, no inventory), general ledger, and GST tracking 
>>>>>>>> for the
>>>>>>>> Australian tax system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm a novice Java developer, so i can get through most basic 
>>>>>>>> problems
>>>>>>>> OK, but understanding the framework is a bit more complex an
>>>>>>>> undertaking.  Am i just creating work for myself thinking that i 
>>>>>>>> can use
>>>>>>>> OFBiz/opentaps for my small business?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>> <http://paulgear.webhop.net>
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>> Did you know?  Using HTML email rather than plain text is less
>>>>>>>> efficient, taking anywhere from 2 to 20 times longer to 
>>>>>>>> download, and a
>>>>>>>> corresponding amount more space on disk.  Learn more about using 
>>>>>>>> email
>>>>>>>> efficiently at <http://www.expita.com/nomime.html>.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

Jonathon,

Got to say that I like where you're coming from here. Particularly your 
attitude to complaints. I'm thinking Toyota production system and the 
Honda ads. here - "Hate Something, Change Something, Make Something Better."

>
> > Can we all help each other? It would be great if we could.
>
> Sure. We'll let each other know where we need help.
>

That would be great. Problem is that I need help on so many areas of 
OFBiz, it's difficult to know where to start.

You sound much too busy at the moment to get into such things, so 
probably best left till the heat is off. I haven't even figured out if 
there is a PM system on this mailing list. How best can we get in touch?

>
> I'm not exactly a programmer myself, Ian. Do I know all of Java? 
> Probably just 1% (well, ok, I did know 99% once). 

Aha. There you go. I've forgotten most of what I knew too. But I never 
knew any Java. So I'm trying to run from a completely cold start.

> If I do happen to score well, it's because I worked on 
> reverse-engineering my memory faculties, not the programming topic at 
> hand. I went through school studying my learning faculties rather than 
> the topics at hand.

This reverse-engineering thing sounds fascinating. Not sure what that is 
exactly. Do you mean looking at the effect and trying to figure out the 
cause?

> Yeah, shame on me. But you can say the same of many Singaporeans! 
> (Dispassionate, robotic, relentless bunch of soulless creatures.)

Yeah. I've heard such things said. But I never believe anything I see on 
TV :)

>
> What I'm saying is you, given your prior engineering experience plus 
> some sense of adventure and clever experimentation, can more than pick 
> up any concepts or tools you need to work OFBiz. Probably more than I 
> can. I'm just a simple reverse-engineer (problem-solver in general), 
> not a real engineer. I'm also one of those "average weekend drivers", 
> not just someone in overalls. Just focus on "whatever is relevant to 
> you at the moment", and you'll get started quick. I can try to show 
> you how if you'd like. Try my methods of picking up OFBiz or anything 
> in general. Won't hurt (I think). Take Andrew Sykes' advice to Andrew 
> Ballantine: "take a part of the code that is of interest to you 
> (you'll need relevance to stay motivated) and then work through 
> artifact by artifact".

I doubt I could pick it up faster than you. But nice of you to say so 
anyway. Words of encouragement are always appreciated  :)

That aside, I guess my attitude has always been pretty much as you 
describe. The only computer language learned formally - Algol - was out 
of date before I'd finished reading the manual. From then on I decided 
not to worry about how much I understood. Just grab what I could, hack 
it together and knock any bits that didn't fit into shape. Just get the 
thing running. By any means necessary.

But there's something different about OFBiz that made me want to try a 
completely different tack.

Hard to describe what that is exactly.

I guess the first thing would have to be the concept and the framework. 
 From what I can see, this isn't just another hack job. It's been so 
beautifully designed from the ground up. A real leap forward and a world 
beater if I ever saw one. I could be wrong. But I keep thinking that the 
potential is just awesome!

The second thing would be how easy it was to get started, but how 
difficult to get past first gear. I've never encountered anything like 
that before. I manage to pin one problem down to something I think I can 
handle, then suddenly another bigger one pops up somewhere else. And yet 
none of this shakes my confidence in the original design. Very curious!!!

I guess my conclusion from all this is that the details are all sortable 
in one way or another, but the main thing that seems to be missing from 
the picture is the long view. OK, so all the bits seem to be roughly in 
place. But step back and see what it looks like on the garage 
forecourt.  There are some pretty obvious, straightforward, superficial 
red-flags that nobody seems too concerned about sorting.

How could that be, unless everybody was so busy concentrating on the 
details of the trees that nobody had time to step back and look at the 
general outline of the forest?

That's all that seems to be missing from this project, and the only real 
contribution I thought I might be able to make:

Assume infinite ignorance and unlimited intelligence. Supposing I take 
off my overalls and put on my business suit? Approach this thing as 
someone who doesn't want to know how to use a spanner, just how to drive 
it to work. What obstacles are standing in my way? Stop trying to hop 
over obstacles, the way most of us usually do. Adopt a zero tolerance 
policy. Don't move on until the problem is isolated, pinned down, boxed 
up, and written down in the handbook.

As I've said before. The last thing the guys in the workshop want to see 
is a moron standing on the forecourt complaining he can't open the door. 
It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it :)

Having said that, I think this group has been much more patient than any 
other I have encountered to date. But I don't want to push it much further.

I guess what I'd like to see is a team of engineers who are prepared to 
take up that kind of challenge. What does the average driver need to get 
on the road. What can we do to remove the obstacles in his way.

If anybody is interested in working in that direction, that's certainly 
the way I'd like to go.

But I do think we need another forum for doing this, so we don't get in 
the way of the guys who are working on building an even better mousetrap 
than what's already there.

Exactly what that forum could be is something I'm still not clear about. 
All ideas greatly appreciated.

>
> I believe that you'll be customizing OFBiz within a day of research, 
> just like I did. Just like many folks here did, I believe.
>
> Join us! (or *hynotically* "join... us... join... us..."). Heh.

I appreciate your encouragement and think you're probably right.

But I really do believe that somebody has to step back from all this and 
play the average driver on the forecourt.

I believe this is the most useful thing I can do at the moment and am 
determined to try and keep doing it until somebody chucks a spanner in 
my works :)

>
> Well, my boss (and previous bosses) will probably tell you I can be 
> irritating when I kept trying to make a software engineer out of him. 
> But I'm seriously telling you that OFBiz is a solid framework you can 
> easily build on/with. No kidding.

I have absolutely no doubt about that too.
>
> We just need to get the documentation and user manuals in place...

Absolutely my opinion too.

>
> That's alright. You can help to testdrive and complain! I love 
> complainers! That's the best way I'll know to fix something.

Great. So how do we begin?

>
> > For the past few years I've been installing Open Source e-commerce for
> > SMEs. It's a huge and expanding sector. 150,000 members on 
> osCommerce and Zen
> > Cart forums alone! With up to 2,000 online at any one time! But the 
> problem
> > they are all now facing is, now they have a successful website, how 
> do they
> > integrate the back end with in-house accounting and POS? Which is how I
> > discovered OFbiz in the first place.
>
> Oh? I didn't realize that. Yeah, if you need help taking on that piece 
> of pie, we can help each other. But you might have to go through my 
> boss first.

OK. So what do I have to do? Flying out to Singapore is not an option 
for me at the moment. What would your boss need me to do?

>
> > I care deeply about Open Source and want to see it grow. I understand
> > why Formula One racers might not see what weekend drivers and
> > glove-compartment handbooks have got to do with them. My point is 
> that a
> > wider user base increases the market, the need for all levels of
> > mechanics, and the bargaining power of the top class engineers.
>
> We'll need a really solid effort to do all that, multi-tiered forums 
> and all. Lots of work in forum moderation (but sure, we can recruit 
> solid volunteers to help in every stratum). And then OFBiz might 
> become like MySQL. Or sellout eventually like Compiere?

I suspect that once the framework of some kind of open forum was 
established, there would be no end of volunteers to moderate it.

The problem with all such forums I've seen is the level of contact with 
the core developers.

In Zen Cart for instance, the core team seem to be online all the time 
and must be worked half to death trying to keep on top of it all. I 
can't believe that one day they aren't just going to give up and walk 
away. So this would not be a great way to go.

On the other hand, on Ubuntu, there seems to be no route through to the 
developers at all. So big issues are left hanging for months unresolved.

The trick would be to have some kind of filtering process, where easily 
solved dummy problems are dealt with by those with base-level skills, 
and really difficult ones can be referred upwards for the A-team to solve.

>
> OFBiz's Minilang (coupled with widget XMLs), when properly documented, 
> will be an extremely strong pull factor. If we could somehow breach 
> the divide between developers and users, OFBiz will certainly be 
> wildly successful and widely popularized virtually overnight.

I'm with you 110% there too.

So. How do we get this thing going?

Can reverse-engineering solve that one too?  :)

Ian



>
> Argh. Last ounce of energy. 2am. Later.
>
> Jonathon
>
> Ian McNulty wrote:
>> Jonathon,
>>
>> Your words of comfort are much appreciated. My instincts tell me 
>> OFbiz rules and I suspect God may too. So Amen from me too!
>>
>> Can we all help each other? It would be great if we could.
>>
>> But I think I need to make my position clear at the outset, to avoid 
>> possible disappointment further down the line.
>>
>> I've been working with computers on and off since the late 60s and 
>> have had to learn to hack various languages, from Algol through to 
>> php. But it was never my major area of expertise. I never got into C, 
>> so OOP and Java is still entirely new territory for me. Java, 
>> Minilang, or Freemarker, I'd have to learn them all from scratch, 
>> will always be miles behind everyone else, and could be in serious 
>> danger of being more of a cost than a benefit. I've just starting 
>> reading Bruce Eckel's Thinking in Java and starting thinking, maybe 
>> there just aren't enough years left to get up to speed on all this?
>>
>> This could be either a major weakness or a strength, depending on 
>> where I'm standing and what people might be relying on me to do.
>>
>>  From what I've seen on this group over the past few weeks, there is 
>> no shortage of top class engineers who I have no doubt could strip 
>> down the engine and stick it back together again working better than 
>> ever, before I'd finished making the morning tea (or coffee, 
>> depending on what side of the pond you're on. :)
>>
>> I'm enough of an engineer to know how utterly irritating it is to 
>> have people whittering on about irrelevancies like sticking door 
>> locks when you've been up all night regrinding the cylinder head. But 
>> I've also been down that road enough times to know how crucial it can 
>> be to have someone fresh to take over, to wipe the grease off the 
>> bonnet, polish the chrome work and wheel it out onto the forecourt, 
>> after you've done your bit and just need to go home to bed.
>>
>> So I guess what I'm saying is that, for the moment at least, I'm 
>> better off leaving the engineering to the experts and focussing on 
>> what the average driver needs to see.
>>
>> For the past few years I've been installing Open Source e-commerce 
>> for SMEs. It's a huge and expanding sector. 150,000 members on 
>> osCommerce and Zen Cart forums alone! With up to 2,000 online at any 
>> one time! But the problem they are all now facing is, now they have a 
>> successful website, how do they integrate the back end with in-house 
>> accounting and POS? Which is how I discovered  OFbiz in the first place.
>>
>> There are many points that come out of this. Too many to properly 
>> discuss here.
>>
>> First  would be a huge potential market with installation fees of $3K 
>> upwards, and with very little heavy engineering required at all. 
>> Store owners care mainly about the look of their shop windows, the 
>> learning curve for their staff, reducing staff overheads and the 
>> reliability of the whole thing, and are prepared to pay for it. After 
>> a while they start to understand the benefits of tuning the engine, 
>> which is where the heavy engineering work kicks in. But this is 
>> something they will not even contemplate until they are confident 
>> they have a solid vehicle that will take them reliably from A to B.
>>
>> Second would be how the structure of these forums cultivate many 
>> levels of users, from Formula One engineers all the way through to 
>> those who don't even want to fill up the windscreen washer 
>> themselves. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. For every one 
>> member on these forums there are 9 others who can't even handle the 
>> log in and just want somebody to take care of it all for them.
>>
>> I care deeply about Open Source and want to see it grow. I understand 
>> why Formula One racers might not see what weekend drivers and 
>> glove-compartment handbooks have got to do with them. My point is 
>> that a wider user base increases the market, the need for all levels 
>> of mechanics, and the bargaining power of the top class engineers.
>>
>> If anybody thinks this make some kind of sense, please let me know.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>> Er, Ian. I forgot to mention this.
>>>
>>> The docs for engineers aren't too comprehensive either. Try putting 
>>> your best Java developers into picking up OFBiz. Take the screen 
>>> widgets and form widgets for example. See how they fare. Like I 
>>> said, Java is more documented than OFBiz-specific technologies.
>>>
>>> BUT.. but it's entirely possible to use Java only, plus 
>>> non-OFBiz-specific technologies like Freemarker for front-end 
>>> development convenience, and to skip Minilang and screen/form 
>>> widgets to a large extent. Non-OFBiz-specific technologies are 
>>> generally better documented since their developers focus develoment 
>>> time solely on those techs, like Freemarker (front-end tool) 
>>> developers don't delve into entity engines (backend tools).
>>>
>>> As I was telling my boss, it's actually easier to hire Java 
>>> programmers than to hire Minilang or screen/form widget programmers.
>>>
>>> So, beware of the implications. Say I code customizations for you in 
>>> Minilang and screen/form widgets, using almost or entirely zero 
>>> Java. Future tech support could be an really hairy issue for you.
>>>
>>> BUT... at some point (I can't guarantee when), Minilang and 
>>> screen/form widget docs will be complete, audited to be 
>>> comprehensive, etc. You'll then probably find that programming in 
>>> Minilang is more cost-effective than in Java. (Either that, or I get 
>>> paid by someone to completely reverse-engineer and document all of 
>>> Minilang and screen/form widget in a reasonable timeframe --- say a 
>>> month. Not an impossible task, just a mountain of Java codes, is all).
>>>
>>> For now, Java is perhaps your best bet.
>>>
>>> To the other folks in overalls, I've been meaning to ask this. Is 
>>> there any way at all to insert debug messages inside of Minilang and 
>>> screen/form widget codes? I find it easier to debug Java codes for now.
>>>
>>> Jonathon
>>>
>>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>> Ian,
>>>>
>>>> Amen! Yeah, God is good. OFBiz is good. Both can be hard to 
>>>> understand. But I do believe that both are loving, very loving. Amen.
>>>>
>>>> If there's any way we can all help each other (Paul, Ian, 
>>>> Jonathon), let me know.
>>>>
>>>> Jonathon
>>>>
>>>> Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>> Hi Jonathon and Paul,
>>>>>
>>>>> Could I dive in here and say I'm currently trying to get a working 
>>>>> model up and running that I could demo to small business clients 
>>>>> in the UK.
>>>>>
>>>>> OFbiz looks so beautifully designed from the ground up, streets 
>>>>> ahead of the competition and adaptable to almost any situation 
>>>>> from running a one-man consultancy  to a multinational enterprise.
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks like the most awesome super-car you've ever seen. I can't 
>>>>> believe everybody won't want one.
>>>>>
>>>>> As Jonathon says, the community seems entirely focussed on moving 
>>>>> forward rapidly and winning the next Le Mans. Which is how it 
>>>>> should be.
>>>>>
>>>>> Imo this explains the lack of docs and the small bugs. The mass of 
>>>>> available documentation is actually almost as awesome as the 
>>>>> framework itself. Problem is that it is all aimed at engineers who 
>>>>> need to understand how it works ... not how to work it. Enough 
>>>>> workshop manuals to fill shelves in the garage, but no simple 
>>>>> driver handbooks you can put in the glove compartment.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a very fundamental difference. An entirely opposite point 
>>>>> of view.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try talking to the average driver about the thermodynamics of 
>>>>> combustion and they glaze over in seconds. They neither need nor 
>>>>> want to know. They simply want to drive it. They pay the garage to 
>>>>> take care of all that for them so they can free themselves up to 
>>>>> deal with other things - like where to drive to.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's the little, superficial things that are most important. How 
>>>>> does the door latch sound? Where is the gear shift and indicator 
>>>>> switch? How often does it break down?
>>>>>
>>>>> This is true for all levels of users. More so in fact for the 
>>>>> President of a large Corporation to whom image arriving at the 
>>>>> golf club is everything, than to the small businessman in the 
>>>>> street who accepts he may have to get his hands dirty occasionally.
>>>>>
>>>>> Winning the Le Mans is obviously a huge selling point and an 
>>>>> essential place to start. In those circumstance, a door latch 
>>>>> which needs a knack to open, the absence of a drivers handbook and 
>>>>> the need for team of mechanics to tune it before every race is 
>>>>> absolutely par for the course. And a racing driver who complains 
>>>>> about such things will - quite rightly - be quickly shown the door.
>>>>>
>>>>> But for the average driver in the street it's exactly the 
>>>>> opposite. One sticking door latch, one miss-start, one breakdown 
>>>>> on the first test drive and they've had their one bite of the 
>>>>> cherry and ain't never coming back for more.
>>>>>
>>>>> Imo this is the only problem I'd like to see solved.
>>>>>
>>>>> I started out a few weeks ago trying to point out that this list 
>>>>> is more for users in overalls at the pit stop than drivers in 
>>>>> business suits on their way to the office.
>>>>>
>>>>> Imo a forum for user-drivers rather than user-engineers would help 
>>>>> focus the view from the other end of the telescope and prevent 
>>>>> discussion of such superficial issues from clogging the inboxes of 
>>>>> the rocket scientists who really need to be concentrating on 
>>>>> getting us to Mars.
>>>>>
>>>>> I personally would like to contribute towards the development of 
>>>>> some kind of drivers handbook. But if I can't get a working model 
>>>>> going for myself then it's hard to know where to start.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe I'm currently doing it for a small business as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You'll need to customize. Customization in this case involves 
>>>>>> defaulting many values and code execution paths for a more 
>>>>>> condensed workflow. That is, you can cut out some unnecessary 
>>>>>> steps in the workflow and also auto-populate default values for 
>>>>>> some fields (or leave them blank and unused).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I propose that we work together on this? I have yet to hit the 
>>>>>> accounting and GL side of things. I have figured out the 
>>>>>> ecommerce (PO, SO) and product configuration side of things, 
>>>>>> though. And also manufacturing, because my boss does manufacture 
>>>>>> stuff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You'll find that being a novice Java developer is ALL you need to 
>>>>>> be, the framework is that easy to use. Well, you also need acute 
>>>>>> reverse-engineering skills because the only way you'll find out 
>>>>>> how things work is by diving into the framework source codes (see 
>>>>>> GenericDelegator.java for entity-related functions). No docs. 
>>>>>> Community is too being moving OFBiz forward rapidly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact, you may find it easily initially to use Java instead of 
>>>>>> Minilang. Java is a lot more documented than Minilang.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tell you what. I can offer you very quick answers to "how do I do 
>>>>>> this or that". I'm a reverse-engineer by trade; I have small 
>>>>>> crack teams that mathematically take apart legacy system codes to 
>>>>>> break vendor-lock for my clients. So, figuring out OFBiz, given 
>>>>>> that it's opensource no less, is really... an interesting 
>>>>>> exercise, not a tedious impractical one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can help me with your accounting knowledge. (Yes, help me!! I 
>>>>>> beg you!)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One warning, though. There are quite a few bugs in OFBiz. They're 
>>>>>> small issues if you can dive in to fix them yourself. But if 
>>>>>> you're waiting for the community to fix them, you could be 
>>>>>> looking at weeks before a patch goes in, especially for 
>>>>>> non-trivial fixes that take time to review/audit. I'm currently 
>>>>>> holding quite a number of fixes in-house, not yet reviewed by 
>>>>>> community and merged back into OFBiz.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm deploying a customized system for my boss inside of 1 month. 
>>>>>> And he has quite a bit of customizations to do, particularly for 
>>>>>> the manufacturing side of things. Oh, the Manufacturing module is 
>>>>>> very feature-rich (thanks Jacopo!), just that my boss has special 
>>>>>> needs. I'd say we could work together and customize OFBiz for you 
>>>>>> inside of 2 weeks?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jonathon
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul Gear wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm looking at different accounting/business management packages 
>>>>>>> for use
>>>>>>> in my small business, and i was excited when i found how 
>>>>>>> comprehensive
>>>>>>> and easy to install opentaps was.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, it is a daunting application for the beginner, and it 
>>>>>>> leads me
>>>>>>> to ask: is it asking for trouble trying to use it as a small 
>>>>>>> business
>>>>>>> accounting package?  My requirements are fairly simple: invoicing
>>>>>>> (services only, no inventory), general ledger, and GST tracking 
>>>>>>> for the
>>>>>>> Australian tax system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm a novice Java developer, so i can get through most basic 
>>>>>>> problems
>>>>>>> OK, but understanding the framework is a bit more complex an
>>>>>>> undertaking.  Am i just creating work for myself thinking that i 
>>>>>>> can use
>>>>>>> OFBiz/opentaps for my small business?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>> <http://paulgear.webhop.net>
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> Did you know?  Using HTML email rather than plain text is less
>>>>>>> efficient, taking anywhere from 2 to 20 times longer to 
>>>>>>> download, and a
>>>>>>> corresponding amount more space on disk.  Learn more about using 
>>>>>>> email
>>>>>>> efficiently at <http://www.expita.com/nomime.html>.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>]

Ian,

 > Can we all help each other? It would be great if we could.

Sure. We'll let each other know where we need help.

 > I've just starting reading Bruce Eckel's Thinking in Java and starting
 > thinking, maybe there just aren't enough years left to get up to speed on all
 > this?

Never enough years to speed in every direction. Just get to where you wanna be.

I'm not exactly a programmer myself, Ian. Do I know all of Java? Probably just 1% (well, ok, I did 
know 99% once). PHP? Maybe 5%. But the level of my knowledge depends on "what's on my plate at the 
moment". I have a problem, too. I probably won't pass many programmer tests. If I do happen to 
score well, it's because I worked on reverse-engineering my memory faculties, not the programming 
topic at hand. I went through school studying my learning faculties rather than the topics at 
hand. Yeah, shame on me. But you can say the same of many Singaporeans! (Dispassionate, robotic, 
relentless bunch of soulless creatures.)

What I'm saying is you, given your prior engineering experience plus some sense of adventure and 
clever experimentation, can more than pick up any concepts or tools you need to work OFBiz. 
Probably more than I can. I'm just a simple reverse-engineer (problem-solver in general), not a 
real engineer. I'm also one of those "average weekend drivers", not just someone in overalls. Just 
focus on "whatever is relevant to you at the moment", and you'll get started quick. I can try to 
show you how if you'd like. Try my methods of picking up OFBiz or anything in general. Won't hurt 
(I think).

Take Andrew Sykes' advice to Andrew Ballantine: "take a part of the code that is of interest to 
you (you'll need relevance to stay motivated) and then work through artifact by artifact".

I believe that you'll be customizing OFBiz within a day of research, just like I did. Just like 
many folks here did, I believe.

Join us! (or *hynotically* "join... us... join... us..."). Heh.

Well, my boss (and previous bosses) will probably tell you I can be irritating when I kept trying 
to make a software engineer out of him. But I'm seriously telling you that OFBiz is a solid 
framework you can easily build on/with. No kidding.

We just need to get the documentation and user manuals in place...

 > So I guess what I'm saying is that, for the moment at least, I'm better off
 > leaving the engineering to the experts and focussing on what the average
 > driver needs to see.

That's alright. You can help to testdrive and complain! I love complainers! That's the best way 
I'll know to fix something.

 > For the past few years I've been installing Open Source e-commerce for
 > SMEs. It's a huge and expanding sector. 150,000 members on osCommerce and Zen
 > Cart forums alone! With up to 2,000 online at any one time! But the problem
 > they are all now facing is, now they have a successful website, how do they
 > integrate the back end with in-house accounting and POS? Which is how I
 > discovered OFbiz in the first place.

Oh? I didn't realize that. Yeah, if you need help taking on that piece of pie, we can help each 
other. But you might have to go through my boss first.

 > I care deeply about Open Source and want to see it grow. I understand
 > why Formula One racers might not see what weekend drivers and
 > glove-compartment handbooks have got to do with them. My point is that a
 > wider user base increases the market, the need for all levels of
 > mechanics, and the bargaining power of the top class engineers.

We'll need a really solid effort to do all that, multi-tiered forums and all. Lots of work in 
forum moderation (but sure, we can recruit solid volunteers to help in every stratum). And then 
OFBiz might become like MySQL. Or sellout eventually like Compiere?

OFBiz's Minilang (coupled with widget XMLs), when properly documented, will be an extremely strong 
pull factor. If we could somehow breach the divide between developers and users, OFBiz will 
certainly be wildly successful and widely popularized virtually overnight.

Argh. Last ounce of energy. 2am. Later.

Jonathon

Ian McNulty wrote:
> Jonathon,
> 
> Your words of comfort are much appreciated. My instincts tell me OFbiz 
> rules and I suspect God may too. So Amen from me too!
> 
> Can we all help each other? It would be great if we could.
> 
> But I think I need to make my position clear at the outset, to avoid 
> possible disappointment further down the line.
> 
> I've been working with computers on and off since the late 60s and have 
> had to learn to hack various languages, from Algol through to php. But 
> it was never my major area of expertise. I never got into C, so OOP and 
> Java is still entirely new territory for me. Java, Minilang, or 
> Freemarker, I'd have to learn them all from scratch, will always be 
> miles behind everyone else, and could be in serious danger of being more 
> of a cost than a benefit. I've just starting reading Bruce Eckel's 
> Thinking in Java and starting thinking, maybe there just aren't enough 
> years left to get up to speed on all this?
> 
> This could be either a major weakness or a strength, depending on where 
> I'm standing and what people might be relying on me to do.
> 
>  From what I've seen on this group over the past few weeks, there is no 
> shortage of top class engineers who I have no doubt could strip down the 
> engine and stick it back together again working better than ever, before 
> I'd finished making the morning tea (or coffee, depending on what side 
> of the pond you're on. :)
> 
> I'm enough of an engineer to know how utterly irritating it is to have 
> people whittering on about irrelevancies like sticking door locks when 
> you've been up all night regrinding the cylinder head. But I've also 
> been down that road enough times to know how crucial it can be to have 
> someone fresh to take over, to wipe the grease off the bonnet, polish 
> the chrome work and wheel it out onto the forecourt, after you've done 
> your bit and just need to go home to bed.
> 
> So I guess what I'm saying is that, for the moment at least, I'm better 
> off leaving the engineering to the experts and focussing on what the 
> average driver needs to see.
> 
> For the past few years I've been installing Open Source e-commerce for 
> SMEs. It's a huge and expanding sector. 150,000 members on osCommerce 
> and Zen Cart forums alone! With up to 2,000 online at any one time! But 
> the problem they are all now facing is, now they have a successful 
> website, how do they integrate the back end with in-house accounting and 
> POS? Which is how I discovered  OFbiz in the first place.
> 
> There are many points that come out of this. Too many to properly 
> discuss here.
> 
> First  would be a huge potential market with installation fees of $3K 
> upwards, and with very little heavy engineering required at all. Store 
> owners care mainly about the look of their shop windows, the learning 
> curve for their staff, reducing staff overheads and the reliability of 
> the whole thing, and are prepared to pay for it. After a while they 
> start to understand the benefits of tuning the engine, which is where 
> the heavy engineering work kicks in. But this is something they will not 
> even contemplate until they are confident they have a solid vehicle that 
> will take them reliably from A to B.
> 
> Second would be how the structure of these forums cultivate many levels 
> of users, from Formula One engineers all the way through to those who 
> don't even want to fill up the windscreen washer themselves. And this is 
> only the tip of the iceberg. For every one member on these forums there 
> are 9 others who can't even handle the log in and just want somebody to 
> take care of it all for them.
> 
> I care deeply about Open Source and want to see it grow. I understand 
> why Formula One racers might not see what weekend drivers and 
> glove-compartment handbooks have got to do with them. My point is that a 
> wider user base increases the market, the need for all levels of 
> mechanics, and the bargaining power of the top class engineers.
> 
> If anybody thinks this make some kind of sense, please let me know.
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
> 
> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>> Er, Ian. I forgot to mention this.
>>
>> The docs for engineers aren't too comprehensive either. Try putting 
>> your best Java developers into picking up OFBiz. Take the screen 
>> widgets and form widgets for example. See how they fare. Like I said, 
>> Java is more documented than OFBiz-specific technologies.
>>
>> BUT.. but it's entirely possible to use Java only, plus 
>> non-OFBiz-specific technologies like Freemarker for front-end 
>> development convenience, and to skip Minilang and screen/form widgets 
>> to a large extent. Non-OFBiz-specific technologies are generally 
>> better documented since their developers focus develoment time solely 
>> on those techs, like Freemarker (front-end tool) developers don't 
>> delve into entity engines (backend tools).
>>
>> As I was telling my boss, it's actually easier to hire Java 
>> programmers than to hire Minilang or screen/form widget programmers.
>>
>> So, beware of the implications. Say I code customizations for you in 
>> Minilang and screen/form widgets, using almost or entirely zero Java. 
>> Future tech support could be an really hairy issue for you.
>>
>> BUT... at some point (I can't guarantee when), Minilang and 
>> screen/form widget docs will be complete, audited to be comprehensive, 
>> etc. You'll then probably find that programming in Minilang is more 
>> cost-effective than in Java. (Either that, or I get paid by someone to 
>> completely reverse-engineer and document all of Minilang and 
>> screen/form widget in a reasonable timeframe --- say a month. Not an 
>> impossible task, just a mountain of Java codes, is all).
>>
>> For now, Java is perhaps your best bet.
>>
>> To the other folks in overalls, I've been meaning to ask this. Is 
>> there any way at all to insert debug messages inside of Minilang and 
>> screen/form widget codes? I find it easier to debug Java codes for now.
>>
>> Jonathon
>>
>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>> Ian,
>>>
>>> Amen! Yeah, God is good. OFBiz is good. Both can be hard to 
>>> understand. But I do believe that both are loving, very loving. Amen.
>>>
>>> If there's any way we can all help each other (Paul, Ian, Jonathon), 
>>> let me know.
>>>
>>> Jonathon
>>>
>>> Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>> Hi Jonathon and Paul,
>>>>
>>>> Could I dive in here and say I'm currently trying to get a working 
>>>> model up and running that I could demo to small business clients in 
>>>> the UK.
>>>>
>>>> OFbiz looks so beautifully designed from the ground up, streets 
>>>> ahead of the competition and adaptable to almost any situation from 
>>>> running a one-man consultancy  to a multinational enterprise.
>>>>
>>>> It looks like the most awesome super-car you've ever seen. I can't 
>>>> believe everybody won't want one.
>>>>
>>>> As Jonathon says, the community seems entirely focussed on moving 
>>>> forward rapidly and winning the next Le Mans. Which is how it should 
>>>> be.
>>>>
>>>> Imo this explains the lack of docs and the small bugs. The mass of 
>>>> available documentation is actually almost as awesome as the 
>>>> framework itself. Problem is that it is all aimed at engineers who 
>>>> need to understand how it works ... not how to work it. Enough 
>>>> workshop manuals to fill shelves in the garage, but no simple driver 
>>>> handbooks you can put in the glove compartment.
>>>>
>>>> This is a very fundamental difference. An entirely opposite point of 
>>>> view.
>>>>
>>>> Try talking to the average driver about the thermodynamics of 
>>>> combustion and they glaze over in seconds. They neither need nor 
>>>> want to know. They simply want to drive it. They pay the garage to 
>>>> take care of all that for them so they can free themselves up to 
>>>> deal with other things - like where to drive to.
>>>>
>>>> It's the little, superficial things that are most important. How 
>>>> does the door latch sound? Where is the gear shift and indicator 
>>>> switch? How often does it break down?
>>>>
>>>> This is true for all levels of users. More so in fact for the 
>>>> President of a large Corporation to whom image arriving at the golf 
>>>> club is everything, than to the small businessman in the street who 
>>>> accepts he may have to get his hands dirty occasionally.
>>>>
>>>> Winning the Le Mans is obviously a huge selling point and an 
>>>> essential place to start. In those circumstance, a door latch which 
>>>> needs a knack to open, the absence of a drivers handbook and the 
>>>> need for team of mechanics to tune it before every race is 
>>>> absolutely par for the course. And a racing driver who complains 
>>>> about such things will - quite rightly - be quickly shown the door.
>>>>
>>>> But for the average driver in the street it's exactly the opposite. 
>>>> One sticking door latch, one miss-start, one breakdown on the first 
>>>> test drive and they've had their one bite of the cherry and ain't 
>>>> never coming back for more.
>>>>
>>>> Imo this is the only problem I'd like to see solved.
>>>>
>>>> I started out a few weeks ago trying to point out that this list is 
>>>> more for users in overalls at the pit stop than drivers in business 
>>>> suits on their way to the office.
>>>>
>>>> Imo a forum for user-drivers rather than user-engineers would help 
>>>> focus the view from the other end of the telescope and prevent 
>>>> discussion of such superficial issues from clogging the inboxes of 
>>>> the rocket scientists who really need to be concentrating on getting 
>>>> us to Mars.
>>>>
>>>> I personally would like to contribute towards the development of 
>>>> some kind of drivers handbook. But if I can't get a working model 
>>>> going for myself then it's hard to know where to start.
>>>>
>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe I'm currently doing it for a small business as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> You'll need to customize. Customization in this case involves 
>>>>> defaulting many values and code execution paths for a more 
>>>>> condensed workflow. That is, you can cut out some unnecessary steps 
>>>>> in the workflow and also auto-populate default values for some 
>>>>> fields (or leave them blank and unused).
>>>>>
>>>>> I propose that we work together on this? I have yet to hit the 
>>>>> accounting and GL side of things. I have figured out the ecommerce 
>>>>> (PO, SO) and product configuration side of things, though. And also 
>>>>> manufacturing, because my boss does manufacture stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>> You'll find that being a novice Java developer is ALL you need to 
>>>>> be, the framework is that easy to use. Well, you also need acute 
>>>>> reverse-engineering skills because the only way you'll find out how 
>>>>> things work is by diving into the framework source codes (see 
>>>>> GenericDelegator.java for entity-related functions). No docs. 
>>>>> Community is too being moving OFBiz forward rapidly.
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact, you may find it easily initially to use Java instead of 
>>>>> Minilang. Java is a lot more documented than Minilang.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell you what. I can offer you very quick answers to "how do I do 
>>>>> this or that". I'm a reverse-engineer by trade; I have small crack 
>>>>> teams that mathematically take apart legacy system codes to break 
>>>>> vendor-lock for my clients. So, figuring out OFBiz, given that it's 
>>>>> opensource no less, is really... an interesting exercise, not a 
>>>>> tedious impractical one.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can help me with your accounting knowledge. (Yes, help me!! I 
>>>>> beg you!)
>>>>>
>>>>> How about that?
>>>>>
>>>>> One warning, though. There are quite a few bugs in OFBiz. They're 
>>>>> small issues if you can dive in to fix them yourself. But if you're 
>>>>> waiting for the community to fix them, you could be looking at 
>>>>> weeks before a patch goes in, especially for non-trivial fixes that 
>>>>> take time to review/audit. I'm currently holding quite a number of 
>>>>> fixes in-house, not yet reviewed by community and merged back into 
>>>>> OFBiz.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm deploying a customized system for my boss inside of 1 month. 
>>>>> And he has quite a bit of customizations to do, particularly for 
>>>>> the manufacturing side of things. Oh, the Manufacturing module is 
>>>>> very feature-rich (thanks Jacopo!), just that my boss has special 
>>>>> needs. I'd say we could work together and customize OFBiz for you 
>>>>> inside of 2 weeks?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jonathon
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul Gear wrote:
>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm looking at different accounting/business management packages 
>>>>>> for use
>>>>>> in my small business, and i was excited when i found how 
>>>>>> comprehensive
>>>>>> and easy to install opentaps was.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, it is a daunting application for the beginner, and it 
>>>>>> leads me
>>>>>> to ask: is it asking for trouble trying to use it as a small business
>>>>>> accounting package?  My requirements are fairly simple: invoicing
>>>>>> (services only, no inventory), general ledger, and GST tracking 
>>>>>> for the
>>>>>> Australian tax system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm a novice Java developer, so i can get through most basic problems
>>>>>> OK, but understanding the framework is a bit more complex an
>>>>>> undertaking.  Am i just creating work for myself thinking that i 
>>>>>> can use
>>>>>> OFBiz/opentaps for my small business?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>> <http://paulgear.webhop.net>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Did you know?  Using HTML email rather than plain text is less
>>>>>> efficient, taking anywhere from 2 to 20 times longer to download, 
>>>>>> and a
>>>>>> corresponding amount more space on disk.  Learn more about using 
>>>>>> email
>>>>>> efficiently at <http://www.expita.com/nomime.html>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

Jonathon,

Your words of comfort are much appreciated. My instincts tell me OFbiz 
rules and I suspect God may too. So Amen from me too!

Can we all help each other? It would be great if we could.

But I think I need to make my position clear at the outset, to avoid 
possible disappointment further down the line.

I've been working with computers on and off since the late 60s and have 
had to learn to hack various languages, from Algol through to php. But 
it was never my major area of expertise. I never got into C, so OOP and 
Java is still entirely new territory for me. Java, Minilang, or 
Freemarker, I'd have to learn them all from scratch, will always be 
miles behind everyone else, and could be in serious danger of being more 
of a cost than a benefit. I've just starting reading Bruce Eckel's 
Thinking in Java and starting thinking, maybe there just aren't enough 
years left to get up to speed on all this?

This could be either a major weakness or a strength, depending on where 
I'm standing and what people might be relying on me to do.

 From what I've seen on this group over the past few weeks, there is no 
shortage of top class engineers who I have no doubt could strip down the 
engine and stick it back together again working better than ever, before 
I'd finished making the morning tea (or coffee, depending on what side 
of the pond you're on. :)

I'm enough of an engineer to know how utterly irritating it is to have 
people whittering on about irrelevancies like sticking door locks when 
you've been up all night regrinding the cylinder head. But I've also 
been down that road enough times to know how crucial it can be to have 
someone fresh to take over, to wipe the grease off the bonnet, polish 
the chrome work and wheel it out onto the forecourt, after you've done 
your bit and just need to go home to bed.

So I guess what I'm saying is that, for the moment at least, I'm better 
off leaving the engineering to the experts and focussing on what the 
average driver needs to see.

For the past few years I've been installing Open Source e-commerce for 
SMEs. It's a huge and expanding sector. 150,000 members on osCommerce 
and Zen Cart forums alone! With up to 2,000 online at any one time! But 
the problem they are all now facing is, now they have a successful 
website, how do they integrate the back end with in-house accounting and 
POS? Which is how I discovered  OFbiz in the first place.

There are many points that come out of this. Too many to properly 
discuss here.

First  would be a huge potential market with installation fees of $3K 
upwards, and with very little heavy engineering required at all. Store 
owners care mainly about the look of their shop windows, the learning 
curve for their staff, reducing staff overheads and the reliability of 
the whole thing, and are prepared to pay for it. After a while they 
start to understand the benefits of tuning the engine, which is where 
the heavy engineering work kicks in. But this is something they will not 
even contemplate until they are confident they have a solid vehicle that 
will take them reliably from A to B.

Second would be how the structure of these forums cultivate many levels 
of users, from Formula One engineers all the way through to those who 
don't even want to fill up the windscreen washer themselves. And this is 
only the tip of the iceberg. For every one member on these forums there 
are 9 others who can't even handle the log in and just want somebody to 
take care of it all for them.

I care deeply about Open Source and want to see it grow. I understand 
why Formula One racers might not see what weekend drivers and 
glove-compartment handbooks have got to do with them. My point is that a 
wider user base increases the market, the need for all levels of 
mechanics, and the bargaining power of the top class engineers.

If anybody thinks this make some kind of sense, please let me know.

