You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@ofbiz.apache.org by David Shere <ds...@steelerubber.com> on 2007/03/05 17:05:58 UTC
Re: ComputerWorld Article, Mentions OFBiz
What does this article mean when it says that OFBiz has no "services
division"?
David E. Jones wrote:
>
> Not a lot of detail on the project, nor terribly accurate on the ones it
> does have, but an interesting read with some good points anyway:
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9011649
>
>
> -David
--
David Shere
Information Technology Services
Steele Rubber Products
www.SteeleRubber.com
Re: ComputerWorld Article, Mentions OFBiz
Posted by Walter Vaughan <wv...@steelerubber.com>.
David E. Jones wrote:
> For open source business
> software projects like OFBiz are really rather rare, and don't get much
> press.
Or visiblity at trade shows. I'm getting two or three marketing pieces a week
from the NCOF (National Conference on Operations & Fulfillment), and all I can
think is that there is a bunch of companies that could come into the family and
help sponsor pieces of ofBiz/openTaps.
I gave two seminars ("Data Standards" and "Marketing your small business on the
internet") this past weekend a the HotRod & Restoration Trade show in
Indianapolis. I did get ofBiz worked into the bio that was read by the person
introducing me, but I didn't get to spend much time talking about ofBiz during
the seminars.
I'm guessing in 2008 I'll make the push to give presentations on open source ERP
/MRP/E-commerce systems [with a emphasis on ofBiz of course] at SEMA
(http://www.semashow.com), Automotive eForum (http://www.aftermarketeforum.com),
HRR (http://www.hotrodshow.com), and maybe even the Sema National Education
Conference.
--
Walter
Re: ComputerWorld Article, Mentions OFBiz
Posted by Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>.
Scott,
There's something very odd happening with email at my end of the world.
For some reason I've only just received a copy of my own post to the ML
of 6 hours ago, your post below arrived after that and I still haven't
received the posts from Jacopo or yourself to which you refer. I'll
check Nabble to get myself up to speed and reply on the threads as and
when they arrive as you suggest.
I wasn't aware that I was feeling particularly frustrated. I'm just one
of those anally retentive OCD nuts who can only do stuff one step at a
time. I was just trying to establish that my various messages hadn't
been lost in the ether so I could close that chapter and move on to
something else.
Regards,
Ian
Scott Gray wrote:
> Ian,
>
> Jacopo and myself have replied to your second posting within the last
> few hours, please check the mailing list and we can continue any
> discussions on that thread. Please don't feel frustrated, we do
> appreciate your work.
>
> Thanks
> Scott
>
> Ian McNulty wrote:
>> David,
>>
>> I'm getting really confused here.
>>
>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>> Having a large OOTB end-user community would certainly benefit the
>>> project, in really major ways too. The problem is that the current
>>> contributing community does not have sufficient resources to create
>>> and maintain what would be needed to satisfy this sort of user.
>>
>> It is generally accepted that one of the main things all OOTB
>> end-users need is accessible end-user documentation.
>>
>> In OFBiz End-User Documentation > OFBiz End User Docs Home > Areas
>> Being Worked On, David E. Jones wrote:
>>
>>> There is a lot of work to be done on editing and structuring and
>>> reformatting the OFBiz documentation. In short, we need your help!
>>>
>>> You can find the PDF exports from the Undersun end-user
>>> documentation site here
>>> <http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBENDUSER/Undersun+Doc+Site+PDF+Exports>.
>>>
>>
>> As far as I can tell, half-completed fragments of various attempts to
>> translate the Manager Reference PDFs are currently scattered over at
>> least 6 other locations in the Wiki (for details see my comments at
>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBENDUSER/Areas+Being+Worked+On ).
>> There can be no doubt that most end-users will find this very
>> confusing and frustrating indeed.
>>
>> To help address the problem of the lack of resources in the current
>> contributing community, I decided to commit a considerable amount of
>> my own time to answering David's request for help by translating all
>> 12 of the Manager References in their entirety to Wiki format in one
>> location.
>>
>> This work has now been completed. I was not given access to the end
>> User Docs space so have put them in my personal Confluence space at
>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/~ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk/Manager+References
>>
>> I posted news of this on the ML on the 3 March with a request that
>> they might now be transferred out of my to the End User Docs space -
>> but had absolutely no response whatsoever!
>>
>> I reposted this request under a new thread again on the 5 March - and
>> had absolutely no response again!
>>
>> I understand that most of the core team is currently engaged in the
>> Developer's Hackathon in Ephraim. But they are still posting here on
>> a raft of other issues. What am I to make of what would appear to be
>> their complete lack of interest in this one?
>>
>> BTW. Just to be clear on this, I am not looking for any thanks or
>> brownie points or engaging in any other kind of attention seeking
>> whatsoever. I understand that other members of this community have
>> committed considerably more to this project than I have and that my
>> contribution is very minor in comparison.
>>
>> What I am looking for is:
>>
>> 1) some kind of acknowledgement that the translated Manager Reference
>> PDFs can, at some time in the future, be transferred to a more public
>> section of the Wiki where they can be more easily accessed by
>> end-users and further amended and developed by those more qualified
>> than myself
>>
>> 2) some kind of solution to the cloud of confusion currently existing
>> in the user documentation, with half-completed fragments of various
>> attempts to translate the Manager Reference PDFs currently scattered
>> over at least 6 other locations in the Wiki.
>>
>> How unreasonable a request is that?
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mar 5, 2007, at 6:57 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>
>>>> David (Jones),
>>>>
>>>> What about those open source projects that are polished for OOTB
>>>> convenience and experience? Even Apache (httpd) and Tomcat (both
>>>> under Apache Licence 2.0?) have better OOTB "operational readiness"
>>>> than OFBiz. Ie, they work well OOTB and they have very good and
>>>> widely published docs to further fuel explosive rate of community
>>>> development. (I understand you believe that approach won't benefit
>>>> OFBiz; I don't know so I can't say.)
>>>
>>> Yeah, I guess I like Jacopo's point that it would be better to quite
>>> me than speak for me. In this I don't believe I even said/wrote
>>> anything like that.
>>>
>>> Having a large OOTB end-user community would certainly benefit the
>>> project, in really major ways too. The problem is that the current
>>> contributing community does not have sufficient resources to create
>>> and maintain what would be needed to satisfy this sort of user.
>>> Hopefully that will change in the future. In the mean time, the
>>> project is self-sustaining and growing based on use by non-OOTB
>>> users and contributors (or those that are OOTB users, but just
>>> extremely patient... ;) ).
>>>
>>> -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: ComputerWorld Article, Mentions OFBiz
Posted by Scott Gray <le...@gmail.com>.
Ian,
Jacopo and myself have replied to your second posting within the last
few hours, please check the mailing list and we can continue any
discussions on that thread. Please don't feel frustrated, we do
appreciate your work.
Thanks
Scott
Ian McNulty wrote:
> David,
>
> I'm getting really confused here.
>
> David E. Jones wrote:
>> Having a large OOTB end-user community would certainly benefit the
>> project, in really major ways too. The problem is that the current
>> contributing community does not have sufficient resources to create
>> and maintain what would be needed to satisfy this sort of user.
>
> It is generally accepted that one of the main things all OOTB
> end-users need is accessible end-user documentation.
>
> In OFBiz End-User Documentation > OFBiz End User Docs Home > Areas
> Being Worked On, David E. Jones wrote:
>
>> There is a lot of work to be done on editing and structuring and
>> reformatting the OFBiz documentation. In short, we need your help!
>>
>> You can find the PDF exports from the Undersun end-user documentation
>> site here
>> <http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBENDUSER/Undersun+Doc+Site+PDF+Exports>.
>>
>
> As far as I can tell, half-completed fragments of various attempts to
> translate the Manager Reference PDFs are currently scattered over at
> least 6 other locations in the Wiki (for details see my comments at
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBENDUSER/Areas+Being+Worked+On ).
> There can be no doubt that most end-users will find this very
> confusing and frustrating indeed.
>
> To help address the problem of the lack of resources in the current
> contributing community, I decided to commit a considerable amount of
> my own time to answering David's request for help by translating all
> 12 of the Manager References in their entirety to Wiki format in one
> location.
>
> This work has now been completed. I was not given access to the end
> User Docs space so have put them in my personal Confluence space at
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/~ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk/Manager+References
>
> I posted news of this on the ML on the 3 March with a request that
> they might now be transferred out of my to the End User Docs space -
> but had absolutely no response whatsoever!
>
> I reposted this request under a new thread again on the 5 March - and
> had absolutely no response again!
>
> I understand that most of the core team is currently engaged in the
> Developer's Hackathon in Ephraim. But they are still posting here on a
> raft of other issues. What am I to make of what would appear to be
> their complete lack of interest in this one?
>
> BTW. Just to be clear on this, I am not looking for any thanks or
> brownie points or engaging in any other kind of attention seeking
> whatsoever. I understand that other members of this community have
> committed considerably more to this project than I have and that my
> contribution is very minor in comparison.
>
> What I am looking for is:
>
> 1) some kind of acknowledgement that the translated Manager Reference
> PDFs can, at some time in the future, be transferred to a more public
> section of the Wiki where they can be more easily accessed by
> end-users and further amended and developed by those more qualified
> than myself
>
> 2) some kind of solution to the cloud of confusion currently existing
> in the user documentation, with half-completed fragments of various
> attempts to translate the Manager Reference PDFs currently scattered
> over at least 6 other locations in the Wiki.
>
> How unreasonable a request is that?
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> David E. Jones wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 5, 2007, at 6:57 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>
>>> David (Jones),
>>>
>>> What about those open source projects that are polished for OOTB
>>> convenience and experience? Even Apache (httpd) and Tomcat (both
>>> under Apache Licence 2.0?) have better OOTB "operational readiness"
>>> than OFBiz. Ie, they work well OOTB and they have very good and
>>> widely published docs to further fuel explosive rate of community
>>> development. (I understand you believe that approach won't benefit
>>> OFBiz; I don't know so I can't say.)
>>
>> Yeah, I guess I like Jacopo's point that it would be better to quite
>> me than speak for me. In this I don't believe I even said/wrote
>> anything like that.
>>
>> Having a large OOTB end-user community would certainly benefit the
>> project, in really major ways too. The problem is that the current
>> contributing community does not have sufficient resources to create
>> and maintain what would be needed to satisfy this sort of user.
>> Hopefully that will change in the future. In the mean time, the
>> project is self-sustaining and growing based on use by non-OOTB users
>> and contributors (or those that are OOTB users, but just extremely
>> patient... ;) ).
>>
>> -David
>>
>
Re: Ofbiz Opportunity :: Only Question which I ever needed to ask :)
Posted by Torsten Schlabach <TS...@gmx.net>.
Hi Chand!
Thank you very much for your thoughs. I indeed currently try to make the case of OFBiz.
What doesn't become clear to me from your message:
Is that just some random thoughts or do you pursue any concrete goal?
Regards,
Torsten
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 01:11:36 -0800
Von: "Chandresh Turakhia" <ch...@bhartitelesoft.com>
An: user@ofbiz.apache.org
CC: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Betreff: Ofbiz Opportunity :: Only Question which I ever needed to ask :)
> Hi ,
>
> Ofbiz is looked at with curiousity for reasons other than it was Open
> Source from few people.
>
> Changing Values
> ----------------------------
>
> Corportate 2.0 is all about Open Company. People need to pathom the need
> to make WallStreet 1.0 to appreciate attempts for Corporate 2.0 :)
> Business 2.0 is only about Business Plan merged with Social Plans. Rise of
> Indian poor does not create "revolution" but makes many answerable on
> ballot bozez. Indians are being American of late - ASKING for cheaper & cheaper
> ( everyday low price ) goods - irrespective to national boundaries.