Ian



Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> Er, Ian. I forgot to mention this.
>
> The docs for engineers aren't too comprehensive either. Try putting 
> your best Java developers into picking up OFBiz. Take the screen 
> widgets and form widgets for example. See how they fare. Like I said, 
> Java is more documented than OFBiz-specific technologies.
>
> BUT.. but it's entirely possible to use Java only, plus 
> non-OFBiz-specific technologies like Freemarker for front-end 
> development convenience, and to skip Minilang and screen/form widgets 
> to a large extent. Non-OFBiz-specific technologies are generally 
> better documented since their developers focus develoment time solely 
> on those techs, like Freemarker (front-end tool) developers don't 
> delve into entity engines (backend tools).
>
> As I was telling my boss, it's actually easier to hire Java 
> programmers than to hire Minilang or screen/form widget programmers.
>
> So, beware of the implications. Say I code customizations for you in 
> Minilang and screen/form widgets, using almost or entirely zero Java. 
> Future tech support could be an really hairy issue for you.
>
> BUT... at some point (I can't guarantee when), Minilang and 
> screen/form widget docs will be complete, audited to be comprehensive, 
> etc. You'll then probably find that programming in Minilang is more 
> cost-effective than in Java. (Either that, or I get paid by someone to 
> completely reverse-engineer and document all of Minilang and 
> screen/form widget in a reasonable timeframe --- say a month. Not an 
> impossible task, just a mountain of Java codes, is all).
>
> For now, Java is perhaps your best bet.
>
> To the other folks in overalls, I've been meaning to ask this. Is 
> there any way at all to insert debug messages inside of Minilang and 
> screen/form widget codes? I find it easier to debug Java codes for now.
>
> Jonathon
>
> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>> Ian,
>>
>> Amen! Yeah, God is good. OFBiz is good. Both can be hard to 
>> understand. But I do believe that both are loving, very loving. Amen.
>>
>> If there's any way we can all help each other (Paul, Ian, Jonathon), 
>> let me know.
>>
>> Jonathon
>>
>> Ian McNulty wrote:
>>> Hi Jonathon and Paul,
>>>
>>> Could I dive in here and say I'm currently trying to get a working 
>>> model up and running that I could demo to small business clients in 
>>> the UK.
>>>
>>> OFbiz looks so beautifully designed from the ground up, streets 
>>> ahead of the competition and adaptable to almost any situation from 
>>> running a one-man consultancy  to a multinational enterprise.
>>>
>>> It looks like the most awesome super-car you've ever seen. I can't 
>>> believe everybody won't want one.
>>>
>>> As Jonathon says, the community seems entirely focussed on moving 
>>> forward rapidly and winning the next Le Mans. Which is how it should 
>>> be.
>>>
>>> Imo this explains the lack of docs and the small bugs. The mass of 
>>> available documentation is actually almost as awesome as the 
>>> framework itself. Problem is that it is all aimed at engineers who 
>>> need to understand how it works ... not how to work it. Enough 
>>> workshop manuals to fill shelves in the garage, but no simple driver 
>>> handbooks you can put in the glove compartment.
>>>
>>> This is a very fundamental difference. An entirely opposite point of 
>>> view.
>>>
>>> Try talking to the average driver about the thermodynamics of 
>>> combustion and they glaze over in seconds. They neither need nor 
>>> want to know. They simply want to drive it. They pay the garage to 
>>> take care of all that for them so they can free themselves up to 
>>> deal with other things - like where to drive to.
>>>
>>> It's the little, superficial things that are most important. How 
>>> does the door latch sound? Where is the gear shift and indicator 
>>> switch? How often does it break down?
>>>
>>> This is true for all levels of users. More so in fact for the 
>>> President of a large Corporation to whom image arriving at the golf 
>>> club is everything, than to the small businessman in the street who 
>>> accepts he may have to get his hands dirty occasionally.
>>>
>>> Winning the Le Mans is obviously a huge selling point and an 
>>> essential place to start. In those circumstance, a door latch which 
>>> needs a knack to open, the absence of a drivers handbook and the 
>>> need for team of mechanics to tune it before every race is 
>>> absolutely par for the course. And a racing driver who complains 
>>> about such things will - quite rightly - be quickly shown the door.
>>>
>>> But for the average driver in the street it's exactly the opposite. 
>>> One sticking door latch, one miss-start, one breakdown on the first 
>>> test drive and they've had their one bite of the cherry and ain't 
>>> never coming back for more.
>>>
>>> Imo this is the only problem I'd like to see solved.
>>>
>>> I started out a few weeks ago trying to point out that this list is 
>>> more for users in overalls at the pit stop than drivers in business 
>>> suits on their way to the office.
>>>
>>> Imo a forum for user-drivers rather than user-engineers would help 
>>> focus the view from the other end of the telescope and prevent 
>>> discussion of such superficial issues from clogging the inboxes of 
>>> the rocket scientists who really need to be concentrating on getting 
>>> us to Mars.
>>>
>>> I personally would like to contribute towards the development of 
>>> some kind of drivers handbook. But if I can't get a working model 
>>> going for myself then it's hard to know where to start.
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>
>>>> I believe I'm currently doing it for a small business as well.
>>>>
>>>> You'll need to customize. Customization in this case involves 
>>>> defaulting many values and code execution paths for a more 
>>>> condensed workflow. That is, you can cut out some unnecessary steps 
>>>> in the workflow and also auto-populate default values for some 
>>>> fields (or leave them blank and unused).
>>>>
>>>> I propose that we work together on this? I have yet to hit the 
>>>> accounting and GL side of things. I have figured out the ecommerce 
>>>> (PO, SO) and product configuration side of things, though. And also 
>>>> manufacturing, because my boss does manufacture stuff.
>>>>
>>>> You'll find that being a novice Java developer is ALL you need to 
>>>> be, the framework is that easy to use. Well, you also need acute 
>>>> reverse-engineering skills because the only way you'll find out how 
>>>> things work is by diving into the framework source codes (see 
>>>> GenericDelegator.java for entity-related functions). No docs. 
>>>> Community is too being moving OFBiz forward rapidly.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, you may find it easily initially to use Java instead of 
>>>> Minilang. Java is a lot more documented than Minilang.
>>>>
>>>> Tell you what. I can offer you very quick answers to "how do I do 
>>>> this or that". I'm a reverse-engineer by trade; I have small crack 
>>>> teams that mathematically take apart legacy system codes to break 
>>>> vendor-lock for my clients. So, figuring out OFBiz, given that it's 
>>>> opensource no less, is really... an interesting exercise, not a 
>>>> tedious impractical one.
>>>>
>>>> You can help me with your accounting knowledge. (Yes, help me!! I 
>>>> beg you!)
>>>>
>>>> How about that?
>>>>
>>>> One warning, though. There are quite a few bugs in OFBiz. They're 
>>>> small issues if you can dive in to fix them yourself. But if you're 
>>>> waiting for the community to fix them, you could be looking at 
>>>> weeks before a patch goes in, especially for non-trivial fixes that 
>>>> take time to review/audit. I'm currently holding quite a number of 
>>>> fixes in-house, not yet reviewed by community and merged back into 
>>>> OFBiz.
>>>>
>>>> I'm deploying a customized system for my boss inside of 1 month. 
>>>> And he has quite a bit of customizations to do, particularly for 
>>>> the manufacturing side of things. Oh, the Manufacturing module is 
>>>> very feature-rich (thanks Jacopo!), just that my boss has special 
>>>> needs. I'd say we could work together and customize OFBiz for you 
>>>> inside of 2 weeks?
>>>>
>>>> Jonathon
>>>>
>>>> Paul Gear wrote:
>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm looking at different accounting/business management packages 
>>>>> for use
>>>>> in my small business, and i was excited when i found how 
>>>>> comprehensive
>>>>> and easy to install opentaps was.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, it is a daunting application for the beginner, and it 
>>>>> leads me
>>>>> to ask: is it asking for trouble trying to use it as a small business
>>>>> accounting package?  My requirements are fairly simple: invoicing
>>>>> (services only, no inventory), general ledger, and GST tracking 
>>>>> for the
>>>>> Australian tax system.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm a novice Java developer, so i can get through most basic problems
>>>>> OK, but understanding the framework is a bit more complex an
>>>>> undertaking.  Am i just creating work for myself thinking that i 
>>>>> can use
>>>>> OFBiz/opentaps for my small business?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>> Paul
>>>>> <http://paulgear.webhop.net>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Did you know?  Using HTML email rather than plain text is less
>>>>> efficient, taking anywhere from 2 to 20 times longer to download, 
>>>>> and a
>>>>> corresponding amount more space on disk.  Learn more about using 
>>>>> email
>>>>> efficiently at <http://www.expita.com/nomime.html>.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

Andrew,

Good advice. Much appreciated. Will give it a go and let you know how I 
get on.

Ian



Andrew Sykes wrote:
> Ian,
>
> Java is a beast! Minilang is a simple business logic language.
>
> The average java book will run into hundreds of pages, while minilang
> docs can be read in an hour or two.
>
> Jonathon is using java because it is familiar to him, if you're not
> familiar with java, don't break your back by insisting on using that as
> your entry point to OfBiz. 
>
> It's like trying to enter a building via the window on the third floor
> because that's the way the window cleaner guy told you to go ;-)
>
> - Andrew
>
>
> On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 16:46 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
>   
>> Jonathon,
>>
>> Your words of comfort are much appreciated. My instincts tell me OFbiz 
>> rules and I suspect God may too. So Amen from me too!
>>
>> Can we all help each other? It would be great if we could.
>>
>> But I think I need to make my position clear at the outset, to avoid 
>> possible disappointment further down the line.
>>
>> I've been working with computers on and off since the late 60s and have 
>> had to learn to hack various languages, from Algol through to php. But 
>> it was never my major area of expertise. I never got into C, so OOP and 
>> Java is still entirely new territory for me. Java, Minilang, or 
>> Freemarker, I'd have to learn them all from scratch, will always be 
>> miles behind everyone else, and could be in serious danger of being more 
>> of a cost than a benefit. I've just starting reading Bruce Eckel's 
>> Thinking in Java and starting thinking, maybe there just aren't enough 
>> years left to get up to speed on all this?
>>
>> This could be either a major weakness or a strength, depending on where 
>> I'm standing and what people might be relying on me to do.
>>
>>  From what I've seen on this group over the past few weeks, there is no 
>> shortage of top class engineers who I have no doubt could strip down the 
>> engine and stick it back together again working better than ever, before 
>> I'd finished making the morning tea (or coffee, depending on what side 
>> of the pond you're on. :)
>>
>> I'm enough of an engineer to know how utterly irritating it is to have 
>> people whittering on about irrelevancies like sticking door locks when 
>> you've been up all night regrinding the cylinder head. But I've also 
>> been down that road enough times to know how crucial it can be to have 
>> someone fresh to take over, to wipe the grease off the bonnet, polish 
>> the chrome work and wheel it out onto the forecourt, after you've done 
>> your bit and just need to go home to bed.
>>
>> So I guess what I'm saying is that, for the moment at least, I'm better 
>> off leaving the engineering to the experts and focussing on what the 
>> average driver needs to see.
>>
>> For the past few years I've been installing Open Source e-commerce for 
>> SMEs. It's a huge and expanding sector. 150,000 members on osCommerce 
>> and Zen Cart forums alone! With up to 2,000 online at any one time! But 
>> the problem they are all now facing is, now they have a successful 
>> website, how do they integrate the back end with in-house accounting and 
>> POS? Which is how I discovered  OFbiz in the first place.
>>
>> There are many points that come out of this. Too many to properly 
>> discuss here.
>>
>> First  would be a huge potential market with installation fees of $3K 
>> upwards, and with very little heavy engineering required at all. Store 
>> owners care mainly about the look of their shop windows, the learning 
>> curve for their staff, reducing staff overheads and the reliability of 
>> the whole thing, and are prepared to pay for it. After a while they 
>> start to understand the benefits of tuning the engine, which is where 
>> the heavy engineering work kicks in. But this is something they will not 
>> even contemplate until they are confident they have a solid vehicle that 
>> will take them reliably from A to B.
>>
>> Second would be how the structure of these forums cultivate many levels 
>> of users, from Formula One engineers all the way through to those who 
>> don't even want to fill up the windscreen washer themselves. And this is 
>> only the tip of the iceberg. For every one member on these forums there 
>> are 9 others who can't even handle the log in and just want somebody to 
>> take care of it all for them.
>>
>> I care deeply about Open Source and want to see it grow. I understand 
>> why Formula One racers might not see what weekend drivers and 
>> glove-compartment handbooks have got to do with them. My point is that a 
>> wider user base increases the market, the need for all levels of 
>> mechanics, and the bargaining power of the top class engineers.
>>
>> If anybody thinks this make some kind of sense, please let me know.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>     
>>> Er, Ian. I forgot to mention this.
>>>
>>> The docs for engineers aren't too comprehensive either. Try putting 
>>> your best Java developers into picking up OFBiz. Take the screen 
>>> widgets and form widgets for example. See how they fare. Like I said, 
>>> Java is more documented than OFBiz-specific technologies.
>>>
>>> BUT.. but it's entirely possible to use Java only, plus 
>>> non-OFBiz-specific technologies like Freemarker for front-end 
>>> development convenience, and to skip Minilang and screen/form widgets 
>>> to a large extent. Non-OFBiz-specific technologies are generally 
>>> better documented since their developers focus develoment time solely 
>>> on those techs, like Freemarker (front-end tool) developers don't 
>>> delve into entity engines (backend tools).
>>>
>>> As I was telling my boss, it's actually easier to hire Java 
>>> programmers than to hire Minilang or screen/form widget programmers.
>>>
>>> So, beware of the implications. Say I code customizations for you in 
>>> Minilang and screen/form widgets, using almost or entirely zero Java. 
>>> Future tech support could be an really hairy issue for you.
>>>
>>> BUT... at some point (I can't guarantee when), Minilang and 
>>> screen/form widget docs will be complete, audited to be comprehensive, 
>>> etc. You'll then probably find that programming in Minilang is more 
>>> cost-effective than in Java. (Either that, or I get paid by someone to 
>>> completely reverse-engineer and document all of Minilang and 
>>> screen/form widget in a reasonable timeframe --- say a month. Not an 
>>> impossible task, just a mountain of Java codes, is all).
>>>
>>> For now, Java is perhaps your best bet.
>>>
>>> To the other folks in overalls, I've been meaning to ask this. Is 
>>> there any way at all to insert debug messages inside of Minilang and 
>>> screen/form widget codes? I find it easier to debug Java codes for now.
>>>
>>> Jonathon
>>>
>>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Ian,
>>>>
>>>> Amen! Yeah, God is good. OFBiz is good. Both can be hard to 
>>>> understand. But I do believe that both are loving, very loving. Amen.
>>>>
>>>> If there's any way we can all help each other (Paul, Ian, Jonathon), 
>>>> let me know.
>>>>
>>>> Jonathon
>>>>
>>>> Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> Hi Jonathon and Paul,
>>>>>
>>>>> Could I dive in here and say I'm currently trying to get a working 
>>>>> model up and running that I could demo to small business clients in 
>>>>> the UK.
>>>>>
>>>>> OFbiz looks so beautifully designed from the ground up, streets 
>>>>> ahead of the competition and adaptable to almost any situation from 
>>>>> running a one-man consultancy  to a multinational enterprise.
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks like the most awesome super-car you've ever seen. I can't 
>>>>> believe everybody won't want one.
>>>>>
>>>>> As Jonathon says, the community seems entirely focussed on moving 
>>>>> forward rapidly and winning the next Le Mans. Which is how it should 
>>>>> be.
>>>>>
>>>>> Imo this explains the lack of docs and the small bugs. The mass of 
>>>>> available documentation is actually almost as awesome as the 
>>>>> framework itself. Problem is that it is all aimed at engineers who 
>>>>> need to understand how it works ... not how to work it. Enough 
>>>>> workshop manuals to fill shelves in the garage, but no simple driver 
>>>>> handbooks you can put in the glove compartment.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a very fundamental difference. An entirely opposite point of 
>>>>> view.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try talking to the average driver about the thermodynamics of 
>>>>> combustion and they glaze over in seconds. They neither need nor 
>>>>> want to know. They simply want to drive it. They pay the garage to 
>>>>> take care of all that for them so they can free themselves up to 
>>>>> deal with other things - like where to drive to.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's the little, superficial things that are most important. How 
>>>>> does the door latch sound? Where is the gear shift and indicator 
>>>>> switch? How often does it break down?
>>>>>
>>>>> This is true for all levels of users. More so in fact for the 
>>>>> President of a large Corporation to whom image arriving at the golf 
>>>>> club is everything, than to the small businessman in the street who 
>>>>> accepts he may have to get his hands dirty occasionally.
>>>>>
>>>>> Winning the Le Mans is obviously a huge selling point and an 
>>>>> essential place to start. In those circumstance, a door latch which 
>>>>> needs a knack to open, the absence of a drivers handbook and the 
>>>>> need for team of mechanics to tune it before every race is 
>>>>> absolutely par for the course. And a racing driver who complains 
>>>>> about such things will - quite rightly - be quickly shown the door.
>>>>>
>>>>> But for the average driver in the street it's exactly the opposite. 
>>>>> One sticking door latch, one miss-start, one breakdown on the first 
>>>>> test drive and they've had their one bite of the cherry and ain't 
>>>>> never coming back for more.
>>>>>
>>>>> Imo this is the only problem I'd like to see solved.
>>>>>
>>>>> I started out a few weeks ago trying to point out that this list is 
>>>>> more for users in overalls at the pit stop than drivers in business 
>>>>> suits on their way to the office.
>>>>>
>>>>> Imo a forum for user-drivers rather than user-engineers would help 
>>>>> focus the view from the other end of the telescope and prevent 
>>>>> discussion of such superficial issues from clogging the inboxes of 
>>>>> the rocket scientists who really need to be concentrating on getting 
>>>>> us to Mars.
>>>>>
>>>>> I personally would like to contribute towards the development of 
>>>>> some kind of drivers handbook. But if I can't get a working model 
>>>>> going for myself then it's hard to know where to start.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe I'm currently doing it for a small business as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You'll need to customize. Customization in this case involves 
>>>>>> defaulting many values and code execution paths for a more 
>>>>>> condensed workflow. That is, you can cut out some unnecessary steps 
>>>>>> in the workflow and also auto-populate default values for some 
>>>>>> fields (or leave them blank and unused).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I propose that we work together on this? I have yet to hit the 
>>>>>> accounting and GL side of things. I have figured out the ecommerce 
>>>>>> (PO, SO) and product configuration side of things, though. And also 
>>>>>> manufacturing, because my boss does manufacture stuff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You'll find that being a novice Java developer is ALL you need to 
>>>>>> be, the framework is that easy to use. Well, you also need acute 
>>>>>> reverse-engineering skills because the only way you'll find out how 
>>>>>> things work is by diving into the framework source codes (see 
>>>>>> GenericDelegator.java for entity-related functions). No docs. 
>>>>>> Community is too being moving OFBiz forward rapidly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact, you may find it easily initially to use Java instead of 
>>>>>> Minilang. Java is a lot more documented than Minilang.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tell you what. I can offer you very quick answers to "how do I do 
>>>>>> this or that". I'm a reverse-engineer by trade; I have small crack 
>>>>>> teams that mathematically take apart legacy system codes to break 
>>>>>> vendor-lock for my clients. So, figuring out OFBiz, given that it's 
>>>>>> opensource no less, is really... an interesting exercise, not a 
>>>>>> tedious impractical one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can help me with your accounting knowledge. (Yes, help me!! I 
>>>>>> beg you!)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One warning, though. There are quite a few bugs in OFBiz. They're 
>>>>>> small issues if you can dive in to fix them yourself. But if you're 
>>>>>> waiting for the community to fix them, you could be looking at 
>>>>>> weeks before a patch goes in, especially for non-trivial fixes that 
>>>>>> take time to review/audit. I'm currently holding quite a number of 
>>>>>> fixes in-house, not yet reviewed by community and merged back into 
>>>>>> OFBiz.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm deploying a customized system for my boss inside of 1 month. 
>>>>>> And he has quite a bit of customizations to do, particularly for 
>>>>>> the manufacturing side of things. Oh, the Manufacturing module is 
>>>>>> very feature-rich (thanks Jacopo!), just that my boss has special 
>>>>>> needs. I'd say we could work together and customize OFBiz for you 
>>>>>> inside of 2 weeks?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jonathon
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul Gear wrote:
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm looking at different accounting/business management packages 
>>>>>>> for use
>>>>>>> in my small business, and i was excited when i found how 
>>>>>>> comprehensive
>>>>>>> and easy to install opentaps was.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, it is a daunting application for the beginner, and it 
>>>>>>> leads me
>>>>>>> to ask: is it asking for trouble trying to use it as a small business
>>>>>>> accounting package?  My requirements are fairly simple: invoicing
>>>>>>> (services only, no inventory), general ledger, and GST tracking 
>>>>>>> for the
>>>>>>> Australian tax system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm a novice Java developer, so i can get through most basic problems
>>>>>>> OK, but understanding the framework is a bit more complex an
>>>>>>> undertaking.  Am i just creating work for myself thinking that i 
>>>>>>> can use
>>>>>>> OFBiz/opentaps for my small business?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>> <http://paulgear.webhop.net>
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> Did you know?  Using HTML email rather than plain text is less
>>>>>>> efficient, taking anywhere from 2 to 20 times longer to download, 
>>>>>>> and a
>>>>>>> corresponding amount more space on disk.  Learn more about using 
>>>>>>> email
>>>>>>> efficiently at <http://www.expita.com/nomime.html>.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>           
>>>>         
>>>
>>>       

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

t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736

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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Andrew Sykes <an...@sykesdevelopment.com>]

Ian,

Java is a beast! Minilang is a simple business logic language.

The average java book will run into hundreds of pages, while minilang
docs can be read in an hour or two.

Jonathon is using java because it is familiar to him, if you're not
familiar with java, don't break your back by insisting on using that as
your entry point to OfBiz. 

It's like trying to enter a building via the window on the third floor
because that's the way the window cleaner guy told you to go ;-)

- Andrew


On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 16:46 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
> Jonathon,
> 
> Your words of comfort are much appreciated. My instincts tell me OFbiz 
> rules and I suspect God may too. So Amen from me too!
> 
> Can we all help each other? It would be great if we could.
> 
> But I think I need to make my position clear at the outset, to avoid 
> possible disappointment further down the line.
> 
> I've been working with computers on and off since the late 60s and have 
> had to learn to hack various languages, from Algol through to php. But 
> it was never my major area of expertise. I never got into C, so OOP and 
> Java is still entirely new territory for me. Java, Minilang, or 
> Freemarker, I'd have to learn them all from scratch, will always be 
> miles behind everyone else, and could be in serious danger of being more 
> of a cost than a benefit. I've just starting reading Bruce Eckel's 
> Thinking in Java and starting thinking, maybe there just aren't enough 
> years left to get up to speed on all this?
> 
> This could be either a major weakness or a strength, depending on where 
> I'm standing and what people might be relying on me to do.
> 
>  From what I've seen on this group over the past few weeks, there is no 
> shortage of top class engineers who I have no doubt could strip down the 
> engine and stick it back together again working better than ever, before 
> I'd finished making the morning tea (or coffee, depending on what side 
> of the pond you're on. :)
> 
> I'm enough of an engineer to know how utterly irritating it is to have 
> people whittering on about irrelevancies like sticking door locks when 
> you've been up all night regrinding the cylinder head. But I've also 
> been down that road enough times to know how crucial it can be to have 
> someone fresh to take over, to wipe the grease off the bonnet, polish 
> the chrome work and wheel it out onto the forecourt, after you've done 
> your bit and just need to go home to bed.
> 
> So I guess what I'm saying is that, for the moment at least, I'm better 
> off leaving the engineering to the experts and focussing on what the 
> average driver needs to see.
> 
> For the past few years I've been installing Open Source e-commerce for 
> SMEs. It's a huge and expanding sector. 150,000 members on osCommerce 
> and Zen Cart forums alone! With up to 2,000 online at any one time! But 
> the problem they are all now facing is, now they have a successful 
> website, how do they integrate the back end with in-house accounting and 
> POS? Which is how I discovered  OFbiz in the first place.
> 
> There are many points that come out of this. Too many to properly 
> discuss here.
> 
> First  would be a huge potential market with installation fees of $3K 
> upwards, and with very little heavy engineering required at all. Store 
> owners care mainly about the look of their shop windows, the learning 
> curve for their staff, reducing staff overheads and the reliability of 
> the whole thing, and are prepared to pay for it. After a while they 
> start to understand the benefits of tuning the engine, which is where 
> the heavy engineering work kicks in. But this is something they will not 
> even contemplate until they are confident they have a solid vehicle that 
> will take them reliably from A to B.
> 
> Second would be how the structure of these forums cultivate many levels 
> of users, from Formula One engineers all the way through to those who 
> don't even want to fill up the windscreen washer themselves. And this is 
> only the tip of the iceberg. For every one member on these forums there 
> are 9 others who can't even handle the log in and just want somebody to 
> take care of it all for them.
> 
> I care deeply about Open Source and want to see it grow. I understand 
> why Formula One racers might not see what weekend drivers and 
> glove-compartment handbooks have got to do with them. My point is that a 
> wider user base increases the market, the need for all levels of 
> mechanics, and the bargaining power of the top class engineers.
> 
> If anybody thinks this make some kind of sense, please let me know.
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
> 
> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> > Er, Ian. I forgot to mention this.
> >
> > The docs for engineers aren't too comprehensive either. Try putting 
> > your best Java developers into picking up OFBiz. Take the screen 
> > widgets and form widgets for example. See how they fare. Like I said, 
> > Java is more documented than OFBiz-specific technologies.
> >
> > BUT.. but it's entirely possible to use Java only, plus 
> > non-OFBiz-specific technologies like Freemarker for front-end 
> > development convenience, and to skip Minilang and screen/form widgets 
> > to a large extent. Non-OFBiz-specific technologies are generally 
> > better documented since their developers focus develoment time solely 
> > on those techs, like Freemarker (front-end tool) developers don't 
> > delve into entity engines (backend tools).
> >
> > As I was telling my boss, it's actually easier to hire Java 
> > programmers than to hire Minilang or screen/form widget programmers.
> >
> > So, beware of the implications. Say I code customizations for you in 
> > Minilang and screen/form widgets, using almost or entirely zero Java. 
> > Future tech support could be an really hairy issue for you.
> >
> > BUT... at some point (I can't guarantee when), Minilang and 
> > screen/form widget docs will be complete, audited to be comprehensive, 
> > etc. You'll then probably find that programming in Minilang is more 
> > cost-effective than in Java. (Either that, or I get paid by someone to 
> > completely reverse-engineer and document all of Minilang and 
> > screen/form widget in a reasonable timeframe --- say a month. Not an 
> > impossible task, just a mountain of Java codes, is all).
> >
> > For now, Java is perhaps your best bet.
> >
> > To the other folks in overalls, I've been meaning to ask this. Is 
> > there any way at all to insert debug messages inside of Minilang and 
> > screen/form widget codes? I find it easier to debug Java codes for now.
> >
> > Jonathon
> >
> > Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >> Ian,
> >>
> >> Amen! Yeah, God is good. OFBiz is good. Both can be hard to 
> >> understand. But I do believe that both are loving, very loving. Amen.
> >>
> >> If there's any way we can all help each other (Paul, Ian, Jonathon), 
> >> let me know.
> >>
> >> Jonathon
> >>
> >> Ian McNulty wrote:
> >>> Hi Jonathon and Paul,
> >>>
> >>> Could I dive in here and say I'm currently trying to get a working 
> >>> model up and running that I could demo to small business clients in 
> >>> the UK.
> >>>
> >>> OFbiz looks so beautifully designed from the ground up, streets 
> >>> ahead of the competition and adaptable to almost any situation from 
> >>> running a one-man consultancy  to a multinational enterprise.
> >>>
> >>> It looks like the most awesome super-car you've ever seen. I can't 
> >>> believe everybody won't want one.
> >>>
> >>> As Jonathon says, the community seems entirely focussed on moving 
> >>> forward rapidly and winning the next Le Mans. Which is how it should 
> >>> be.
> >>>
> >>> Imo this explains the lack of docs and the small bugs. The mass of 
> >>> available documentation is actually almost as awesome as the 
> >>> framework itself. Problem is that it is all aimed at engineers who 
> >>> need to understand how it works ... not how to work it. Enough 
> >>> workshop manuals to fill shelves in the garage, but no simple driver 
> >>> handbooks you can put in the glove compartment.
> >>>
> >>> This is a very fundamental difference. An entirely opposite point of 
> >>> view.
> >>>
> >>> Try talking to the average driver about the thermodynamics of 
> >>> combustion and they glaze over in seconds. They neither need nor 
> >>> want to know. They simply want to drive it. They pay the garage to 
> >>> take care of all that for them so they can free themselves up to 
> >>> deal with other things - like where to drive to.
> >>>
> >>> It's the little, superficial things that are most important. How 
> >>> does the door latch sound? Where is the gear shift and indicator 
> >>> switch? How often does it break down?
> >>>
> >>> This is true for all levels of users. More so in fact for the 
> >>> President of a large Corporation to whom image arriving at the golf 
> >>> club is everything, than to the small businessman in the street who 
> >>> accepts he may have to get his hands dirty occasionally.
> >>>
> >>> Winning the Le Mans is obviously a huge selling point and an 
> >>> essential place to start. In those circumstance, a door latch which 
> >>> needs a knack to open, the absence of a drivers handbook and the 
> >>> need for team of mechanics to tune it before every race is 
> >>> absolutely par for the course. And a racing driver who complains 
> >>> about such things will - quite rightly - be quickly shown the door.
> >>>
> >>> But for the average driver in the street it's exactly the opposite. 
> >>> One sticking door latch, one miss-start, one breakdown on the first 
> >>> test drive and they've had their one bite of the cherry and ain't 
> >>> never coming back for more.
> >>>
> >>> Imo this is the only problem I'd like to see solved.
> >>>
> >>> I started out a few weeks ago trying to point out that this list is 
> >>> more for users in overalls at the pit stop than drivers in business 
> >>> suits on their way to the office.
> >>>
> >>> Imo a forum for user-drivers rather than user-engineers would help 
> >>> focus the view from the other end of the telescope and prevent 
> >>> discussion of such superficial issues from clogging the inboxes of 
> >>> the rocket scientists who really need to be concentrating on getting 
> >>> us to Mars.
> >>>
> >>> I personally would like to contribute towards the development of 
> >>> some kind of drivers handbook. But if I can't get a working model 
> >>> going for myself then it's hard to know where to start.
> >>>
> >>> Ian
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >>>> Hi Paul,
> >>>>
> >>>> I believe I'm currently doing it for a small business as well.
> >>>>
> >>>> You'll need to customize. Customization in this case involves 
> >>>> defaulting many values and code execution paths for a more 
> >>>> condensed workflow. That is, you can cut out some unnecessary steps 
> >>>> in the workflow and also auto-populate default values for some 
> >>>> fields (or leave them blank and unused).
> >>>>
> >>>> I propose that we work together on this? I have yet to hit the 
> >>>> accounting and GL side of things. I have figured out the ecommerce 
> >>>> (PO, SO) and product configuration side of things, though. And also 
> >>>> manufacturing, because my boss does manufacture stuff.
> >>>>
> >>>> You'll find that being a novice Java developer is ALL you need to 
> >>>> be, the framework is that easy to use. Well, you also need acute 
> >>>> reverse-engineering skills because the only way you'll find out how 
> >>>> things work is by diving into the framework source codes (see 
> >>>> GenericDelegator.java for entity-related functions). No docs. 
> >>>> Community is too being moving OFBiz forward rapidly.
> >>>>
> >>>> In fact, you may find it easily initially to use Java instead of 
> >>>> Minilang. Java is a lot more documented than Minilang.
> >>>>
> >>>> Tell you what. I can offer you very quick answers to "how do I do 
> >>>> this or that". I'm a reverse-engineer by trade; I have small crack 
> >>>> teams that mathematically take apart legacy system codes to break 
> >>>> vendor-lock for my clients. So, figuring out OFBiz, given that it's 
> >>>> opensource no less, is really... an interesting exercise, not a 
> >>>> tedious impractical one.
> >>>>
> >>>> You can help me with your accounting knowledge. (Yes, help me!! I 
> >>>> beg you!)
> >>>>
> >>>> How about that?
> >>>>
> >>>> One warning, though. There are quite a few bugs in OFBiz. They're 
> >>>> small issues if you can dive in to fix them yourself. But if you're 
> >>>> waiting for the community to fix them, you could be looking at 
> >>>> weeks before a patch goes in, especially for non-trivial fixes that 
> >>>> take time to review/audit. I'm currently holding quite a number of 
> >>>> fixes in-house, not yet reviewed by community and merged back into 
> >>>> OFBiz.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm deploying a customized system for my boss inside of 1 month. 
> >>>> And he has quite a bit of customizations to do, particularly for 
> >>>> the manufacturing side of things. Oh, the Manufacturing module is 
> >>>> very feature-rich (thanks Jacopo!), just that my boss has special 
> >>>> needs. I'd say we could work together and customize OFBiz for you 
> >>>> inside of 2 weeks?
> >>>>
> >>>> Jonathon
> >>>>
> >>>> Paul Gear wrote:
> >>>>> Hi folks,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm looking at different accounting/business management packages 
> >>>>> for use
> >>>>> in my small business, and i was excited when i found how 
> >>>>> comprehensive
> >>>>> and easy to install opentaps was.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> However, it is a daunting application for the beginner, and it 
> >>>>> leads me
> >>>>> to ask: is it asking for trouble trying to use it as a small business
> >>>>> accounting package?  My requirements are fairly simple: invoicing
> >>>>> (services only, no inventory), general ledger, and GST tracking 
> >>>>> for the
> >>>>> Australian tax system.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm a novice Java developer, so i can get through most basic problems
> >>>>> OK, but understanding the framework is a bit more complex an
> >>>>> undertaking.  Am i just creating work for myself thinking that i 
> >>>>> can use
> >>>>> OFBiz/opentaps for my small business?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks in advance,
> >>>>> Paul
> >>>>> <http://paulgear.webhop.net>
> >>>>> -- 
> >>>>> Did you know?  Using HTML email rather than plain text is less
> >>>>> efficient, taking anywhere from 2 to 20 times longer to download, 
> >>>>> and a
> >>>>> corresponding amount more space on disk.  Learn more about using 
> >>>>> email
> >>>>> efficiently at <http://www.expita.com/nomime.html>.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
-- 
Kind Regards
Andrew Sykes <an...@sykesdevelopment.com>
Sykes Development Ltd
http://www.sykesdevelopment.com

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>]

Thanks Chris,

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chris Howe" <cj...@yahoo.com>
To: <us...@ofbiz.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?


> Jonathon,
> 
> What are you finding so confusing about minilang that
> is not covered here http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/GAM ? 
> This document has been improved upon recently, but the
> bottom half has been accessible from the ofbiz.org
> site for two years that I can attest.  

Jonathon, this is a work in progress, please see : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-571
BTW the old doc Chris mentionned is always here : http://ofbiz.apache.org/docs/minilang.html.

Coming from
> someone who had ZERO java experience starting with
> OFBiz (me) I find the elements are rather self
> explanatory.  It's also not as if there aren't plenty
> of examples using each one. I have no idea how well
> minilang would hold up to creating various kinds of
> other programs, but for writing business logic, it's
> pretty straight forward.  If you're not finding that
> to be the case, please ask questions there are plenty
> of people here more than willing to help clarify.

> Also, documentation doesn't write itself.  If you find
> something that didn't work as expected or a task was
> difficult to accomplish but you eventually accomplish
> it, do a short write about how you got from point A to
> point B and drop it into the wiki on docs.ofbiz.org or
> write it to the mailing list and ask if someone can
> find an appropriate place for it.  
> 
> There's a funny point in learning OFBiz.  You start
> out looking at it as this huge monstrosity that's just
> too much to figure out and you get frustrated with the
> lack of documentation available (even given the sites
> linked off of ofbiz.apache.org and the tens of
> thousands of mailing list posts available and the
> number of video tutorials available).  But you start
> playing with it a bit, and you pass an "aha" moment. 
> You don't realize the moment that you pass it but when
> you look back and think "how can I make the learning
> curve easier for the next guy", you realize everything
> was there, and it's difficult to figure out what you
> can add to those websites that could make it any
> clearer.  I digress, just ask questions.  If you're
> unable to find your answer on a first pass through
> nabble and on the ofbiz.apache.org ask the question to
> the mailing list and someone may be able to find the
> right document for you a bit faster or clarify a point
> in a document that may be a bit unclear.

That's so true !

Jacques
 
> 
> --- Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com> wrote:
> 
> > Er, Ian. I forgot to mention this.
> > 
> > The docs for engineers aren't too comprehensive
> > either. Try putting your best Java developers into 
> > picking up OFBiz. Take the screen widgets and form
> > widgets for example. See how they fare. Like I 
> > said, Java is more documented than OFBiz-specific
> > technologies.
> > 
> > BUT.. but it's entirely possible to use Java only,
> > plus non-OFBiz-specific technologies like 
> > Freemarker for front-end development convenience,
> > and to skip Minilang and screen/form widgets to 
> > a large extent. Non-OFBiz-specific technologies are
> > generally better documented since their 
> > developers focus develoment time solely on those
> > techs, like Freemarker (front-end tool) 
> > developers don't delve into entity engines (backend
> > tools).
> > 
> > As I was telling my boss, it's actually easier to
> > hire Java programmers than to hire Minilang or 
> > screen/form widget programmers.
> > 
> > So, beware of the implications. Say I code
> > customizations for you in Minilang and screen/form 
> > widgets, using almost or entirely zero Java. Future
> > tech support could be an really hairy issue 
> > for you.
> > 
> > BUT... at some point (I can't guarantee when),
> > Minilang and screen/form widget docs will be 
> > complete, audited to be comprehensive, etc. You'll
> > then probably find that programming in Minilang 
> > is more cost-effective than in Java. (Either that,
> > or I get paid by someone to completely 
> > reverse-engineer and document all of Minilang and
> > screen/form widget in a reasonable timeframe --- 
> > say a month. Not an impossible task, just a mountain
> > of Java codes, is all).
> > 
> > For now, Java is perhaps your best bet.
> > 
> > To the other folks in overalls, I've been meaning to
> > ask this. Is there any way at all to insert 
> > debug messages inside of Minilang and screen/form
> > widget codes? I find it easier to debug Java 
> > codes for now.
> > 
> > Jonathon
> > 
> > Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> > > Ian,
> > > 
> > > Amen! Yeah, God is good. OFBiz is good. Both can
> > be hard to understand. 
> > > But I do believe that both are loving, very
> > loving. Amen.
> > > 
> > > If there's any way we can all help each other
> > (Paul, Ian, Jonathon), let 
> > > me know.
> > > 
> > > Jonathon
> > > 
> > > Ian McNulty wrote:
> > >> Hi Jonathon and Paul,
> > >>
> > >> Could I dive in here and say I'm currently trying
> > to get a working 
> > >> model up and running that I could demo to small
> > business clients in 
> > >> the UK.
> > >>
> > >> OFbiz looks so beautifully designed from the
> > ground up, streets ahead 
> > >> of the competition and adaptable to almost any
> > situation from running 
> > >> a one-man consultancy  to a multinational
> > enterprise.
> > >>
> > >> It looks like the most awesome super-car you've
> > ever seen. I can't 
> > >> believe everybody won't want one.
> > >>
> > >> As Jonathon says, the community seems entirely
> > focussed on moving 
> > >> forward rapidly and winning the next Le Mans.
> > Which is how it should be.
> > >>
> > >> Imo this explains the lack of docs and the small
> > bugs. The mass of 
> > >> available documentation is actually almost as
> > awesome as the framework 
> > >> itself. Problem is that it is all aimed at
> > engineers who need to 
> > >> understand how it works ... not how to work it.
> > Enough workshop 
> > >> manuals to fill shelves in the garage, but no
> > simple driver handbooks 
> > >> you can put in the glove compartment.
> > >>
> > >> This is a very fundamental difference. An
> > entirely opposite point of 
> > >> view.
> > >>
> > >> Try talking to the average driver about the
> > thermodynamics of 
> > >> combustion and they glaze over in seconds. They
> > neither need nor want 
> > >> to know. They simply want to drive it. They pay
> > the garage to take 
> > >> care of all that for them so they can free
> > themselves up to deal with 
> > >> other things - like where to drive to.
> > >>
> > >> It's the little, superficial things that are most
> > important. How does 
> > >> the door latch sound? Where is the gear shift and
> > indicator switch? 
> > >> How often does it break down?
> > >>
> > >> This is true for all levels of users. More so in
> > fact for the 
> > >> President of a large Corporation to whom image
> > arriving at the golf 
> > >> club is everything, than to the small businessman
> > in the street who 
> > >> accepts he may have to get his hands dirty
> > occasionally.
> > >>
> > >> Winning the Le Mans is obviously a huge selling
> > point and an essential 
> > >> place to start. In those circumstance, a door
> > latch which needs a 
> > >> knack to open, the absence of a drivers handbook
> > and the need for team 
> > >> of mechanics to tune it before every race is
> > absolutely par for the 
> > >> course. And a racing driver who complains about
> > such things will - 
> > >> quite rightly - be quickly shown the door.
> > >>
> > >> But for the average driver in the street it's
> > exactly the opposite. 
> > >> One sticking door latch, one miss-start, one
> > breakdown on the first 
> > >> test drive and they've had their one bite of the
> > cherry and ain't 
> > >> never coming back for more.
> > >>
> > >> Imo this is the only problem I'd like to see
> > solved.
> > >>
> > >> I started out a few weeks ago trying to point out
> > that this list is 
> > >> more for users in overalls at the pit stop than
> > drivers in business 
> > >> suits on their way to the office.
> > >>
> > >> Imo a forum for user-drivers rather than
> > user-engineers would help 
> > >> focus the view from the other end of the
> > telescope and prevent 
> > >> discussion of such superficial issues from
> > clogging the inboxes of the 
> > >> rocket scientists who really need to be
> > concentrating on getting us to 
> > >> Mars.
> > >>
> > >> I personally would like to contribute towards the
> > development of some 
> > >> kind of drivers handbook. But if I can't get a
> > working model going for 
> > >> myself then it's hard to know where to start.
> > >>
> > >> Ian
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> > >>> Hi Paul,
> > >>>
> > >>> I believe I'm currently doing it for a small
> > business as well.
> > >>>
> > >>> You'll need to customize. Customization in this
> > case involves 
> > >>> defaulting many values and code execution paths
> > for a more condensed 
> > >>> workflow. That is, you can cut out some
> > unnecessary steps in the 
> > >>> workflow and also auto-populate default values
> > for some fields (or 
> > >>> leave them blank and unused).
> > >>>
> > >>> I propose that we work together on this? I have
> > yet to hit the 
> > >>> accounting and GL side of things. I have figured
> > out the ecommerce 
> > 
> === message truncated ===

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

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

I'm inclined to agree. They can't be very psychic can they?