>
> Things in perspective
> --------------------------------
>
> Indian Retail ( Organized Retail ) is tring to achieve in 5 years what
> other Developed Countries developed over a period of 25 years. It is
> frenzy@best.
>
> Bharti teams with Wal-Mart and atleast 5 others 5Billion $ Plus other
> investments in organized retail. India has 10million pluz small traders. Number
> nowhere in the world match in unorganized sector.
>
> Usual structure of Deal : Indian Partner brings capital and contacts;
> Western partner brings "Systems" which helps to 'derisk' capital investments.
> But it opens up to Political risk of "Unfair Advantage" to big business
> houses. Western Partner may give technology free to Indian venture but it
> further solidify case of Unfair Advantage. :(
>
> Ofbiz Opportunity :
> a.. Indian Partner ACCEPTS Systems from Western Partner but uses
> SOFTWARE which is available for free to everyone
> b.. Hopefully Ofbiz gains in adapting to Established retail segment.
> Practical implementations.
> What does It take make this happen ?
>
> DISCLAIMER : This is just my personal thoughts. My Company has no
> obligations for whatsoever. AND I am not Lawyer.
>
> Chand
> Architect - COO team
Ofbiz Opportunity :: Only Question which I ever needed to ask :)
Posted by Chandresh Turakhia <ch...@bhartitelesoft.com>.
Hi ,
Ofbiz is looked at with curiousity for reasons other than it was Open Source from few people.
Changing Values
----------------------------
Corportate 2.0 is all about Open Company. People need to pathom the need to make WallStreet 1.0 to appreciate attempts for Corporate 2.0 :)
Business 2.0 is only about Business Plan merged with Social Plans. Rise of Indian poor does not create "revolution" but makes many answerable on ballot bozez. Indians are being American of late - ASKING for cheaper & cheaper ( everyday low price ) goods - irrespective to national boundaries.
Things in perspective
--------------------------------
Indian Retail ( Organized Retail ) is tring to achieve in 5 years what other Developed Countries developed over a period of 25 years. It is frenzy@best.
Bharti teams with Wal-Mart and atleast 5 others 5Billion $ Plus other investments in organized retail. India has 10million pluz small traders. Number nowhere in the world match in unorganized sector.
Usual structure of Deal : Indian Partner brings capital and contacts; Western partner brings "Systems" which helps to 'derisk' capital investments. But it opens up to Political risk of "Unfair Advantage" to big business houses. Western Partner may give technology free to Indian venture but it further solidify case of Unfair Advantage. :(
Ofbiz Opportunity :
a.. Indian Partner ACCEPTS Systems from Western Partner but uses SOFTWARE which is available for free to everyone
b.. Hopefully Ofbiz gains in adapting to Established retail segment. Practical implementations.
What does It take make this happen ?
DISCLAIMER : This is just my personal thoughts. My Company has no obligations for whatsoever. AND I am not Lawyer.
Chand
Architect - COO team
Ofbiz Opportunity :: Only Question which I ever needed to ask :)
Posted by Chandresh Turakhia <ch...@bhartitelesoft.com>.
Hi ,
Ofbiz is looked at with curiousity for reasons other than it was Open Source from few people.
Changing Values
----------------------------
Corportate 2.0 is all about Open Company. People need to pathom the need to make WallStreet 1.0 to appreciate attempts for Corporate 2.0 :)
Business 2.0 is only about Business Plan merged with Social Plans. Rise of Indian poor does not create "revolution" but makes many answerable on ballot bozez. Indians are being American of late - ASKING for cheaper & cheaper ( everyday low price ) goods - irrespective to national boundaries.
Things in perspective
--------------------------------
Indian Retail ( Organized Retail ) is tring to achieve in 5 years what other Developed Countries developed over a period of 25 years. It is frenzy@best.
Bharti teams with Wal-Mart and atleast 5 others 5Billion $ Plus other investments in organized retail. India has 10million pluz small traders. Number nowhere in the world match in unorganized sector.
Usual structure of Deal : Indian Partner brings capital and contacts; Western partner brings "Systems" which helps to 'derisk' capital investments. But it opens up to Political risk of "Unfair Advantage" to big business houses. Western Partner may give technology free to Indian venture but it further solidify case of Unfair Advantage. :(
Ofbiz Opportunity :
a.. Indian Partner ACCEPTS Systems from Western Partner but uses SOFTWARE which is available for free to everyone
b.. Hopefully Ofbiz gains in adapting to Established retail segment. Practical implementations.
What does It take make this happen ?
DISCLAIMER : This is just my personal thoughts. My Company has no obligations for whatsoever. AND I am not Lawyer.
Chand
Architect - COO team
Re: ComputerWorld Article, Mentions OFBiz
Posted by Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>.
Tim,
For some inexplicable reason your email seems to have been one of the
first replies posted on this issue, but only arrived in my inbox some 16
hours later, when I was just on my way to bed. Having had no response
for days to me 2 previous posts I've been somewhat overwhelmed by
today's reactions. As I said before, I wasn't looking for praise, but
it's very much appreciated anyway. Many thanks.
Best,
Ian
Tim Ruppert wrote:
> Ian, all I can say is that each day we've discussed trying to devote
> some resources the exercise you've teed up - and we're all interested
> in. Things have been rather busy, as you can imagine, and we ask for
> a bit of patience.
>
> We see your work and are excited about incorporating it as has been
> described in the past. Great stuff and thanks again.
>
> Cheers,
> Tim
> --
> Tim Ruppert
> HotWax Media
> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>
> o:801.649.6594
> f:801.649.6595
>
>
> On Mar 7, 2007, at 12:11 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>
>> David,
>>
>> I'm getting really confused here.
>>
>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>> Having a large OOTB end-user community would certainly benefit the
>>> project, in really major ways too. The problem is that the current
>>> contributing community does not have sufficient resources to create
>>> and maintain what would be needed to satisfy this sort of user.
>>
>> It is generally accepted that one of the main things all OOTB
>> end-users need is accessible end-user documentation.
>>
>> In OFBiz End-User Documentation > OFBiz End User Docs Home > Areas
>> Being Worked On, David E. Jones wrote:
>>
>>> There is a lot of work to be done on editing and structuring and
>>> reformatting the OFBiz documentation. In short, we need your help!
>>>
>>> You can find the PDF exports from the Undersun end-user
>>> documentation site here
>>> <http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBENDUSER/Undersun+Doc+Site+PDF+Exports>.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, half-completed fragments of various attempts to
>> translate the Manager Reference PDFs are currently scattered over at
>> least 6 other locations in the Wiki (for details see my comments at
>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBENDUSER/Areas+Being+Worked+On ).
>> There can be no doubt that most end-users will find this very
>> confusing and frustrating indeed.
>>
>> To help address the problem of the lack of resources in the current
>> contributing community, I decided to commit a considerable amount of
>> my own time to answering David's request for help by translating all
>> 12 of the Manager References in their entirety to Wiki format in one
>> location.
>>
>> This work has now been completed. I was not given access to the end
>> User Docs space so have put them in my personal Confluence space at
>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/~ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk/Manager+References
>> <http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/%7Eian@mcnultymedia.co.uk/Manager+References>
>>
>> I posted news of this on the ML on the 3 March with a request that
>> they might now be transferred out of my to the End User Docs space -
>> but had absolutely no response whatsoever!
>>
>> I reposted this request under a new thread again on the 5 March - and
>> had absolutely no response again!
>>
>> I understand that most of the core team is currently engaged in the
>> Developer's Hackathon in Ephraim. But they are still posting here on
>> a raft of other issues. What am I to make of what would appear to be
>> their complete lack of interest in this one?
>>
>> BTW. Just to be clear on this, I am not looking for any thanks or
>> brownie points or engaging in any other kind of attention seeking
>> whatsoever. I understand that other members of this community have
>> committed considerably more to this project than I have and that my
>> contribution is very minor in comparison.
>>
>> What I am looking for is:
>>
>> 1) some kind of acknowledgement that the translated Manager Reference
>> PDFs can, at some time in the future, be transferred to a more public
>> section of the Wiki where they can be more easily accessed by
>> end-users and further amended and developed by those more qualified
>> than myself
>>
>> 2) some kind of solution to the cloud of confusion currently existing
>> in the user documentation, with half-completed fragments of various
>> attempts to translate the Manager Reference PDFs currently scattered
>> over at least 6 other locations in the Wiki.
>>
>> How unreasonable a request is that?
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mar 5, 2007, at 6:57 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>
>>>> David (Jones),
>>>>
>>>> What about those open source projects that are polished for OOTB
>>>> convenience and experience? Even Apache (httpd) and Tomcat (both
>>>> under Apache Licence 2.0?) have better OOTB "operational readiness"
>>>> than OFBiz. Ie, they work well OOTB and they have very good and
>>>> widely published docs to further fuel explosive rate of community
>>>> development. (I understand you believe that approach won't benefit
>>>> OFBiz; I don't know so I can't say.)
>>>
>>> Yeah, I guess I like Jacopo's point that it would be better to quite
>>> me than speak for me. In this I don't believe I even said/wrote
>>> anything like that.
>>>
>>> Having a large OOTB end-user community would certainly benefit the
>>> project, in really major ways too. The problem is that the current
>>> contributing community does not have sufficient resources to create
>>> and maintain what would be needed to satisfy this sort of user.
>>> Hopefully that will change in the future. In the mean time, the
>>> project is self-sustaining and growing based on use by non-OOTB
>>> users and contributors (or those that are OOTB users, but just
>>> extremely patient... ;) ).
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>
Re: ComputerWorld Article, Mentions OFBiz
Posted by Tim Ruppert <ti...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Ian, all I can say is that each day we've discussed trying to devote
some resources the exercise you've teed up - and we're all interested
in. Things have been rather busy, as you can imagine, and we ask for
a bit of patience.
We see your work and are excited about incorporating it as has been
described in the past. Great stuff and thanks again.
Cheers,
Tim
--
Tim Ruppert
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
o:801.649.6594
f:801.649.6595
On Mar 7, 2007, at 12:11 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
> David,
>
> I'm getting really confused here.
>
> David E. Jones wrote:
>> Having a large OOTB end-user community would certainly benefit the
>> project, in really major ways too. The problem is that the current
>> contributing community does not have sufficient resources to
>> create and maintain what would be needed to satisfy this sort of
>> user.
>
> It is generally accepted that one of the main things all OOTB end-
> users need is accessible end-user documentation.
>
> In OFBiz End-User Documentation > OFBiz End User Docs Home > Areas
> Being Worked On, David E. Jones wrote:
>
>> There is a lot of work to be done on editing and structuring and
>> reformatting the OFBiz documentation. In short, we need your help!
>>
>> You can find the PDF exports from the Undersun end-user
>> documentation site here <http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBENDUSER/
>> Undersun+Doc+Site+PDF+Exports>.
>
> As far as I can tell, half-completed fragments of various attempts
> to translate the Manager Reference PDFs are currently scattered
> over at least 6 other locations in the Wiki (for details see my
> comments at http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBENDUSER/Areas+Being
> +Worked+On ). There can be no doubt that most end-users will find
> this very confusing and frustrating indeed.
>
> To help address the problem of the lack of resources in the current
> contributing community, I decided to commit a considerable amount
> of my own time to answering David's request for help by translating
> all 12 of the Manager References in their entirety to Wiki format
> in one location.