Er... Only joking :) Seriously though... I've had one web site going for 
more than 4 years now where you don't have to log in to post any kind of 
pictures and text you  like with just one click. So far, only one person 
has managed to get that far. And what they posted was more funny that 
threatening, and easy to delete. No doubt now I've tempted fate by 
posting this here some bright spark will track it down and prove me 
wrong. But, aside from that, my feeling would be to stay open, look on 
the bright side and keep the shutters down until you have reason not to. 
But I wouldn't want that to be a deal breaker. If Andrew thinks that's 
the way to go then that would be OK with me.

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

Jacques,

The most interesting thing for me is Si's 
how-to-spur-greater-adoption---let's brainstorm thread.

So you have all been here before! It's going to take me some time to 
read and get up to speed on all that.

But like you said, time is flying....

To me, Application Overview for Users says it all.

Like all the documentation, I had great hopes that this might finally be 
something I could get my teeth into and really understand.

After scrolling through 9 pages of Contents, my heart sank at the first 
sentence of the actual text:

For greater detail of the Sales Order process, see Section <B>3. Sales 
Order: Entry, Fulfillment and Returns</B>,
below. <P> For an explanation of all the fields, see the individual 
Manager Reference documents for
<B>Accounting</B>, <B>Catalog</B>, <B>Facility</B>, <B>Order</B>, 
<B>Party</B>, and others.

The first sentence is so important. So what on earth is the point of all 
that?

Scanning down quickly I'm dismayed to discover that we haven't got more 
than half a page in before the hierarchy has already reached 6 levels 
deep with item number  .2.1.1.3.1.1

Intellectually rigorous no doubt. But... Well I'm sure you know what I mean!

I guess the thing that really puzzles me is that everybody on this list 
seems to write so well. So how come most documents I come across leave 
me scratching my head in confusion before I've got the the end of the 
first page?

It's still a mystery to me. I guess I just have to accept that there are 
some puzzles that I will never be able to crack.

Ian





Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> Ian,
>
> "Short" answer (time is flying...). This is only my opinion and not community !
>
>   
>> Jacques,
>>
>> All that looks good as it stands. It's another one of those essential
>> engineering resources that I really wouldn't want to be messing around
>> with it at all.
>>
>> Imo what is needed in terms of user rather than developer documentation,
>> is a completely fresh start form a completely different POV.
>>
>> It isn't the absence of documentation that's the problem. It's the
>> presence of it. There's just way too much good stuff on offer. Too many
>> options. Too many possible ways to go.
>>
>> For the developer this is heaven. For the noob it's confusing...
>> frustrating... a real turn off.
>>     
>
> I agree on this point : functionnal documentation is missing or rather is scattered. In this kind of doc it's better to explain how
> things work. We should
> enhance this part and I guess *users* may help on this side... Did you notice that :
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBENDUSER/Areas+Being+Worked+On ?
>
> Tautology is of no help as in some parts of  http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBENDUSER/Undersun+Doc+Site+PDF+Exports. Sorry David, I
> know that  much was done by Les Austin who is certainly a very efficient  technical writer but was maybe lost in OFBiz (not
> surprising ;o) ? So it ended with a lot of tautologies just explaining obvious things but not how things are related or how to do.
> For instance examples are great in this aspect...
> On the other hand it's the most advanced functionnal documentation, just need to be enhanced ?
>
> IMHO the better attempt at it for the moment is the great http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/EAM (note that I used the short link because
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBENDUSER/Apache+OFBiz+Business+Setup+Guide may be changed but not the short link that you find in
> info tab).
>
> I did also some very limited (how to use/create product catalogs in french ;o) :
> http://www.les7arts.com/assist/OFBiz/Creation%20Catalogue%20de%20produits.pdf
>
> BTW there was already a discussion about some ot this point in
> http://www.nabble.com/Users---how-to-spur-greater-adoption---let%27s-brainstorm%21-tf1566682.html#a4254938
> You see Ian you are not alone. Will you be ready to make an abstract from ?
>
>
>   
>> Take off your racing drivers hat for a moment and put yourself in the
>> position of someone who just wants something they can drive to work.
>>
>> Now look at the Wiki. Is there a Start button, or does it look more like
>> the diagram of a wiring harness that you will never get your head
>> around?  You and I may be interested in using Eclipse, but I can't think
>> of one client I have ever met who would want to go there. They're all to
>> busy building their businesses - which is after all what OFBiz is
>> supposed to be about.
>>     
>
> Yes true, missing :
> . A front page (abstract for users and developpers : 2 sections, wih emphasis on users part)
> . Some news (mmm... maybe redundant with news on main OFBiz site : to avoid, redundancy is our worst ennemy in this effort)
> . A clear pages-tree
>
>   
>> Take another look at Ubuntu.com. Imo that's the way to go. Nice big
>> buttons! Absolutely nothing there that I don't need to know.  And most
>> people will only read a fraction of that on the first run through anyway
>> :-/  For the few who want to customise their own hot-rod, all the
>> essential wiring is there if you look for it. It's just buried out of
>> the way behind the dashboard instead of scattered all over the floor.
>>     
>
> Yes I agree, this has already been discussed for the Main OFBiz site... Ressouces (human) are needed ...
>
> Jacques
>
>   
>> Putting something together like that would require a zero tolerance
>> policy to any scrap of information that was not absolutely essential to
>> the business of showing the average driver how to get the thing into
>> gear and out onto the road.
>>
>> I doubt if there would be anything new to write. It's basically all there.
>>
>> But it would mean hacking quite crudely into stuff that the community
>> has taken years to create.
>>
>> Without the community's approval, that's a show that could never get on
>> the road.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>     
>>> Leon, all,
>>>
>>> There is already an open Wiki. Just have to create your login : http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBIZ.
>>>       
> I
>   
>>> can't see a better tool for that : closed for some parts, open for others...
>>>
>>> It's up to you folks...
>>>
>>> For instance http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBIZ/Online+Developers+Section might be a good entry point for
>>> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php.
>>>
>>> BTW, I think that we may advertise for this and put a front page to explain how it works (for instance that the "The Open For
>>> Business Project Wiki" is wide open)
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>> From: "Leon Torres" <le...@oss.minimetria.com>
>>> To: <us...@ofbiz.apache.org>
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 9:23 PM
>>> Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> I also believe it would be worthwhile to experiment with an open ofbiz wiki.  As
>>>> the ofbiz community continues to grow, we will certainly attain the critical
>>>> mass necessary to make such a thing work.
>>>>
>>>> For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks in .txt format about specific
>>>> tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately contributing to those is hard because it takes an investment in
>>>> time to read, verify, and update the documents on our end.  If they were in the
>>>> form of an open wiki, it would be far easier to expand on them.
>>>>
>>>> - Leon
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Florin Jurcovici wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even if I had some
>>>>> experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki is closed or restricted,
>>>>> I cannot. Some maintainers should review docs occasionally and correct
>>>>> or delete them if they are not OK, maybe draw an outline of the
>>>>> documentation at the beginning then let whoever is willing to fill the
>>>>> pages. But IMO a closed/restricted wiki is not the way to go.
>>>>>
>>>>> --Florin Jurcovici
>>>>> ------------------
>>>>> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> -- 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> mcnultyMEDIA
>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>> Durham
>> DH1 2UL
>>
>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>> ==============================================================================================
>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of
>>     
> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior
> consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44
> (0)191 384 4736
>   
>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of software viruses and
>>     
> would recommend that you carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
>   
>> ==============================================================================================
>>     
>
>
>
>   

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

t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736

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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>]

Ian,

"Short" answer (time is flying...). This is only my opinion and not community !

> Jacques,
>
> All that looks good as it stands. It's another one of those essential
> engineering resources that I really wouldn't want to be messing around
> with it at all.
>
> Imo what is needed in terms of user rather than developer documentation,
> is a completely fresh start form a completely different POV.
>
> It isn't the absence of documentation that's the problem. It's the
> presence of it. There's just way too much good stuff on offer. Too many
> options. Too many possible ways to go.
>
> For the developer this is heaven. For the noob it's confusing...
> frustrating... a real turn off.

I agree on this point : functionnal documentation is missing or rather is scattered. In this kind of doc it's better to explain how
things work. We should
enhance this part and I guess *users* may help on this side... Did you notice that :
http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBENDUSER/Areas+Being+Worked+On ?

Tautology is of no help as in some parts of  http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBENDUSER/Undersun+Doc+Site+PDF+Exports. Sorry David, I
know that  much was done by Les Austin who is certainly a very efficient  technical writer but was maybe lost in OFBiz (not
surprising ;o) ? So it ended with a lot of tautologies just explaining obvious things but not how things are related or how to do.
For instance examples are great in this aspect...
On the other hand it's the most advanced functionnal documentation, just need to be enhanced ?

IMHO the better attempt at it for the moment is the great http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/EAM (note that I used the short link because
http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBENDUSER/Apache+OFBiz+Business+Setup+Guide may be changed but not the short link that you find in
info tab).

I did also some very limited (how to use/create product catalogs in french ;o) :
http://www.les7arts.com/assist/OFBiz/Creation%20Catalogue%20de%20produits.pdf

BTW there was already a discussion about some ot this point in
http://www.nabble.com/Users---how-to-spur-greater-adoption---let%27s-brainstorm%21-tf1566682.html#a4254938
You see Ian you are not alone. Will you be ready to make an abstract from ?


> Take off your racing drivers hat for a moment and put yourself in the
> position of someone who just wants something they can drive to work.
>
> Now look at the Wiki. Is there a Start button, or does it look more like
> the diagram of a wiring harness that you will never get your head
> around?  You and I may be interested in using Eclipse, but I can't think
> of one client I have ever met who would want to go there. They're all to
> busy building their businesses - which is after all what OFBiz is
> supposed to be about.

Yes true, missing :
. A front page (abstract for users and developpers : 2 sections, wih emphasis on users part)
. Some news (mmm... maybe redundant with news on main OFBiz site : to avoid, redundancy is our worst ennemy in this effort)
. A clear pages-tree

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

Yes I agree, this has already been discussed for the Main OFBiz site... Ressouces (human) are needed ...

Jacques

> Putting something together like that would require a zero tolerance
> policy to any scrap of information that was not absolutely essential to
> the business of showing the average driver how to get the thing into
> gear and out onto the road.
>
> I doubt if there would be anything new to write. It's basically all there.
>
> But it would mean hacking quite crudely into stuff that the community
> has taken years to create.
>
> Without the community's approval, that's a show that could never get on
> the road.
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> > Leon, all,
> >
> > There is already an open Wiki. Just have to create your login : http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBIZ.
I
> > can't see a better tool for that : closed for some parts, open for others...
> >
> > It's up to you folks...
> >
> > For instance http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBIZ/Online+Developers+Section might be a good entry point for
> > http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php.
> >
> > BTW, I think that we may advertise for this and put a front page to explain how it works (for instance that the "The Open For
> > Business Project Wiki" is wide open)
> >
> > Jacques
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Leon Torres" <le...@oss.minimetria.com>
> > To: <us...@ofbiz.apache.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 9:23 PM
> > Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
> >
> >
> >
> >> I also believe it would be worthwhile to experiment with an open ofbiz wiki.  As
> >> the ofbiz community continues to grow, we will certainly attain the critical
> >> mass necessary to make such a thing work.
> >>
> >> For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks in .txt format about specific
> >> tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:
> >>
> >> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php
> >>
> >> Unfortunately contributing to those is hard because it takes an investment in
> >> time to read, verify, and update the documents on our end.  If they were in the
> >> form of an open wiki, it would be far easier to expand on them.
> >>
> >> - Leon
> >>
> >>
> >> Florin Jurcovici wrote:
> >>
> >>> IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even if I had some
> >>> experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki is closed or restricted,
> >>> I cannot. Some maintainers should review docs occasionally and correct
> >>> or delete them if they are not OK, maybe draw an outline of the
> >>> documentation at the beginning then let whoever is willing to fill the
> >>> pages. But IMO a closed/restricted wiki is not the way to go.
> >>>
> >>> --Florin Jurcovici
> >>> ------------------
> >>> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> -- 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> mcnultyMEDIA
> 60 Birkdale Gardens
> Durham
> DH1 2UL
>
> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
> ==============================================================================================
> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of
distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior
consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44
(0)191 384 4736
>
> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of software viruses and
would recommend that you carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
> ==============================================================================================

RE: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Andrew Ballantine <ac...@willowbrook.co.uk>]

Nicely put Ian. I agree.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian McNulty [mailto:ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk]
Sent: 19 January 2007 09:42
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?


Jacques,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ian



Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> Leon, all,
>
> There is already an open Wiki. Just have to create your login :
http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBIZ. I
> can't see a better tool for that : closed for some parts, open for
others...
>
> It's up to you folks...
>
> For instance http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBIZ/Online+Developers+Section
might be a good entry point for
> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php.
>
> BTW, I think that we may advertise for this and put a front page to
explain how it works (for instance that the "The Open For
> Business Project Wiki" is wide open)
>
> Jacques
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Leon Torres" <le...@oss.minimetria.com>
> To: <us...@ofbiz.apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 9:23 PM
> Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
>
>
>
>> I also believe it would be worthwhile to experiment with an open ofbiz
wiki.  As
>> the ofbiz community continues to grow, we will certainly attain the
critical
>> mass necessary to make such a thing work.
>>
>> For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks in .txt format about
specific
>> tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:
>>
>> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php
>>
>> Unfortunately contributing to those is hard because it takes an
investment in
>> time to read, verify, and update the documents on our end.  If they were
in the
>> form of an open wiki, it would be far easier to expand on them.
>>
>> - Leon
>>
>>
>> Florin Jurcovici wrote:
>>
>>> IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even if I had some
>>> experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki is closed or restricted,
>>> I cannot. Some maintainers should review docs occasionally and correct
>>> or delete them if they are not OK, maybe draw an outline of the
>>> documentation at the beginning then let whoever is willing to fill the
>>> pages. But IMO a closed/restricted wiki is not the way to go.
>>>
>>> --Florin Jurcovici
>>> ------------------
>>> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>

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

t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
============================================================================
==================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s)
named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying,
discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information
contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you
receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by
telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736

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


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


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

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



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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

Jacques,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ian



Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> Leon, all,
>
> There is already an open Wiki. Just have to create your login : http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBIZ. I
> can't see a better tool for that : closed for some parts, open for others...
>
> It's up to you folks...
>
> For instance http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBIZ/Online+Developers+Section might be a good entry point for
> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php.
>
> BTW, I think that we may advertise for this and put a front page to explain how it works (for instance that the "The Open For
> Business Project Wiki" is wide open)
>
> Jacques
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Leon Torres" <le...@oss.minimetria.com>
> To: <us...@ofbiz.apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 9:23 PM
> Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
>
>
>   
>> I also believe it would be worthwhile to experiment with an open ofbiz wiki.  As
>> the ofbiz community continues to grow, we will certainly attain the critical
>> mass necessary to make such a thing work.
>>
>> For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks in .txt format about specific
>> tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:
>>
>> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php
>>
>> Unfortunately contributing to those is hard because it takes an investment in
>> time to read, verify, and update the documents on our end.  If they were in the
>> form of an open wiki, it would be far easier to expand on them.
>>
>> - Leon
>>
>>
>> Florin Jurcovici wrote:
>>     
>>> IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even if I had some
>>> experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki is closed or restricted,
>>> I cannot. Some maintainers should review docs occasionally and correct
>>> or delete them if they are not OK, maybe draw an outline of the
>>> documentation at the beginning then let whoever is willing to fill the
>>> pages. But IMO a closed/restricted wiki is not the way to go.
>>>
>>> --Florin Jurcovici
>>> ------------------
>>> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
>>>
>>>       
>
>
>
>   

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

t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736

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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Chris Howe <cj...@yahoo.com>]

Thanks Jacques,

It took every ounce of self restraint I had to not
reply redundantly. :-)


--- Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>
wrote:

> Leon, all,
> 
> There is already an open Wiki. Just have to create
> your login :
>
http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBIZ.
> I
> can't see a better tool for that : closed for some
> parts, open for others...
> 
> It's up to you folks...
> 
> For instance
>
http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBIZ/Online+Developers+Section
> might be a good entry point for
>
http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php.
> 
> BTW, I think that we may advertise for this and put
> a front page to explain how it works (for instance
> that the "The Open For
> Business Project Wiki" is wide open)
> 
> Jacques
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Leon Torres" <le...@oss.minimetria.com>
> To: <us...@ofbiz.apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 9:23 PM
> Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business
> accounting package?
> 
> 
> > I also believe it would be worthwhile to
> experiment with an open ofbiz wiki.  As
> > the ofbiz community continues to grow, we will
> certainly attain the critical
> > mass necessary to make such a thing work.
> >
> > For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks
> in .txt format about specific
> > tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:
> >
> >
>
http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php
> >
> > Unfortunately contributing to those is hard
> because it takes an investment in
> > time to read, verify, and update the documents on
> our end.  If they were in the
> > form of an open wiki, it would be far easier to
> expand on them.
> >
> > - Leon
> >
> >
> > Florin Jurcovici wrote:
> > > IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even
> if I had some
> > > experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki
> is closed or restricted,
> > > I cannot. Some maintainers should review docs
> occasionally and correct
> > > or delete them if they are not OK, maybe draw an
> outline of the
> > > documentation at the beginning then let whoever
> is willing to fill the
> > > pages. But IMO a closed/restricted wiki is not
> the way to go.
> > >
> > > --Florin Jurcovici
> > > ------------------
> > > Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
> > >
> 
> 

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>]

Leon, all,

There is already an open Wiki. Just have to create your login : http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBIZ. I
can't see a better tool for that : closed for some parts, open for others...

It's up to you folks...

For instance http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBIZ/Online+Developers+Section might be a good entry point for
http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php.

BTW, I think that we may advertise for this and put a front page to explain how it works (for instance that the "The Open For
Business Project Wiki" is wide open)

Jacques

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Leon Torres" <le...@oss.minimetria.com>
To: <us...@ofbiz.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 9:23 PM
Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?


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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

Leon,

Good to hear.

Those tutorials are actually where I learnt most about OFBiz. 
Beautifully laid out. I can see the work you've put in.

But there are a lot of things missing which I personally would need to know.

If you thing a Wiki is the way to solve that problem, then I'm with you 
all the way.

Ian



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

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

t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736

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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

David E. Jones wrote:
>
> Nope. The users list is for users of OFBiz. The dev list is for 
> developers of OFBiz. There is commonly confusion around this point.
>
> On the users list we don't care if the users is a developer 
> customizing OFBiz or an end user who is only seeing OFBiz from a web 
> browser.

Fair enough. But that's a lot of territory to cram into one small space. 
Especially if you can't select topics to monitor and they all arrive in 
the same inbox.

>
> If you're trying to say that the community isn't geared up to support 
> end users who just touch OFBiz through a browser and are people 
> fulfilling orders and managing warehouses, then you're are 100% 
> correct. This community is not even close to geared up for something 
> like that. Not even close. We also don't have major aspirations to 
> doing that because there would be a significant resource gap. If you 
> have some way of staffing such a thing that has eluded the rest of us, 
> please let us know!!!

David. I've been trying to do just that. I can't think of any other way 
of putting it except to try thinking outside the box.

Turn the problem on it's head.

Web 2.0 remember, not 1.1.

Apply the principles of the Tao.

"By doing nothing, nothing is left undone."

You don't staff it. The users do it for themselves.

Nature abhors a vacuum.

You don't have to build the aeroplanes. Just clear a bit of space in the 
brush for the one's already flying around in the air to land.

Apache is not the place to do that. Much too formal, professional, 
intimidating for the average user.

Both you and Si have created the perfect airport with your own web sites 
for executive jets to land.

But if you want to answer the question Si first raised more than 6 
months ago in "Users - how to spur greater adoption - let's brainstorm!" 
then that means creating a more populist kind of space where jumbo jets 
can land  
http://www.nabble.com/Users---how-to-spur-greater-adoption---let%27s-brainstorm%21-tf1566682.html#a4254938

(Yes. I know that means a longer runway. But the economics of clearing 
web space are not equivalent to shifting earth).

It's true that to begin with you would need one or two volunteers from 
this group to spend some time in the control tower guiding them in.

If the community were to ask for it, I'm sure somebody would stick up 
their hand.

I'd volunteer, but I don't have the necessary knowledge. Put me in the 
control tower for half a day and they'd be stacking up all the way back 
to Timbuktu.

Ian


>
> -David
>
>
> On Jan 20, 2007, at 2:03 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>
>> Nothing at all wrong with the link.
>>
>> It's what it's linking too that's the problem.
>>
>> The topics... the layout... everything speaks to me of engineering 
>> plans, not flight plans.
>>
>> To start building a flight plan you need a blank page, not one that 
>> is already half full with wiring diagrams.
>>
>> Even Anil thought he was talking to the Dev not the Users list !!!
>>
>> Imo there is no users list. If a pilot came across ofbiz.apache.org 
>> he would know at first glance he was in the wrong place.
>>
>> The difference is between www.ubuntu.com/ and www.debian.org/ The 
>> first welcomes the uninitiated and draws them in. The second looks 
>> like a wonderful resource for engineers. We're not talking about all 
>> the manuals and small print inside the box. Where talking about what 
>> it says at first glance on the tin.
>>
>> I think I can see where the confusion arises.
>>
>> You can focus on one or the other, but you can't focus on both on the 
>> same page. (Yes, I know this contradicts my earlier post. But it's a 
>> question of focus. On the user pages the wiring needs to be there, 
>> but buried behind the dashboard. On the engineering pages the reverse 
>> it true.)
>>
>> On Si's recommendation I've started reading Bruce Eckel's 'Thinking 
>> In Java.'  In Chapter 1 under 'The hidden implementation' he draws a 
>> distinction between 'Class Creators' and 'Client Programmers.'
>>
>> Client Programmers are users of the objects produced by Class 
>> Creators - much of which they are deliberately locked out from to 
>> prevent them monkeying around with things they do not fully understand.
>>
>> To me, the Dev list is for class creators. The Users list for Client 
>> Programmers.
>>
>> There is no users list.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> Is there something wrong with the current OFBiz wiki linked to below?
>>>
>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBIZ
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 18, 2007, at 1:23 PM, Leon Torres wrote:
>>>
>>>> I also believe it would be worthwhile to experiment with an open 
>>>> ofbiz wiki.  As the ofbiz community continues to grow, we will 
>>>> certainly attain the critical mass necessary to make such a thing 
>>>> work.
>>>>
>>>> For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks in .txt format 
>>>> about specific tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately contributing to those is hard because it takes an 
>>>> investment in time to read, verify, and update the documents on our 
>>>> end.  If they were in the form of an open wiki, it would be far 
>>>> easier to expand on them.
>>>>
>>>> - Leon
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Florin Jurcovici wrote:
>>>>> IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even if I had some 
>>>>> experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki is closed or 
>>>>> restricted, I cannot. Some maintainers should review docs 
>>>>> occasionally and correct or delete them if they are not OK, maybe 
>>>>> draw an outline of the documentation at the beginning then let 
>>>>> whoever is willing to fill the pages. But IMO a closed/restricted 
>>>>> wiki is not the way to go.
>>>>> --Florin Jurcovici
>>>>> ------------------
>>>>> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>
>> mcnultyMEDIA
>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>> Durham
>> DH1 2UL
>>
>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>> ============================================================================================== 
>>
>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended 
>> recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of 
>> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its 
>> contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent 
>> is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, 
>> please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept 
>> any liability sustained as a result of software viruses and would 
>> recommend that you carry out your own virus checks before opening any 
>> attachment.
>> ============================================================================================== 
>>
>

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

t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736

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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[David Goodenough <da...@linkchoose.co.uk>]

On Tuesday 23 January 2007 18:36, David E. Jones wrote:
> On Jan 23, 2007, at 4:17 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
> > Let's try a slightly different tack. Tailor-made is what we're
> > talking about here.
> >
> > Tailor-made suits fit like a glove and cost more than most of us
> > can afford.
> >
> > There was a time when that was all there was, and tailor shops on
> > street corner were as common as greengrocers. But tailor-made suits
> > were so expensive that  most ordinary working people bought only
> > one of two in a lifetime. Sunday-Best they used to call it.
> > Preserved in mothballs in the wardrobe and only ever worn for
> > church. Of course for top-drawer executives it was different. But
> > then it always is.
> >
> > When the first off-the peg chain stores started appearing on the
> > High Street, almost everybody was appalled. First into battle were
> > the tailors in their corner shops.
> >
> > How can one size fit everybody?
> >
> > Well, of course it can't.
> >
> > The great leap forward - the Blue Ocean thinking outside the box -
> > was to produce a carefully banded range of sizes, to fit most of
> > the people most of the time.
> >
> > "But then no size will ever fit anybody," was the next outraged cry.
> >
> > Well of course they can't. Never could. Never would. And still don't!
> >
> > The trick was to produce suit designs where it doesn't really
> > matter. Pile them high and bang them out at prices everyone could
> > afford. Making the leap from fitting some of the people all of the
> > time to fitting most of the people most of the time was all it took
> > to turn a whole industry completely upside down.
> >
> > The average tailor on the average corner quickly lost the plot. The
> > master tailors in Saville Row upped their prices even more.
> >
> > Personally I thing that's all very sad. But you can't stop
> > progress. That's the way all technology goes. One-off automobiles
> > for the aristos give way to Model T Ford's for the masses, putting
> > average tailor-made manufacturers out of business and leaving a
> > small niche of master-tailors servicing the extremely well-off who
> > would never be caught dead in anything off-the-peg.
> >
> > If David is saying is that he wants to stay tailoring for the
> > executives and is appalled at the idea of selling ill-fitting suits
> > to the masses then no way would I want to knock that.
>
> Except I didn't say that. Suits and software are a bit different.
>
> What I said is that whatever we try to do, there has to be a model
> for it and a plan to make it work.
>
> I think it would be cool to go after the end-user who would never
> think of customizing OFBiz or paying for it. The question is, how do
> we get people to work on this as a derivative of OFBiz? What will be
> the incentive for analysts, developers, documentation writers,
> support personnel, etc?
One possible motive it to get people started on a convertion, and then
when they discover how wonderful it is, AND that it is very customisable
they will start to pay for work.

David
>
> Not that it's impossible either. There are a few open source groups
> doing packages oriented this way. Their funding model is usually
> similar to commercial software though, which is why they like the GPL
> license, or even worse the HPL, (onerous enough that some will need/
> want to buy a commercial license).
>
> So, in a community driven project that as the target audience how do
> we get people interested enough in working on it to design it, build
> it, document it, maintain it, and support it? On top of all of that,
> if we really want a lot of users we'll probably need to market it a
> bit too.
>
> I never said I want to stay doing what I am. It's really not that
> great. I'm certainly not appalled at doing something different,
> though I do appreciate the dramatic effect of the phrase-ology. I did
> say that I don't know how to do that, especially in a community-
> driven project.
>
> -David

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

Ooh Ehr... Looks like we've just been given enough rope to hang 
ourselves then ;)

Will have a look at your link in the morning and figure out how to put 
my money where my mouth is.

For now, got to get some sleep.

Sweet dreams to all.

Ian



David E. Jones wrote:
>
> On Jan 23, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>
>>> I think it would be cool to go after the end-user who would never 
>>> think of customizing OFBiz or paying for it. The question is, how do 
>>> we get people to work on this as a derivative of OFBiz?
>>
>> At last count, I would say you already had about half a dozen 
>> volunteers.
>>
>> The seeds are planted. All they need is the space to grow.
>
> Great it sounds like we're good to go then. I guess that means the 
> patches should start rolling in soon to move in this direction.
>
> If anyone considers themselves to be involved in this, or would like 
> to get involved with this, here is where to get started:
>
> OFBiz Contributors Best Practices: http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/r
>
> -David
>
>
>

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

t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736

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

Re: Wiki issue

[Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>]

Andrew,

If Tim's guess is right as an awkward workaround you may try to reduce your font size when you encounter this peculiar problem (Ctrl + mouse wheel do that in a glance)

Jacques

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Tim Ruppert 
  To: user@ofbiz.apache.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:01 PM
  Subject: Re: Wiki issue


  Andrew, I'm guessing hte problem that you're having with this is caused by two things: 


  1. You have quite a small viewable space in your browser
  2. the svn diff of ShipmentServices is a bit wider than you have going on.  


  #1 we can't help you with :) - #2 is probably something more in the way Confluence handles verbatim text.  In this particulart case, we would have a few options:


  1. Make the example path shorter
  2. See where & why Confluence handles these this way.


  I'm guessing that it's easier to do #1, but maybe someone know why verbatim-esque things are handle this way.  I checked a bunch of other wiki formats and they ALL pretty much handle them in a similar manner because it's just following what the user asked - to display something exactly the way that they see it. 


  Anyways, I hope this helps explain the mystery.


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


  o:801.649.6594
  f:801.649.6595




  On Jan 24, 2007, at 4:37 AM, Andrew Ballantine wrote:


    Hi,


    I have noticed that quite a few of the wiki pages extend wider than the
    browser page.


    Is it not possible to set the wiki HTML so that it always proportions the
    content to the current size of the window?


    The reason for the request is that it quite difficult to read a long
    document with having to constantly shift the window from side to side.


    An example of this is:
    http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Contributors+Best+Practices


    I am using Firefox 2.0.0.1 on Windows2000 if that makes any difference.
    Internet V6 does the same.


    Kind regards,


    Andrew Ballantine.
    --
    No virus found in this outgoing message.
    Checked by AVG Free Edition.
    Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.8/649 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
    20:40






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

Re: Wiki issue

[Tim Ruppert <ti...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

Andrew, I'm guessing hte problem that you're having with this is  
caused by two things:

1. You have quite a small viewable space in your browser
2. the svn diff of ShipmentServices is a bit wider than you have  
going on.

#1 we can't help you with :) - #2 is probably something more in the  
way Confluence handles verbatim text.  In this particulart case, we  
would have a few options:

1. Make the example path shorter
2. See where & why Confluence handles these this way.

I'm guessing that it's easier to do #1, but maybe someone know why  
verbatim-esque things are handle this way.  I checked a bunch of  
other wiki formats and they ALL pretty much handle them in a similar  
manner because it's just following what the user asked - to display  
something exactly the way that they see it.

Anyways, I hope this helps explain the mystery.

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

o:801.649.6594
f:801.649.6595


On Jan 24, 2007, at 4:37 AM, Andrew Ballantine wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have noticed that quite a few of the wiki pages extend wider than  
> the
> browser page.
>
> Is it not possible to set the wiki HTML so that it always  
> proportions the
> content to the current size of the window?
>
> The reason for the request is that it quite difficult to read a long
> document with having to constantly shift the window from side to side.
>
> An example of this is:
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Contributors+Best 
> +Practices
>
> I am using Firefox 2.0.0.1 on Windows2000 if that makes any  
> difference.
> Internet V6 does the same.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Andrew Ballantine.
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.8/649 - Release Date:  
> 23/01/2007
> 20:40
>
>
>
> *****************************************************************
> This email has been checked by the altohiway Mailcontroller Service
> *****************************************************************

RE: Wiki issue

[Andrew Ballantine <ac...@willowbrook.co.uk>]

Tim,

>Andrew, I don't see how any of these responses to your Wiki message could
> have been viewed as anything but helpful?  Please explain when you get a
>chance.

I read your response as a diagnosis which I didn't fully understand and am
not in a position to implement because the page is read only. So I cannot
fix the problem on that page at the wiki level.

>As for editing it, I believe this is just one of those very few pages that
>has restrictions as to who can edit it because it contains VERY important
>information that they don't want to risk being modified by spammers, etc.

Agreed. However the problem is with Confluence. The rendering of the page is
down to their software. I am simply the poor mug who is reporting a User
Interface problem that makes it difficult for me and, presumably, others to
read this VERY important information.

>My recommendations would be the following:


>1. Up your resolution.  My 15" laptop browser has a resolution of 1440x900

My maximum resolution is 1024 x 768

>2. Try Jacques suggestion and make your font size smaller in your window

I can just about read it at that size, but it will cause eye stain and is
just a workaround. The width of the browser display should not grow when the
text size is changed. As I said HTML problem that only Confluence can fix.

>3. Submit a JIRA issue asking for the example to be changed.

Will do, but I get the feeling nothing will get done.

>4. any others

Not sure what you mean by 4.

Kind regards,

Andrew Ballantine.


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.8/649 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
20:40



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

Re: Wiki issue

[Tim Ruppert <ti...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

Andrew, I don't see how any of these responses to your Wiki message  
could have been viewed as anything but helpful?  Please explain when  
you get a chance.

As for editing it, I believe this is just one of those very few pages  
that has restrictions as to who can edit it because it contains VERY  
important information that they don't want to risk being modified by  
spammers, etc.

My recommendations would be the following:

1. Up your resolution.  My 15" laptop browser has a resolution of  
1440x900
2. Try Jacques suggestion and make your font size smaller in your window
3. Submit a JIRA issue asking for the example to be changed.
4. any others

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

o:801.649.6594
f:801.649.6595


On Jan 24, 2007, at 8:10 AM, Andrew Ballantine wrote:

> Hi,
> Thanks for your observations, but I don't really understand how you  
> expect
> me to fix it.
> I regret that none of your comments are any help as the example  
> page is not
> editable.
>
> I also note that even the sandbox page is slightly wider than the  
> browser
> window resulting in a horizontal slider at the bottom of the  
> screen. Poor
> HTML design again.
>
> I use a 1024 x 768 screen which is quite enough on a standard 17"  
> screen.
>
> I must also say that this new wiki is not particularly user  
> friendly. Yes,
> one can get used to it, but there is plenty of wiki software out  
> there that
> is intuitive. Hey Ho, I'll struggle on, but all these hurdles are
> depressing.
>
> Everyone seems so defensive on this project I am finding it is  
> difficult to
> contribute as I am getting to the point where I am not sure I dare to
> comment for fear of another lashing or negative response.
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Andrew Ballantine
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: Tim Ruppert [mailto:tim.ruppert@hotwaxmedia.com]
>   Sent: 24 January 2007 14:30
>   To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>   Subject: Re: Wiki issue
>
>
>   I think the biggest reason that I would see is that some things  
> wrap and
> are fine contextually - much of the time . . . command lines do not  
> fall
> into this category.  My recommendation on this one would be to get  
> a shorter
> example, but wrapping can be a good way to go for sure.
>
>
>   Cheers,
>   Tim
>
>   --
>   Tim Ruppert
>   HotWax Media
>   http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>
>
>   o:801.649.6594
>   f:801.649.6595
>
>
>
>
>   On Jan 24, 2007, at 7:19 AM, Andrew Sykes wrote:
>
>
>     Andrew, Tim,
>
>
>     The diff line definitely seems to be the problem, perhaps it  
> would be a
>     good idea to have a best practise somewhere that asked for  
> verbatim
>     lines to be split when they were in danger of causing this kind of
>     formatting problem, I see it too, and it definitely isn't too
>     pretty! :-)
>
>
>     e.g.
>     $ start of line
>     ~\ continuation
>     ~\ even more...
>
>
>     Is there any reason not to do this?
>
>
>     - Andrew
>
>
>
>
>     On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 07:01 -0700, Tim Ruppert wrote:
>       Andrew, I'm guessing hte problem that you're having with this is
>       caused by two things:
>
>
>
>
>       1. You have quite a small viewable space in your browser
>       2. the svn diff of ShipmentServices is a bit wider than you  
> have going
>       on.
>
>
>
>
>       #1 we can't help you with :) - #2 is probably something more  
> in the
>       way Confluence handles verbatim text.  In this particulart  
> case, we
>       would have a few options:
>
>
>
>
>       1. Make the example path shorter
>       2. See where & why Confluence handles these this way.
>
>
>
>
>       I'm guessing that it's easier to do #1, but maybe someone  
> know why
>       verbatim-esque things are handle this way.  I checked a bunch  
> of other
>       wiki formats and they ALL pretty much handle them in a  
> similar manner
>       because it's just following what the user asked - to display  
> something
>       exactly the way that they see it.
>
>
>
>
>       Anyways, I hope this helps explain the mystery.
>
>
>
>
>       Cheers,
>       Tim
>       --
>       Tim Ruppert
>       HotWax Media
>       http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>
>
>
>
>       o:801.649.6594
>       f:801.649.6595
>
>
>
>
>
>
>       On Jan 24, 2007, at 4:37 AM, Andrew Ballantine wrote:
>
>
>         Hi,
>
>
>
>
>         I have noticed that quite a few of the wiki pages extend  
> wider than
>         the
>         browser page.
>
>
>
>
>         Is it not possible to set the wiki HTML so that it always
>         proportions the
>         content to the current size of the window?
>
>
>
>
>         The reason for the request is that it quite difficult to  
> read a long
>         document with having to constantly shift the window from  
> side to
>         side.
>
>
>
>
>         An example of this is:
>         http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Contributors+Best
>         +Practices
>
>
>
>
>         I am using Firefox 2.0.0.1 on Windows2000 if that makes any
>         difference.
>         Internet V6 does the same.
>
>
>
>
>         Kind regards,
>
>
>
>
>         Andrew Ballantine.
>         --
>         No virus found in this outgoing message.
>         Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>         Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.8/649 - Release  
> Date:
>         23/01/2007
>         20:40
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>          
> *****************************************************************
>         This email has been checked by the altohiway Mailcontroller  
> Service
>          
> *****************************************************************
>
>
>
>
>     --
>     Kind Regards
>     Andrew Sykes <an...@sykesdevelopment.com>
>     Sykes Development Ltd
>     http://www.sykesdevelopment.com
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.8/649 - Release Date:  
> 23/01/2007
> 20:40

Re: Wiki issue

[Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>]

Andrew,

From: "Andrew Ballantine" <ac...@willowbrook.co.uk>
> Hi,
> Thanks for your observations, but I don't really understand how you expect
> me to fix it.
> I regret that none of your comments are any help as the example page is not
> editable.

Did you try them ?

> I also note that even the sandbox page is slightly wider than the browser
> window resulting in a horizontal slider at the bottom of the screen. Poor
> HTML design again.

A way to help to resolve this problem would be to explain the problem to Attlassian (Confluence editor). This link might help
http://confluence.atlassian.com/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=12

> I use a 1024 x 768 screen which is quite enough on a standard 17" screen.
>
> I must also say that this new wiki is not particularly user friendly. Yes,
> one can get used to it, but there is plenty of wiki software out there that
> is intuitive. Hey Ho, I'll struggle on, but all these hurdles are
> depressing.

Do you know one that allow to set permissions by document ? This one of the main reason of Conflucence choice. You may find more in
Nabble : http://www.nabble.com/forum/Search.jtp?local=y&forum=2740&query=Confluence

> Everyone seems so defensive on this project I am finding it is difficult to
> contribute as I am getting to the point where I am not sure I dare to
> comment for fear of another lashing or negative response.

Don't be shy ;o) We are here to help ! If nobody was never complaining that would not be anymore democracy.