>
> This work has now been completed. I was not given access to the end
> User Docs space so have put them in my personal Confluence space at
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/~ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk/Manager
> +References
>
> I posted news of this on the ML on the 3 March with a request that
> they might now be transferred out of my to the End User Docs space
> - but had absolutely no response whatsoever!
>
> I reposted this request under a new thread again on the 5 March -
> and had absolutely no response again!
>
> I understand that most of the core team is currently engaged in the
> Developer's Hackathon in Ephraim. But they are still posting here
> on a raft of other issues. What am I to make of what would appear
> to be their complete lack of interest in this one?
>
> BTW. Just to be clear on this, I am not looking for any thanks or
> brownie points or engaging in any other kind of attention seeking
> whatsoever. I understand that other members of this community have
> committed considerably more to this project than I have and that my
> contribution is very minor in comparison.
>
> What I am looking for is:
>
> 1) some kind of acknowledgement that the translated Manager
> Reference PDFs can, at some time in the future, be transferred to a
> more public section of the Wiki where they can be more easily
> accessed by end-users and further amended and developed by those
> more qualified than myself
>
> 2) some kind of solution to the cloud of confusion currently
> existing in the user documentation, with half-completed fragments
> of various attempts to translate the Manager Reference PDFs
> currently scattered over at least 6 other locations in the Wiki.
>
> How unreasonable a request is that?
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> David E. Jones wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 5, 2007, at 6:57 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>
>>> David (Jones),
>>>
>>> What about those open source projects that are polished for OOTB
>>> convenience and experience? Even Apache (httpd) and Tomcat (both
>>> under Apache Licence 2.0?) have better OOTB "operational
>>> readiness" than OFBiz. Ie, they work well OOTB and they have very
>>> good and widely published docs to further fuel explosive rate of
>>> community development. (I understand you believe that approach
>>> won't benefit OFBiz; I don't know so I can't say.)
>>
>> Yeah, I guess I like Jacopo's point that it would be better to
>> quite me than speak for me. In this I don't believe I even said/
>> wrote anything like that.
>>
>> Having a large OOTB end-user community would certainly benefit the
>> project, in really major ways too. The problem is that the current
>> contributing community does not have sufficient resources to
>> create and maintain what would be needed to satisfy this sort of
>> user. Hopefully that will change in the future. In the mean time,
>> the project is self-sustaining and growing based on use by non-
>> OOTB users and contributors (or those that are OOTB users, but
>> just extremely patient... ;) ).
>>
>> -David
>>
Re: ComputerWorld Article, Mentions OFBiz
Posted by Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>.
Hey Chris,
Your concern is appreciated, but frustrated I am not. I'm simply working
through tasks and ticking them off the list in my typical
anally-retentive, OCD kind of way :-/
Yes, Jacopo did tell me where to put the docs. He didn't go through the
procedure in as much detail as you have done here, but I did kind of
understand that already. As I said in my post to David below, I wasn't
looking for any kind of thanks, simply some kind of acknowledgement that
somebody was that the work was now available for further development and
wouldn't be lost in the maelstrom of other activity the community is
currently engaged in.
Just to put the record straight, the process of uploading to the Wiki
took a week certainly, but that was just the tip of the iceberg. No way
I could have finished the whole job in just one week. As I'm sure you
know, the majority of the work had to be done off-line, exporting the
PDFs to txt and png, reformatting the txt into Wiki, putting the images
in the right place etc., etc. Even if it were possible, the sheer
monotony of doing all that in one week would have driven me even more
bonkers than I already am! I actually started way back in January and
have been spending all my spare time on it ever since. I don't like it
when people promise things they can't deliver, and from comments David
has made in previous discussions, it seems that OFBiz has suffered from
way too much of that already. So I didn't announce I was going to do it
until I'd already finished most of the job and was confident I could
finish the rest.
Patience is something I'm happy to say I have aplenty. I have no clients
with any need for OFBiz and therefore no need for any kind of
installation or documentation myself in the foreseeable future. So
there's no urgency from my end on anything.
Just for the record, I'm actually more interested in the development of
the open source movement as a whole than I am in OFBiz per se.
When I first came across OFBiz I picked this up on the ML:
Torsten Schlabach wrote:
> Today, at Universities around the world, when you learn what an
> operating system is, you use Linux. When you learn what a webserver is,
> you use Apache httpd. When you learn what XML, XSLT and the like is all
> about, you use Apache Cocoon. When you learn what a J2EE container is
> all about, you're likely to use either JBoss or Geronimo. When you learn
> what an ERP system is, and you're studying at a western university that
> either has enough money or is considered important enough, you will
> use SAP.
I just think that it would be a pretty crucial victory for the open
source community to be able to add something like OFBiz to the end of
that list. Whether OFBiz can, or even wants, to get there before any of
the other OS projects competing in the same territory remains to be
seen. All I do know is that I've contributed what I can. Now I've
ticked that off the list, it's time to be moving on.
Best,
Ian
Chris Howe wrote:
> Hey Ian,
>
> I can understand your frustration, but Jacopo answered you February
> 23rd with how the process of having your work replace the current
> protected documentation would likely go.
> 1. Create the ones you're interested in updating in your user account
> space (BTW, great work on getting to all of them)
> 2. The community can then review, add to, clarify, rearrange your work
> as needed.
> 3. Replace the current docs in the protected space with the community
> reviewed docs to protect them from being edited by those who may not
> understand how things do/will fit together.
>
> You just finished step 1 within the week. I know I personally schedule
> things I want to look at in the community project at least a week or
> two out (and still am only able to get around to about half of what I
> want to look at/contribute to). I can only imagine the timetable for
> those that are doing OFBiz professionally would be even more drawn out
> than that unless it was a pressing topic. In addition, there are a few
> things going on with UI refactoring and AJAX implementations that may
> make many of the screens that are documented obsolete or not work in
> the same fashion that the docs are describing. This week's hackathon
> should show a firmer direction here.
>
> I surely appreciate the work you put into converting those docs over.