Jacques

>
> Kind regards,
>
> Andrew Ballantine
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: Tim Ruppert [mailto:tim.ruppert@hotwaxmedia.com]
>   Sent: 24 January 2007 14:30
>   To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>   Subject: Re: Wiki issue
>
>
>   I think the biggest reason that I would see is that some things wrap and
> are fine contextually - much of the time . . . command lines do not fall
> into this category.  My recommendation on this one would be to get a shorter
> example, but wrapping can be a good way to go for sure.
>
>
>   Cheers,
>   Tim
>
>   --
>   Tim Ruppert
>   HotWax Media
>   http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>
>
>   o:801.649.6594
>   f:801.649.6595
>
>
>
>
>   On Jan 24, 2007, at 7:19 AM, Andrew Sykes wrote:
>
>
>     Andrew, Tim,
>
>
>     The diff line definitely seems to be the problem, perhaps it would be a
>     good idea to have a best practise somewhere that asked for verbatim
>     lines to be split when they were in danger of causing this kind of
>     formatting problem, I see it too, and it definitely isn't too
>     pretty! :-)
>
>
>     e.g.
>     $ start of line
>     ~\ continuation
>     ~\ even more...
>
>
>     Is there any reason not to do this?
>
>
>     - Andrew
>
>
>
>
>     On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 07:01 -0700, Tim Ruppert wrote:
>       Andrew, I'm guessing hte problem that you're having with this is
>       caused by two things:
>
>
>
>
>       1. You have quite a small viewable space in your browser
>       2. the svn diff of ShipmentServices is a bit wider than you have going
>       on.
>
>
>
>
>       #1 we can't help you with :) - #2 is probably something more in the
>       way Confluence handles verbatim text.  In this particulart case, we
>       would have a few options:
>
>
>
>
>       1. Make the example path shorter
>       2. See where & why Confluence handles these this way.
>
>
>
>
>       I'm guessing that it's easier to do #1, but maybe someone know why
>       verbatim-esque things are handle this way.  I checked a bunch of other
>       wiki formats and they ALL pretty much handle them in a similar manner
>       because it's just following what the user asked - to display something
>       exactly the way that they see it.
>
>
>
>
>       Anyways, I hope this helps explain the mystery.
>
>
>
>
>       Cheers,
>       Tim
>       --
>       Tim Ruppert
>       HotWax Media
>       http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>
>
>
>
>       o:801.649.6594
>       f:801.649.6595
>
>
>
>
>
>
>       On Jan 24, 2007, at 4:37 AM, Andrew Ballantine wrote:
>
>
>         Hi,
>
>
>
>
>         I have noticed that quite a few of the wiki pages extend wider than
>         the
>         browser page.
>
>
>
>
>         Is it not possible to set the wiki HTML so that it always
>         proportions the
>         content to the current size of the window?
>
>
>
>
>         The reason for the request is that it quite difficult to read a long
>         document with having to constantly shift the window from side to
>         side.
>
>
>
>
>         An example of this is:
>         http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Contributors+Best
>         +Practices
>
>
>
>
>         I am using Firefox 2.0.0.1 on Windows2000 if that makes any
>         difference.
>         Internet V6 does the same.
>
>
>
>
>         Kind regards,
>
>
>
>
>         Andrew Ballantine.
>         --
>         No virus found in this outgoing message.
>         Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>         Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.8/649 - Release Date:
>         23/01/2007
>         20:40
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>         *****************************************************************
>         This email has been checked by the altohiway Mailcontroller Service
>         *****************************************************************
>
>
>
>
>     --
>     Kind Regards
>     Andrew Sykes <an...@sykesdevelopment.com>
>     Sykes Development Ltd
>     http://www.sykesdevelopment.com
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.8/649 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
> 20:40
>

RE: Wiki issue

[Andrew Ballantine <ac...@willowbrook.co.uk>]

Hi,
Thanks for your observations, but I don't really understand how you expect
me to fix it.
I regret that none of your comments are any help as the example page is not
editable.

I also note that even the sandbox page is slightly wider than the browser
window resulting in a horizontal slider at the bottom of the screen. Poor
HTML design again.

I use a 1024 x 768 screen which is quite enough on a standard 17" screen.

I must also say that this new wiki is not particularly user friendly. Yes,
one can get used to it, but there is plenty of wiki software out there that
is intuitive. Hey Ho, I'll struggle on, but all these hurdles are
depressing.

Everyone seems so defensive on this project I am finding it is difficult to
contribute as I am getting to the point where I am not sure I dare to
comment for fear of another lashing or negative response.


Kind regards,

Andrew Ballantine
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Tim Ruppert [mailto:tim.ruppert@hotwaxmedia.com]
  Sent: 24 January 2007 14:30
  To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
  Subject: Re: Wiki issue


  I think the biggest reason that I would see is that some things wrap and
are fine contextually - much of the time . . . command lines do not fall
into this category.  My recommendation on this one would be to get a shorter
example, but wrapping can be a good way to go for sure.


  Cheers,
  Tim

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


  o:801.649.6594
  f:801.649.6595




  On Jan 24, 2007, at 7:19 AM, Andrew Sykes wrote:


    Andrew, Tim,


    The diff line definitely seems to be the problem, perhaps it would be a
    good idea to have a best practise somewhere that asked for verbatim
    lines to be split when they were in danger of causing this kind of
    formatting problem, I see it too, and it definitely isn't too
    pretty! :-)


    e.g.
    $ start of line
    ~\ continuation
    ~\ even more...


    Is there any reason not to do this?


    - Andrew




    On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 07:01 -0700, Tim Ruppert wrote:
      Andrew, I'm guessing hte problem that you're having with this is
      caused by two things:




      1. You have quite a small viewable space in your browser
      2. the svn diff of ShipmentServices is a bit wider than you have going
      on.




      #1 we can't help you with :) - #2 is probably something more in the
      way Confluence handles verbatim text.  In this particulart case, we
      would have a few options:




      1. Make the example path shorter
      2. See where & why Confluence handles these this way.




      I'm guessing that it's easier to do #1, but maybe someone know why
      verbatim-esque things are handle this way.  I checked a bunch of other
      wiki formats and they ALL pretty much handle them in a similar manner
      because it's just following what the user asked - to display something
      exactly the way that they see it.




      Anyways, I hope this helps explain the mystery.




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




      o:801.649.6594
      f:801.649.6595






      On Jan 24, 2007, at 4:37 AM, Andrew Ballantine wrote:


        Hi,




        I have noticed that quite a few of the wiki pages extend wider than
        the
        browser page.




        Is it not possible to set the wiki HTML so that it always
        proportions the
        content to the current size of the window?




        The reason for the request is that it quite difficult to read a long
        document with having to constantly shift the window from side to
        side.




        An example of this is:
        http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Contributors+Best
        +Practices




        I am using Firefox 2.0.0.1 on Windows2000 if that makes any
        difference.
        Internet V6 does the same.




        Kind regards,




        Andrew Ballantine.
        --
        No virus found in this outgoing message.
        Checked by AVG Free Edition.
        Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.8/649 - Release Date:
        23/01/2007
        20:40












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




    --
    Kind Regards
    Andrew Sykes <an...@sykesdevelopment.com>
    Sykes Development Ltd
    http://www.sykesdevelopment.com




--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.8/649 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
20:40

Re: Wiki issue

[Tim Ruppert <ti...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

I think the biggest reason that I would see is that some things wrap  
and are fine contextually - much of the time . . . command lines do  
not fall into this category.  My recommendation on this one would be  
to get a shorter example, but wrapping can be a good way to go for sure.

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

o:801.649.6594
f:801.649.6595


On Jan 24, 2007, at 7:19 AM, Andrew Sykes wrote:

> Andrew, Tim,
>
> The diff line definitely seems to be the problem, perhaps it would  
> be a
> good idea to have a best practise somewhere that asked for verbatim
> lines to be split when they were in danger of causing this kind of
> formatting problem, I see it too, and it definitely isn't too
> pretty! :-)
>
> e.g.
> $ start of line
> ~\ continuation
> ~\ even more...
>
> Is there any reason not to do this?
>
> - Andrew
>
>
> On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 07:01 -0700, Tim Ruppert wrote:
>> Andrew, I'm guessing hte problem that you're having with this is
>> caused by two things:
>>
>>
>> 1. You have quite a small viewable space in your browser
>> 2. the svn diff of ShipmentServices is a bit wider than you have  
>> going
>> on.
>>
>>
>> #1 we can't help you with :) - #2 is probably something more in the
>> way Confluence handles verbatim text.  In this particulart case, we
>> would have a few options:
>>
>>
>> 1. Make the example path shorter
>> 2. See where & why Confluence handles these this way.
>>
>>
>> I'm guessing that it's easier to do #1, but maybe someone know why
>> verbatim-esque things are handle this way.  I checked a bunch of  
>> other
>> wiki formats and they ALL pretty much handle them in a similar manner
>> because it's just following what the user asked - to display  
>> something
>> exactly the way that they see it.
>>
>>
>> Anyways, I hope this helps explain the mystery.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Tim
>> --
>> Tim Ruppert
>> HotWax Media
>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>
>>
>> o:801.649.6594
>> f:801.649.6595
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 24, 2007, at 4:37 AM, Andrew Ballantine wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> I have noticed that quite a few of the wiki pages extend wider than
>>> the
>>> browser page.
>>>
>>>
>>> Is it not possible to set the wiki HTML so that it always
>>> proportions the
>>> content to the current size of the window?
>>>
>>>
>>> The reason for the request is that it quite difficult to read a long
>>> document with having to constantly shift the window from side to
>>> side.
>>>
>>>
>>> An example of this is:
>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Contributors+Best
>>> +Practices
>>>
>>>
>>> I am using Firefox 2.0.0.1 on Windows2000 if that makes any
>>> difference.
>>> Internet V6 does the same.
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>>
>>> Andrew Ballantine.
>>> --
>>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.8/649 - Release Date:
>>> 23/01/2007
>>> 20:40
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *****************************************************************
>>> This email has been checked by the altohiway Mailcontroller Service
>>> *****************************************************************
>>
>>
> -- 
> Kind Regards
> Andrew Sykes <an...@sykesdevelopment.com>
> Sykes Development Ltd
> http://www.sykesdevelopment.com
>

Re: Wiki issue

[Andrew Sykes <an...@sykesdevelopment.com>]

Andrew, Tim,

The diff line definitely seems to be the problem, perhaps it would be a
good idea to have a best practise somewhere that asked for verbatim
lines to be split when they were in danger of causing this kind of
formatting problem, I see it too, and it definitely isn't too
pretty! :-)

e.g.
$ start of line
~\ continuation
~\ even more...

Is there any reason not to do this?

- Andrew


On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 07:01 -0700, Tim Ruppert wrote:
> Andrew, I'm guessing hte problem that you're having with this is
> caused by two things:
> 
> 
> 1. You have quite a small viewable space in your browser
> 2. the svn diff of ShipmentServices is a bit wider than you have going
> on.  
> 
> 
> #1 we can't help you with :) - #2 is probably something more in the
> way Confluence handles verbatim text.  In this particulart case, we
> would have a few options:
> 
> 
> 1. Make the example path shorter
> 2. See where & why Confluence handles these this way.
> 
> 
> I'm guessing that it's easier to do #1, but maybe someone know why
> verbatim-esque things are handle this way.  I checked a bunch of other
> wiki formats and they ALL pretty much handle them in a similar manner
> because it's just following what the user asked - to display something
> exactly the way that they see it. 
> 
> 
> Anyways, I hope this helps explain the mystery.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Tim
> --
> Tim Ruppert
> HotWax Media
> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
> 
> 
> o:801.649.6594
> f:801.649.6595
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 24, 2007, at 4:37 AM, Andrew Ballantine wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > 
> > I have noticed that quite a few of the wiki pages extend wider than
> > the
> > browser page.
> > 
> > 
> > Is it not possible to set the wiki HTML so that it always
> > proportions the
> > content to the current size of the window?
> > 
> > 
> > The reason for the request is that it quite difficult to read a long
> > document with having to constantly shift the window from side to
> > side.
> > 
> > 
> > An example of this is:
> > http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Contributors+Best
> > +Practices
> > 
> > 
> > I am using Firefox 2.0.0.1 on Windows2000 if that makes any
> > difference.
> > Internet V6 does the same.
> > 
> > 
> > Kind regards,
> > 
> > 
> > Andrew Ballantine.
> > --
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.8/649 - Release Date:
> > 23/01/2007
> > 20:40
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > *****************************************************************
> > This email has been checked by the altohiway Mailcontroller Service
> > *****************************************************************
> 
> 
-- 
Kind Regards
Andrew Sykes <an...@sykesdevelopment.com>
Sykes Development Ltd
http://www.sykesdevelopment.com

Wiki issue

[Andrew Ballantine <ac...@willowbrook.co.uk>]

Hi,

I have noticed that quite a few of the wiki pages extend wider than the
browser page.

Is it not possible to set the wiki HTML so that it always proportions the
content to the current size of the window?

The reason for the request is that it quite difficult to read a long
document with having to constantly shift the window from side to side.

An example of this is:
http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Contributors+Best+Practices

I am using Firefox 2.0.0.1 on Windows2000 if that makes any difference.
Internet V6 does the same.

Kind regards,

Andrew Ballantine.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.8/649 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
20:40



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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

["David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

On Jan 23, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Ian McNulty wrote:

>> I think it would be cool to go after the end-user who would never  
>> think of customizing OFBiz or paying for it. The question is, how  
>> do we get people to work on this as a derivative of OFBiz?
>
> At last count, I would say you already had about half a dozen  
> volunteers.
>
> The seeds are planted. All they need is the space to grow.

Great it sounds like we're good to go then. I guess that means the  
patches should start rolling in soon to move in this direction.

If anyone considers themselves to be involved in this, or would like  
to get involved with this, here is where to get started:

OFBiz Contributors Best Practices: http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/r

-David

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

David E. Jones wrote:
>
> On Jan 23, 2007, at 4:17 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>
>>
>> If David is saying is that he wants to stay tailoring for the 
>> executives and is appalled at the idea of selling ill-fitting suits 
>> to the masses then no way would I want to knock that.
>
> Except I didn't say that.

I accept you didn't say that. That's why I started with an "If"

> Suits and software are a bit different.

Also accepted. No model is a perfect representation of the real thing.

Working through this logically...

If the differences are significant, then the model must be rejected.

If trivial, we can accept it and move on.

>
> What I said is that whatever we try to do, there has to be a model for 
> it and a plan to make it work.
>

1) Models put forward to date would include:

1.1) The clothing industry
1.2) The automobile industry
1.3) The aircraft industry
1.4) Some other industry we haven't thought of yet.

Until sound reasons arise to show the differences are significant, there 
is no reason to reject any one out-of-hand.

2) The plan to make it work would be:

2.1) State strategic objective

2.2) Implement Deming Quality Circle
2.2.1) Design tactics for achieving strategic objective
2.2.2) Implement tactics
2.2.3) Assess outcomes
2.2.4) Modify tactics
2.2.5) Re-design plans
2.2.6) Implement new plans
2.2.7) Assess new outcomes
2.2.8) Modify tactics
2.2.9) Re-design plans
2.2.10) Implement new plans

2.3) Iterate process until strategic objective is achieved.

> I think it would be cool to go after the end-user who would never 
> think of customizing OFBiz or paying for it. The question is, how do 
> we get people to work on this as a derivative of OFBiz?

At last count, I would say you already had about half a dozen volunteers.

The seeds are planted. All they need is the space to grow.

> What will be the incentive for analysts, developers, documentation 
> writers, support personnel, etc?

Same as it is at the moment.

To create work for themselves and be in at the start of a sustainable 
and growing industry.

>
> Not that it's impossible either. There are a few open source groups 
> doing packages oriented this way. Their funding model is usually 
> similar to commercial software though, which is why they like the GPL 
> license, or even worse the HPL, (onerous enough that some will 
> need/want to buy a commercial license).
>

The Apache model has worked well for Apache. If I'm not mistaken, 60% of 
the internet at the last count. Why not just run with that?

> On top of all of that, if we really want a lot of users we'll probably 
> need to market it a bit too.
>

Possibly. But imho that's quite a few steps down the line.

First step would be to clear away obstacles.

Then send envoys onto other forums. Give word-of-mouth and viral 
marketing it's head.

Then assess the outcomes.

If the bandwagon looks good there'll be marketeers who want to jump on it.

If not I'll eat my (Red) hat.

> I never said I want to stay doing what I am. It's really not that 
> great. I'm certainly not appalled at doing something different,

That's certainly a good place to start.

> though I do appreciate the dramatic effect of the phrase-ology.

Got no idea what you mean by that. Please expand.

> I did say that I don't know how to do that, especially in a 
> community-driven project.

Anybody who claims they know exactly how to do it is a liar. There are 
no such certainties in this life.

It's the will that creates the way.

Ian

RE: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Andrew Ballantine <ac...@willowbrook.co.uk>]

 David E. Jones wrote:

>What I said is that whatever we try to do, there has to be a model
>for it and a plan to make it work.

 Of course

>I think it would be cool to go after the end-user who would never
>think of customizing OFBiz or paying for it. The question is, how do
>we get people to work on this as a derivative of OFBiz? What will be
>the incentive for analysts, developers, documentation writers,
>support personnel, etc?

I'm a bit puzzled as to why as to why it has to be a derivative. I'll
explain.
The standard download of OFBiz provides a single package to demo what is
available. Surely we can add to that so that the demo and its features
improve and satisfy the basic needs of a business. However lets keep it
simple, which enables us to customise it further for clients who need
something more.

Let's cater for a business that that buys stuff, manufactures some stuff
both from the bought stuff and 3rd party services and the sells the finished
products. If we add POS, then they can sell on the premises as well as on
the web. Now apart from the manufacturing 3rd party part I was under the
assumption that most of this functionality is already present.

This would cater for a huge number of businesses.

So let's get this package downloading and installing as sweet as sweet can
be, and go from there.

I am very willing to contribute to this effort. Yes, there will be further
healthy discussion, but now we need to start it.

Some issues that need to be addressed in the main body of OFBiz, I believe,
as:

Different taxation methods
Different pricing methods
Variations in national regulations
Re-work of the presentation (look and feel)

As I have said before I believe that this can be catered for with
conditional code or plug-ins.

As I have now discovered that I can edit the wiki if I login (the edit
labels only appear if you are logged in), where do you want me to start
writing this up?

Kind regards,

Andrew.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.8/649 - Release Date: 23/01/2007
20:40



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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

["David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

On Jan 23, 2007, at 4:17 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:

> Let's try a slightly different tack. Tailor-made is what we're  
> talking about here.
>
> Tailor-made suits fit like a glove and cost more than most of us  
> can afford.
>
> There was a time when that was all there was, and tailor shops on  
> street corner were as common as greengrocers. But tailor-made suits  
> were so expensive that  most ordinary working people bought only  
> one of two in a lifetime. Sunday-Best they used to call it.  
> Preserved in mothballs in the wardrobe and only ever worn for   
> church. Of course for top-drawer executives it was different. But  
> then it always is.
>
> When the first off-the peg chain stores started appearing on the  
> High Street, almost everybody was appalled. First into battle were  
> the tailors in their corner shops.
>
> How can one size fit everybody?
>
> Well, of course it can't.
>
> The great leap forward - the Blue Ocean thinking outside the box -  
> was to produce a carefully banded range of sizes, to fit most of  
> the people most of the time.
>
> "But then no size will ever fit anybody," was the next outraged cry.
>
> Well of course they can't. Never could. Never would. And still don't!
>
> The trick was to produce suit designs where it doesn't really  
> matter. Pile them high and bang them out at prices everyone could  
> afford. Making the leap from fitting some of the people all of the  
> time to fitting most of the people most of the time was all it took  
> to turn a whole industry completely upside down.
>
> The average tailor on the average corner quickly lost the plot. The  
> master tailors in Saville Row upped their prices even more.
>
> Personally I thing that's all very sad. But you can't stop  
> progress. That's the way all technology goes. One-off automobiles  
> for the aristos give way to Model T Ford's for the masses, putting  
> average tailor-made manufacturers out of business and leaving a  
> small niche of master-tailors servicing the extremely well-off who  
> would never be caught dead in anything off-the-peg.
>
> If David is saying is that he wants to stay tailoring for the  
> executives and is appalled at the idea of selling ill-fitting suits  
> to the masses then no way would I want to knock that.

Except I didn't say that. Suits and software are a bit different.

What I said is that whatever we try to do, there has to be a model  
for it and a plan to make it work.

I think it would be cool to go after the end-user who would never  
think of customizing OFBiz or paying for it. The question is, how do  
we get people to work on this as a derivative of OFBiz? What will be  
the incentive for analysts, developers, documentation writers,  
support personnel, etc?

Not that it's impossible either. There are a few open source groups  
doing packages oriented this way. Their funding model is usually  
similar to commercial software though, which is why they like the GPL  
license, or even worse the HPL, (onerous enough that some will need/ 
want to buy a commercial license).

So, in a community driven project that as the target audience how do  
we get people interested enough in working on it to design it, build  
it, document it, maintain it, and support it? On top of all of that,  
if we really want a lot of users we'll probably need to market it a  
bit too.

I never said I want to stay doing what I am. It's really not that  
great. I'm certainly not appalled at doing something different,  
though I do appreciate the dramatic effect of the phrase-ology. I did  
say that I don't know how to do that, especially in a community- 
driven project.

-David

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

Jonathon, David,

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

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

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

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

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

How can one size fit everybody?

Well, of course it can't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ian



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

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

t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736

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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>]

David,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Implement/Deploy OFBiz.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jonathon

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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

David,

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

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

Oh no.

You say goodbye,
And I say Hello.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Ian

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

Andrew,

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

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

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

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

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

Ian



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

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

t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736

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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>]

Hi Andrew,

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

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

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

Jonathon

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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Andrew Sykes <an...@sykesdevelopment.com>]

This thread is going on a bit :-)

Perhaps we need a new ML just for this!

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

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

- Andrew


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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

["David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If that's not a fork, what is?

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

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

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

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

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

-David

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>]

Paul,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(* military band starting to drum a march *)

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

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

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

Jonathon

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

Paul Gear wrote:
> David E. Jones wrote:
>> Nope. The users list is for users of OFBiz. The dev list is for
>> developers of OFBiz. There is commonly confusion around this point.
>>
>> On the users list we don't care if the users is a developer customizing
>> OFBiz or an end user who is only seeing OFBiz from a web browser.
>>
>> If you're trying to say that the community isn't geared up to support
>> end users who just touch OFBiz through a browser and are people
>> fulfilling orders and managing warehouses, then you're are 100% correct.
>> This community is not even close to geared up for something like that.
>> Not even close. We also don't have major aspirations to doing that
>> because there would be a significant resource gap. If you have some way
>> of staffing such a thing that has eluded the rest of us, please let us
>> know!!!
> 
> Wow.  I wasn't aware my question would generate so much discussion.  My
> basic aim in asking was to find an excuse not to by MYOB.  It sounds
> like OFBiz is not even close to that yet, but there is plenty of room
> for an end-user targeted interface to both OFBiz itself and the
> introductory documentation.
> 
> I'd be happy to contribute requirements, testing, and some documentation
> if there are more experienced OFBiz people who can guide me in the
> direction.
> 

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>]

Paul,

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

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

Jonathon

Paul Gear wrote:
> Paul Gear wrote:
>> ...
>> Wow.  I wasn't aware my question would generate so much discussion.  My
>> basic aim in asking was to find an excuse not to by MYOB.
> 
> That should have been: an excuse not to BUY MYOB...
> 

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Paul Gear <pa...@gear.dyndns.org>]

Paul Gear wrote:
> ...
> Wow.  I wasn't aware my question would generate so much discussion.  My
> basic aim in asking was to find an excuse not to by MYOB.

That should have been: an excuse not to BUY MYOB...

-- 
Paul
<http://paulgear.webhop.net>
--
Did you know?  OpenOffice.org has built-in PDF creation.  Better yet,
it's compatible with Microsoft Office, and free!  Find out more at
<http://www.openoffice.org>.

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Paul Gear <pa...@gear.dyndns.org>]

David E. Jones wrote:
> 
> Nope. The users list is for users of OFBiz. The dev list is for
> developers of OFBiz. There is commonly confusion around this point.
> 
> On the users list we don't care if the users is a developer customizing
> OFBiz or an end user who is only seeing OFBiz from a web browser.
> 
> If you're trying to say that the community isn't geared up to support
> end users who just touch OFBiz through a browser and are people
> fulfilling orders and managing warehouses, then you're are 100% correct.
> This community is not even close to geared up for something like that.
> Not even close. We also don't have major aspirations to doing that
> because there would be a significant resource gap. If you have some way
> of staffing such a thing that has eluded the rest of us, please let us
> know!!!

Wow.  I wasn't aware my question would generate so much discussion.  My
basic aim in asking was to find an excuse not to by MYOB.  It sounds
like OFBiz is not even close to that yet, but there is plenty of room
for an end-user targeted interface to both OFBiz itself and the
introductory documentation.

I'd be happy to contribute requirements, testing, and some documentation
if there are more experienced OFBiz people who can guide me in the
direction.

-- 
Paul
<http://paulgear.webhop.net>
--
Did you know?  Sending and receiving Microsoft Office documents via
email can put your computer and others' at risk.  Always scan
attachments for viruses before you open them, and export your documents
to a portable format such as PDF or HTML before sending them.

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

["David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

Nope. The users list is for users of OFBiz. The dev list is for  
developers of OFBiz. There is commonly confusion around this point.

On the users list we don't care if the users is a developer  
customizing OFBiz or an end user who is only seeing OFBiz from a web  
browser.

If you're trying to say that the community isn't geared up to support  
end users who just touch OFBiz through a browser and are people  
fulfilling orders and managing warehouses, then you're are 100%  
correct. This community is not even close to geared up for something  
like that. Not even close. We also don't have major aspirations to  
doing that because there would be a significant resource gap. If you  
have some way of staffing such a thing that has eluded the rest of  
us, please let us know!!!

-David


On Jan 20, 2007, at 2:03 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:

> Nothing at all wrong with the link.
>
> It's what it's linking too that's the problem.
>
> The topics... the layout... everything speaks to me of engineering  
> plans, not flight plans.
>
> To start building a flight plan you need a blank page, not one that  
> is already half full with wiring diagrams.
>
> Even Anil thought he was talking to the Dev not the Users list !!!
>
> Imo there is no users list. If a pilot came across ofbiz.apache.org  
> he would know at first glance he was in the wrong place.
>
> The difference is between www.ubuntu.com/ and www.debian.org/ The  
> first welcomes the uninitiated and draws them in. The second looks  
> like a wonderful resource for engineers. We're not talking about  
> all the manuals and small print inside the box. Where talking about  
> what it says at first glance on the tin.
>
> I think I can see where the confusion arises.
>
> You can focus on one or the other, but you can't focus on both on  
> the same page. (Yes, I know this contradicts my earlier post. But  
> it's a question of focus. On the user pages the wiring needs to be  
> there, but buried behind the dashboard. On the engineering pages  
> the reverse it true.)
>
> On Si's recommendation I've started reading Bruce Eckel's 'Thinking  
> In Java.'  In Chapter 1 under 'The hidden implementation' he draws  
> a distinction between 'Class Creators' and 'Client Programmers.'
>
> Client Programmers are users of the objects produced by Class  
> Creators - much of which they are deliberately locked out from to  
> prevent them monkeying around with things they do not fully  
> understand.
>
> To me, the Dev list is for class creators. The Users list for  
> Client Programmers.
>
> There is no users list.
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
>
> David E. Jones wrote:
>>
>> Is there something wrong with the current OFBiz wiki linked to below?
>>
>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBIZ
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Jan 18, 2007, at 1:23 PM, Leon Torres wrote:
>>
>>> I also believe it would be worthwhile to experiment with an open  
>>> ofbiz wiki.  As the ofbiz community continues to grow, we will  
>>> certainly attain the critical mass necessary to make such a thing  
>>> work.
>>>
>>> For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks in .txt format  
>>> about specific tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:
>>>
>>> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php
>>>
>>> Unfortunately contributing to those is hard because it takes an  
>>> investment in time to read, verify, and update the documents on  
>>> our end.  If they were in the form of an open wiki, it would be  
>>> far easier to expand on them.
>>>
>>> - Leon
>>>
>>>
>>> Florin Jurcovici wrote:
>>>> IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even if I had some  
>>>> experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki is closed or  
>>>> restricted, I cannot. Some maintainers should review docs  
>>>> occasionally and correct or delete them if they are not OK,  
>>>> maybe draw an outline of the documentation at the beginning then  
>>>> let whoever is willing to fill the pages. But IMO a closed/ 
>>>> restricted wiki is not the way to go.
>>>> --Florin Jurcovici
>>>> ------------------
>>>> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
>>
>
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------------------------
> mcnultyMEDIA
> 60 Birkdale Gardens
> Durham
> DH1 2UL
>
> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
> ====================================================================== 
> ========================
> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended  
> recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of  
> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its  
> contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent  
> is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error,  
> please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384  
> 4736
>
> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept  
> any liability sustained as a result of software viruses and would  
> recommend that you carry out your own virus checks before opening  
> any attachment.
> ====================================================================== 
> ========================

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>]

Chris,

*hand up!*

But that's after I'm done with my 13 days to project deadline, or 13 weeks after I get fired. 
(Which probably is the same circumstance for every other member in this community!)

But you're right. Resources needed. Not always money, but something at least. Time or brain cells. 
And to get that, we'll need a massive recruitment engine.

To be honest, I was not quite recruited, or not recruited the right way. As boss and I was looking 
back to time when we first spoke with Si Chen, it had seemed I wouldn't have gotten into "working" 
OFBiz if I hadn't taken apart the plane, complained to BoingBoing Bad Planes, Inc, and showed them 
I could fix stuff. BUT... but all this is understandable. Do you have time of day to write me docs 
on how to use Notepad? Nope. But still, it's hard to imagine manufacturers that send you user 
manuals AFTER you've sent them a blueprint you drew up yourself. Oh, that happens, some products 
made in east side of world.

Ian and you have a point, it starts somewhere. Do we take time to write docs (welcome more users), 
or do we spend time to earn money/time to write docs? Chicken and egg problem. Maybe we just need 
the right kind of contributors to start the spark (billionaires? or madmax workaholics/fanatics 
like me?).

And David is also right. There are multitudes of folks who come in, grab help, get out. I'm not 
like that (recruit me! recruit me!).

I see a time when ERPs around the world are OFBiz-standard or OFBiz-certified.

In any case, I'm with you! *military band music wafting into scene*. Tell me where I can do some 
damage! Er, I mean docs.

Jonathon

Chris Howe wrote:
> It only took Debian 13 years to create a users list
> and the keen interest of a billionaire philanthropist.
>  
> 
> I think we could get a _real users list with either
> half of that equation. Who's with me? ;-) 
> 
> --- Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> Nothing at all wrong with the link.
>>
>> It's what it's linking too that's the problem.
>>
>> The topics... the layout... everything speaks to me
>> of engineering 
>> plans, not flight plans.
>>
>> To start building a flight plan you need a blank
>> page, not one that is 
>> already half full with wiring diagrams.
>>
>> Even Anil thought he was talking to the Dev not the
>> Users list !!!
>>
>> Imo there is no users list. If a pilot came across
>> ofbiz.apache.org he 
>> would know at first glance he was in the wrong
>> place.
>>
>> The difference is between www.ubuntu.com/ and
>> www.debian.org/ The first 
>> welcomes the uninitiated and draws them in. The
>> second looks like a 
>> wonderful resource for engineers. We're not talking
>> about all the 
>> manuals and small print inside the box. Where
>> talking about what it says 
>> at first glance on the tin.
>>
>> I think I can see where the confusion arises.
>>
>> You can focus on one or the other, but you can't
>> focus on both on the 
>> same page. (Yes, I know this contradicts my earlier
>> post. But it's a 
>> question of focus. On the user pages the wiring
>> needs to be there, but 
>> buried behind the dashboard. On the engineering
>> pages the reverse it true.)
>>
>> On Si's recommendation I've started reading Bruce
>> Eckel's 'Thinking In 
>> Java.'  In Chapter 1 under 'The hidden
>> implementation' he draws a 
>> distinction between 'Class Creators' and 'Client
>> Programmers.'
>>
>> Client Programmers are users of the objects produced
>> by Class Creators - 
>> much of which they are deliberately locked out from
>> to prevent them 
>> monkeying around with things they do not fully
>> understand.
>>
>> To me, the Dev list is for class creators. The Users
>> list for Client 
>> Programmers.
>>
>> There is no users list.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>> Is there something wrong with the current OFBiz
>> wiki linked to below?
>>>
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBIZ
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 18, 2007, at 1:23 PM, Leon Torres wrote:
>>>
>>>> I also believe it would be worthwhile to
>> experiment with an open 
>>>> ofbiz wiki.  As the ofbiz community continues to
>> grow, we will 
>>>> certainly attain the critical mass necessary to
>> make such a thing work.
>>>> For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks
>> in .txt format 
>>>> about specific tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:
>>>>
>>>>
> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php
>>>> Unfortunately contributing to those is hard
>> because it takes an 
>>>> investment in time to read, verify, and update
>> the documents on our 
>>>> end.  If they were in the form of an open wiki,
>> it would be far 
>>>> easier to expand on them.
>>>>
>>>> - Leon
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Florin Jurcovici wrote:
>>>>> IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even
>> if I had some 
>>>>> experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki
>> is closed or 
>>>>> restricted, I cannot. Some maintainers should
>> review docs 
>>>>> occasionally and correct or delete them if they
>> are not OK, maybe 
>>>>> draw an outline of the documentation at the
>> beginning then let 
>>>>> whoever is willing to fill the pages. But IMO a
>> closed/restricted 
>>>>> wiki is not the way to go.
>>>>> --Florin Jurcovici
>>>>> ------------------
>>>>> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
>> -- 
>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> mcnultyMEDIA
>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>> Durham
>> DH1 2UL
>>
>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>
> ==============================================================================================
>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the
>> intended recipient(s) named above and is
>> confidential. Any form of distribution, copying,
>> discussion or use of this communication, its
>> contents, or any information contained herein
>> without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you
>> receive this communication in error, please notify
>> the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191
>> 384 4736
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we
>> cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of
>> software viruses and would recommend that you carry
>> out your own virus checks before opening any
>> attachment.
>>
> ==============================================================================================
> 
> 

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

David,

I have got absolutely no idea at all why it sounds like I don't like 
your landing strip.

This is exactly opposite to the facts.

All analogies have their limits, and maybe this one has already been 
stretched too far. But....

Undersun and OpenSource Strategies are beautifully designed examples of 
the ideal landing strips for executive jets. So much so I've even been 
thinking revamping my own web site along similar lines.

But if you want to bring in the Jumbos then you need to roll in a few 
more hot dog stands and kiss-me-quick hats ;)

More to the point - and this is where the analogy breaks down - imho 
landing strips is not your main stock in trade. I don't know where you 
find the time. Imho you have built the next generation of Rolls Royce 
engine any plane manufacturer would give his right arm for.

Your very wrong to say I don't like it. I love it to bits. That's the 
problem :-\

Ian




David E. Jones wrote:
>
> Sound great to me Ian. I guess what I'm wondering is if you're really 
> interested in this, what is YOUR plan to make it so? I guess in other 
> words, it sounds like you don't like my landing strip. So what would 
> your landing strip look like, and what are your plans for creating it?
>
> -David
>
>
> On Jan 20, 2007, at 2:33 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>
>> Yeah. OK Chris. Very funny, but...
>>
>> OFBiz is already half way down that 13 year road.
>>
>> And who's to say that Mark Shuttleworth isn't monitoring this group 
>> on his laptop 35,000 feet over the Pacific and wondering if it might 
>> be worth dropping in.
>>
>> But if you don't think it's worth bothering to clear a landing strip, 
>> then that could never happen. ;)
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris Howe wrote:
>>> It only took Debian 13 years to create a users list
>>> and the keen interest of a billionaire philanthropist.
>>>
>>> I think we could get a _real users list with either
>>> half of that equation. Who's with me? ;-)
>>> --- Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Nothing at all wrong with the link.
>>>>
>>>> It's what it's linking too that's the problem.
>>>>
>>>> The topics... the layout... everything speaks to me
>>>> of engineering plans, not flight plans.
>>>>
>>>> To start building a flight plan you need a blank
>>>> page, not one that is already half full with wiring diagrams.
>>>>
>>>> Even Anil thought he was talking to the Dev not the
>>>> Users list !!!
>>>>
>>>> Imo there is no users list. If a pilot came across
>>>> ofbiz.apache.org he would know at first glance he was in the wrong
>>>> place.
>>>>
>>>> The difference is between www.ubuntu.com/ and
>>>> www.debian.org/ The first welcomes the uninitiated and draws them 
>>>> in. The
>>>> second looks like a wonderful resource for engineers. We're not 
>>>> talking
>>>> about all the manuals and small print inside the box. Where
>>>> talking about what it says at first glance on the tin.
>>>>
>>>> I think I can see where the confusion arises.
>>>>
>>>> You can focus on one or the other, but you can't
>>>> focus on both on the same page. (Yes, I know this contradicts my 
>>>> earlier
>>>> post. But it's a question of focus. On the user pages the wiring
>>>> needs to be there, but buried behind the dashboard. On the engineering
>>>> pages the reverse it true.)
>>>>
>>>> On Si's recommendation I've started reading Bruce
>>>> Eckel's 'Thinking In Java.'  In Chapter 1 under 'The hidden
>>>> implementation' he draws a distinction between 'Class Creators' and 
>>>> 'Client
>>>> Programmers.'
>>>>
>>>> Client Programmers are users of the objects produced
>>>> by Class Creators - much of which they are deliberately locked out 
>>>> from
>>>> to prevent them monkeying around with things they do not fully
>>>> understand.
>>>>
>>>> To me, the Dev list is for class creators. The Users
>>>> list for Client Programmers.
>>>>
>>>> There is no users list.
>>>>
>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Is there something wrong with the current OFBiz
>>>>>
>>>> wiki linked to below?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBIZ
>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 18, 2007, at 1:23 PM, Leon Torres wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I also believe it would be worthwhile to
>>>>>>
>>>> experiment with an open
>>>>>> ofbiz wiki.  As the ofbiz community continues to
>>>>>>
>>>> grow, we will
>>>>>> certainly attain the critical mass necessary to
>>>>>>
>>>> make such a thing work.
>>>>
>>>>>> For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks
>>>>>>
>>>> in .txt format
>>>>>> about specific tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php
>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately contributing to those is hard
>>>>>>
>>>> because it takes an
>>>>>> investment in time to read, verify, and update
>>>>>>
>>>> the documents on our
>>>>>> end.  If they were in the form of an open wiki,
>>>>>>
>>>> it would be far
>>>>>> easier to expand on them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Leon
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Florin Jurcovici wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even
>>>>>>>
>>>> if I had some
>>>>>>> experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki
>>>>>>>
>>>> is closed or
>>>>>>> restricted, I cannot. Some maintainers should
>>>>>>>
>>>> review docs
>>>>>>> occasionally and correct or delete them if they
>>>>>>>
>>>> are not OK, maybe
>>>>>>> draw an outline of the documentation at the
>>>>>>>
>>>> beginning then let
>>>>>>> whoever is willing to fill the pages. But IMO a
>>>>>>>
>>>> closed/restricted
>>>>>>> wiki is not the way to go.
>>>>>>> --Florin Jurcovici
>>>>>>> ------------------
>>>>>>> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
>>>>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>
>>>
>>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>>> Durham
>>>> DH1 2UL
>>>>
>>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>
>>>
>>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the
>>>> intended recipient(s) named above and is
>>>> confidential. Any form of distribution, copying,
>>>> discussion or use of this communication, its
>>>> contents, or any information contained herein
>>>> without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you
>>>> receive this communication in error, please notify
>>>> the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191
>>>> 384 4736
>>>>
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we
>>>> cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of
>>>> software viruses and would recommend that you carry
>>>> out your own virus checks before opening any
>>>> attachment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ============================================================================================== 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>
>> mcnultyMEDIA
>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>> Durham
>> DH1 2UL
>>
>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>> ============================================================================================== 
>>
>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended 
>> recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of 
>> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its 
>> contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent 
>> is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, 
>> please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept 
>> any liability sustained as a result of software viruses and would 
>> recommend that you carry out your own virus checks before opening any 
>> attachment.
>> ============================================================================================== 
>>
>

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

t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736

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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

["David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

Sound great to me Ian. I guess what I'm wondering is if you're really  
interested in this, what is YOUR plan to make it so? I guess in other  
words, it sounds like you don't like my landing strip. So what would  
your landing strip look like, and what are your plans for creating it?