> I might suggest making a JIRA issue in regards to this so that
> discussion can be a bit more collected as interest in reviewing this is
> likely to trickle in rather than come in waves. In any event, have a
> bit of patience and I'm certain it will work itself out :-)
>
> ,Chris
>
>
> --- Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> David,
>>
>> I'm getting really confused here.
>>
>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>
>>> Having a large OOTB end-user community would certainly benefit the
>>> project, in really major ways too. The problem is that the current
>>> contributing community does not have sufficient resources to create
>>>
>>> and maintain what would be needed to satisfy this sort of user.
>>>
>> It is generally accepted that one of the main things all OOTB
>> end-users
>> need is accessible end-user documentation.
>>
>> In OFBiz End-User Documentation > OFBiz End User Docs Home > Areas
>> Being Worked On, David E. Jones wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There is a lot of work to be done on editing and structuring and
>>> reformatting the OFBiz documentation. In short, we need your help!
>>>
>>> You can find the PDF exports from the Undersun end-user
>>>
>> documentation
>>
>>> site here
>>>
>>>
> <http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBENDUSER/Undersun+Doc+Site+PDF+Exports>.
>
>> As far as I can tell, half-completed fragments of various attempts to
>>
>> translate the Manager Reference PDFs are currently scattered over at
>> least 6 other locations in the Wiki (for details see my comments at
>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBENDUSER/Areas+Being+Worked+On ).
>> There
>> can be no doubt that most end-users will find this very confusing and
>>
>> frustrating indeed.
>>
>> To help address the problem of the lack of resources in the current
>> contributing community, I decided to commit a considerable amount of
>> my
>> own time to answering David's request for help by translating all 12
>> of
>> the Manager References in their entirety to Wiki format in one
>> location.
>>
>> This work has now been completed. I was not given access to the end
>> User
>> Docs space so have put them in my personal Confluence space at
>>
>>
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/~ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk/Manager+References
>
>> I posted news of this on the ML on the 3 March with a request that
>> they
>> might now be transferred out of my to the End User Docs space - but
>> had
>> absolutely no response whatsoever!
>>
>> I reposted this request under a new thread again on the 5 March - and
>>
>> had absolutely no response again!
>>
>> I understand that most of the core team is currently engaged in the
>> Developer's Hackathon in Ephraim. But they are still posting here on
>> a
>> raft of other issues. What am I to make of what would appear to be
>> their
>> complete lack of interest in this one?
>>
>> BTW. Just to be clear on this, I am not looking for any thanks or
>> brownie points or engaging in any other kind of attention seeking
>> whatsoever. I understand that other members of this community have
>> committed considerably more to this project than I have and that my
>> contribution is very minor in comparison.
>>
>> What I am looking for is:
>>
>> 1) some kind of acknowledgement that the translated Manager Reference
>>
>> PDFs can, at some time in the future, be transferred to a more public
>>
>> section of the Wiki where they can be more easily accessed by
>> end-users
>> and further amended and developed by those more qualified than myself
>>
>> 2) some kind of solution to the cloud of confusion currently existing
>> in
>> the user documentation, with half-completed fragments of various
>> attempts to translate the Manager Reference PDFs currently scattered
>> over at least 6 other locations in the Wiki.
>>
>> How unreasonable a request is that?
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 5, 2007, at 6:57 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> David (Jones),
>>>>
>>>> What about those open source projects that are polished for OOTB
>>>> convenience and experience? Even Apache (httpd) and Tomcat (both
>>>> under Apache Licence 2.0?) have better OOTB "operational
>>>>
>> readiness"
>>
>>>> than OFBiz. Ie, they work well OOTB and they have very good and
>>>> widely published docs to further fuel explosive rate of community
>>>> development. (I understand you believe that approach won't benefit
>>>>
>>>> OFBiz; I don't know so I can't say.)
>>>>
>>> Yeah, I guess I like Jacopo's point that it would be better to
>>>
>> quite
>>
>>> me than speak for me. In this I don't believe I even said/wrote
>>> anything like that.
>>>
>>> Having a large OOTB end-user community would certainly benefit the
>>> project, in really major ways too. The problem is that the current
>>> contributing community does not have sufficient resources to create
>>>
>>> and maintain what would be needed to satisfy this sort of user.
>>> Hopefully that will change in the future. In the mean time, the
>>> project is self-sustaining and growing based on use by non-OOTB
>>>
>> users
>>
>>> and contributors (or those that are OOTB users, but just extremely
>>> patient... ;) ).
>>>
>>> -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: ComputerWorld Article, Mentions OFBiz
Posted by Chris Howe <cj...@yahoo.com>.
Hey Ian,
I can understand your frustration, but Jacopo answered you February
23rd with how the process of having your work replace the current
protected documentation would likely go.
1. Create the ones you're interested in updating in your user account
space (BTW, great work on getting to all of them)
2. The community can then review, add to, clarify, rearrange your work
as needed.
3. Replace the current docs in the protected space with the community
reviewed docs to protect them from being edited by those who may not
understand how things do/will fit together.
You just finished step 1 within the week. I know I personally schedule
things I want to look at in the community project at least a week or
two out (and still am only able to get around to about half of what I
want to look at/contribute to). I can only imagine the timetable for
those that are doing OFBiz professionally would be even more drawn out
than that unless it was a pressing topic. In addition, there are a few
things going on with UI refactoring and AJAX implementations that may
make many of the screens that are documented obsolete or not work in
the same fashion that the docs are describing. This week's hackathon
should show a firmer direction here.
I surely appreciate the work you put into converting those docs over.
I might suggest making a JIRA issue in regards to this so that
discussion can be a bit more collected as interest in reviewing this is
likely to trickle in rather than come in waves. In any event, have a
bit of patience and I'm certain it will work itself out :-)
,Chris
--- Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk> wrote:
> David,
>
> I'm getting really confused here.