-David


On Jan 20, 2007, at 2:33 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:

> Yeah. OK Chris. Very funny, but...
>
> OFBiz is already half way down that 13 year road.
>
> And who's to say that Mark Shuttleworth isn't monitoring this group  
> on his laptop 35,000 feet over the Pacific and wondering if it  
> might be worth dropping in.
>
> But if you don't think it's worth bothering to clear a landing  
> strip, then that could never happen. ;)
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> Chris Howe wrote:
>> It only took Debian 13 years to create a users list
>> and the keen interest of a billionaire philanthropist.
>>
>> I think we could get a _real users list with either
>> half of that equation. Who's with me? ;-)
>> --- Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Nothing at all wrong with the link.
>>>
>>> It's what it's linking too that's the problem.
>>>
>>> The topics... the layout... everything speaks to me
>>> of engineering plans, not flight plans.
>>>
>>> To start building a flight plan you need a blank
>>> page, not one that is already half full with wiring diagrams.
>>>
>>> Even Anil thought he was talking to the Dev not the
>>> Users list !!!
>>>
>>> Imo there is no users list. If a pilot came across
>>> ofbiz.apache.org he would know at first glance he was in the wrong
>>> place.
>>>
>>> The difference is between www.ubuntu.com/ and
>>> www.debian.org/ The first welcomes the uninitiated and draws them  
>>> in. The
>>> second looks like a wonderful resource for engineers. We're not  
>>> talking
>>> about all the manuals and small print inside the box. Where
>>> talking about what it says at first glance on the tin.
>>>
>>> I think I can see where the confusion arises.
>>>
>>> You can focus on one or the other, but you can't
>>> focus on both on the same page. (Yes, I know this contradicts my  
>>> earlier
>>> post. But it's a question of focus. On the user pages the wiring
>>> needs to be there, but buried behind the dashboard. On the  
>>> engineering
>>> pages the reverse it true.)
>>>
>>> On Si's recommendation I've started reading Bruce
>>> Eckel's 'Thinking In Java.'  In Chapter 1 under 'The hidden
>>> implementation' he draws a distinction between 'Class Creators'  
>>> and 'Client
>>> Programmers.'
>>>
>>> Client Programmers are users of the objects produced
>>> by Class Creators - much of which they are deliberately locked  
>>> out from
>>> to prevent them monkeying around with things they do not fully
>>> understand.
>>>
>>> To me, the Dev list is for class creators. The Users
>>> list for Client Programmers.
>>>
>>> There is no users list.
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is there something wrong with the current OFBiz
>>>>
>>> wiki linked to below?
>>>
>>>>
>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBIZ
>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 18, 2007, at 1:23 PM, Leon Torres wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I also believe it would be worthwhile to
>>>>>
>>> experiment with an open
>>>>> ofbiz wiki.  As the ofbiz community continues to
>>>>>
>>> grow, we will
>>>>> certainly attain the critical mass necessary to
>>>>>
>>> make such a thing work.
>>>
>>>>> For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks
>>>>>
>>> in .txt format
>>>>> about specific tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php
>>
>>>>> Unfortunately contributing to those is hard
>>>>>
>>> because it takes an
>>>>> investment in time to read, verify, and update
>>>>>
>>> the documents on our
>>>>> end.  If they were in the form of an open wiki,
>>>>>
>>> it would be far
>>>>> easier to expand on them.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Leon
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Florin Jurcovici wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even
>>>>>>
>>> if I had some
>>>>>> experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki
>>>>>>
>>> is closed or
>>>>>> restricted, I cannot. Some maintainers should
>>>>>>
>>> review docs
>>>>>> occasionally and correct or delete them if they
>>>>>>
>>> are not OK, maybe
>>>>>> draw an outline of the documentation at the
>>>>>>
>>> beginning then let
>>>>>> whoever is willing to fill the pages. But IMO a
>>>>>>
>>> closed/restricted
>>>>>> wiki is not the way to go.
>>>>>> --Florin Jurcovici
>>>>>> ------------------
>>>>>> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
>>>>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> -------------------------
>>
>>> mcnultyMEDIA
>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>>> Durham
>>> DH1 2UL
>>>
>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>>
>>>
>> ===================================================================== 
>> =========================
>>
>>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the
>>> intended recipient(s) named above and is
>>> confidential. Any form of distribution, copying,
>>> discussion or use of this communication, its
>>> contents, or any information contained herein
>>> without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you
>>> receive this communication in error, please notify
>>> the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191
>>> 384 4736
>>>
>>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we
>>> cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of
>>> software viruses and would recommend that you carry
>>> out your own virus checks before opening any
>>> attachment.
>>>
>>>
>> ===================================================================== 
>> =========================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------------------------
> mcnultyMEDIA
> 60 Birkdale Gardens
> Durham
> DH1 2UL
>
> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
> ====================================================================== 
> ========================
> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended  
> recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of  
> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its  
> contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent  
> is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error,  
> please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384  
> 4736
>
> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept  
> any liability sustained as a result of software viruses and would  
> recommend that you carry out your own virus checks before opening  
> any attachment.
> ====================================================================== 
> ========================

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

Yeah. OK Chris. Very funny, but...

OFBiz is already half way down that 13 year road.

And who's to say that Mark Shuttleworth isn't monitoring this group on 
his laptop 35,000 feet over the Pacific and wondering if it might be 
worth dropping in.

But if you don't think it's worth bothering to clear a landing strip, 
then that could never happen. ;)

Ian



Chris Howe wrote:
> It only took Debian 13 years to create a users list
> and the keen interest of a billionaire philanthropist.
>  
>
> I think we could get a _real users list with either
> half of that equation. Who's with me? ;-) 
>
> --- Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk> wrote:
>
>   
>> Nothing at all wrong with the link.
>>
>> It's what it's linking too that's the problem.
>>
>> The topics... the layout... everything speaks to me
>> of engineering 
>> plans, not flight plans.
>>
>> To start building a flight plan you need a blank
>> page, not one that is 
>> already half full with wiring diagrams.
>>
>> Even Anil thought he was talking to the Dev not the
>> Users list !!!
>>
>> Imo there is no users list. If a pilot came across
>> ofbiz.apache.org he 
>> would know at first glance he was in the wrong
>> place.
>>
>> The difference is between www.ubuntu.com/ and
>> www.debian.org/ The first 
>> welcomes the uninitiated and draws them in. The
>> second looks like a 
>> wonderful resource for engineers. We're not talking
>> about all the 
>> manuals and small print inside the box. Where
>> talking about what it says 
>> at first glance on the tin.
>>
>> I think I can see where the confusion arises.
>>
>> You can focus on one or the other, but you can't
>> focus on both on the 
>> same page. (Yes, I know this contradicts my earlier
>> post. But it's a 
>> question of focus. On the user pages the wiring
>> needs to be there, but 
>> buried behind the dashboard. On the engineering
>> pages the reverse it true.)
>>
>> On Si's recommendation I've started reading Bruce
>> Eckel's 'Thinking In 
>> Java.'  In Chapter 1 under 'The hidden
>> implementation' he draws a 
>> distinction between 'Class Creators' and 'Client
>> Programmers.'
>>
>> Client Programmers are users of the objects produced
>> by Class Creators - 
>> much of which they are deliberately locked out from
>> to prevent them 
>> monkeying around with things they do not fully
>> understand.
>>
>> To me, the Dev list is for class creators. The Users
>> list for Client 
>> Programmers.
>>
>> There is no users list.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>     
>>> Is there something wrong with the current OFBiz
>>>       
>> wiki linked to below?
>>     
>>>       
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBIZ
>   
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 18, 2007, at 1:23 PM, Leon Torres wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> I also believe it would be worthwhile to
>>>>         
>> experiment with an open 
>>     
>>>> ofbiz wiki.  As the ofbiz community continues to
>>>>         
>> grow, we will 
>>     
>>>> certainly attain the critical mass necessary to
>>>>         
>> make such a thing work.
>>     
>>>> For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks
>>>>         
>> in .txt format 
>>     
>>>> about specific tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php
>   
>>>> Unfortunately contributing to those is hard
>>>>         
>> because it takes an 
>>     
>>>> investment in time to read, verify, and update
>>>>         
>> the documents on our 
>>     
>>>> end.  If they were in the form of an open wiki,
>>>>         
>> it would be far 
>>     
>>>> easier to expand on them.
>>>>
>>>> - Leon
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Florin Jurcovici wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even
>>>>>           
>> if I had some 
>>     
>>>>> experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki
>>>>>           
>> is closed or 
>>     
>>>>> restricted, I cannot. Some maintainers should
>>>>>           
>> review docs 
>>     
>>>>> occasionally and correct or delete them if they
>>>>>           
>> are not OK, maybe 
>>     
>>>>> draw an outline of the documentation at the
>>>>>           
>> beginning then let 
>>     
>>>>> whoever is willing to fill the pages. But IMO a
>>>>>           
>> closed/restricted 
>>     
>>>>> wiki is not the way to go.
>>>>> --Florin Jurcovici
>>>>> ------------------
>>>>> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
>>>>>           
>> -- 
>>
>>     
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   
>> mcnultyMEDIA
>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>> Durham
>> DH1 2UL
>>
>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>>
>>     
> ==============================================================================================
>   
>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the
>> intended recipient(s) named above and is
>> confidential. Any form of distribution, copying,
>> discussion or use of this communication, its
>> contents, or any information contained herein
>> without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you
>> receive this communication in error, please notify
>> the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191
>> 384 4736
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we
>> cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of
>> software viruses and would recommend that you carry
>> out your own virus checks before opening any
>> attachment.
>>
>>     
> ==============================================================================================
>   
>
>
>
>   

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

t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736

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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Chris Howe <cj...@yahoo.com>]

It only took Debian 13 years to create a users list
and the keen interest of a billionaire philanthropist.
 

I think we could get a _real users list with either
half of that equation. Who's with me? ;-) 

--- Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk> wrote:

> Nothing at all wrong with the link.
> 
> It's what it's linking too that's the problem.
> 
> The topics... the layout... everything speaks to me
> of engineering 
> plans, not flight plans.
> 
> To start building a flight plan you need a blank
> page, not one that is 
> already half full with wiring diagrams.
> 
> Even Anil thought he was talking to the Dev not the
> Users list !!!
> 
> Imo there is no users list. If a pilot came across
> ofbiz.apache.org he 
> would know at first glance he was in the wrong
> place.
> 
> The difference is between www.ubuntu.com/ and
> www.debian.org/ The first 
> welcomes the uninitiated and draws them in. The
> second looks like a 
> wonderful resource for engineers. We're not talking
> about all the 
> manuals and small print inside the box. Where
> talking about what it says 
> at first glance on the tin.
> 
> I think I can see where the confusion arises.
> 
> You can focus on one or the other, but you can't
> focus on both on the 
> same page. (Yes, I know this contradicts my earlier
> post. But it's a 
> question of focus. On the user pages the wiring
> needs to be there, but 
> buried behind the dashboard. On the engineering
> pages the reverse it true.)
> 
> On Si's recommendation I've started reading Bruce
> Eckel's 'Thinking In 
> Java.'  In Chapter 1 under 'The hidden
> implementation' he draws a 
> distinction between 'Class Creators' and 'Client
> Programmers.'
> 
> Client Programmers are users of the objects produced
> by Class Creators - 
> much of which they are deliberately locked out from
> to prevent them 
> monkeying around with things they do not fully
> understand.
> 
> To me, the Dev list is for class creators. The Users
> list for Client 
> Programmers.
> 
> There is no users list.
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David E. Jones wrote:
> >
> > Is there something wrong with the current OFBiz
> wiki linked to below?
> >
> >
>
http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBIZ
> >
> > -David
> >
> >
> > On Jan 18, 2007, at 1:23 PM, Leon Torres wrote:
> >
> >> I also believe it would be worthwhile to
> experiment with an open 
> >> ofbiz wiki.  As the ofbiz community continues to
> grow, we will 
> >> certainly attain the critical mass necessary to
> make such a thing work.
> >>
> >> For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks
> in .txt format 
> >> about specific tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:
> >>
> >>
>
http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php
> >>
> >> Unfortunately contributing to those is hard
> because it takes an 
> >> investment in time to read, verify, and update
> the documents on our 
> >> end.  If they were in the form of an open wiki,
> it would be far 
> >> easier to expand on them.
> >>
> >> - Leon
> >>
> >>
> >> Florin Jurcovici wrote:
> >>> IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even
> if I had some 
> >>> experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki
> is closed or 
> >>> restricted, I cannot. Some maintainers should
> review docs 
> >>> occasionally and correct or delete them if they
> are not OK, maybe 
> >>> draw an outline of the documentation at the
> beginning then let 
> >>> whoever is willing to fill the pages. But IMO a
> closed/restricted 
> >>> wiki is not the way to go.
> >>> --Florin Jurcovici
> >>> ------------------
> >>> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
> >
> 
> -- 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> mcnultyMEDIA
> 60 Birkdale Gardens
> Durham
> DH1 2UL
> 
> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>
==============================================================================================
> This communication is for the exclusive use of the
> intended recipient(s) named above and is
> confidential. Any form of distribution, copying,
> discussion or use of this communication, its
> contents, or any information contained herein
> without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you
> receive this communication in error, please notify
> the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191
> 384 4736
> 
> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we
> cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of
> software viruses and would recommend that you carry
> out your own virus checks before opening any
> attachment.
>
==============================================================================================
> 

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

Nothing at all wrong with the link.

It's what it's linking too that's the problem.

The topics... the layout... everything speaks to me of engineering 
plans, not flight plans.

To start building a flight plan you need a blank page, not one that is 
already half full with wiring diagrams.

Even Anil thought he was talking to the Dev not the Users list !!!

Imo there is no users list. If a pilot came across ofbiz.apache.org he 
would know at first glance he was in the wrong place.

The difference is between www.ubuntu.com/ and www.debian.org/ The first 
welcomes the uninitiated and draws them in. The second looks like a 
wonderful resource for engineers. We're not talking about all the 
manuals and small print inside the box. Where talking about what it says 
at first glance on the tin.

I think I can see where the confusion arises.

You can focus on one or the other, but you can't focus on both on the 
same page. (Yes, I know this contradicts my earlier post. But it's a 
question of focus. On the user pages the wiring needs to be there, but 
buried behind the dashboard. On the engineering pages the reverse it true.)

On Si's recommendation I've started reading Bruce Eckel's 'Thinking In 
Java.'  In Chapter 1 under 'The hidden implementation' he draws a 
distinction between 'Class Creators' and 'Client Programmers.'

Client Programmers are users of the objects produced by Class Creators - 
much of which they are deliberately locked out from to prevent them 
monkeying around with things they do not fully understand.

To me, the Dev list is for class creators. The Users list for Client 
Programmers.

There is no users list.

Ian





David E. Jones wrote:
>
> Is there something wrong with the current OFBiz wiki linked to below?
>
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBIZ
>
> -David
>
>
> On Jan 18, 2007, at 1:23 PM, Leon Torres wrote:
>
>> I also believe it would be worthwhile to experiment with an open 
>> ofbiz wiki.  As the ofbiz community continues to grow, we will 
>> certainly attain the critical mass necessary to make such a thing work.
>>
>> For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks in .txt format 
>> about specific tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:
>>
>> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php
>>
>> Unfortunately contributing to those is hard because it takes an 
>> investment in time to read, verify, and update the documents on our 
>> end.  If they were in the form of an open wiki, it would be far 
>> easier to expand on them.
>>
>> - Leon
>>
>>
>> Florin Jurcovici wrote:
>>> IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even if I had some 
>>> experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki is closed or 
>>> restricted, I cannot. Some maintainers should review docs 
>>> occasionally and correct or delete them if they are not OK, maybe 
>>> draw an outline of the documentation at the beginning then let 
>>> whoever is willing to fill the pages. But IMO a closed/restricted 
>>> wiki is not the way to go.
>>> --Florin Jurcovici
>>> ------------------
>>> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
>

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

t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736

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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>]

David,

I guess that Leon and Opentaps guys in general want to open their cookbooks to the community. Like I said before why not migrate and
integrate them to this page below (The Open For Business Project Wiki) ? I believe both parties (OFBiz and Opentaps communities)
will take advantage of this move.

BTW, it should be better if all pages were below Home page. If someone has some time to spent to rearrange that...

TIA

Jacques

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>
To: <us...@ofbiz.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?


>
> Is there something wrong with the current OFBiz wiki linked to below?
>
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBIZ
>
> -David
>
>
> On Jan 18, 2007, at 1:23 PM, Leon Torres wrote:
>
> > I also believe it would be worthwhile to experiment with an open
> > ofbiz wiki.  As the ofbiz community continues to grow, we will
> > certainly attain the critical mass necessary to make such a thing
> > work.
> >
> > For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks in .txt format
> > about specific tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:
> >
> > http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php
> >
> > Unfortunately contributing to those is hard because it takes an
> > investment in time to read, verify, and update the documents on our
> > end.  If they were in the form of an open wiki, it would be far
> > easier to expand on them.
> >
> > - Leon
> >
> >
> > Florin Jurcovici wrote:
> >> IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even if I had some
> >> experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki is closed or
> >> restricted, I cannot. Some maintainers should review docs
> >> occasionally and correct or delete them if they are not OK, maybe
> >> draw an outline of the documentation at the beginning then let
> >> whoever is willing to fill the pages. But IMO a closed/restricted
> >> wiki is not the way to go.
> >> --Florin Jurcovici
> >> ------------------
> >> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
>
>

RE: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Andrew Ballantine <ac...@willowbrook.co.uk>]

David,

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

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

So I dutifully followed your link:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I find the new wiki, um, rather dry.

I hope you get my drift.

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

Kind regards,

Andrew.

-----Original Message-----
From: David E. Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
Sent: 20 January 2007 08:18
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?



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

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

-David


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

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


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

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



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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

Jacques,

Then there's the dead parrot sketch. About the only thing the Brits are 
really any good at it if you ask me.... Being creazy! But then I am 
really Irish !??%^?&<#!

Better go now before I get a kick up the pants for being as off-topic as 
it's possible to be :o)

Ian


Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> Ian,
>
>   
>> Re. the 1 question turning into 3. It's a Monty Python thing. "Nobody
>> expects the Spanish Inquisition." No worries. Just a sad old bloke
>> showing his age :-()
>>
>> Ian
>>     
>
> Yes, I figured it out just after having sent my msg. I remember a Monty Python's scene in a restaurant about a dirty knife or
> something. I never ever laugh more in my all life... creazy !
>
> Jacques
>
>
>
>   

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

t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736

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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>]

Ian,

> Re. the 1 question turning into 3. It's a Monty Python thing. "Nobody
> expects the Spanish Inquisition." No worries. Just a sad old bloke
> showing his age :-()
>
> Ian

Yes, I figured it out just after having sent my msg. I remember a Monty Python's scene in a restaurant about a dirty knife or
something. I never ever laugh more in my all life... creazy !

Jacques

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

Thanks Jacques. Right on the nose as always. Will study and absorb.

Re. the 1 question turning into 3. It's a Monty Python thing. "Nobody 
expects the Spanish Inquisition." No worries. Just a sad old bloke 
showing his age :-()

Ian



Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> Ian,
>
> From: "Ian McNulty" <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>
>   
>> Jacques,
>>
>> Just one question... well three actually?
>>     
>
> Hu ?
>
>   
>> Who does speak for the community?
>>     
>
> Community :o). But as you know OFBiz is a now Top Level Apache Project (TLP) and in fact even when it was in incubator it had
> already a PMC, this may interest and explain this to you : http://incubator.apache.org/guides/pmc.html. FYI I'm not in OFBiz PMC :
> the 1st 6 commiters on this list are : http://incubator.apache.org/projects/ofbiz.html
> All this it has some clicks of :  http://ofbiz.apache.org/
>
>   
>> How does the community decide?
>> Is there some kind of vote or what?
>>     
>
> By vote. You may be interested by this also : http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html
>
> Jacques
>
>   
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>     
>>> Andrew,
>>>
>>> From: "Andrew Ballantine" <ac...@willowbrook.co.uk>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> David,
>>>>
>>>> This is so difficult because I know you care passionately about OFBiz and
>>>> have put a huge amount of effort into both the code and the documentation
>>>> and I am not forgetting the contribution made by Andy and all the rest of
>>>> the community.
>>>>
>>>> I am also deeply aware that OFBiz is a truly open source project and that we
>>>> should be grateful for all the contributions that have been received. Having
>>>> said that I think we can help make it even better by giving our input which
>>>> should be seen as constructive.
>>>>
>>>> So I dutifully followed your link:
>>>>
>>>> 1. The list is in alpha order. I think it should be in read order. (i.e. the
>>>> order it is recommended to read the items)
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Yes that's true, please consider that it's still a work in progress. And this progress depends of community good will...
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> 2. Guessing that Home might be the place to start I clicked that. Then chose
>>>> "About OFBiz" only to get
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Same comment than above
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> "This page is for background information about the OFBiz project.
>>>>
>>>> OFBiz Committers Roles and Responsbilities
>>>> Best Practices for Contributors"
>>>>
>>>> What no description as to what OFBiz is, how it came to be, what businesses
>>>> it is designed to service?
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> You may find this kinf of information in OFBiz official site : http://www.ofbiz.org/. IMO the wiki is more intended to
>>>       
> coordonate
>   
>>> community work and to documen OFBiz from technical and functionnal POC.
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> 3. Back to Home. Ah reference to OLD wiki. Click "here". Now this looks more
>>>> like a wiki.
>>>> Nice list of topics on the left and page text on the right and I can see
>>>> where to click to make contributions at the bottom of the page. The new wiki
>>>> doesn't seem to have and edit to click.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> You may have already discover that only the 'The Open For Business Project Wik" part of the dashboard
>>> (http://docs.ofbiz.org/dashboard.action) is *open to edit*. To edit you only have to register.
>>>
>>> We experienced some problems with the *completly open* old Wiki  : lack of organisation, redundancy, update problem, open to
>>> spammners, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> I am guessing that Confluence has placed some restrictions on how the wiki
>>>> is presented.
>>>> I find the new wiki, um, rather dry.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> It's new, well will surely look better in some months...
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> I hope you get my drift.
>>>>
>>>> Please can we have a wiki that looks like a wiki. Does the wiki have to be
>>>> on Apache?
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> It depends on community, petition David with prayers will not do a lot here...
>>>
>>> One more time this reflects only my opinion and I'm not speaking for community...
>>>
>>> Thanks for your interest in OFBiz :o)
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Andrew.
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: David E. Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
>>>> Sent: 20 January 2007 08:18
>>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is there something wrong with the current OFBiz wiki linked to below?
>>>>
>>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBIZ
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 18, 2007, at 1:23 PM, Leon Torres wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> I also believe it would be worthwhile to experiment with an open
>>>>> ofbiz wiki.  As the ofbiz community continues to grow, we will
>>>>> certainly attain the critical mass necessary to make such a thing
>>>>> work.
>>>>>
>>>>> For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks in .txt format
>>>>> about specific tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately contributing to those is hard because it takes an
>>>>> investment in time to read, verify, and update the documents on our
>>>>> end.  If they were in the form of an open wiki, it would be far
>>>>> easier to expand on them.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Leon
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Florin Jurcovici wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even if I had some
>>>>>> experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki is closed or
>>>>>> restricted, I cannot. Some maintainers should review docs
>>>>>> occasionally and correct or delete them if they are not OK, maybe
>>>>>> draw an outline of the documentation at the beginning then let
>>>>>> whoever is willing to fill the pages. But IMO a closed/restricted
>>>>>> wiki is not the way to go.
>>>>>> --Florin Jurcovici
>>>>>> ------------------
>>>>>> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> -- 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> mcnultyMEDIA
>> 60 Birkdale Gardens
>> Durham
>> DH1 2UL
>>
>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
>> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
>> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
>> ==============================================================================================
>> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of
>>     
> distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior
> consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44
> (0)191 384 4736
>   
>> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of software viruses and
>>     
> would recommend that you carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
>   
>> ==============================================================================================
>>     
>
>
>
>   

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

t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736

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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>]

Ian,

From: "Ian McNulty" <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>
> Jacques,
>
> Just one question... well three actually?

Hu ?

> Who does speak for the community?

Community :o). But as you know OFBiz is a now Top Level Apache Project (TLP) and in fact even when it was in incubator it had
already a PMC, this may interest and explain this to you : http://incubator.apache.org/guides/pmc.html. FYI I'm not in OFBiz PMC :
the 1st 6 commiters on this list are : http://incubator.apache.org/projects/ofbiz.html
All this it has some clicks of :  http://ofbiz.apache.org/

> How does the community decide?
> Is there some kind of vote or what?

By vote. You may be interested by this also : http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html

Jacques

>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> > Andrew,
> >
> > From: "Andrew Ballantine" <ac...@willowbrook.co.uk>
> >
> >> David,
> >>
> >> This is so difficult because I know you care passionately about OFBiz and
> >> have put a huge amount of effort into both the code and the documentation
> >> and I am not forgetting the contribution made by Andy and all the rest of
> >> the community.
> >>
> >> I am also deeply aware that OFBiz is a truly open source project and that we
> >> should be grateful for all the contributions that have been received. Having
> >> said that I think we can help make it even better by giving our input which
> >> should be seen as constructive.
> >>
> >> So I dutifully followed your link:
> >>
> >> 1. The list is in alpha order. I think it should be in read order. (i.e. the
> >> order it is recommended to read the items)
> >>
> >
> > Yes that's true, please consider that it's still a work in progress. And this progress depends of community good will...
> >
> >
> >> 2. Guessing that Home might be the place to start I clicked that. Then chose
> >> "About OFBiz" only to get
> >>
> >
> > Same comment than above
> >
> >
> >> "This page is for background information about the OFBiz project.
> >>
> >> OFBiz Committers Roles and Responsbilities
> >> Best Practices for Contributors"
> >>
> >> What no description as to what OFBiz is, how it came to be, what businesses
> >> it is designed to service?
> >>
> >
> > You may find this kinf of information in OFBiz official site : http://www.ofbiz.org/. IMO the wiki is more intended to
coordonate
> > community work and to documen OFBiz from technical and functionnal POC.
> >
> >
> >> 3. Back to Home. Ah reference to OLD wiki. Click "here". Now this looks more
> >> like a wiki.
> >> Nice list of topics on the left and page text on the right and I can see
> >> where to click to make contributions at the bottom of the page. The new wiki
> >> doesn't seem to have and edit to click.
> >>
> >
> > You may have already discover that only the 'The Open For Business Project Wik" part of the dashboard
> > (http://docs.ofbiz.org/dashboard.action) is *open to edit*. To edit you only have to register.
> >
> > We experienced some problems with the *completly open* old Wiki  : lack of organisation, redundancy, update problem, open to
> > spammners, etc.
> >
> >
> >> I am guessing that Confluence has placed some restrictions on how the wiki
> >> is presented.
> >> I find the new wiki, um, rather dry.
> >>
> >
> > It's new, well will surely look better in some months...
> >
> >
> >> I hope you get my drift.
> >>
> >> Please can we have a wiki that looks like a wiki. Does the wiki have to be
> >> on Apache?
> >>
> >
> > It depends on community, petition David with prayers will not do a lot here...
> >
> > One more time this reflects only my opinion and I'm not speaking for community...
> >
> > Thanks for your interest in OFBiz :o)
> >
> > Jacques
> >
> >
> >> Kind regards,
> >>
> >> Andrew.
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: David E. Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
> >> Sent: 20 January 2007 08:18
> >> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Is there something wrong with the current OFBiz wiki linked to below?
> >>
> >> http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBIZ
> >>
> >> -David
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jan 18, 2007, at 1:23 PM, Leon Torres wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> I also believe it would be worthwhile to experiment with an open
> >>> ofbiz wiki.  As the ofbiz community continues to grow, we will
> >>> certainly attain the critical mass necessary to make such a thing
> >>> work.
> >>>
> >>> For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks in .txt format
> >>> about specific tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php
> >>>
> >>> Unfortunately contributing to those is hard because it takes an
> >>> investment in time to read, verify, and update the documents on our
> >>> end.  If they were in the form of an open wiki, it would be far
> >>> easier to expand on them.
> >>>
> >>> - Leon
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Florin Jurcovici wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even if I had some
> >>>> experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki is closed or
> >>>> restricted, I cannot. Some maintainers should review docs
> >>>> occasionally and correct or delete them if they are not OK, maybe
> >>>> draw an outline of the documentation at the beginning then let
> >>>> whoever is willing to fill the pages. But IMO a closed/restricted
> >>>> wiki is not the way to go.
> >>>> --Florin Jurcovici
> >>>> ------------------
> >>>> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
> >>>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> -- 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> mcnultyMEDIA
> 60 Birkdale Gardens
> Durham
> DH1 2UL
>
> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
> e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
> w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
> ==============================================================================================
> This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of
distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior
consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44
(0)191 384 4736
>
> This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of software viruses and
would recommend that you carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
> ==============================================================================================

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

Jacques,

Just one question... well three actually?

Who does speak for the community?

How does the community decide?

Is there some kind of vote or what?

Ian




Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> From: "Andrew Ballantine" <ac...@willowbrook.co.uk>
>   
>> David,
>>
>> This is so difficult because I know you care passionately about OFBiz and
>> have put a huge amount of effort into both the code and the documentation
>> and I am not forgetting the contribution made by Andy and all the rest of
>> the community.
>>
>> I am also deeply aware that OFBiz is a truly open source project and that we
>> should be grateful for all the contributions that have been received. Having
>> said that I think we can help make it even better by giving our input which
>> should be seen as constructive.
>>
>> So I dutifully followed your link:
>>
>> 1. The list is in alpha order. I think it should be in read order. (i.e. the
>> order it is recommended to read the items)
>>     
>
> Yes that's true, please consider that it's still a work in progress. And this progress depends of community good will...
>
>   
>> 2. Guessing that Home might be the place to start I clicked that. Then chose
>> "About OFBiz" only to get
>>     
>
> Same comment than above
>
>   
>> "This page is for background information about the OFBiz project.
>>
>> OFBiz Committers Roles and Responsbilities
>> Best Practices for Contributors"
>>
>> What no description as to what OFBiz is, how it came to be, what businesses
>> it is designed to service?
>>     
>
> You may find this kinf of information in OFBiz official site : http://www.ofbiz.org/. IMO the wiki is more intended to coordonate
> community work and to documen OFBiz from technical and functionnal POC.
>
>   
>> 3. Back to Home. Ah reference to OLD wiki. Click "here". Now this looks more
>> like a wiki.
>> Nice list of topics on the left and page text on the right and I can see
>> where to click to make contributions at the bottom of the page. The new wiki
>> doesn't seem to have and edit to click.
>>     
>
> You may have already discover that only the 'The Open For Business Project Wik" part of the dashboard
> (http://docs.ofbiz.org/dashboard.action) is *open to edit*. To edit you only have to register.
>
> We experienced some problems with the *completly open* old Wiki  : lack of organisation, redundancy, update problem, open to
> spammners, etc.
>
>   
>> I am guessing that Confluence has placed some restrictions on how the wiki
>> is presented.
>> I find the new wiki, um, rather dry.
>>     
>
> It's new, well will surely look better in some months...
>
>   
>> I hope you get my drift.
>>
>> Please can we have a wiki that looks like a wiki. Does the wiki have to be
>> on Apache?
>>     
>
> It depends on community, petition David with prayers will not do a lot here...
>
> One more time this reflects only my opinion and I'm not speaking for community...
>
> Thanks for your interest in OFBiz :o)
>
> Jacques
>
>   
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Andrew.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David E. Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
>> Sent: 20 January 2007 08:18
>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
>>
>>
>>
>> Is there something wrong with the current OFBiz wiki linked to below?
>>
>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBIZ
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Jan 18, 2007, at 1:23 PM, Leon Torres wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> I also believe it would be worthwhile to experiment with an open
>>> ofbiz wiki.  As the ofbiz community continues to grow, we will
>>> certainly attain the critical mass necessary to make such a thing
>>> work.
>>>
>>> For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks in .txt format
>>> about specific tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:
>>>
>>> http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php
>>>
>>> Unfortunately contributing to those is hard because it takes an
>>> investment in time to read, verify, and update the documents on our
>>> end.  If they were in the form of an open wiki, it would be far
>>> easier to expand on them.
>>>
>>> - Leon
>>>
>>>
>>> Florin Jurcovici wrote:
>>>       
>>>> IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even if I had some
>>>> experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki is closed or
>>>> restricted, I cannot. Some maintainers should review docs
>>>> occasionally and correct or delete them if they are not OK, maybe
>>>> draw an outline of the documentation at the beginning then let
>>>> whoever is willing to fill the pages. But IMO a closed/restricted
>>>> wiki is not the way to go.
>>>> --Florin Jurcovici
>>>> ------------------
>>>> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
>>>>         
>
>
>
>   

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

t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736

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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>]

Andrew,

From: "Andrew Ballantine" <ac...@willowbrook.co.uk>
> David,
>
> This is so difficult because I know you care passionately about OFBiz and
> have put a huge amount of effort into both the code and the documentation
> and I am not forgetting the contribution made by Andy and all the rest of
> the community.
>
> I am also deeply aware that OFBiz is a truly open source project and that we
> should be grateful for all the contributions that have been received. Having
> said that I think we can help make it even better by giving our input which
> should be seen as constructive.
>
> So I dutifully followed your link:
>
> 1. The list is in alpha order. I think it should be in read order. (i.e. the
> order it is recommended to read the items)

Yes that's true, please consider that it's still a work in progress. And this progress depends of community good will...

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

Same comment than above

> "This page is for background information about the OFBiz project.
>
> OFBiz Committers Roles and Responsbilities
> Best Practices for Contributors"
>
> What no description as to what OFBiz is, how it came to be, what businesses
> it is designed to service?

You may find this kinf of information in OFBiz official site : http://www.ofbiz.org/. IMO the wiki is more intended to coordonate
community work and to documen OFBiz from technical and functionnal POC.

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

You may have already discover that only the 'The Open For Business Project Wik" part of the dashboard
(http://docs.ofbiz.org/dashboard.action) is *open to edit*. To edit you only have to register.

We experienced some problems with the *completly open* old Wiki  : lack of organisation, redundancy, update problem, open to
spammners, etc.

> I am guessing that Confluence has placed some restrictions on how the wiki
> is presented.
> I find the new wiki, um, rather dry.

It's new, well will surely look better in some months...

> I hope you get my drift.
>
> Please can we have a wiki that looks like a wiki. Does the wiki have to be
> on Apache?

It depends on community, petition David with prayers will not do a lot here...

One more time this reflects only my opinion and I'm not speaking for community...

Thanks for your interest in OFBiz :o)

Jacques

> Kind regards,
>
> Andrew.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David E. Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
> Sent: 20 January 2007 08:18
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?
>
>
>
> Is there something wrong with the current OFBiz wiki linked to below?
>
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/pages/listpages-dirview.action?key=OFBIZ
>
> -David
>
>
> On Jan 18, 2007, at 1:23 PM, Leon Torres wrote:
>
> > I also believe it would be worthwhile to experiment with an open
> > ofbiz wiki.  As the ofbiz community continues to grow, we will
> > certainly attain the critical mass necessary to make such a thing
> > work.
> >
> > For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks in .txt format
> > about specific tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:
> >
> > http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php
> >
> > Unfortunately contributing to those is hard because it takes an
> > investment in time to read, verify, and update the documents on our
> > end.  If they were in the form of an open wiki, it would be far
> > easier to expand on them.
> >
> > - Leon
> >
> >
> > Florin Jurcovici wrote:
> >> IMO, an open wiki is the right thing to do. Even if I had some
> >> experience which I'd like to share, if the wiki is closed or
> >> restricted, I cannot. Some maintainers should review docs
> >> occasionally and correct or delete them if they are not OK, maybe
> >> draw an outline of the documentation at the beginning then let
> >> whoever is willing to fill the pages. But IMO a closed/restricted
> >> wiki is not the way to go.
> >> --Florin Jurcovici
> >> ------------------
> >> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?

RE: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Andrew Ballantine <ac...@willowbrook.co.uk>]

David,

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

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

So I dutifully followed your link:

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

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

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

OFBiz Committers Roles and Responsbilities
Best Practices for Contributors"

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

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

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

I find the new wiki, um, rather dry.

I hope you get my drift.

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

Kind regards,

Andrew.

-----Original Message-----
From: David E. Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
Sent: 20 January 2007 08:18
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?



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

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

-David


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

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


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

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



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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

["David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

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

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

-David


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

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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Leon Torres <le...@oss.minimetria.com>]

I also believe it would be worthwhile to experiment with an open ofbiz wiki.  As 
the ofbiz community continues to grow, we will certainly attain the critical 
mass necessary to make such a thing work.

For instance, we've authored a bunch of cookbooks in .txt format about specific 
tricks and how-to's in OFBIZ:

http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/ofbiz/tutorials.php

Unfortunately contributing to those is hard because it takes an investment in 
time to read, verify, and update the documents on our end.  If they were in the 
form of an open wiki, it would be far easier to expand on them.

- Leon


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

RE: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Andrew Ballantine <ac...@willowbrook.co.uk>]

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

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

Or am I missing something?

Kind regards,

Andrew Ballantine.

-----Original Message-----
From: Florin Jurcovici [mailto:flj@mail.dnttm.ro]
Sent: 18 January 2007 19:35
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?


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

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


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


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

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



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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Florin Jurcovici <fl...@mail.dnttm.ro>]

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

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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

Andrew,

I agree with everything you're saying here.

I managed to get the engine started on both Windows and Linux before I 
even knew of the existence of this mailing list. So the OOTB start-up 
part of the handbook is largely all there. Trouble then was figuring out 
how to get it into first gear. Hitting the workshop manuals and the 
mailing lists, one message quickly became clear. If you want to get this 
baby out on the road you're going to need an engineering degree. As it 
happens, I have a couple of those, but not in OOP. Which kindof leaves 
me a bit up OFbiz creek without a paddle :)

> A clear roadmap would be most useful so that the essential stuff gets read
> first.

My feeling entirely. I'd like to contribute by helping to get something 
like that going, but where to start?

>  And yes, there are already How to documents, architecture documents,
> but there is too much to read plus every document starts with a brief resume
> of OFBiz rather than getting down to the business at hand. Basically it
> appears that every document has been written to stand alone and therefore
> feels the need to fill in the back ground on OFBiz. I haven't yet read a
> great deal of the available documentation, but there is a trend there.
>   

Another big thumbs-up from me there too. That explains why I have no 
problems getting started, but can't get out of first gear.

> Please don't take offence at these comments, they are only intended to help.
>   

That's such an important point. Imo what we need is a more robust kind 
of forum where we can thrash-out these kind of front-end problems 
without risking stepping on the toes of those who are already 
up-to-their ears working on more delicate matters of engine design.

> I also find that there is a lack of structure in the documents in that there
> tends to be paragraph after paragraph of text which is neither reference nor
> tutorial.

What struck me first is actually how literate and accomplished the 
documentation is in comparison with other more mainstream Open Source 
projects like osCommerce for instance. Which makes it all the more 
difficult to understand why, several week later, I'm still stuck like a 
rabbit in the headlights. Entranced by the power of what I see coming at 
me, but with no idea where to jump next. Which is what makes me think 
you may be onto something here.

>  And as I progress along the road to OFBiz heaven I will try to
> document my path. In the mean time it might be useful to thrash out a style
> and structure to the whole documentation suite. Heck I know this can be
> difficult in the open source environment.
>   

Too true. Is there anything I could do to help with this?

> I would  favour a wiki approach to doing documents provided the wiki is
> restricted to named members to stop spammers wrecking it. In the wiki, users
> should use a colour, perhaps blue to indicate a question or need for further
> detail in the flow of the document and the remainder of the contents in
> black. I am quite willing to start up a tutorial document if you are all
> willing to contribute to it with David acting as umpire.
>   

If you think a Wiki is the way to go then I'm prepared to help where I can.

I keep thinking of something I was taught at the very beginning of my 
science training. That everything should be written-up in a form that 
assumes no prior knowledge of the speciality at hand.

This is an ideal that can never be completely achieved. Not in this life 
anyway. Only Allah makes things perfect. But it's the trying that  makes 
the difference. It has to be admitted that this seems to have gone out 
of fashion in recent years, which might be just one reason why we seem 
to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater in the western world at 
least, and science departments are closing down at a rate of knots to be 
replaced with media studies departments aimed at producing more Big 
Brothers. And we all know where that leads!

Not the place to be discussing these things I know. But just one of the 
trends I would like to try and help to reverse.

Please let me know what I can do to help to move what you're suggesting 
on to the next step.

Best,

Ian

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

["David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

On Jan 18, 2007, at 9:34 AM, Andrew Ballantine wrote:

> Please don't take offence at these comments, they are only intended  
> to help.
> I also find that there is a lack of structure in the documents in  
> that there
> tends to be paragraph after paragraph of text which is neither  
> reference nor
> tutorial. And as I progress along the road to OFBiz heaven I will  
> try to
> document my path. In the mean time it might be useful to thrash out  
> a style
> and structure to the whole documentation suite. Heck I know this  
> can be
> difficult in the open source environment.
>
> I would  favour a wiki approach to doing documents provided the  
> wiki is
> restricted to named members to stop spammers wrecking it. In the  
> wiki, users
> should use a colour, perhaps blue to indicate a question or need  
> for further
> detail in the flow of the document and the remainder of the  
> contents in
> black. I am quite willing to start up a tutorial document if you  
> are all
> willing to contribute to it with David acting as umpire.

Here is some structure stuff that is somewhat up-to-date for OFBiz  
(updated some of it as part of creating the recent training videos),  
and these are mostly technically oriented, but a general structure of  
sorts anyway:

http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBTECH/Comprehensive+OFBiz+Training 
+Outlines

-David

RE: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Andrew Ballantine <ac...@willowbrook.co.uk>]

Chris Howe wrote:

>There's a funny point in learning OFBiz.  You start
>out looking at it as this huge monstrosity that's just
>too much to figure out and you get frustrated with the
>lack of documentation available (even given the sites
>linked off of ofbiz.apache.org and the tens of
>thousands of mailing list posts available and the
>number of video tutorials available).  But you start
>playing with it a bit, and you pass an "aha" moment.
>You don't realize the moment that you pass it but when
>you look back and think "how can I make the learning
>curve easier for the next guy", you realize everything
>was there, and it's difficult to figure out what you
>can add to those websites that could make it any
>clearer.

A clear roadmap would be most useful so that the essential stuff gets read
first. And yes, there are already How to documents, architecture documents,
but there is too much to read plus every document starts with a brief resume
of OFBiz rather than getting down to the business at hand. Basically it
appears that every document has been written to stand alone and therefore
feels the need to fill in the back ground on OFBiz. I haven't yet read a
great deal of the available documentation, but there is a trend there.

Please don't take offence at these comments, they are only intended to help.
I also find that there is a lack of structure in the documents in that there
tends to be paragraph after paragraph of text which is neither reference nor
tutorial. And as I progress along the road to OFBiz heaven I will try to
document my path. In the mean time it might be useful to thrash out a style
and structure to the whole documentation suite. Heck I know this can be
difficult in the open source environment.

I would  favour a wiki approach to doing documents provided the wiki is
restricted to named members to stop spammers wrecking it. In the wiki, users
should use a colour, perhaps blue to indicate a question or need for further
detail in the flow of the document and the remainder of the contents in
black. I am quite willing to start up a tutorial document if you are all
willing to contribute to it with David acting as umpire.

Kind regards,

Andrew Ballantine.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.14/636 - Release Date: 18/01/2007
04:00



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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Chris Howe <cj...@yahoo.com>]

Jonathon,

What are you finding so confusing about minilang that
is not covered here http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/GAM ? 
This document has been improved upon recently, but the
bottom half has been accessible from the ofbiz.org
site for two years that I can attest.  Coming from
someone who had ZERO java experience starting with
OFBiz (me) I find the elements are rather self
explanatory.  It's also not as if there aren't plenty
of examples using each one. I have no idea how well
minilang would hold up to creating various kinds of
other programs, but for writing business logic, it's
pretty straight forward.  If you're not finding that
to be the case, please ask questions there are plenty
of people here more than willing to help clarify.

Also, documentation doesn't write itself.  If you find
something that didn't work as expected or a task was
difficult to accomplish but you eventually accomplish
it, do a short write about how you got from point A to
point B and drop it into the wiki on docs.ofbiz.org or
write it to the mailing list and ask if someone can
find an appropriate place for it.  

There's a funny point in learning OFBiz.  You start
out looking at it as this huge monstrosity that's just
too much to figure out and you get frustrated with the
lack of documentation available (even given the sites
linked off of ofbiz.apache.org and the tens of
thousands of mailing list posts available and the
number of video tutorials available).  But you start
playing with it a bit, and you pass an "aha" moment. 
You don't realize the moment that you pass it but when
you look back and think "how can I make the learning
curve easier for the next guy", you realize everything
was there, and it's difficult to figure out what you
can add to those websites that could make it any
clearer.  I digress, just ask questions.  If you're
unable to find your answer on a first pass through
nabble and on the ofbiz.apache.org ask the question to
the mailing list and someone may be able to find the
right document for you a bit faster or clarify a point
in a document that may be a bit unclear.


--- Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com> wrote:

> Er, Ian. I forgot to mention this.
> 
> The docs for engineers aren't too comprehensive
> either. Try putting your best Java developers into 
> picking up OFBiz. Take the screen widgets and form
> widgets for example. See how they fare. Like I 
> said, Java is more documented than OFBiz-specific
> technologies.
> 
> BUT.. but it's entirely possible to use Java only,
> plus non-OFBiz-specific technologies like 
> Freemarker for front-end development convenience,
> and to skip Minilang and screen/form widgets to 
> a large extent. Non-OFBiz-specific technologies are
> generally better documented since their 
> developers focus develoment time solely on those
> techs, like Freemarker (front-end tool) 
> developers don't delve into entity engines (backend
> tools).
> 
> As I was telling my boss, it's actually easier to
> hire Java programmers than to hire Minilang or 
> screen/form widget programmers.
> 
> So, beware of the implications. Say I code
> customizations for you in Minilang and screen/form 
> widgets, using almost or entirely zero Java. Future
> tech support could be an really hairy issue 
> for you.
> 
> BUT... at some point (I can't guarantee when),
> Minilang and screen/form widget docs will be 
> complete, audited to be comprehensive, etc. You'll
> then probably find that programming in Minilang 
> is more cost-effective than in Java. (Either that,
> or I get paid by someone to completely 
> reverse-engineer and document all of Minilang and
> screen/form widget in a reasonable timeframe --- 
> say a month. Not an impossible task, just a mountain
> of Java codes, is all).
> 
> For now, Java is perhaps your best bet.
> 
> To the other folks in overalls, I've been meaning to
> ask this. Is there any way at all to insert 
> debug messages inside of Minilang and screen/form
> widget codes? I find it easier to debug Java 
> codes for now.
> 
> Jonathon
> 
> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> > Ian,
> > 
> > Amen! Yeah, God is good. OFBiz is good. Both can
> be hard to understand. 
> > But I do believe that both are loving, very
> loving. Amen.
> > 
> > If there's any way we can all help each other
> (Paul, Ian, Jonathon), let 
> > me know.
> > 
> > Jonathon
> > 
> > Ian McNulty wrote:
> >> Hi Jonathon and Paul,
> >>
> >> Could I dive in here and say I'm currently trying
> to get a working 
> >> model up and running that I could demo to small
> business clients in 
> >> the UK.
> >>
> >> OFbiz looks so beautifully designed from the
> ground up, streets ahead 
> >> of the competition and adaptable to almost any
> situation from running 
> >> a one-man consultancy  to a multinational
> enterprise.
> >>
> >> It looks like the most awesome super-car you've
> ever seen. I can't 
> >> believe everybody won't want one.
> >>
> >> As Jonathon says, the community seems entirely
> focussed on moving 
> >> forward rapidly and winning the next Le Mans.
> Which is how it should be.
> >>
> >> Imo this explains the lack of docs and the small
> bugs. The mass of 
> >> available documentation is actually almost as
> awesome as the framework 
> >> itself. Problem is that it is all aimed at
> engineers who need to 
> >> understand how it works ... not how to work it.
> Enough workshop 
> >> manuals to fill shelves in the garage, but no
> simple driver handbooks 
> >> you can put in the glove compartment.
> >>
> >> This is a very fundamental difference. An
> entirely opposite point of 
> >> view.
> >>
> >> Try talking to the average driver about the
> thermodynamics of 
> >> combustion and they glaze over in seconds. They
> neither need nor want 
> >> to know. They simply want to drive it. They pay
> the garage to take 
> >> care of all that for them so they can free
> themselves up to deal with 
> >> other things - like where to drive to.
> >>
> >> It's the little, superficial things that are most
> important. How does 
> >> the door latch sound? Where is the gear shift and
> indicator switch? 
> >> How often does it break down?
> >>
> >> This is true for all levels of users. More so in
> fact for the 
> >> President of a large Corporation to whom image
> arriving at the golf 
> >> club is everything, than to the small businessman
> in the street who 
> >> accepts he may have to get his hands dirty
> occasionally.
> >>
> >> Winning the Le Mans is obviously a huge selling
> point and an essential 
> >> place to start. In those circumstance, a door
> latch which needs a 
> >> knack to open, the absence of a drivers handbook
> and the need for team 
> >> of mechanics to tune it before every race is
> absolutely par for the 
> >> course. And a racing driver who complains about
> such things will - 
> >> quite rightly - be quickly shown the door.
> >>
> >> But for the average driver in the street it's
> exactly the opposite. 
> >> One sticking door latch, one miss-start, one
> breakdown on the first 
> >> test drive and they've had their one bite of the
> cherry and ain't 
> >> never coming back for more.
> >>
> >> Imo this is the only problem I'd like to see
> solved.
> >>
> >> I started out a few weeks ago trying to point out
> that this list is 
> >> more for users in overalls at the pit stop than
> drivers in business 
> >> suits on their way to the office.
> >>
> >> Imo a forum for user-drivers rather than
> user-engineers would help 
> >> focus the view from the other end of the
> telescope and prevent 
> >> discussion of such superficial issues from
> clogging the inboxes of the 
> >> rocket scientists who really need to be
> concentrating on getting us to 
> >> Mars.
> >>
> >> I personally would like to contribute towards the
> development of some 
> >> kind of drivers handbook. But if I can't get a
> working model going for 
> >> myself then it's hard to know where to start.
> >>
> >> Ian
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >>> Hi Paul,
> >>>
> >>> I believe I'm currently doing it for a small
> business as well.
> >>>
> >>> You'll need to customize. Customization in this
> case involves 
> >>> defaulting many values and code execution paths
> for a more condensed 
> >>> workflow. That is, you can cut out some
> unnecessary steps in the 
> >>> workflow and also auto-populate default values
> for some fields (or 
> >>> leave them blank and unused).
> >>>
> >>> I propose that we work together on this? I have
> yet to hit the 
> >>> accounting and GL side of things. I have figured
> out the ecommerce 
> 
=== message truncated ===

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>]

Er, Ian. I forgot to mention this.

The docs for engineers aren't too comprehensive either. Try putting your best Java developers into 
picking up OFBiz. Take the screen widgets and form widgets for example. See how they fare. Like I 
said, Java is more documented than OFBiz-specific technologies.

BUT.. but it's entirely possible to use Java only, plus non-OFBiz-specific technologies like 
Freemarker for front-end development convenience, and to skip Minilang and screen/form widgets to 
a large extent. Non-OFBiz-specific technologies are generally better documented since their 
developers focus develoment time solely on those techs, like Freemarker (front-end tool) 
developers don't delve into entity engines (backend tools).

As I was telling my boss, it's actually easier to hire Java programmers than to hire Minilang or 
screen/form widget programmers.

So, beware of the implications. Say I code customizations for you in Minilang and screen/form 
widgets, using almost or entirely zero Java. Future tech support could be an really hairy issue 
for you.

BUT... at some point (I can't guarantee when), Minilang and screen/form widget docs will be 
complete, audited to be comprehensive, etc. You'll then probably find that programming in Minilang 
is more cost-effective than in Java. (Either that, or I get paid by someone to completely 
reverse-engineer and document all of Minilang and screen/form widget in a reasonable timeframe --- 
say a month. Not an impossible task, just a mountain of Java codes, is all).

For now, Java is perhaps your best bet.

To the other folks in overalls, I've been meaning to ask this. Is there any way at all to insert 
debug messages inside of Minilang and screen/form widget codes? I find it easier to debug Java 
codes for now.

Jonathon

Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> Ian,
> 
> Amen! Yeah, God is good. OFBiz is good. Both can be hard to understand. 
> But I do believe that both are loving, very loving. Amen.
> 
> If there's any way we can all help each other (Paul, Ian, Jonathon), let 
> me know.
> 
> Jonathon
> 
> Ian McNulty wrote:
>> Hi Jonathon and Paul,
>>
>> Could I dive in here and say I'm currently trying to get a working 
>> model up and running that I could demo to small business clients in 
>> the UK.
>>
>> OFbiz looks so beautifully designed from the ground up, streets ahead 
>> of the competition and adaptable to almost any situation from running 
>> a one-man consultancy  to a multinational enterprise.
>>
>> It looks like the most awesome super-car you've ever seen. I can't 
>> believe everybody won't want one.
>>
>> As Jonathon says, the community seems entirely focussed on moving 
>> forward rapidly and winning the next Le Mans. Which is how it should be.
>>
>> Imo this explains the lack of docs and the small bugs. The mass of 
>> available documentation is actually almost as awesome as the framework 
>> itself. Problem is that it is all aimed at engineers who need to 
>> understand how it works ... not how to work it. Enough workshop 
>> manuals to fill shelves in the garage, but no simple driver handbooks 
>> you can put in the glove compartment.
>>
>> This is a very fundamental difference. An entirely opposite point of 
>> view.
>>
>> Try talking to the average driver about the thermodynamics of 
>> combustion and they glaze over in seconds. They neither need nor want 
>> to know. They simply want to drive it. They pay the garage to take 
>> care of all that for them so they can free themselves up to deal with 
>> other things - like where to drive to.
>>
>> It's the little, superficial things that are most important. How does 
>> the door latch sound? Where is the gear shift and indicator switch? 
>> How often does it break down?
>>
>> This is true for all levels of users. More so in fact for the 
>> President of a large Corporation to whom image arriving at the golf 
>> club is everything, than to the small businessman in the street who 
>> accepts he may have to get his hands dirty occasionally.
>>
>> Winning the Le Mans is obviously a huge selling point and an essential 
>> place to start. In those circumstance, a door latch which needs a 
>> knack to open, the absence of a drivers handbook and the need for team 
>> of mechanics to tune it before every race is absolutely par for the 
>> course. And a racing driver who complains about such things will - 
>> quite rightly - be quickly shown the door.
>>
>> But for the average driver in the street it's exactly the opposite. 
>> One sticking door latch, one miss-start, one breakdown on the first 
>> test drive and they've had their one bite of the cherry and ain't 
>> never coming back for more.
>>
>> Imo this is the only problem I'd like to see solved.
>>
>> I started out a few weeks ago trying to point out that this list is 
>> more for users in overalls at the pit stop than drivers in business 
>> suits on their way to the office.
>>
>> Imo a forum for user-drivers rather than user-engineers would help 
>> focus the view from the other end of the telescope and prevent 
>> discussion of such superficial issues from clogging the inboxes of the 
>> rocket scientists who really need to be concentrating on getting us to 
>> Mars.
>>
>> I personally would like to contribute towards the development of some 
>> kind of drivers handbook. But if I can't get a working model going for 
>> myself then it's hard to know where to start.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>> Hi Paul,
>>>
>>> I believe I'm currently doing it for a small business as well.
>>>
>>> You'll need to customize. Customization in this case involves 
>>> defaulting many values and code execution paths for a more condensed 
>>> workflow. That is, you can cut out some unnecessary steps in the 
>>> workflow and also auto-populate default values for some fields (or 
>>> leave them blank and unused).
>>>
>>> I propose that we work together on this? I have yet to hit the 
>>> accounting and GL side of things. I have figured out the ecommerce 
>>> (PO, SO) and product configuration side of things, though. And also 
>>> manufacturing, because my boss does manufacture stuff.
>>>
>>> You'll find that being a novice Java developer is ALL you need to be, 
>>> the framework is that easy to use. Well, you also need acute 
>>> reverse-engineering skills because the only way you'll find out how 
>>> things work is by diving into the framework source codes (see 
>>> GenericDelegator.java for entity-related functions). No docs. 
>>> Community is too being moving OFBiz forward rapidly.
>>>
>>> In fact, you may find it easily initially to use Java instead of 
>>> Minilang. Java is a lot more documented than Minilang.
>>>
>>> Tell you what. I can offer you very quick answers to "how do I do 
>>> this or that". I'm a reverse-engineer by trade; I have small crack 
>>> teams that mathematically take apart legacy system codes to break 
>>> vendor-lock for my clients. So, figuring out OFBiz, given that it's 
>>> opensource no less, is really... an interesting exercise, not a 
>>> tedious impractical one.
>>>
>>> You can help me with your accounting knowledge. (Yes, help me!! I beg 
>>> you!)
>>>
>>> How about that?
>>>
>>> One warning, though. There are quite a few bugs in OFBiz. They're 
>>> small issues if you can dive in to fix them yourself. But if you're 
>>> waiting for the community to fix them, you could be looking at weeks 
>>> before a patch goes in, especially for non-trivial fixes that take 
>>> time to review/audit. I'm currently holding quite a number of fixes 
>>> in-house, not yet reviewed by community and merged back into OFBiz.
>>>
>>> I'm deploying a customized system for my boss inside of 1 month. And 
>>> he has quite a bit of customizations to do, particularly for the 
>>> manufacturing side of things. Oh, the Manufacturing module is very 
>>> feature-rich (thanks Jacopo!), just that my boss has special needs. 
>>> I'd say we could work together and customize OFBiz for you inside of 
>>> 2 weeks?
>>>
>>> Jonathon
>>>
>>> Paul Gear wrote:
>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>
>>>> I'm looking at different accounting/business management packages for 
>>>> use
>>>> in my small business, and i was excited when i found how comprehensive
>>>> and easy to install opentaps was.
>>>>
>>>> However, it is a daunting application for the beginner, and it leads me
>>>> to ask: is it asking for trouble trying to use it as a small business
>>>> accounting package?  My requirements are fairly simple: invoicing
>>>> (services only, no inventory), general ledger, and GST tracking for the
>>>> Australian tax system.
>>>>
>>>> I'm a novice Java developer, so i can get through most basic problems
>>>> OK, but understanding the framework is a bit more complex an
>>>> undertaking.  Am i just creating work for myself thinking that i can 
>>>> use
>>>> OFBiz/opentaps for my small business?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>> Paul
>>>> <http://paulgear.webhop.net>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Did you know?  Using HTML email rather than plain text is less
>>>> efficient, taking anywhere from 2 to 20 times longer to download, and a
>>>> corresponding amount more space on disk.  Learn more about using email
>>>> efficiently at <http://www.expita.com/nomime.html>.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>]

Andrew, Chris, Ian,

I would definitely choose Minilang over Java, if I didn't have a pressing "do it this minute" 
schedule. It is definitely the right step forward.

I tried Minilang for a while, then realized there ARE some constructs I can't quite do like I 
would with Java. Same for screen/form widgets. I posted a short question asking if there's any 
docs for screen/form widgets. No response thus far. But I've since learned what env-name, 
map-name, etc mean. Not by docs I can find, but through the widget framework Java sources. Simple 
concepts like "how do I extract a field value and put it to a variable for later use", or even 
"how do I create a variable for computation" required some digging into widget framework Java sources.

So, what did I do? I got the job done. Java works. Minilang can wait. :P Screen/form widgets can 
wait (I used a Java service attached by an ECA).

Did I do a messy buggy Java routine? I'd ask you the same question. With some basic programming 
principles, it's not difficult to write reusable extensible code (see the mutable checks sequence 
I wrote for http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-627).

Sure, I'll eventually find it easier to do things in Minilang. Many Minilang constructs are direct 
clones of Java functions anyway, so converting from one to the other and back won't be so tough. 
But it's the variables, scope, "where did that variable's value got stomped" problems that put the 
brick wall up for me.

So, as things stand now, I (being a Java programmer of sorts), found it easier in Java. A simple 
Java programmer like me knows certain "tricks of trade" to figure out the structure of Minilang or 
widget XMLs. But what about non-programmers?

 > 6/ So much functionality is already implemented in minilang that you ignore
 > it at your peril.

Anyway, I am able to tap all of Minilang's features using Java alone, so I do get best of both 
worlds. :)

Actually, to be fair, Minilang isn't so bad in terms of docs (by now? recently?). See 
http://ofbiz.apache.org/docs/minilang.html . I was really struggling with widget XMLs.

Right now, my project is moving ahead. And that's what counts. Sigh. Couldn't there be a time when 
we abolish work, and everybody does things simply for exploration and science?

Chris,

 > Also, documentation doesn't write itself.  If you find
 > something that didn't work as expected or a task was
 > difficult to accomplish but you eventually accomplish
 > it, do a short write about how you got from point A to
 > point B and drop it into the wiki on docs.ofbiz.org or
 > write it to the mailing list and ask if someone can
 > find an appropriate place for it.

I'd be fired! I did try to get quickstart advice from mailing list, remember? But now that I've 
posted questions, waited for response, dug in myself, and found answered my posts myself, I can't 
find much time left to write up those docs. I don't even have enough time to submit my 
enhancements and bugfixes!

Yes, bad bad programmer, not very opensource-spirited. But like I said, I can be a very 
opensource-spirited non-programmer (after being fired), or I can just "do my job" and hope I can 
swing back some time to contribute.

And I'll definitely want to do something for OFBiz. As I told someone here before, I'm thoroughly 
enjoying OFBiz (like the manufacturing and product Virtual BOMs stuff done by Jacopo?).

 > There's a funny point in learning OFBiz.  You start
 > out looking at it as this huge monstrosity that's just
 > too much to figure out and you get frustrated with the
 > lack of documentation available (even given the sites
 > linked off of ofbiz.apache.org and the tens of
 > thousands of mailing list posts available and the
 > number of video tutorials available).  But you start
 > playing with it a bit, and you pass an "aha" moment.
 > You don't realize the moment that you pass it but when
 > you look back and think "how can I make the learning
 > curve easier for the next guy", you realize everything
 > was there, and it's difficult to figure out what you
 > can add to those websites that could make it any
 > clearer.

Hindsight is always easier. I know what you mean, Chris.

It's like we stare at some seemingly random numbers scrolling through screen, we think it's noise. 
But after we spot the patterns, we wonder how we didn't see it before!

I can't learn "The Matrix green downward-scrolling font" inside of 1 week. I need to get into the 
Matrix and do some work RIGHT AWAY (like run the nice noodle restaurant at the corner). So, 
instead of reading those green fonts, I pulled out the Matrix engine and started plugging away at 
the interfaces. (Aha! So touching this and that interface gives me very good soup noodles!).

Jonathon

Andrew Sykes wrote:
> Ian, Jonathon,
> 
> I definitely don't agree with treating Java is your language of choice
> as a way to avoid learning Minilang, here's some reasons why...
> 
> 1/ Minilang is far quicker to write.
> 2/ Minilang is much more limited in scope, so less danger of...
> 	2a. Writing unidiomatic code
> 	2b. Writing buggy code
> 3/ Being a simpler language, minilang can be handled by far more junior
> personnel, and in some cases, I've seen non development staff being
> fairly productive.
> 4/ Java developers are easier to hire, but not ones with a good
> understanding of the OfBiz API.
> 5/ Learning minilang is a fast-track route to adopting the OfBiz
> developer's mindset.
> 6/ So much functionality is already implemented in minilang that you
> ignore it at your peril.
> 7/ When you finally have to adopt Minilang you'll have a load of
> unmaintainable java legacy. This will no doubt seem more and more
> cryptic as time goes on.
> 
> I could probably go on...
> 
> This type of approach breaks the golden rule when adopting something as
> large as OfBiz, that is, read read read!, learn learn learn!, and only
> then should you think of letting yourself loose on the code! You'll
> thank yourself later!
> 
> No doubt various people will counter this with a whole lot of personal
> dislikes about minilang, but I'll be surprised if any of these people
> have been using OfBiz in anger for any length of time.
> 
> Sorry if this seems a little condescending, but I've seen this kind of
> argument in my consultancy work several times, and the resulting costly
> dodgy java or furious back-peddling that results from it.
> 
> - Andrew
> 
> 
> On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 19:38 +0800, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>> Er, Ian. I forgot to mention this.
>>
>> The docs for engineers aren't too comprehensive either. Try putting your best Java developers into 
>> picking up OFBiz. Take the screen widgets and form widgets for example. See how they fare. Like I 
>> said, Java is more documented than OFBiz-specific technologies.
>>
>> BUT.. but it's entirely possible to use Java only, plus non-OFBiz-specific technologies like 
>> Freemarker for front-end development convenience, and to skip Minilang and screen/form widgets to 
>> a large extent. Non-OFBiz-specific technologies are generally better documented since their 
>> developers focus develoment time solely on those techs, like Freemarker (front-end tool) 
>> developers don't delve into entity engines (backend tools).
>>
>> As I was telling my boss, it's actually easier to hire Java programmers than to hire Minilang or 
>> screen/form widget programmers.
>>
>> So, beware of the implications. Say I code customizations for you in Minilang and screen/form 
>> widgets, using almost or entirely zero Java. Future tech support could be an really hairy issue 
>> for you.
>>
>> BUT... at some point (I can't guarantee when), Minilang and screen/form widget docs will be 
>> complete, audited to be comprehensive, etc. You'll then probably find that programming in Minilang 
>> is more cost-effective than in Java. (Either that, or I get paid by someone to completely 
>> reverse-engineer and document all of Minilang and screen/form widget in a reasonable timeframe --- 
>> say a month. Not an impossible task, just a mountain of Java codes, is all).
>>
>> For now, Java is perhaps your best bet.
>>
>> To the other folks in overalls, I've been meaning to ask this. Is there any way at all to insert 
>> debug messages inside of Minilang and screen/form widget codes? I find it easier to debug Java 
>> codes for now.
>>
>> Jonathon
>>
>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>> Ian,
>>>
>>> Amen! Yeah, God is good. OFBiz is good. Both can be hard to understand. 
>>> But I do believe that both are loving, very loving. Amen.
>>>
>>> If there's any way we can all help each other (Paul, Ian, Jonathon), let 
>>> me know.
>>>
>>> Jonathon
>>>
>>> Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>> Hi Jonathon and Paul,
>>>>
>>>> Could I dive in here and say I'm currently trying to get a working 
>>>> model up and running that I could demo to small business clients in 
>>>> the UK.
>>>>
>>>> OFbiz looks so beautifully designed from the ground up, streets ahead 
>>>> of the competition and adaptable to almost any situation from running 
>>>> a one-man consultancy  to a multinational enterprise.
>>>>
>>>> It looks like the most awesome super-car you've ever seen. I can't 
>>>> believe everybody won't want one.
>>>>
>>>> As Jonathon says, the community seems entirely focussed on moving 
>>>> forward rapidly and winning the next Le Mans. Which is how it should be.
>>>>
>>>> Imo this explains the lack of docs and the small bugs. The mass of 
>>>> available documentation is actually almost as awesome as the framework 
>>>> itself. Problem is that it is all aimed at engineers who need to 
>>>> understand how it works ... not how to work it. Enough workshop 
>>>> manuals to fill shelves in the garage, but no simple driver handbooks 
>>>> you can put in the glove compartment.
>>>>
>>>> This is a very fundamental difference. An entirely opposite point of 
>>>> view.
>>>>
>>>> Try talking to the average driver about the thermodynamics of 
>>>> combustion and they glaze over in seconds. They neither need nor want 
>>>> to know. They simply want to drive it. They pay the garage to take 
>>>> care of all that for them so they can free themselves up to deal with 
>>>> other things - like where to drive to.
>>>>
>>>> It's the little, superficial things that are most important. How does 
>>>> the door latch sound? Where is the gear shift and indicator switch? 
>>>> How often does it break down?
>>>>
>>>> This is true for all levels of users. More so in fact for the 
>>>> President of a large Corporation to whom image arriving at the golf 
>>>> club is everything, than to the small businessman in the street who 
>>>> accepts he may have to get his hands dirty occasionally.
>>>>
>>>> Winning the Le Mans is obviously a huge selling point and an essential 
>>>> place to start. In those circumstance, a door latch which needs a 
>>>> knack to open, the absence of a drivers handbook and the need for team 
>>>> of mechanics to tune it before every race is absolutely par for the 
>>>> course. And a racing driver who complains about such things will - 
>>>> quite rightly - be quickly shown the door.
>>>>
>>>> But for the average driver in the street it's exactly the opposite. 
>>>> One sticking door latch, one miss-start, one breakdown on the first 
>>>> test drive and they've had their one bite of the cherry and ain't 
>>>> never coming back for more.
>>>>
>>>> Imo this is the only problem I'd like to see solved.
>>>>
>>>> I started out a few weeks ago trying to point out that this list is 
>>>> more for users in overalls at the pit stop than drivers in business 
>>>> suits on their way to the office.
>>>>
>>>> Imo a forum for user-drivers rather than user-engineers would help 
>>>> focus the view from the other end of the telescope and prevent 
>>>> discussion of such superficial issues from clogging the inboxes of the 
>>>> rocket scientists who really need to be concentrating on getting us to 
>>>> Mars.
>>>>
>>>> I personally would like to contribute towards the development of some 
>>>> kind of drivers handbook. But if I can't get a working model going for 
>>>> myself then it's hard to know where to start.
>>>>
>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe I'm currently doing it for a small business as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> You'll need to customize. Customization in this case involves 
>>>>> defaulting many values and code execution paths for a more condensed 
>>>>> workflow. That is, you can cut out some unnecessary steps in the 
>>>>> workflow and also auto-populate default values for some fields (or 
>>>>> leave them blank and unused).
>>>>>
>>>>> I propose that we work together on this? I have yet to hit the 
>>>>> accounting and GL side of things. I have figured out the ecommerce 
>>>>> (PO, SO) and product configuration side of things, though. And also 
>>>>> manufacturing, because my boss does manufacture stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>> You'll find that being a novice Java developer is ALL you need to be, 
>>>>> the framework is that easy to use. Well, you also need acute 
>>>>> reverse-engineering skills because the only way you'll find out how 
>>>>> things work is by diving into the framework source codes (see 
>>>>> GenericDelegator.java for entity-related functions). No docs. 
>>>>> Community is too being moving OFBiz forward rapidly.
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact, you may find it easily initially to use Java instead of 
>>>>> Minilang. Java is a lot more documented than Minilang.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell you what. I can offer you very quick answers to "how do I do 
>>>>> this or that". I'm a reverse-engineer by trade; I have small crack 
>>>>> teams that mathematically take apart legacy system codes to break 
>>>>> vendor-lock for my clients. So, figuring out OFBiz, given that it's 
>>>>> opensource no less, is really... an interesting exercise, not a 
>>>>> tedious impractical one.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can help me with your accounting knowledge. (Yes, help me!! I beg 
>>>>> you!)
>>>>>
>>>>> How about that?
>>>>>
>>>>> One warning, though. There are quite a few bugs in OFBiz. They're 
>>>>> small issues if you can dive in to fix them yourself. But if you're 
>>>>> waiting for the community to fix them, you could be looking at weeks 
>>>>> before a patch goes in, especially for non-trivial fixes that take 
>>>>> time to review/audit. I'm currently holding quite a number of fixes 
>>>>> in-house, not yet reviewed by community and merged back into OFBiz.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm deploying a customized system for my boss inside of 1 month. And 
>>>>> he has quite a bit of customizations to do, particularly for the 
>>>>> manufacturing side of things. Oh, the Manufacturing module is very 
>>>>> feature-rich (thanks Jacopo!), just that my boss has special needs. 
>>>>> I'd say we could work together and customize OFBiz for you inside of 
>>>>> 2 weeks?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jonathon
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul Gear wrote:
>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm looking at different accounting/business management packages for 
>>>>>> use
>>>>>> in my small business, and i was excited when i found how comprehensive
>>>>>> and easy to install opentaps was.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, it is a daunting application for the beginner, and it leads me
>>>>>> to ask: is it asking for trouble trying to use it as a small business
>>>>>> accounting package?  My requirements are fairly simple: invoicing
>>>>>> (services only, no inventory), general ledger, and GST tracking for the
>>>>>> Australian tax system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm a novice Java developer, so i can get through most basic problems
>>>>>> OK, but understanding the framework is a bit more complex an
>>>>>> undertaking.  Am i just creating work for myself thinking that i can 
>>>>>> use
>>>>>> OFBiz/opentaps for my small business?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>> <http://paulgear.webhop.net>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Did you know?  Using HTML email rather than plain text is less
>>>>>> efficient, taking anywhere from 2 to 20 times longer to download, and a
>>>>>> corresponding amount more space on disk.  Learn more about using email
>>>>>> efficiently at <http://www.expita.com/nomime.html>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>]

Can't say best :o) Experience is speaking !

Jacques

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrew Sykes" <an...@sykesdevelopment.com>
To: <us...@ofbiz.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?


> Ian, Jonathon,
> 
> I definitely don't agree with treating Java is your language of choice
> as a way to avoid learning Minilang, here's some reasons why...
> 
> 1/ Minilang is far quicker to write.
> 2/ Minilang is much more limited in scope, so less danger of...
> 2a. Writing unidiomatic code
> 2b. Writing buggy code
> 3/ Being a simpler language, minilang can be handled by far more junior
> personnel, and in some cases, I've seen non development staff being
> fairly productive.
> 4/ Java developers are easier to hire, but not ones with a good
> understanding of the OfBiz API.
> 5/ Learning minilang is a fast-track route to adopting the OfBiz
> developer's mindset.
> 6/ So much functionality is already implemented in minilang that you
> ignore it at your peril.
> 7/ When you finally have to adopt Minilang you'll have a load of
> unmaintainable java legacy. This will no doubt seem more and more
> cryptic as time goes on.
> 
> I could probably go on...
> 
> This type of approach breaks the golden rule when adopting something as
> large as OfBiz, that is, read read read!, learn learn learn!, and only
> then should you think of letting yourself loose on the code! You'll
> thank yourself later!
> 
> No doubt various people will counter this with a whole lot of personal
> dislikes about minilang, but I'll be surprised if any of these people
> have been using OfBiz in anger for any length of time.
> 
> Sorry if this seems a little condescending, but I've seen this kind of
> argument in my consultancy work several times, and the resulting costly
> dodgy java or furious back-peddling that results from it.
> 
> - Andrew
> 
> 
> On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 19:38 +0800, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> > Er, Ian. I forgot to mention this.
> > 
> > The docs for engineers aren't too comprehensive either. Try putting your best Java developers into 
> > picking up OFBiz. Take the screen widgets and form widgets for example. See how they fare. Like I 
> > said, Java is more documented than OFBiz-specific technologies.
> > 
> > BUT.. but it's entirely possible to use Java only, plus non-OFBiz-specific technologies like 
> > Freemarker for front-end development convenience, and to skip Minilang and screen/form widgets to 
> > a large extent. Non-OFBiz-specific technologies are generally better documented since their 
> > developers focus develoment time solely on those techs, like Freemarker (front-end tool) 
> > developers don't delve into entity engines (backend tools).
> > 
> > As I was telling my boss, it's actually easier to hire Java programmers than to hire Minilang or 
> > screen/form widget programmers.
> > 
> > So, beware of the implications. Say I code customizations for you in Minilang and screen/form 
> > widgets, using almost or entirely zero Java. Future tech support could be an really hairy issue 
> > for you.
> > 
> > BUT... at some point (I can't guarantee when), Minilang and screen/form widget docs will be 
> > complete, audited to be comprehensive, etc. You'll then probably find that programming in Minilang 
> > is more cost-effective than in Java. (Either that, or I get paid by someone to completely 
> > reverse-engineer and document all of Minilang and screen/form widget in a reasonable timeframe --- 
> > say a month. Not an impossible task, just a mountain of Java codes, is all).
> > 
> > For now, Java is perhaps your best bet.
> > 
> > To the other folks in overalls, I've been meaning to ask this. Is there any way at all to insert 
> > debug messages inside of Minilang and screen/form widget codes? I find it easier to debug Java 
> > codes for now.
> > 
> > Jonathon
> > 
> > Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> > > Ian,
> > > 
> > > Amen! Yeah, God is good. OFBiz is good. Both can be hard to understand. 
> > > But I do believe that both are loving, very loving. Amen.
> > > 
> > > If there's any way we can all help each other (Paul, Ian, Jonathon), let 
> > > me know.
> > > 
> > > Jonathon
> > > 
> > > Ian McNulty wrote:
> > >> Hi Jonathon and Paul,
> > >>
> > >> Could I dive in here and say I'm currently trying to get a working 
> > >> model up and running that I could demo to small business clients in 
> > >> the UK.
> > >>
> > >> OFbiz looks so beautifully designed from the ground up, streets ahead 
> > >> of the competition and adaptable to almost any situation from running 
> > >> a one-man consultancy  to a multinational enterprise.
> > >>
> > >> It looks like the most awesome super-car you've ever seen. I can't 
> > >> believe everybody won't want one.
> > >>
> > >> As Jonathon says, the community seems entirely focussed on moving 
> > >> forward rapidly and winning the next Le Mans. Which is how it should be.
> > >>
> > >> Imo this explains the lack of docs and the small bugs. The mass of 
> > >> available documentation is actually almost as awesome as the framework 
> > >> itself. Problem is that it is all aimed at engineers who need to 
> > >> understand how it works ... not how to work it. Enough workshop 
> > >> manuals to fill shelves in the garage, but no simple driver handbooks 
> > >> you can put in the glove compartment.
> > >>
> > >> This is a very fundamental difference. An entirely opposite point of 
> > >> view.
> > >>
> > >> Try talking to the average driver about the thermodynamics of 
> > >> combustion and they glaze over in seconds. They neither need nor want 
> > >> to know. They simply want to drive it. They pay the garage to take 
> > >> care of all that for them so they can free themselves up to deal with 
> > >> other things - like where to drive to.
> > >>
> > >> It's the little, superficial things that are most important. How does 
> > >> the door latch sound? Where is the gear shift and indicator switch? 
> > >> How often does it break down?
> > >>
> > >> This is true for all levels of users. More so in fact for the 
> > >> President of a large Corporation to whom image arriving at the golf 
> > >> club is everything, than to the small businessman in the street who 
> > >> accepts he may have to get his hands dirty occasionally.
> > >>
> > >> Winning the Le Mans is obviously a huge selling point and an essential 
> > >> place to start. In those circumstance, a door latch which needs a 
> > >> knack to open, the absence of a drivers handbook and the need for team 
> > >> of mechanics to tune it before every race is absolutely par for the 
> > >> course. And a racing driver who complains about such things will - 
> > >> quite rightly - be quickly shown the door.
> > >>
> > >> But for the average driver in the street it's exactly the opposite. 
> > >> One sticking door latch, one miss-start, one breakdown on the first 
> > >> test drive and they've had their one bite of the cherry and ain't 
> > >> never coming back for more.
> > >>
> > >> Imo this is the only problem I'd like to see solved.
> > >>
> > >> I started out a few weeks ago trying to point out that this list is 
> > >> more for users in overalls at the pit stop than drivers in business 
> > >> suits on their way to the office.
> > >>
> > >> Imo a forum for user-drivers rather than user-engineers would help 
> > >> focus the view from the other end of the telescope and prevent 
> > >> discussion of such superficial issues from clogging the inboxes of the 
> > >> rocket scientists who really need to be concentrating on getting us to 
> > >> Mars.
> > >>
> > >> I personally would like to contribute towards the development of some 
> > >> kind of drivers handbook. But if I can't get a working model going for 
> > >> myself then it's hard to know where to start.
> > >>
> > >> Ian
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> > >>> Hi Paul,
> > >>>
> > >>> I believe I'm currently doing it for a small business as well.
> > >>>
> > >>> You'll need to customize. Customization in this case involves 
> > >>> defaulting many values and code execution paths for a more condensed 
> > >>> workflow. That is, you can cut out some unnecessary steps in the 
> > >>> workflow and also auto-populate default values for some fields (or 
> > >>> leave them blank and unused).
> > >>>
> > >>> I propose that we work together on this? I have yet to hit the 
> > >>> accounting and GL side of things. I have figured out the ecommerce 
> > >>> (PO, SO) and product configuration side of things, though. And also 
> > >>> manufacturing, because my boss does manufacture stuff.
> > >>>
> > >>> You'll find that being a novice Java developer is ALL you need to be, 
> > >>> the framework is that easy to use. Well, you also need acute 
> > >>> reverse-engineering skills because the only way you'll find out how 
> > >>> things work is by diving into the framework source codes (see 
> > >>> GenericDelegator.java for entity-related functions). No docs. 
> > >>> Community is too being moving OFBiz forward rapidly.
> > >>>
> > >>> In fact, you may find it easily initially to use Java instead of 
> > >>> Minilang. Java is a lot more documented than Minilang.
> > >>>
> > >>> Tell you what. I can offer you very quick answers to "how do I do 
> > >>> this or that". I'm a reverse-engineer by trade; I have small crack 
> > >>> teams that mathematically take apart legacy system codes to break 
> > >>> vendor-lock for my clients. So, figuring out OFBiz, given that it's 
> > >>> opensource no less, is really... an interesting exercise, not a 
> > >>> tedious impractical one.
> > >>>
> > >>> You can help me with your accounting knowledge. (Yes, help me!! I beg 
> > >>> you!)
> > >>>
> > >>> How about that?
> > >>>
> > >>> One warning, though. There are quite a few bugs in OFBiz. They're 
> > >>> small issues if you can dive in to fix them yourself. But if you're 
> > >>> waiting for the community to fix them, you could be looking at weeks 
> > >>> before a patch goes in, especially for non-trivial fixes that take 
> > >>> time to review/audit. I'm currently holding quite a number of fixes 
> > >>> in-house, not yet reviewed by community and merged back into OFBiz.
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm deploying a customized system for my boss inside of 1 month. And 
> > >>> he has quite a bit of customizations to do, particularly for the 
> > >>> manufacturing side of things. Oh, the Manufacturing module is very 
> > >>> feature-rich (thanks Jacopo!), just that my boss has special needs. 
> > >>> I'd say we could work together and customize OFBiz for you inside of 
> > >>> 2 weeks?
> > >>>
> > >>> Jonathon
> > >>>
> > >>> Paul Gear wrote:
> > >>>> Hi folks,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'm looking at different accounting/business management packages for 
> > >>>> use
> > >>>> in my small business, and i was excited when i found how comprehensive
> > >>>> and easy to install opentaps was.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> However, it is a daunting application for the beginner, and it leads me
> > >>>> to ask: is it asking for trouble trying to use it as a small business
> > >>>> accounting package?  My requirements are fairly simple: invoicing
> > >>>> (services only, no inventory), general ledger, and GST tracking for the
> > >>>> Australian tax system.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'm a novice Java developer, so i can get through most basic problems
> > >>>> OK, but understanding the framework is a bit more complex an
> > >>>> undertaking.  Am i just creating work for myself thinking that i can 
> > >>>> use
> > >>>> OFBiz/opentaps for my small business?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks in advance,
> > >>>> Paul
> > >>>> <http://paulgear.webhop.net>
> > >>>> -- 
> > >>>> Did you know?  Using HTML email rather than plain text is less
> > >>>> efficient, taking anywhere from 2 to 20 times longer to download, and a
> > >>>> corresponding amount more space on disk.  Learn more about using email
> > >>>> efficiently at <http://www.expita.com/nomime.html>.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> -- 
> Kind Regards
> Andrew Sykes <an...@sykesdevelopment.com>
> Sykes Development Ltd
> http://www.sykesdevelopment.com

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>]

Andrew,

Yeah, we all tried. Maybe I have my head so buried in Java I can't see the simple methods in Minilang.