>
> David E. Jones wrote:
> > Having a large OOTB end-user community would certainly benefit the
> > project, in really major ways too. The problem is that the current
> > contributing community does not have sufficient resources to create
>
> > and maintain what would be needed to satisfy this sort of user.
>
> It is generally accepted that one of the main things all OOTB
> end-users
> need is accessible end-user documentation.
>
> In OFBiz End-User Documentation > OFBiz End User Docs Home > Areas
> Being Worked On, David E. Jones wrote:
>
> > There is a lot of work to be done on editing and structuring and
> > reformatting the OFBiz documentation. In short, we need your help!
> >
> > You can find the PDF exports from the Undersun end-user
> documentation
> > site here
> >
>
<http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBENDUSER/Undersun+Doc+Site+PDF+Exports>.
>
> >
>
> As far as I can tell, half-completed fragments of various attempts to
>
> translate the Manager Reference PDFs are currently scattered over at
> least 6 other locations in the Wiki (for details see my comments at
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBENDUSER/Areas+Being+Worked+On ).
> There
> can be no doubt that most end-users will find this very confusing and
>
> frustrating indeed.
>
> To help address the problem of the lack of resources in the current
> contributing community, I decided to commit a considerable amount of
> my
> own time to answering David's request for help by translating all 12
> of
> the Manager References in their entirety to Wiki format in one
> location.
>
> This work has now been completed. I was not given access to the end
> User
> Docs space so have put them in my personal Confluence space at
>
http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/~ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk/Manager+References
>
> I posted news of this on the ML on the 3 March with a request that
> they
> might now be transferred out of my to the End User Docs space - but
> had
> absolutely no response whatsoever!
>
> I reposted this request under a new thread again on the 5 March - and
>
> had absolutely no response again!
>
> I understand that most of the core team is currently engaged in the
> Developer's Hackathon in Ephraim. But they are still posting here on
> a
> raft of other issues. What am I to make of what would appear to be
> their
> complete lack of interest in this one?
>
> BTW. Just to be clear on this, I am not looking for any thanks or
> brownie points or engaging in any other kind of attention seeking
> whatsoever. I understand that other members of this community have
> committed considerably more to this project than I have and that my
> contribution is very minor in comparison.
>
> What I am looking for is:
>
> 1) some kind of acknowledgement that the translated Manager Reference
>
> PDFs can, at some time in the future, be transferred to a more public
>
> section of the Wiki where they can be more easily accessed by
> end-users
> and further amended and developed by those more qualified than myself
>
> 2) some kind of solution to the cloud of confusion currently existing
> in
> the user documentation, with half-completed fragments of various
> attempts to translate the Manager Reference PDFs currently scattered
> over at least 6 other locations in the Wiki.
>
> How unreasonable a request is that?
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> David E. Jones wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 5, 2007, at 6:57 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >
> >> David (Jones),
> >>
> >> What about those open source projects that are polished for OOTB
> >> convenience and experience? Even Apache (httpd) and Tomcat (both
> >> under Apache Licence 2.0?) have better OOTB "operational
> readiness"
> >> than OFBiz. Ie, they work well OOTB and they have very good and
> >> widely published docs to further fuel explosive rate of community
> >> development. (I understand you believe that approach won't benefit
>
> >> OFBiz; I don't know so I can't say.)
> >
> > Yeah, I guess I like Jacopo's point that it would be better to
> quite
> > me than speak for me. In this I don't believe I even said/wrote
> > anything like that.
> >
> > Having a large OOTB end-user community would certainly benefit the
> > project, in really major ways too. The problem is that the current
> > contributing community does not have sufficient resources to create
>
> > and maintain what would be needed to satisfy this sort of user.
> > Hopefully that will change in the future. In the mean time, the
> > project is self-sustaining and growing based on use by non-OOTB
> users
> > and contributors (or those that are OOTB users, but just extremely
> > patient... ;) ).
> >
> > -David
> >
>
Re: ComputerWorld Article, Mentions OFBiz
Posted by Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>.
David,
I'm getting really confused here.
David E. Jones wrote:
> Having a large OOTB end-user community would certainly benefit the
> project, in really major ways too. The problem is that the current
> contributing community does not have sufficient resources to create
> and maintain what would be needed to satisfy this sort of user.
It is generally accepted that one of the main things all OOTB end-users
need is accessible end-user documentation.
In OFBiz End-User Documentation > OFBiz End User Docs Home > Areas
Being Worked On, David E. Jones wrote:
> There is a lot of work to be done on editing and structuring and
> reformatting the OFBiz documentation. In short, we need your help!
>
> You can find the PDF exports from the Undersun end-user documentation
> site here
> <http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBENDUSER/Undersun+Doc+Site+PDF+Exports>.
>
As far as I can tell, half-completed fragments of various attempts to
translate the Manager Reference PDFs are currently scattered over at
least 6 other locations in the Wiki (for details see my comments at
http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBENDUSER/Areas+Being+Worked+On ). There
can be no doubt that most end-users will find this very confusing and
frustrating indeed.
To help address the problem of the lack of resources in the current
contributing community, I decided to commit a considerable amount of my
own time to answering David's request for help by translating all 12 of
the Manager References in their entirety to Wiki format in one location.
This work has now been completed. I was not given access to the end User
Docs space so have put them in my personal Confluence space at
http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/~ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk/Manager+References
I posted news of this on the ML on the 3 March with a request that they
might now be transferred out of my to the End User Docs space - but had
absolutely no response whatsoever!
I reposted this request under a new thread again on the 5 March - and
had absolutely no response again!
I understand that most of the core team is currently engaged in the
Developer's Hackathon in Ephraim. But they are still posting here on a
raft of other issues. What am I to make of what would appear to be their
complete lack of interest in this one?
BTW. Just to be clear on this, I am not looking for any thanks or
brownie points or engaging in any other kind of attention seeking
whatsoever. I understand that other members of this community have
committed considerably more to this project than I have and that my
contribution is very minor in comparison.