For now, given a hot-soup mix of problems from screen/form widgets and problems with some 
constructs in Minilang, I'm forced to drive things forward this way: Use Java services but 
leverage every convenience method in Minilang.

Once I'm done with this current project (or when I'm fired), I can come back here to "explore and 
contribute". Oh well. Back to work. :( ... :) ... :/

I still say that OFBiz rules! And I intend to prove my instincts right, after I'm done with project.

With regards Ian's comments, I personally like winning the Le Mans (less docs, more progress, but 
then why do bugfix rates seem to slow down recently?). I'm a wannabe race car driver who takes 
apart race cars, so I don't quite care for driver's manual in glove compartment. But then, I'm 
also NOT known for having a forte in amassing world-wide adoption for OFBiz, nor can I be held 
responsible for OFBiz's future popularity. :P

Jonathon

Andrew Sykes wrote:
> Jonathon,
> 
> Ok, well, I tried ;-)
> 
> - Andrew
> 
> On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 21:51 +0800, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>> Andrew, Chris, Ian,
>>
>> I would definitely choose Minilang over Java, if I didn't have a pressing "do it this minute" 
>> schedule. It is definitely the right step forward.
>>
>> I tried Minilang for a while, then realized there ARE some constructs I can't quite do like I 
>> would with Java. Same for screen/form widgets. I posted a short question asking if there's any 
>> docs for screen/form widgets. No response thus far. But I've since learned what env-name, 
>> map-name, etc mean. Not by docs I can find, but through the widget framework Java sources. Simple 
>> concepts like "how do I extract a field value and put it to a variable for later use", or even 
>> "how do I create a variable for computation" required some digging into widget framework Java sources.
>>
>> So, what did I do? I got the job done. Java works. Minilang can wait. :P Screen/form widgets can 
>> wait (I used a Java service attached by an ECA).
>>
>> Did I do a messy buggy Java routine? I'd ask you the same question. With some basic programming 
>> principles, it's not difficult to write reusable extensible code (see the mutable checks sequence 
>> I wrote for http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-627).
>>
>> Sure, I'll eventually find it easier to do things in Minilang. Many Minilang constructs are direct 
>> clones of Java functions anyway, so converting from one to the other and back won't be so tough. 
>> But it's the variables, scope, "where did that variable's value got stomped" problems that put the 
>> brick wall up for me.
>>
>> So, as things stand now, I (being a Java programmer of sorts), found it easier in Java. A simple 
>> Java programmer like me knows certain "tricks of trade" to figure out the structure of Minilang or 
>> widget XMLs. But what about non-programmers?
>>
>>  > 6/ So much functionality is already implemented in minilang that you ignore
>>  > it at your peril.
>>
>> Anyway, I am able to tap all of Minilang's features using Java alone, so I do get best of both 
>> worlds. :)
>>
>> Actually, to be fair, Minilang isn't so bad in terms of docs (by now? recently?). See 
>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/docs/minilang.html . I was really struggling with widget XMLs.
>>
>> Right now, my project is moving ahead. And that's what counts. Sigh. Couldn't there be a time when 
>> we abolish work, and everybody does things simply for exploration and science?
>>
>> Chris,
>>
>>  > Also, documentation doesn't write itself.  If you find
>>  > something that didn't work as expected or a task was
>>  > difficult to accomplish but you eventually accomplish
>>  > it, do a short write about how you got from point A to
>>  > point B and drop it into the wiki on docs.ofbiz.org or
>>  > write it to the mailing list and ask if someone can
>>  > find an appropriate place for it.
>>
>> I'd be fired! I did try to get quickstart advice from mailing list, remember? But now that I've 
>> posted questions, waited for response, dug in myself, and found answered my posts myself, I can't 
>> find much time left to write up those docs. I don't even have enough time to submit my 
>> enhancements and bugfixes!
>>
>> Yes, bad bad programmer, not very opensource-spirited. But like I said, I can be a very 
>> opensource-spirited non-programmer (after being fired), or I can just "do my job" and hope I can 
>> swing back some time to contribute.
>>
>> And I'll definitely want to do something for OFBiz. As I told someone here before, I'm thoroughly 
>> enjoying OFBiz (like the manufacturing and product Virtual BOMs stuff done by Jacopo?).
>>
>>  > There's a funny point in learning OFBiz.  You start
>>  > out looking at it as this huge monstrosity that's just
>>  > too much to figure out and you get frustrated with the
>>  > lack of documentation available (even given the sites
>>  > linked off of ofbiz.apache.org and the tens of
>>  > thousands of mailing list posts available and the
>>  > number of video tutorials available).  But you start
>>  > playing with it a bit, and you pass an "aha" moment.
>>  > You don't realize the moment that you pass it but when
>>  > you look back and think "how can I make the learning
>>  > curve easier for the next guy", you realize everything
>>  > was there, and it's difficult to figure out what you
>>  > can add to those websites that could make it any
>>  > clearer.
>>
>> Hindsight is always easier. I know what you mean, Chris.
>>
>> It's like we stare at some seemingly random numbers scrolling through screen, we think it's noise. 
>> But after we spot the patterns, we wonder how we didn't see it before!
>>
>> I can't learn "The Matrix green downward-scrolling font" inside of 1 week. I need to get into the 
>> Matrix and do some work RIGHT AWAY (like run the nice noodle restaurant at the corner). So, 
>> instead of reading those green fonts, I pulled out the Matrix engine and started plugging away at 
>> the interfaces. (Aha! So touching this and that interface gives me very good soup noodles!).
>>
>> Jonathon
>>
>> Andrew Sykes wrote:
>>> Ian, Jonathon,
>>>
>>> I definitely don't agree with treating Java is your language of choice
>>> as a way to avoid learning Minilang, here's some reasons why...
>>>
>>> 1/ Minilang is far quicker to write.
>>> 2/ Minilang is much more limited in scope, so less danger of...
>>> 	2a. Writing unidiomatic code
>>> 	2b. Writing buggy code
>>> 3/ Being a simpler language, minilang can be handled by far more junior
>>> personnel, and in some cases, I've seen non development staff being
>>> fairly productive.
>>> 4/ Java developers are easier to hire, but not ones with a good
>>> understanding of the OfBiz API.
>>> 5/ Learning minilang is a fast-track route to adopting the OfBiz
>>> developer's mindset.
>>> 6/ So much functionality is already implemented in minilang that you
>>> ignore it at your peril.
>>> 7/ When you finally have to adopt Minilang you'll have a load of
>>> unmaintainable java legacy. This will no doubt seem more and more
>>> cryptic as time goes on.
>>>
>>> I could probably go on...
>>>
>>> This type of approach breaks the golden rule when adopting something as
>>> large as OfBiz, that is, read read read!, learn learn learn!, and only
>>> then should you think of letting yourself loose on the code! You'll
>>> thank yourself later!
>>>
>>> No doubt various people will counter this with a whole lot of personal
>>> dislikes about minilang, but I'll be surprised if any of these people
>>> have been using OfBiz in anger for any length of time.
>>>
>>> Sorry if this seems a little condescending, but I've seen this kind of
>>> argument in my consultancy work several times, and the resulting costly
>>> dodgy java or furious back-peddling that results from it.
>>>
>>> - Andrew
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 19:38 +0800, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>> Er, Ian. I forgot to mention this.
>>>>
>>>> The docs for engineers aren't too comprehensive either. Try putting your best Java developers into 
>>>> picking up OFBiz. Take the screen widgets and form widgets for example. See how they fare. Like I 
>>>> said, Java is more documented than OFBiz-specific technologies.
>>>>
>>>> BUT.. but it's entirely possible to use Java only, plus non-OFBiz-specific technologies like 
>>>> Freemarker for front-end development convenience, and to skip Minilang and screen/form widgets to 
>>>> a large extent. Non-OFBiz-specific technologies are generally better documented since their 
>>>> developers focus develoment time solely on those techs, like Freemarker (front-end tool) 
>>>> developers don't delve into entity engines (backend tools).
>>>>
>>>> As I was telling my boss, it's actually easier to hire Java programmers than to hire Minilang or 
>>>> screen/form widget programmers.
>>>>
>>>> So, beware of the implications. Say I code customizations for you in Minilang and screen/form 
>>>> widgets, using almost or entirely zero Java. Future tech support could be an really hairy issue 
>>>> for you.
>>>>
>>>> BUT... at some point (I can't guarantee when), Minilang and screen/form widget docs will be 
>>>> complete, audited to be comprehensive, etc. You'll then probably find that programming in Minilang 
>>>> is more cost-effective than in Java. (Either that, or I get paid by someone to completely 
>>>> reverse-engineer and document all of Minilang and screen/form widget in a reasonable timeframe --- 
>>>> say a month. Not an impossible task, just a mountain of Java codes, is all).
>>>>
>>>> For now, Java is perhaps your best bet.
>>>>
>>>> To the other folks in overalls, I've been meaning to ask this. Is there any way at all to insert 
>>>> debug messages inside of Minilang and screen/form widget codes? I find it easier to debug Java 
>>>> codes for now.
>>>>
>>>> Jonathon
>>>>
>>>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>>> Ian,
>>>>>
>>>>> Amen! Yeah, God is good. OFBiz is good. Both can be hard to understand. 
>>>>> But I do believe that both are loving, very loving. Amen.
>>>>>
>>>>> If there's any way we can all help each other (Paul, Ian, Jonathon), let 
>>>>> me know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jonathon
>>>>>
>>>>> Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Jonathon and Paul,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could I dive in here and say I'm currently trying to get a working 
>>>>>> model up and running that I could demo to small business clients in 
>>>>>> the UK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OFbiz looks so beautifully designed from the ground up, streets ahead 
>>>>>> of the competition and adaptable to almost any situation from running 
>>>>>> a one-man consultancy  to a multinational enterprise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It looks like the most awesome super-car you've ever seen. I can't 
>>>>>> believe everybody won't want one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As Jonathon says, the community seems entirely focussed on moving 
>>>>>> forward rapidly and winning the next Le Mans. Which is how it should be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Imo this explains the lack of docs and the small bugs. The mass of 
>>>>>> available documentation is actually almost as awesome as the framework 
>>>>>> itself. Problem is that it is all aimed at engineers who need to 
>>>>>> understand how it works ... not how to work it. Enough workshop 
>>>>>> manuals to fill shelves in the garage, but no simple driver handbooks 
>>>>>> you can put in the glove compartment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a very fundamental difference. An entirely opposite point of 
>>>>>> view.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try talking to the average driver about the thermodynamics of 
>>>>>> combustion and they glaze over in seconds. They neither need nor want 
>>>>>> to know. They simply want to drive it. They pay the garage to take 
>>>>>> care of all that for them so they can free themselves up to deal with 
>>>>>> other things - like where to drive to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's the little, superficial things that are most important. How does 
>>>>>> the door latch sound? Where is the gear shift and indicator switch? 
>>>>>> How often does it break down?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is true for all levels of users. More so in fact for the 
>>>>>> President of a large Corporation to whom image arriving at the golf 
>>>>>> club is everything, than to the small businessman in the street who 
>>>>>> accepts he may have to get his hands dirty occasionally.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Winning the Le Mans is obviously a huge selling point and an essential 
>>>>>> place to start. In those circumstance, a door latch which needs a 
>>>>>> knack to open, the absence of a drivers handbook and the need for team 
>>>>>> of mechanics to tune it before every race is absolutely par for the 
>>>>>> course. And a racing driver who complains about such things will - 
>>>>>> quite rightly - be quickly shown the door.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But for the average driver in the street it's exactly the opposite. 
>>>>>> One sticking door latch, one miss-start, one breakdown on the first 
>>>>>> test drive and they've had their one bite of the cherry and ain't 
>>>>>> never coming back for more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Imo this is the only problem I'd like to see solved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I started out a few weeks ago trying to point out that this list is 
>>>>>> more for users in overalls at the pit stop than drivers in business 
>>>>>> suits on their way to the office.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Imo a forum for user-drivers rather than user-engineers would help 
>>>>>> focus the view from the other end of the telescope and prevent 
>>>>>> discussion of such superficial issues from clogging the inboxes of the 
>>>>>> rocket scientists who really need to be concentrating on getting us to 
>>>>>> Mars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I personally would like to contribute towards the development of some 
>>>>>> kind of drivers handbook. But if I can't get a working model going for 
>>>>>> myself then it's hard to know where to start.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believe I'm currently doing it for a small business as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You'll need to customize. Customization in this case involves 
>>>>>>> defaulting many values and code execution paths for a more condensed 
>>>>>>> workflow. That is, you can cut out some unnecessary steps in the 
>>>>>>> workflow and also auto-populate default values for some fields (or 
>>>>>>> leave them blank and unused).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I propose that we work together on this? I have yet to hit the 
>>>>>>> accounting and GL side of things. I have figured out the ecommerce 
>>>>>>> (PO, SO) and product configuration side of things, though. And also 
>>>>>>> manufacturing, because my boss does manufacture stuff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You'll find that being a novice Java developer is ALL you need to be, 
>>>>>>> the framework is that easy to use. Well, you also need acute 
>>>>>>> reverse-engineering skills because the only way you'll find out how 
>>>>>>> things work is by diving into the framework source codes (see 
>>>>>>> GenericDelegator.java for entity-related functions). No docs. 
>>>>>>> Community is too being moving OFBiz forward rapidly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In fact, you may find it easily initially to use Java instead of 
>>>>>>> Minilang. Java is a lot more documented than Minilang.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tell you what. I can offer you very quick answers to "how do I do 
>>>>>>> this or that". I'm a reverse-engineer by trade; I have small crack 
>>>>>>> teams that mathematically take apart legacy system codes to break 
>>>>>>> vendor-lock for my clients. So, figuring out OFBiz, given that it's 
>>>>>>> opensource no less, is really... an interesting exercise, not a 
>>>>>>> tedious impractical one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can help me with your accounting knowledge. (Yes, help me!! I beg 
>>>>>>> you!)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How about that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One warning, though. There are quite a few bugs in OFBiz. They're 
>>>>>>> small issues if you can dive in to fix them yourself. But if you're 
>>>>>>> waiting for the community to fix them, you could be looking at weeks 
>>>>>>> before a patch goes in, especially for non-trivial fixes that take 
>>>>>>> time to review/audit. I'm currently holding quite a number of fixes 
>>>>>>> in-house, not yet reviewed by community and merged back into OFBiz.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm deploying a customized system for my boss inside of 1 month. And 
>>>>>>> he has quite a bit of customizations to do, particularly for the 
>>>>>>> manufacturing side of things. Oh, the Manufacturing module is very 
>>>>>>> feature-rich (thanks Jacopo!), just that my boss has special needs. 
>>>>>>> I'd say we could work together and customize OFBiz for you inside of 
>>>>>>> 2 weeks?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jonathon
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul Gear wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm looking at different accounting/business management packages for 
>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>> in my small business, and i was excited when i found how comprehensive
>>>>>>>> and easy to install opentaps was.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, it is a daunting application for the beginner, and it leads me
>>>>>>>> to ask: is it asking for trouble trying to use it as a small business
>>>>>>>> accounting package?  My requirements are fairly simple: invoicing
>>>>>>>> (services only, no inventory), general ledger, and GST tracking for the
>>>>>>>> Australian tax system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm a novice Java developer, so i can get through most basic problems
>>>>>>>> OK, but understanding the framework is a bit more complex an
>>>>>>>> undertaking.  Am i just creating work for myself thinking that i can 
>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>> OFBiz/opentaps for my small business?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>> <http://paulgear.webhop.net>
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>> Did you know?  Using HTML email rather than plain text is less
>>>>>>>> efficient, taking anywhere from 2 to 20 times longer to download, and a
>>>>>>>> corresponding amount more space on disk.  Learn more about using email
>>>>>>>> efficiently at <http://www.expita.com/nomime.html>.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Andrew Sykes <an...@sykesdevelopment.com>]

Jonathon,

One final point on the subject, just in case you don't already know.

If, as it seems from your email, there are just a few issues barring you
from getting productive with minilang, you could perhaps use a call-bsh
tag in the minilang to handle the odd situation when your minlang
experience is letting you down.

This isn't ideal for every situation, so be judicious, but it might just
help you on the way to surmounting the minilang hurdle!

Best of luck with it!
- Andrew


On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 23:40 +0800, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> Andrew,
> 
> Yeah, we all tried. Maybe I have my head so buried in Java I can't see the simple methods in Minilang.
> 
> For now, given a hot-soup mix of problems from screen/form widgets and problems with some 
> constructs in Minilang, I'm forced to drive things forward this way: Use Java services but 
> leverage every convenience method in Minilang.
> 
> Once I'm done with this current project (or when I'm fired), I can come back here to "explore and 
> contribute". Oh well. Back to work. :( ... :) ... :/
> 
> I still say that OFBiz rules! And I intend to prove my instincts right, after I'm done with project.
> 
> With regards Ian's comments, I personally like winning the Le Mans (less docs, more progress, but 
> then why do bugfix rates seem to slow down recently?). I'm a wannabe race car driver who takes 
> apart race cars, so I don't quite care for driver's manual in glove compartment. But then, I'm 
> also NOT known for having a forte in amassing world-wide adoption for OFBiz, nor can I be held 
> responsible for OFBiz's future popularity. :P
> 
> Jonathon
> 
> Andrew Sykes wrote:
> > Jonathon,
> > 
> > Ok, well, I tried ;-)
> > 
> > - Andrew
> > 
> > On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 21:51 +0800, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >> Andrew, Chris, Ian,
> >>
> >> I would definitely choose Minilang over Java, if I didn't have a pressing "do it this minute" 
> >> schedule. It is definitely the right step forward.
> >>
> >> I tried Minilang for a while, then realized there ARE some constructs I can't quite do like I 
> >> would with Java. Same for screen/form widgets. I posted a short question asking if there's any 
> >> docs for screen/form widgets. No response thus far. But I've since learned what env-name, 
> >> map-name, etc mean. Not by docs I can find, but through the widget framework Java sources. Simple 
> >> concepts like "how do I extract a field value and put it to a variable for later use", or even 
> >> "how do I create a variable for computation" required some digging into widget framework Java sources.
> >>
> >> So, what did I do? I got the job done. Java works. Minilang can wait. :P Screen/form widgets can 
> >> wait (I used a Java service attached by an ECA).
> >>
> >> Did I do a messy buggy Java routine? I'd ask you the same question. With some basic programming 
> >> principles, it's not difficult to write reusable extensible code (see the mutable checks sequence 
> >> I wrote for http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-627).
> >>
> >> Sure, I'll eventually find it easier to do things in Minilang. Many Minilang constructs are direct 
> >> clones of Java functions anyway, so converting from one to the other and back won't be so tough. 
> >> But it's the variables, scope, "where did that variable's value got stomped" problems that put the 
> >> brick wall up for me.
> >>
> >> So, as things stand now, I (being a Java programmer of sorts), found it easier in Java. A simple 
> >> Java programmer like me knows certain "tricks of trade" to figure out the structure of Minilang or 
> >> widget XMLs. But what about non-programmers?
> >>
> >>  > 6/ So much functionality is already implemented in minilang that you ignore
> >>  > it at your peril.
> >>
> >> Anyway, I am able to tap all of Minilang's features using Java alone, so I do get best of both 
> >> worlds. :)
> >>
> >> Actually, to be fair, Minilang isn't so bad in terms of docs (by now? recently?). See 
> >> http://ofbiz.apache.org/docs/minilang.html . I was really struggling with widget XMLs.
> >>
> >> Right now, my project is moving ahead. And that's what counts. Sigh. Couldn't there be a time when 
> >> we abolish work, and everybody does things simply for exploration and science?
> >>
> >> Chris,
> >>
> >>  > Also, documentation doesn't write itself.  If you find
> >>  > something that didn't work as expected or a task was
> >>  > difficult to accomplish but you eventually accomplish
> >>  > it, do a short write about how you got from point A to
> >>  > point B and drop it into the wiki on docs.ofbiz.org or
> >>  > write it to the mailing list and ask if someone can
> >>  > find an appropriate place for it.
> >>
> >> I'd be fired! I did try to get quickstart advice from mailing list, remember? But now that I've 
> >> posted questions, waited for response, dug in myself, and found answered my posts myself, I can't 
> >> find much time left to write up those docs. I don't even have enough time to submit my 
> >> enhancements and bugfixes!
> >>
> >> Yes, bad bad programmer, not very opensource-spirited. But like I said, I can be a very 
> >> opensource-spirited non-programmer (after being fired), or I can just "do my job" and hope I can 
> >> swing back some time to contribute.
> >>
> >> And I'll definitely want to do something for OFBiz. As I told someone here before, I'm thoroughly 
> >> enjoying OFBiz (like the manufacturing and product Virtual BOMs stuff done by Jacopo?).
> >>
> >>  > There's a funny point in learning OFBiz.  You start
> >>  > out looking at it as this huge monstrosity that's just
> >>  > too much to figure out and you get frustrated with the
> >>  > lack of documentation available (even given the sites
> >>  > linked off of ofbiz.apache.org and the tens of
> >>  > thousands of mailing list posts available and the
> >>  > number of video tutorials available).  But you start
> >>  > playing with it a bit, and you pass an "aha" moment.
> >>  > You don't realize the moment that you pass it but when
> >>  > you look back and think "how can I make the learning
> >>  > curve easier for the next guy", you realize everything
> >>  > was there, and it's difficult to figure out what you
> >>  > can add to those websites that could make it any
> >>  > clearer.
> >>
> >> Hindsight is always easier. I know what you mean, Chris.
> >>
> >> It's like we stare at some seemingly random numbers scrolling through screen, we think it's noise. 
> >> But after we spot the patterns, we wonder how we didn't see it before!
> >>
> >> I can't learn "The Matrix green downward-scrolling font" inside of 1 week. I need to get into the 
> >> Matrix and do some work RIGHT AWAY (like run the nice noodle restaurant at the corner). So, 
> >> instead of reading those green fonts, I pulled out the Matrix engine and started plugging away at 
> >> the interfaces. (Aha! So touching this and that interface gives me very good soup noodles!).
> >>
> >> Jonathon
> >>
> >> Andrew Sykes wrote:
> >>> Ian, Jonathon,
> >>>
> >>> I definitely don't agree with treating Java is your language of choice
> >>> as a way to avoid learning Minilang, here's some reasons why...
> >>>
> >>> 1/ Minilang is far quicker to write.
> >>> 2/ Minilang is much more limited in scope, so less danger of...
> >>> 	2a. Writing unidiomatic code
> >>> 	2b. Writing buggy code
> >>> 3/ Being a simpler language, minilang can be handled by far more junior
> >>> personnel, and in some cases, I've seen non development staff being
> >>> fairly productive.
> >>> 4/ Java developers are easier to hire, but not ones with a good
> >>> understanding of the OfBiz API.
> >>> 5/ Learning minilang is a fast-track route to adopting the OfBiz
> >>> developer's mindset.
> >>> 6/ So much functionality is already implemented in minilang that you
> >>> ignore it at your peril.
> >>> 7/ When you finally have to adopt Minilang you'll have a load of
> >>> unmaintainable java legacy. This will no doubt seem more and more
> >>> cryptic as time goes on.
> >>>
> >>> I could probably go on...
> >>>
> >>> This type of approach breaks the golden rule when adopting something as
> >>> large as OfBiz, that is, read read read!, learn learn learn!, and only
> >>> then should you think of letting yourself loose on the code! You'll
> >>> thank yourself later!
> >>>
> >>> No doubt various people will counter this with a whole lot of personal
> >>> dislikes about minilang, but I'll be surprised if any of these people
> >>> have been using OfBiz in anger for any length of time.
> >>>
> >>> Sorry if this seems a little condescending, but I've seen this kind of
> >>> argument in my consultancy work several times, and the resulting costly
> >>> dodgy java or furious back-peddling that results from it.
> >>>
> >>> - Andrew
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 19:38 +0800, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >>>> Er, Ian. I forgot to mention this.
> >>>>
> >>>> The docs for engineers aren't too comprehensive either. Try putting your best Java developers into 
> >>>> picking up OFBiz. Take the screen widgets and form widgets for example. See how they fare. Like I 
> >>>> said, Java is more documented than OFBiz-specific technologies.
> >>>>
> >>>> BUT.. but it's entirely possible to use Java only, plus non-OFBiz-specific technologies like 
> >>>> Freemarker for front-end development convenience, and to skip Minilang and screen/form widgets to 
> >>>> a large extent. Non-OFBiz-specific technologies are generally better documented since their 
> >>>> developers focus develoment time solely on those techs, like Freemarker (front-end tool) 
> >>>> developers don't delve into entity engines (backend tools).
> >>>>
> >>>> As I was telling my boss, it's actually easier to hire Java programmers than to hire Minilang or 
> >>>> screen/form widget programmers.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, beware of the implications. Say I code customizations for you in Minilang and screen/form 
> >>>> widgets, using almost or entirely zero Java. Future tech support could be an really hairy issue 
> >>>> for you.
> >>>>
> >>>> BUT... at some point (I can't guarantee when), Minilang and screen/form widget docs will be 
> >>>> complete, audited to be comprehensive, etc. You'll then probably find that programming in Minilang 
> >>>> is more cost-effective than in Java. (Either that, or I get paid by someone to completely 
> >>>> reverse-engineer and document all of Minilang and screen/form widget in a reasonable timeframe --- 
> >>>> say a month. Not an impossible task, just a mountain of Java codes, is all).
> >>>>
> >>>> For now, Java is perhaps your best bet.
> >>>>
> >>>> To the other folks in overalls, I've been meaning to ask this. Is there any way at all to insert 
> >>>> debug messages inside of Minilang and screen/form widget codes? I find it easier to debug Java 
> >>>> codes for now.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jonathon
> >>>>
> >>>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >>>>> Ian,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Amen! Yeah, God is good. OFBiz is good. Both can be hard to understand. 
> >>>>> But I do believe that both are loving, very loving. Amen.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If there's any way we can all help each other (Paul, Ian, Jonathon), let 
> >>>>> me know.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jonathon
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ian McNulty wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi Jonathon and Paul,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Could I dive in here and say I'm currently trying to get a working 
> >>>>>> model up and running that I could demo to small business clients in 
> >>>>>> the UK.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> OFbiz looks so beautifully designed from the ground up, streets ahead 
> >>>>>> of the competition and adaptable to almost any situation from running 
> >>>>>> a one-man consultancy  to a multinational enterprise.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It looks like the most awesome super-car you've ever seen. I can't 
> >>>>>> believe everybody won't want one.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As Jonathon says, the community seems entirely focussed on moving 
> >>>>>> forward rapidly and winning the next Le Mans. Which is how it should be.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Imo this explains the lack of docs and the small bugs. The mass of 
> >>>>>> available documentation is actually almost as awesome as the framework 
> >>>>>> itself. Problem is that it is all aimed at engineers who need to 
> >>>>>> understand how it works ... not how to work it. Enough workshop 
> >>>>>> manuals to fill shelves in the garage, but no simple driver handbooks 
> >>>>>> you can put in the glove compartment.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is a very fundamental difference. An entirely opposite point of 
> >>>>>> view.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Try talking to the average driver about the thermodynamics of 
> >>>>>> combustion and they glaze over in seconds. They neither need nor want 
> >>>>>> to know. They simply want to drive it. They pay the garage to take 
> >>>>>> care of all that for them so they can free themselves up to deal with 
> >>>>>> other things - like where to drive to.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's the little, superficial things that are most important. How does 
> >>>>>> the door latch sound? Where is the gear shift and indicator switch? 
> >>>>>> How often does it break down?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is true for all levels of users. More so in fact for the 
> >>>>>> President of a large Corporation to whom image arriving at the golf 
> >>>>>> club is everything, than to the small businessman in the street who 
> >>>>>> accepts he may have to get his hands dirty occasionally.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Winning the Le Mans is obviously a huge selling point and an essential 
> >>>>>> place to start. In those circumstance, a door latch which needs a 
> >>>>>> knack to open, the absence of a drivers handbook and the need for team 
> >>>>>> of mechanics to tune it before every race is absolutely par for the 
> >>>>>> course. And a racing driver who complains about such things will - 
> >>>>>> quite rightly - be quickly shown the door.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But for the average driver in the street it's exactly the opposite. 
> >>>>>> One sticking door latch, one miss-start, one breakdown on the first 
> >>>>>> test drive and they've had their one bite of the cherry and ain't 
> >>>>>> never coming back for more.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Imo this is the only problem I'd like to see solved.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I started out a few weeks ago trying to point out that this list is 
> >>>>>> more for users in overalls at the pit stop than drivers in business 
> >>>>>> suits on their way to the office.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Imo a forum for user-drivers rather than user-engineers would help 
> >>>>>> focus the view from the other end of the telescope and prevent 
> >>>>>> discussion of such superficial issues from clogging the inboxes of the 
> >>>>>> rocket scientists who really need to be concentrating on getting us to 
> >>>>>> Mars.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I personally would like to contribute towards the development of some 
> >>>>>> kind of drivers handbook. But if I can't get a working model going for 
> >>>>>> myself then it's hard to know where to start.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ian
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi Paul,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I believe I'm currently doing it for a small business as well.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You'll need to customize. Customization in this case involves 
> >>>>>>> defaulting many values and code execution paths for a more condensed 
> >>>>>>> workflow. That is, you can cut out some unnecessary steps in the 
> >>>>>>> workflow and also auto-populate default values for some fields (or 
> >>>>>>> leave them blank and unused).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I propose that we work together on this? I have yet to hit the 
> >>>>>>> accounting and GL side of things. I have figured out the ecommerce 
> >>>>>>> (PO, SO) and product configuration side of things, though. And also 
> >>>>>>> manufacturing, because my boss does manufacture stuff.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You'll find that being a novice Java developer is ALL you need to be, 
> >>>>>>> the framework is that easy to use. Well, you also need acute 
> >>>>>>> reverse-engineering skills because the only way you'll find out how 
> >>>>>>> things work is by diving into the framework source codes (see 
> >>>>>>> GenericDelegator.java for entity-related functions). No docs. 
> >>>>>>> Community is too being moving OFBiz forward rapidly.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In fact, you may find it easily initially to use Java instead of 
> >>>>>>> Minilang. Java is a lot more documented than Minilang.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Tell you what. I can offer you very quick answers to "how do I do 
> >>>>>>> this or that". I'm a reverse-engineer by trade; I have small crack 
> >>>>>>> teams that mathematically take apart legacy system codes to break 
> >>>>>>> vendor-lock for my clients. So, figuring out OFBiz, given that it's 
> >>>>>>> opensource no less, is really... an interesting exercise, not a 
> >>>>>>> tedious impractical one.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You can help me with your accounting knowledge. (Yes, help me!! I beg 
> >>>>>>> you!)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> How about that?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> One warning, though. There are quite a few bugs in OFBiz. They're 
> >>>>>>> small issues if you can dive in to fix them yourself. But if you're 
> >>>>>>> waiting for the community to fix them, you could be looking at weeks 
> >>>>>>> before a patch goes in, especially for non-trivial fixes that take 
> >>>>>>> time to review/audit. I'm currently holding quite a number of fixes 
> >>>>>>> in-house, not yet reviewed by community and merged back into OFBiz.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm deploying a customized system for my boss inside of 1 month. And 
> >>>>>>> he has quite a bit of customizations to do, particularly for the 
> >>>>>>> manufacturing side of things. Oh, the Manufacturing module is very 
> >>>>>>> feature-rich (thanks Jacopo!), just that my boss has special needs. 
> >>>>>>> I'd say we could work together and customize OFBiz for you inside of 
> >>>>>>> 2 weeks?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Jonathon
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Paul Gear wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Hi folks,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I'm looking at different accounting/business management packages for 
> >>>>>>>> use
> >>>>>>>> in my small business, and i was excited when i found how comprehensive
> >>>>>>>> and easy to install opentaps was.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> However, it is a daunting application for the beginner, and it leads me
> >>>>>>>> to ask: is it asking for trouble trying to use it as a small business
> >>>>>>>> accounting package?  My requirements are fairly simple: invoicing
> >>>>>>>> (services only, no inventory), general ledger, and GST tracking for the
> >>>>>>>> Australian tax system.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I'm a novice Java developer, so i can get through most basic problems
> >>>>>>>> OK, but understanding the framework is a bit more complex an
> >>>>>>>> undertaking.  Am i just creating work for myself thinking that i can 
> >>>>>>>> use
> >>>>>>>> OFBiz/opentaps for my small business?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks in advance,
> >>>>>>>> Paul
> >>>>>>>> <http://paulgear.webhop.net>
> >>>>>>>> -- 
> >>>>>>>> Did you know?  Using HTML email rather than plain text is less
> >>>>>>>> efficient, taking anywhere from 2 to 20 times longer to download, and a
> >>>>>>>> corresponding amount more space on disk.  Learn more about using email
> >>>>>>>> efficiently at <http://www.expita.com/nomime.html>.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> 
-- 
Kind Regards
Andrew Sykes <an...@sykesdevelopment.com>
Sykes Development Ltd
http://www.sykesdevelopment.com

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Andrew Sykes <an...@sykesdevelopment.com>]

Jonathon,

Ok, well, I tried ;-)

- Andrew

On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 21:51 +0800, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> Andrew, Chris, Ian,
> 
> I would definitely choose Minilang over Java, if I didn't have a pressing "do it this minute" 
> schedule. It is definitely the right step forward.
> 
> I tried Minilang for a while, then realized there ARE some constructs I can't quite do like I 
> would with Java. Same for screen/form widgets. I posted a short question asking if there's any 
> docs for screen/form widgets. No response thus far. But I've since learned what env-name, 
> map-name, etc mean. Not by docs I can find, but through the widget framework Java sources. Simple 
> concepts like "how do I extract a field value and put it to a variable for later use", or even 
> "how do I create a variable for computation" required some digging into widget framework Java sources.
> 
> So, what did I do? I got the job done. Java works. Minilang can wait. :P Screen/form widgets can 
> wait (I used a Java service attached by an ECA).
> 
> Did I do a messy buggy Java routine? I'd ask you the same question. With some basic programming 
> principles, it's not difficult to write reusable extensible code (see the mutable checks sequence 
> I wrote for http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-627).
> 
> Sure, I'll eventually find it easier to do things in Minilang. Many Minilang constructs are direct 
> clones of Java functions anyway, so converting from one to the other and back won't be so tough. 
> But it's the variables, scope, "where did that variable's value got stomped" problems that put the 
> brick wall up for me.
> 
> So, as things stand now, I (being a Java programmer of sorts), found it easier in Java. A simple 
> Java programmer like me knows certain "tricks of trade" to figure out the structure of Minilang or 
> widget XMLs. But what about non-programmers?
> 
>  > 6/ So much functionality is already implemented in minilang that you ignore
>  > it at your peril.
> 
> Anyway, I am able to tap all of Minilang's features using Java alone, so I do get best of both 
> worlds. :)
> 
> Actually, to be fair, Minilang isn't so bad in terms of docs (by now? recently?). See 
> http://ofbiz.apache.org/docs/minilang.html . I was really struggling with widget XMLs.
> 
> Right now, my project is moving ahead. And that's what counts. Sigh. Couldn't there be a time when 
> we abolish work, and everybody does things simply for exploration and science?
> 
> Chris,
> 
>  > Also, documentation doesn't write itself.  If you find
>  > something that didn't work as expected or a task was
>  > difficult to accomplish but you eventually accomplish
>  > it, do a short write about how you got from point A to
>  > point B and drop it into the wiki on docs.ofbiz.org or
>  > write it to the mailing list and ask if someone can
>  > find an appropriate place for it.
> 
> I'd be fired! I did try to get quickstart advice from mailing list, remember? But now that I've 
> posted questions, waited for response, dug in myself, and found answered my posts myself, I can't 
> find much time left to write up those docs. I don't even have enough time to submit my 
> enhancements and bugfixes!
> 
> Yes, bad bad programmer, not very opensource-spirited. But like I said, I can be a very 
> opensource-spirited non-programmer (after being fired), or I can just "do my job" and hope I can 
> swing back some time to contribute.
> 
> And I'll definitely want to do something for OFBiz. As I told someone here before, I'm thoroughly 
> enjoying OFBiz (like the manufacturing and product Virtual BOMs stuff done by Jacopo?).
> 
>  > There's a funny point in learning OFBiz.  You start
>  > out looking at it as this huge monstrosity that's just
>  > too much to figure out and you get frustrated with the
>  > lack of documentation available (even given the sites
>  > linked off of ofbiz.apache.org and the tens of
>  > thousands of mailing list posts available and the
>  > number of video tutorials available).  But you start
>  > playing with it a bit, and you pass an "aha" moment.
>  > You don't realize the moment that you pass it but when
>  > you look back and think "how can I make the learning
>  > curve easier for the next guy", you realize everything
>  > was there, and it's difficult to figure out what you
>  > can add to those websites that could make it any
>  > clearer.
> 
> Hindsight is always easier. I know what you mean, Chris.
> 
> It's like we stare at some seemingly random numbers scrolling through screen, we think it's noise. 
> But after we spot the patterns, we wonder how we didn't see it before!
> 
> I can't learn "The Matrix green downward-scrolling font" inside of 1 week. I need to get into the 
> Matrix and do some work RIGHT AWAY (like run the nice noodle restaurant at the corner). So, 
> instead of reading those green fonts, I pulled out the Matrix engine and started plugging away at 
> the interfaces. (Aha! So touching this and that interface gives me very good soup noodles!).
> 
> Jonathon
> 
> Andrew Sykes wrote:
> > Ian, Jonathon,
> > 
> > I definitely don't agree with treating Java is your language of choice
> > as a way to avoid learning Minilang, here's some reasons why...
> > 
> > 1/ Minilang is far quicker to write.
> > 2/ Minilang is much more limited in scope, so less danger of...
> > 	2a. Writing unidiomatic code
> > 	2b. Writing buggy code
> > 3/ Being a simpler language, minilang can be handled by far more junior
> > personnel, and in some cases, I've seen non development staff being
> > fairly productive.
> > 4/ Java developers are easier to hire, but not ones with a good
> > understanding of the OfBiz API.
> > 5/ Learning minilang is a fast-track route to adopting the OfBiz
> > developer's mindset.
> > 6/ So much functionality is already implemented in minilang that you
> > ignore it at your peril.
> > 7/ When you finally have to adopt Minilang you'll have a load of
> > unmaintainable java legacy. This will no doubt seem more and more
> > cryptic as time goes on.
> > 
> > I could probably go on...
> > 
> > This type of approach breaks the golden rule when adopting something as
> > large as OfBiz, that is, read read read!, learn learn learn!, and only
> > then should you think of letting yourself loose on the code! You'll
> > thank yourself later!
> > 
> > No doubt various people will counter this with a whole lot of personal
> > dislikes about minilang, but I'll be surprised if any of these people
> > have been using OfBiz in anger for any length of time.
> > 
> > Sorry if this seems a little condescending, but I've seen this kind of
> > argument in my consultancy work several times, and the resulting costly
> > dodgy java or furious back-peddling that results from it.
> > 
> > - Andrew
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 19:38 +0800, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >> Er, Ian. I forgot to mention this.
> >>
> >> The docs for engineers aren't too comprehensive either. Try putting your best Java developers into 
> >> picking up OFBiz. Take the screen widgets and form widgets for example. See how they fare. Like I 
> >> said, Java is more documented than OFBiz-specific technologies.
> >>
> >> BUT.. but it's entirely possible to use Java only, plus non-OFBiz-specific technologies like 
> >> Freemarker for front-end development convenience, and to skip Minilang and screen/form widgets to 
> >> a large extent. Non-OFBiz-specific technologies are generally better documented since their 
> >> developers focus develoment time solely on those techs, like Freemarker (front-end tool) 
> >> developers don't delve into entity engines (backend tools).
> >>
> >> As I was telling my boss, it's actually easier to hire Java programmers than to hire Minilang or 
> >> screen/form widget programmers.
> >>
> >> So, beware of the implications. Say I code customizations for you in Minilang and screen/form 
> >> widgets, using almost or entirely zero Java. Future tech support could be an really hairy issue 
> >> for you.
> >>
> >> BUT... at some point (I can't guarantee when), Minilang and screen/form widget docs will be 
> >> complete, audited to be comprehensive, etc. You'll then probably find that programming in Minilang 
> >> is more cost-effective than in Java. (Either that, or I get paid by someone to completely 
> >> reverse-engineer and document all of Minilang and screen/form widget in a reasonable timeframe --- 
> >> say a month. Not an impossible task, just a mountain of Java codes, is all).
> >>
> >> For now, Java is perhaps your best bet.
> >>
> >> To the other folks in overalls, I've been meaning to ask this. Is there any way at all to insert 
> >> debug messages inside of Minilang and screen/form widget codes? I find it easier to debug Java 
> >> codes for now.
> >>
> >> Jonathon
> >>
> >> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >>> Ian,
> >>>
> >>> Amen! Yeah, God is good. OFBiz is good. Both can be hard to understand. 
> >>> But I do believe that both are loving, very loving. Amen.
> >>>
> >>> If there's any way we can all help each other (Paul, Ian, Jonathon), let 
> >>> me know.
> >>>
> >>> Jonathon
> >>>
> >>> Ian McNulty wrote:
> >>>> Hi Jonathon and Paul,
> >>>>
> >>>> Could I dive in here and say I'm currently trying to get a working 
> >>>> model up and running that I could demo to small business clients in 
> >>>> the UK.
> >>>>
> >>>> OFbiz looks so beautifully designed from the ground up, streets ahead 
> >>>> of the competition and adaptable to almost any situation from running 
> >>>> a one-man consultancy  to a multinational enterprise.
> >>>>
> >>>> It looks like the most awesome super-car you've ever seen. I can't 
> >>>> believe everybody won't want one.
> >>>>
> >>>> As Jonathon says, the community seems entirely focussed on moving 
> >>>> forward rapidly and winning the next Le Mans. Which is how it should be.
> >>>>
> >>>> Imo this explains the lack of docs and the small bugs. The mass of 
> >>>> available documentation is actually almost as awesome as the framework 
> >>>> itself. Problem is that it is all aimed at engineers who need to 
> >>>> understand how it works ... not how to work it. Enough workshop 
> >>>> manuals to fill shelves in the garage, but no simple driver handbooks 
> >>>> you can put in the glove compartment.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is a very fundamental difference. An entirely opposite point of 
> >>>> view.
> >>>>
> >>>> Try talking to the average driver about the thermodynamics of 
> >>>> combustion and they glaze over in seconds. They neither need nor want 
> >>>> to know. They simply want to drive it. They pay the garage to take 
> >>>> care of all that for them so they can free themselves up to deal with 
> >>>> other things - like where to drive to.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's the little, superficial things that are most important. How does 
> >>>> the door latch sound? Where is the gear shift and indicator switch? 
> >>>> How often does it break down?
> >>>>
> >>>> This is true for all levels of users. More so in fact for the 
> >>>> President of a large Corporation to whom image arriving at the golf 
> >>>> club is everything, than to the small businessman in the street who 
> >>>> accepts he may have to get his hands dirty occasionally.
> >>>>
> >>>> Winning the Le Mans is obviously a huge selling point and an essential 
> >>>> place to start. In those circumstance, a door latch which needs a 
> >>>> knack to open, the absence of a drivers handbook and the need for team 
> >>>> of mechanics to tune it before every race is absolutely par for the 
> >>>> course. And a racing driver who complains about such things will - 
> >>>> quite rightly - be quickly shown the door.
> >>>>
> >>>> But for the average driver in the street it's exactly the opposite. 
> >>>> One sticking door latch, one miss-start, one breakdown on the first 
> >>>> test drive and they've had their one bite of the cherry and ain't 
> >>>> never coming back for more.
> >>>>
> >>>> Imo this is the only problem I'd like to see solved.
> >>>>
> >>>> I started out a few weeks ago trying to point out that this list is 
> >>>> more for users in overalls at the pit stop than drivers in business 
> >>>> suits on their way to the office.
> >>>>
> >>>> Imo a forum for user-drivers rather than user-engineers would help 
> >>>> focus the view from the other end of the telescope and prevent 
> >>>> discussion of such superficial issues from clogging the inboxes of the 
> >>>> rocket scientists who really need to be concentrating on getting us to 
> >>>> Mars.
> >>>>
> >>>> I personally would like to contribute towards the development of some 
> >>>> kind of drivers handbook. But if I can't get a working model going for 
> >>>> myself then it's hard to know where to start.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ian
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Paul,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I believe I'm currently doing it for a small business as well.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You'll need to customize. Customization in this case involves 
> >>>>> defaulting many values and code execution paths for a more condensed 
> >>>>> workflow. That is, you can cut out some unnecessary steps in the 
> >>>>> workflow and also auto-populate default values for some fields (or 
> >>>>> leave them blank and unused).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I propose that we work together on this? I have yet to hit the 
> >>>>> accounting and GL side of things. I have figured out the ecommerce 
> >>>>> (PO, SO) and product configuration side of things, though. And also 
> >>>>> manufacturing, because my boss does manufacture stuff.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You'll find that being a novice Java developer is ALL you need to be, 
> >>>>> the framework is that easy to use. Well, you also need acute 
> >>>>> reverse-engineering skills because the only way you'll find out how 
> >>>>> things work is by diving into the framework source codes (see 
> >>>>> GenericDelegator.java for entity-related functions). No docs. 
> >>>>> Community is too being moving OFBiz forward rapidly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In fact, you may find it easily initially to use Java instead of 
> >>>>> Minilang. Java is a lot more documented than Minilang.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Tell you what. I can offer you very quick answers to "how do I do 
> >>>>> this or that". I'm a reverse-engineer by trade; I have small crack 
> >>>>> teams that mathematically take apart legacy system codes to break 
> >>>>> vendor-lock for my clients. So, figuring out OFBiz, given that it's 
> >>>>> opensource no less, is really... an interesting exercise, not a 
> >>>>> tedious impractical one.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You can help me with your accounting knowledge. (Yes, help me!! I beg 
> >>>>> you!)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How about that?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> One warning, though. There are quite a few bugs in OFBiz. They're 
> >>>>> small issues if you can dive in to fix them yourself. But if you're 
> >>>>> waiting for the community to fix them, you could be looking at weeks 
> >>>>> before a patch goes in, especially for non-trivial fixes that take 
> >>>>> time to review/audit. I'm currently holding quite a number of fixes 
> >>>>> in-house, not yet reviewed by community and merged back into OFBiz.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm deploying a customized system for my boss inside of 1 month. And 
> >>>>> he has quite a bit of customizations to do, particularly for the 
> >>>>> manufacturing side of things. Oh, the Manufacturing module is very 
> >>>>> feature-rich (thanks Jacopo!), just that my boss has special needs. 
> >>>>> I'd say we could work together and customize OFBiz for you inside of 
> >>>>> 2 weeks?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jonathon
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Paul Gear wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi folks,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm looking at different accounting/business management packages for 
> >>>>>> use
> >>>>>> in my small business, and i was excited when i found how comprehensive
> >>>>>> and easy to install opentaps was.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> However, it is a daunting application for the beginner, and it leads me
> >>>>>> to ask: is it asking for trouble trying to use it as a small business
> >>>>>> accounting package?  My requirements are fairly simple: invoicing
> >>>>>> (services only, no inventory), general ledger, and GST tracking for the
> >>>>>> Australian tax system.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm a novice Java developer, so i can get through most basic problems
> >>>>>> OK, but understanding the framework is a bit more complex an
> >>>>>> undertaking.  Am i just creating work for myself thinking that i can 
> >>>>>> use
> >>>>>> OFBiz/opentaps for my small business?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks in advance,
> >>>>>> Paul
> >>>>>> <http://paulgear.webhop.net>
> >>>>>> -- 
> >>>>>> Did you know?  Using HTML email rather than plain text is less
> >>>>>> efficient, taking anywhere from 2 to 20 times longer to download, and a
> >>>>>> corresponding amount more space on disk.  Learn more about using email
> >>>>>> efficiently at <http://www.expita.com/nomime.html>.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> 
-- 
Kind Regards
Andrew Sykes <an...@sykesdevelopment.com>
Sykes Development Ltd
http://www.sykesdevelopment.com

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Andrew Sykes <an...@sykesdevelopment.com>]

Ian, Jonathon,

I definitely don't agree with treating Java is your language of choice
as a way to avoid learning Minilang, here's some reasons why...

1/ Minilang is far quicker to write.
2/ Minilang is much more limited in scope, so less danger of...
	2a. Writing unidiomatic code
	2b. Writing buggy code
3/ Being a simpler language, minilang can be handled by far more junior
personnel, and in some cases, I've seen non development staff being
fairly productive.
4/ Java developers are easier to hire, but not ones with a good
understanding of the OfBiz API.
5/ Learning minilang is a fast-track route to adopting the OfBiz
developer's mindset.
6/ So much functionality is already implemented in minilang that you
ignore it at your peril.
7/ When you finally have to adopt Minilang you'll have a load of
unmaintainable java legacy. This will no doubt seem more and more
cryptic as time goes on.

I could probably go on...

This type of approach breaks the golden rule when adopting something as
large as OfBiz, that is, read read read!, learn learn learn!, and only
then should you think of letting yourself loose on the code! You'll
thank yourself later!

No doubt various people will counter this with a whole lot of personal
dislikes about minilang, but I'll be surprised if any of these people
have been using OfBiz in anger for any length of time.

Sorry if this seems a little condescending, but I've seen this kind of
argument in my consultancy work several times, and the resulting costly
dodgy java or furious back-peddling that results from it.

- Andrew


On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 19:38 +0800, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> Er, Ian. I forgot to mention this.
> 
> The docs for engineers aren't too comprehensive either. Try putting your best Java developers into 
> picking up OFBiz. Take the screen widgets and form widgets for example. See how they fare. Like I 
> said, Java is more documented than OFBiz-specific technologies.
> 
> BUT.. but it's entirely possible to use Java only, plus non-OFBiz-specific technologies like 
> Freemarker for front-end development convenience, and to skip Minilang and screen/form widgets to 
> a large extent. Non-OFBiz-specific technologies are generally better documented since their 
> developers focus develoment time solely on those techs, like Freemarker (front-end tool) 
> developers don't delve into entity engines (backend tools).
> 
> As I was telling my boss, it's actually easier to hire Java programmers than to hire Minilang or 
> screen/form widget programmers.
> 
> So, beware of the implications. Say I code customizations for you in Minilang and screen/form 
> widgets, using almost or entirely zero Java. Future tech support could be an really hairy issue 
> for you.
> 
> BUT... at some point (I can't guarantee when), Minilang and screen/form widget docs will be 
> complete, audited to be comprehensive, etc. You'll then probably find that programming in Minilang 
> is more cost-effective than in Java. (Either that, or I get paid by someone to completely 
> reverse-engineer and document all of Minilang and screen/form widget in a reasonable timeframe --- 
> say a month. Not an impossible task, just a mountain of Java codes, is all).
> 
> For now, Java is perhaps your best bet.
> 
> To the other folks in overalls, I've been meaning to ask this. Is there any way at all to insert 
> debug messages inside of Minilang and screen/form widget codes? I find it easier to debug Java 
> codes for now.
> 
> Jonathon
> 
> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> > Ian,
> > 
> > Amen! Yeah, God is good. OFBiz is good. Both can be hard to understand. 
> > But I do believe that both are loving, very loving. Amen.
> > 
> > If there's any way we can all help each other (Paul, Ian, Jonathon), let 
> > me know.
> > 
> > Jonathon
> > 
> > Ian McNulty wrote:
> >> Hi Jonathon and Paul,
> >>
> >> Could I dive in here and say I'm currently trying to get a working 
> >> model up and running that I could demo to small business clients in 
> >> the UK.
> >>
> >> OFbiz looks so beautifully designed from the ground up, streets ahead 
> >> of the competition and adaptable to almost any situation from running 
> >> a one-man consultancy  to a multinational enterprise.
> >>
> >> It looks like the most awesome super-car you've ever seen. I can't 
> >> believe everybody won't want one.
> >>
> >> As Jonathon says, the community seems entirely focussed on moving 
> >> forward rapidly and winning the next Le Mans. Which is how it should be.
> >>
> >> Imo this explains the lack of docs and the small bugs. The mass of 
> >> available documentation is actually almost as awesome as the framework 
> >> itself. Problem is that it is all aimed at engineers who need to 
> >> understand how it works ... not how to work it. Enough workshop 
> >> manuals to fill shelves in the garage, but no simple driver handbooks 
> >> you can put in the glove compartment.
> >>
> >> This is a very fundamental difference. An entirely opposite point of 
> >> view.
> >>
> >> Try talking to the average driver about the thermodynamics of 
> >> combustion and they glaze over in seconds. They neither need nor want 
> >> to know. They simply want to drive it. They pay the garage to take 
> >> care of all that for them so they can free themselves up to deal with 
> >> other things - like where to drive to.
> >>
> >> It's the little, superficial things that are most important. How does 
> >> the door latch sound? Where is the gear shift and indicator switch? 
> >> How often does it break down?
> >>
> >> This is true for all levels of users. More so in fact for the 
> >> President of a large Corporation to whom image arriving at the golf 
> >> club is everything, than to the small businessman in the street who 
> >> accepts he may have to get his hands dirty occasionally.
> >>
> >> Winning the Le Mans is obviously a huge selling point and an essential 
> >> place to start. In those circumstance, a door latch which needs a 
> >> knack to open, the absence of a drivers handbook and the need for team 
> >> of mechanics to tune it before every race is absolutely par for the 
> >> course. And a racing driver who complains about such things will - 
> >> quite rightly - be quickly shown the door.
> >>
> >> But for the average driver in the street it's exactly the opposite. 
> >> One sticking door latch, one miss-start, one breakdown on the first 
> >> test drive and they've had their one bite of the cherry and ain't 
> >> never coming back for more.
> >>
> >> Imo this is the only problem I'd like to see solved.
> >>
> >> I started out a few weeks ago trying to point out that this list is 
> >> more for users in overalls at the pit stop than drivers in business 
> >> suits on their way to the office.
> >>
> >> Imo a forum for user-drivers rather than user-engineers would help 
> >> focus the view from the other end of the telescope and prevent 
> >> discussion of such superficial issues from clogging the inboxes of the 
> >> rocket scientists who really need to be concentrating on getting us to 
> >> Mars.
> >>
> >> I personally would like to contribute towards the development of some 
> >> kind of drivers handbook. But if I can't get a working model going for 
> >> myself then it's hard to know where to start.
> >>
> >> Ian
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >>> Hi Paul,
> >>>
> >>> I believe I'm currently doing it for a small business as well.
> >>>
> >>> You'll need to customize. Customization in this case involves 
> >>> defaulting many values and code execution paths for a more condensed 
> >>> workflow. That is, you can cut out some unnecessary steps in the 
> >>> workflow and also auto-populate default values for some fields (or 
> >>> leave them blank and unused).
> >>>
> >>> I propose that we work together on this? I have yet to hit the 
> >>> accounting and GL side of things. I have figured out the ecommerce 
> >>> (PO, SO) and product configuration side of things, though. And also 
> >>> manufacturing, because my boss does manufacture stuff.
> >>>
> >>> You'll find that being a novice Java developer is ALL you need to be, 
> >>> the framework is that easy to use. Well, you also need acute 
> >>> reverse-engineering skills because the only way you'll find out how 
> >>> things work is by diving into the framework source codes (see 
> >>> GenericDelegator.java for entity-related functions). No docs. 
> >>> Community is too being moving OFBiz forward rapidly.
> >>>
> >>> In fact, you may find it easily initially to use Java instead of 
> >>> Minilang. Java is a lot more documented than Minilang.
> >>>
> >>> Tell you what. I can offer you very quick answers to "how do I do 
> >>> this or that". I'm a reverse-engineer by trade; I have small crack 
> >>> teams that mathematically take apart legacy system codes to break 
> >>> vendor-lock for my clients. So, figuring out OFBiz, given that it's 
> >>> opensource no less, is really... an interesting exercise, not a 
> >>> tedious impractical one.
> >>>
> >>> You can help me with your accounting knowledge. (Yes, help me!! I beg 
> >>> you!)
> >>>
> >>> How about that?
> >>>
> >>> One warning, though. There are quite a few bugs in OFBiz. They're 
> >>> small issues if you can dive in to fix them yourself. But if you're 
> >>> waiting for the community to fix them, you could be looking at weeks 
> >>> before a patch goes in, especially for non-trivial fixes that take 
> >>> time to review/audit. I'm currently holding quite a number of fixes 
> >>> in-house, not yet reviewed by community and merged back into OFBiz.
> >>>
> >>> I'm deploying a customized system for my boss inside of 1 month. And 
> >>> he has quite a bit of customizations to do, particularly for the 
> >>> manufacturing side of things. Oh, the Manufacturing module is very 
> >>> feature-rich (thanks Jacopo!), just that my boss has special needs. 
> >>> I'd say we could work together and customize OFBiz for you inside of 
> >>> 2 weeks?
> >>>
> >>> Jonathon
> >>>
> >>> Paul Gear wrote:
> >>>> Hi folks,
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm looking at different accounting/business management packages for 
> >>>> use
> >>>> in my small business, and i was excited when i found how comprehensive
> >>>> and easy to install opentaps was.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, it is a daunting application for the beginner, and it leads me
> >>>> to ask: is it asking for trouble trying to use it as a small business
> >>>> accounting package?  My requirements are fairly simple: invoicing
> >>>> (services only, no inventory), general ledger, and GST tracking for the
> >>>> Australian tax system.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm a novice Java developer, so i can get through most basic problems
> >>>> OK, but understanding the framework is a bit more complex an
> >>>> undertaking.  Am i just creating work for myself thinking that i can 
> >>>> use
> >>>> OFBiz/opentaps for my small business?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks in advance,
> >>>> Paul
> >>>> <http://paulgear.webhop.net>
> >>>> -- 
> >>>> Did you know?  Using HTML email rather than plain text is less
> >>>> efficient, taking anywhere from 2 to 20 times longer to download, and a
> >>>> corresponding amount more space on disk.  Learn more about using email
> >>>> efficiently at <http://www.expita.com/nomime.html>.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > 
> 
-- 
Kind Regards
Andrew Sykes <an...@sykesdevelopment.com>
Sykes Development Ltd
http://www.sykesdevelopment.com

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>]

Ian,

Amen! Yeah, God is good. OFBiz is good. Both can be hard to understand. But I do believe that both 
are loving, very loving. Amen.

If there's any way we can all help each other (Paul, Ian, Jonathon), let me know.

Jonathon

Ian McNulty wrote:
> Hi Jonathon and Paul,
> 
> Could I dive in here and say I'm currently trying to get a working model 
> up and running that I could demo to small business clients in the UK.
> 
> OFbiz looks so beautifully designed from the ground up, streets ahead of 
> the competition and adaptable to almost any situation from running a 
> one-man consultancy  to a multinational enterprise.
> 
> It looks like the most awesome super-car you've ever seen. I can't 
> believe everybody won't want one.
> 
> As Jonathon says, the community seems entirely focussed on moving 
> forward rapidly and winning the next Le Mans. Which is how it should be.
> 
> Imo this explains the lack of docs and the small bugs. The mass of 
> available documentation is actually almost as awesome as the framework 
> itself. Problem is that it is all aimed at engineers who need to 
> understand how it works ... not how to work it. Enough workshop manuals 
> to fill shelves in the garage, but no simple driver handbooks you can 
> put in the glove compartment.
> 
> This is a very fundamental difference. An entirely opposite point of view.
> 
> Try talking to the average driver about the thermodynamics of combustion 
> and they glaze over in seconds. They neither need nor want to know. They 
> simply want to drive it. They pay the garage to take care of all that 
> for them so they can free themselves up to deal with other things - like 
> where to drive to.
> 
> It's the little, superficial things that are most important. How does 
> the door latch sound? Where is the gear shift and indicator switch? How 
> often does it break down?
> 
> This is true for all levels of users. More so in fact for the President 
> of a large Corporation to whom image arriving at the golf club is 
> everything, than to the small businessman in the street who accepts he 
> may have to get his hands dirty occasionally.
> 
> Winning the Le Mans is obviously a huge selling point and an essential 
> place to start. In those circumstance, a door latch which needs a knack 
> to open, the absence of a drivers handbook and the need for team of 
> mechanics to tune it before every race is absolutely par for the course. 
> And a racing driver who complains about such things will - quite rightly 
> - be quickly shown the door.
> 
> But for the average driver in the street it's exactly the opposite. One 
> sticking door latch, one miss-start, one breakdown on the first test 
> drive and they've had their one bite of the cherry and ain't never 
> coming back for more.
> 
> Imo this is the only problem I'd like to see solved.
> 
> I started out a few weeks ago trying to point out that this list is more 
> for users in overalls at the pit stop than drivers in business suits on 
> their way to the office.
> 
> Imo a forum for user-drivers rather than user-engineers would help focus 
> the view from the other end of the telescope and prevent discussion of 
> such superficial issues from clogging the inboxes of the rocket 
> scientists who really need to be concentrating on getting us to Mars.
> 
> I personally would like to contribute towards the development of some 
> kind of drivers handbook. But if I can't get a working model going for 
> myself then it's hard to know where to start.
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> I believe I'm currently doing it for a small business as well.
>>
>> You'll need to customize. Customization in this case involves 
>> defaulting many values and code execution paths for a more condensed 
>> workflow. That is, you can cut out some unnecessary steps in the 
>> workflow and also auto-populate default values for some fields (or 
>> leave them blank and unused).
>>
>> I propose that we work together on this? I have yet to hit the 
>> accounting and GL side of things. I have figured out the ecommerce 
>> (PO, SO) and product configuration side of things, though. And also 
>> manufacturing, because my boss does manufacture stuff.
>>
>> You'll find that being a novice Java developer is ALL you need to be, 
>> the framework is that easy to use. Well, you also need acute 
>> reverse-engineering skills because the only way you'll find out how 
>> things work is by diving into the framework source codes (see 
>> GenericDelegator.java for entity-related functions). No docs. 
>> Community is too being moving OFBiz forward rapidly.
>>
>> In fact, you may find it easily initially to use Java instead of 
>> Minilang. Java is a lot more documented than Minilang.
>>
>> Tell you what. I can offer you very quick answers to "how do I do this 
>> or that". I'm a reverse-engineer by trade; I have small crack teams 
>> that mathematically take apart legacy system codes to break 
>> vendor-lock for my clients. So, figuring out OFBiz, given that it's 
>> opensource no less, is really... an interesting exercise, not a 
>> tedious impractical one.
>>
>> You can help me with your accounting knowledge. (Yes, help me!! I beg 
>> you!)
>>
>> How about that?
>>
>> One warning, though. There are quite a few bugs in OFBiz. They're 
>> small issues if you can dive in to fix them yourself. But if you're 
>> waiting for the community to fix them, you could be looking at weeks 
>> before a patch goes in, especially for non-trivial fixes that take 
>> time to review/audit. I'm currently holding quite a number of fixes 
>> in-house, not yet reviewed by community and merged back into OFBiz.
>>
>> I'm deploying a customized system for my boss inside of 1 month. And 
>> he has quite a bit of customizations to do, particularly for the 
>> manufacturing side of things. Oh, the Manufacturing module is very 
>> feature-rich (thanks Jacopo!), just that my boss has special needs. 
>> I'd say we could work together and customize OFBiz for you inside of 2 
>> weeks?
>>
>> Jonathon
>>
>> Paul Gear wrote:
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> I'm looking at different accounting/business management packages for use
>>> in my small business, and i was excited when i found how comprehensive
>>> and easy to install opentaps was.
>>>
>>> However, it is a daunting application for the beginner, and it leads me
>>> to ask: is it asking for trouble trying to use it as a small business
>>> accounting package?  My requirements are fairly simple: invoicing
>>> (services only, no inventory), general ledger, and GST tracking for the
>>> Australian tax system.
>>>
>>> I'm a novice Java developer, so i can get through most basic problems
>>> OK, but understanding the framework is a bit more complex an
>>> undertaking.  Am i just creating work for myself thinking that i can use
>>> OFBiz/opentaps for my small business?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance,
>>> Paul
>>> <http://paulgear.webhop.net>
>>> -- 
>>> Did you know?  Using HTML email rather than plain text is less
>>> efficient, taking anywhere from 2 to 20 times longer to download, and a
>>> corresponding amount more space on disk.  Learn more about using email
>>> efficiently at <http://www.expita.com/nomime.html>.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

["David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

On Jan 18, 2007, at 12:03 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:

> Imo this explains the lack of docs and the small bugs. The mass of  
> available documentation is actually almost as awesome as the  
> framework itself. Problem is that it is all aimed at engineers who  
> need to understand how it works ... not how to work it. Enough  
> workshop manuals to fill shelves in the garage, but no simple  
> driver handbooks you can put in the glove compartment.
>
> This is a very fundamental difference. An entirely opposite point  
> of view.

Have you had a chance to check out this section of the docs.ofbiz.org  
site?

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

It's certainly not complete, nor terribly up-to-date any more as Andy  
and I stopped funding this a few months ago, and no one has really  
seriously picked it up yet.

For any future efforts, this is the place to work on...

-David

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

Hi Jonathon and Paul,

Could I dive in here and say I'm currently trying to get a working model 
up and running that I could demo to small business clients in the UK.

OFbiz looks so beautifully designed from the ground up, streets ahead of 
the competition and adaptable to almost any situation from running a 
one-man consultancy  to a multinational enterprise.

It looks like the most awesome super-car you've ever seen. I can't 
believe everybody won't want one.

As Jonathon says, the community seems entirely focussed on moving 
forward rapidly and winning the next Le Mans. Which is how it should be.

Imo this explains the lack of docs and the small bugs. The mass of 
available documentation is actually almost as awesome as the framework 
itself. Problem is that it is all aimed at engineers who need to 
understand how it works ... not how to work it. Enough workshop manuals 
to fill shelves in the garage, but no simple driver handbooks you can 
put in the glove compartment.

This is a very fundamental difference. An entirely opposite point of view.

Try talking to the average driver about the thermodynamics of combustion 
and they glaze over in seconds. They neither need nor want to know. They 
simply want to drive it. They pay the garage to take care of all that 
for them so they can free themselves up to deal with other things - like 
where to drive to.

It's the little, superficial things that are most important. How does 
the door latch sound? Where is the gear shift and indicator switch? How 
often does it break down?

This is true for all levels of users. More so in fact for the President 
of a large Corporation to whom image arriving at the golf club is 
everything, than to the small businessman in the street who accepts he 
may have to get his hands dirty occasionally.

Winning the Le Mans is obviously a huge selling point and an essential 
place to start. In those circumstance, a door latch which needs a knack 
to open, the absence of a drivers handbook and the need for team of 
mechanics to tune it before every race is absolutely par for the course. 
And a racing driver who complains about such things will - quite rightly 
- be quickly shown the door.

But for the average driver in the street it's exactly the opposite. One 
sticking door latch, one miss-start, one breakdown on the first test 
drive and they've had their one bite of the cherry and ain't never 
coming back for more.

Imo this is the only problem I'd like to see solved.

I started out a few weeks ago trying to point out that this list is more 
for users in overalls at the pit stop than drivers in business suits on 
their way to the office.

Imo a forum for user-drivers rather than user-engineers would help focus 
the view from the other end of the telescope and prevent discussion of 
such superficial issues from clogging the inboxes of the rocket 
scientists who really need to be concentrating on getting us to Mars.

I personally would like to contribute towards the development of some 
kind of drivers handbook. But if I can't get a working model going for 
myself then it's hard to know where to start.

Ian




Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> I believe I'm currently doing it for a small business as well.
>
> You'll need to customize. Customization in this case involves 
> defaulting many values and code execution paths for a more condensed 
> workflow. That is, you can cut out some unnecessary steps in the 
> workflow and also auto-populate default values for some fields (or 
> leave them blank and unused).
>
> I propose that we work together on this? I have yet to hit the 
> accounting and GL side of things. I have figured out the ecommerce 
> (PO, SO) and product configuration side of things, though. And also 
> manufacturing, because my boss does manufacture stuff.
>
> You'll find that being a novice Java developer is ALL you need to be, 
> the framework is that easy to use. Well, you also need acute 
> reverse-engineering skills because the only way you'll find out how 
> things work is by diving into the framework source codes (see 
> GenericDelegator.java for entity-related functions). No docs. 
> Community is too being moving OFBiz forward rapidly.
>
> In fact, you may find it easily initially to use Java instead of 
> Minilang. Java is a lot more documented than Minilang.
>
> Tell you what. I can offer you very quick answers to "how do I do this 
> or that". I'm a reverse-engineer by trade; I have small crack teams 
> that mathematically take apart legacy system codes to break 
> vendor-lock for my clients. So, figuring out OFBiz, given that it's 
> opensource no less, is really... an interesting exercise, not a 
> tedious impractical one.
>
> You can help me with your accounting knowledge. (Yes, help me!! I beg 
> you!)
>
> How about that?
>
> One warning, though. There are quite a few bugs in OFBiz. They're 
> small issues if you can dive in to fix them yourself. But if you're 
> waiting for the community to fix them, you could be looking at weeks 
> before a patch goes in, especially for non-trivial fixes that take 
> time to review/audit. I'm currently holding quite a number of fixes 
> in-house, not yet reviewed by community and merged back into OFBiz.
>
> I'm deploying a customized system for my boss inside of 1 month. And 
> he has quite a bit of customizations to do, particularly for the 
> manufacturing side of things. Oh, the Manufacturing module is very 
> feature-rich (thanks Jacopo!), just that my boss has special needs. 
> I'd say we could work together and customize OFBiz for you inside of 2 
> weeks?
>
> Jonathon
>
> Paul Gear wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I'm looking at different accounting/business management packages for use
>> in my small business, and i was excited when i found how comprehensive
>> and easy to install opentaps was.
>>
>> However, it is a daunting application for the beginner, and it leads me
>> to ask: is it asking for trouble trying to use it as a small business
>> accounting package?  My requirements are fairly simple: invoicing
>> (services only, no inventory), general ledger, and GST tracking for the
>> Australian tax system.
>>
>> I'm a novice Java developer, so i can get through most basic problems
>> OK, but understanding the framework is a bit more complex an
>> undertaking.  Am i just creating work for myself thinking that i can use
>> OFBiz/opentaps for my small business?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Paul
>> <http://paulgear.webhop.net>
>> -- 
>> Did you know?  Using HTML email rather than plain text is less
>> efficient, taking anywhere from 2 to 20 times longer to download, and a
>> corresponding amount more space on disk.  Learn more about using email
>> efficiently at <http://www.expita.com/nomime.html>.
>>
>
>
>

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>]

David,

They're running a series of TV ads in the UK at the moment with the 
message: Why say 'or'? Why not say 'and' and choose both?

Point being: Isn't it possible that both extremes are right?

i.e. There are too many documents. So many it's impossible to find anything?

Ian



David E. Jones wrote:
>
> On Jan 17, 2007, at 10:10 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>
>> You'll find that being a novice Java developer is ALL you need to be, 
>> the framework is that easy to use. Well, you also need acute 
>> reverse-engineering skills because the only way you'll find out how 
>> things work is by diving into the framework source codes (see 
>> GenericDelegator.java for entity-related functions). No docs. 
>> Community is too being moving OFBiz forward rapidly.
>
> That's a little inaccurate...
>
> Try:
>
> http://ofbiz.apache.org/documents.html
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/PQM
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/
>
> I always find it entertaining to see people talk about docs. Some 
> express dismay at how much documentation there is and how much time it 
> takes to go through it all. Others say there are no docs whatsoever 
> nor any sort of resource to learn about it... Oh well.
>
> Enjoy!
>
> -David
>

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

t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736

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

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

["David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

On Jan 17, 2007, at 10:10 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:

> You'll find that being a novice Java developer is ALL you need to  
> be, the framework is that easy to use. Well, you also need acute  
> reverse-engineering skills because the only way you'll find out how  
> things work is by diving into the framework source codes (see  
> GenericDelegator.java for entity-related functions). No docs.  
> Community is too being moving OFBiz forward rapidly.

That's a little inaccurate...

Try:

http://ofbiz.apache.org/documents.html
http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/PQM
http://docs.ofbiz.org/

I always find it entertaining to see people talk about docs. Some  
express dismay at how much documentation there is and how much time  
it takes to go through it all. Others say there are no docs  
whatsoever nor any sort of resource to learn about it... Oh well.

Enjoy!

-David

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>]

Hi Paul,

I believe I'm currently doing it for a small business as well.

You'll need to customize. Customization in this case involves defaulting many values and code 
execution paths for a more condensed workflow. That is, you can cut out some unnecessary steps in 
the workflow and also auto-populate default values for some fields (or leave them blank and unused).

I propose that we work together on this? I have yet to hit the accounting and GL side of things. I 
have figured out the ecommerce (PO, SO) and product configuration side of things, though. And also 
manufacturing, because my boss does manufacture stuff.

You'll find that being a novice Java developer is ALL you need to be, the framework is that easy 
to use. Well, you also need acute reverse-engineering skills because the only way you'll find out 
how things work is by diving into the framework source codes (see GenericDelegator.java for 
entity-related functions). No docs. Community is too being moving OFBiz forward rapidly.

In fact, you may find it easily initially to use Java instead of Minilang. Java is a lot more 
documented than Minilang.

Tell you what. I can offer you very quick answers to "how do I do this or that". I'm a 
reverse-engineer by trade; I have small crack teams that mathematically take apart legacy system 
codes to break vendor-lock for my clients. So, figuring out OFBiz, given that it's opensource no 
less, is really... an interesting exercise, not a tedious impractical one.

You can help me with your accounting knowledge. (Yes, help me!! I beg you!)

How about that?

One warning, though. There are quite a few bugs in OFBiz. They're small issues if you can dive in 
to fix them yourself. But if you're waiting for the community to fix them, you could be looking at 
weeks before a patch goes in, especially for non-trivial fixes that take time to review/audit. I'm 
currently holding quite a number of fixes in-house, not yet reviewed by community and merged back 
into OFBiz.

I'm deploying a customized system for my boss inside of 1 month. And he has quite a bit of 
customizations to do, particularly for the manufacturing side of things. Oh, the Manufacturing 
module is very feature-rich (thanks Jacopo!), just that my boss has special needs. I'd say we 
could work together and customize OFBiz for you inside of 2 weeks?

Jonathon

Paul Gear wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> I'm looking at different accounting/business management packages for use
> in my small business, and i was excited when i found how comprehensive
> and easy to install opentaps was.
> 
> However, it is a daunting application for the beginner, and it leads me
> to ask: is it asking for trouble trying to use it as a small business
> accounting package?  My requirements are fairly simple: invoicing
> (services only, no inventory), general ledger, and GST tracking for the
> Australian tax system.
> 
> I'm a novice Java developer, so i can get through most basic problems
> OK, but understanding the framework is a bit more complex an
> undertaking.  Am i just creating work for myself thinking that i can use
> OFBiz/opentaps for my small business?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Paul
> <http://paulgear.webhop.net>
> --
> Did you know?  Using HTML email rather than plain text is less
> efficient, taking anywhere from 2 to 20 times longer to download, and a
> corresponding amount more space on disk.  Learn more about using email
> efficiently at <http://www.expita.com/nomime.html>.
> 

Re: OFBiz/opentaps as a small business accounting package?

[Chris Howe <cj...@yahoo.com>]

Hey Paul,

You will probably have better luck with your opentaps
financials questions over on the opentaps sourceforge
forums.
http://sourceforge.net/forum/?group_id=145855
The guys working on that component likely follow both
mailing lists, but I would imagine they follow that
one a bit more religiously and can give you a faster
response there.

There have been quite a few discussions on many of the
topics you're interested in on the OFBiz mailing lists
as well.  You can search for the topics individually. 
Nabble is a great site for these aggregations and
seeing the threads in context.  Here's the link for
the OFBiz portion of nabble.
http://www.nabble.com/OFBiz-f2740.html

There was quite a discussion a little more than a year
ago regarding using Quickbooks via SOAP with OFBiz as
well.  Depending on your needs you may consider that
route as well.

As far as creating work for yourself, a quick answer
is, perhaps.  A longer answer is that it's likely to
be time well spent. You'll end up with generally a
better understanding of your _actual business needs as
well as many ideas on how to better automate your
business around what your company's strengths are and
what your customers needs are.

There have been numbers passed around about the size
of a business that OFBiz is beneficial for and that's
at about 2 million dollar US + [Note: the size
breakpoint may simply be the size of a company that
likely has a budget large enough for a consultant to
make money on :-) ]  You may not need to be doing that
much business today, but if you're genuinely aspiring
to that size, you'll likely benefit in doing things in
an ERP/OFBiz style.

If you're needs are just to keep track of some things
kind of unofficially, you may also find some benefit
from the OFBiz framework and dumbing down a lot of the
other components.  The learning curve in OFBiz is
somewhat steep because it's integrating several tools
and concepts into one thing.  The tools individually
are rather straight forward and there's plenty
discussion and documentation regarding them on various
sites.  Most of those sites are linked off of
ofbiz.apache.org.  In addition, the user and
development mailing lists are quite busy so you can
usually get an answer pretty quickly there as well
regarding specific questions on using the tools.

Hope you find this helpful,

Chris


--- Paul Gear <pa...@gear.dyndns.org> wrote:

> Hi folks,
> 
> I'm looking at different accounting/business
> management packages for use
> in my small business, and i was excited when i found
> how comprehensive
> and easy to install opentaps was.
> 
> However, it is a daunting application for the
> beginner, and it leads me
> to ask: is it asking for trouble trying to use it as
> a small business
> accounting package?  My requirements are fairly
> simple: invoicing
> (services only, no inventory), general ledger, and
> GST tracking for the
> Australian tax system.
> 
> I'm a novice Java developer, so i can get through
> most basic problems
> OK, but understanding the framework is a bit more
> complex an
> undertaking.  Am i just creating work for myself
> thinking that i can use
> OFBiz/opentaps for my small business?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Paul
> <http://paulgear.webhop.net>
> --
> Did you know?  Using HTML email rather than plain
> text is less
> efficient, taking anywhere from 2 to 20 times longer
> to download, and a
> corresponding amount more space on disk.  Learn more
> about using email
> efficiently at <http://www.expita.com/nomime.html>.
> 
>