What I am looking for is:
1) some kind of acknowledgement that the translated Manager Reference
PDFs can, at some time in the future, be transferred to a more public
section of the Wiki where they can be more easily accessed by end-users
and further amended and developed by those more qualified than myself
2) some kind of solution to the cloud of confusion currently existing in
the user documentation, with half-completed fragments of various
attempts to translate the Manager Reference PDFs currently scattered
over at least 6 other locations in the Wiki.
How unreasonable a request is that?
Ian
David E. Jones wrote:
>
> On Mar 5, 2007, at 6:57 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>
>> David (Jones),
>>
>> What about those open source projects that are polished for OOTB
>> convenience and experience? Even Apache (httpd) and Tomcat (both
>> under Apache Licence 2.0?) have better OOTB "operational readiness"
>> than OFBiz. Ie, they work well OOTB and they have very good and
>> widely published docs to further fuel explosive rate of community
>> development. (I understand you believe that approach won't benefit
>> OFBiz; I don't know so I can't say.)
>
> Yeah, I guess I like Jacopo's point that it would be better to quite
> me than speak for me. In this I don't believe I even said/wrote
> anything like that.
>
> Having a large OOTB end-user community would certainly benefit the
> project, in really major ways too. The problem is that the current
> contributing community does not have sufficient resources to create
> and maintain what would be needed to satisfy this sort of user.
> Hopefully that will change in the future. In the mean time, the
> project is self-sustaining and growing based on use by non-OOTB users
> and contributors (or those that are OOTB users, but just extremely
> patient... ;) ).
>
> -David
>
Re: ComputerWorld Article, Mentions OFBiz
Posted by "David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
On Mar 5, 2007, at 6:57 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> David (Jones),
>
> What about those open source projects that are polished for OOTB
> convenience and experience? Even Apache (httpd) and Tomcat (both
> under Apache Licence 2.0?) have better OOTB "operational readiness"
> than OFBiz. Ie, they work well OOTB and they have very good and
> widely published docs to further fuel explosive rate of community
> development. (I understand you believe that approach won't benefit
> OFBiz; I don't know so I can't say.)
Yeah, I guess I like Jacopo's point that it would be better to quite
me than speak for me. In this I don't believe I even said/wrote
anything like that.
Having a large OOTB end-user community would certainly benefit the
project, in really major ways too. The problem is that the current
contributing community does not have sufficient resources to create
and maintain what would be needed to satisfy this sort of user.
Hopefully that will change in the future. In the mean time, the
project is self-sustaining and growing based on use by non-OOTB users
and contributors (or those that are OOTB users, but just extremely
patient... ;) ).
-David
Re: ComputerWorld Article, Mentions OFBiz
Posted by Scott Gray <le...@gmail.com>.
+1
Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> Jonathon, all,
>
> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>> David (Jones),
>>
>> What about those open source projects that are polished for OOTB
>> convenience and experience? Even Apache (httpd) and Tomcat (both
>> under Apache Licence 2.0?) have better OOTB "operational readiness"
>> than OFBiz. Ie, they work well OOTB and they have very good and
>> widely published docs to further fuel explosive rate of community
>> development. (I understand you believe that approach won't benefit
>> OFBiz; I don't know so I can't say.)
>> ...
>
> I'm sorry to interfere with a mail addressed to David Jones (via the
> mailing list), but I think that my comments (not specifically
> addressed to this Jonathon's mail) are worth of consideration:
>
> 1) if it's not really necessary, I would not want to see David Jones
> time wasted reading/answering this kind of long messages about a
> subject discussed at least 1000 times; David is one of the best
> architects/developers in the project and we should all do our best to
> leave him concentrated in the most critical tasks that can make the
> project grow; in the last months I've noticed the bad habit to attempt
> to attract David (and other core developers as well) in long and
> unnecessary discussions
>
> 2) another very bad habit is to attribute to others your personal
> re-elaboration of what others said: in this way, if the concept is
> reported in an incomplete or incorrect way, you can create confusion
> to new users and oblige the person to jump in and correct it. As a
> general rule, never try to restate what you think that other said,
> just express your thoughts (if they are of interest for the project).
> For example, Jonathon said: "I understand you (David) believe that
> approach won't benefit OFBiz"
> I really don't think that David ever said something like this; the
> main point here is that OFBiz and Tomcat are totally different
> products (as discussed 10000 times).
>
> In general #1, #2 are harmful habits for a project and we should avoid
> them.
>
> Jacopo
>
>
>
Re: ComputerWorld Article, Mentions OFBiz
Posted by Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>.
Hi Shi Jinghai,
Yes, time will tell. Over the history of open source projects, there's been many forks that
supersede other "less favored" ones. Natural selection.
Time doesn't wait for anyone. I can create the best open source ERP in the world today, and still
get superseded later on.
Actually, you don't need to "hear" about OFBiz to know what it really is. OFBiz is open source.
You know what it really is just by reading the source codes (plus the SVN commit logs).
Glad you're keeping your mind and eyes open. :) As always, "see for yourself", don't just take
anybody's word for it.
As for Jacopo's comment, the topic he may have forgotten was about "services division", a very
pertinent factor in both open source and commercial projects. As for Jacopo's comments about "I
really don't think that David ever said something like this", we'll have to ask David himself (and
also look at past posts on the ML). I could have remembered wrong.
As for Jacopo's comment "I've noticed the bad habit to attempt to attract David", I don't
particularly see this habit being rampant among posters (again, look through past posts), so this
ML is clean and lean enough. There are some outright inflammatory posts/posters, but those are
rare, and please understand personalities and language barriers in play here. But I do admit, I
see some rare posts directed at David to elicit very philosophical responses, though I can't say
those philosophical discussions are unnecessary since I don't understand/read quite a bit of those
myself. I also see David trying to "contain" certain wrong/hasty directions in OFBiz development;
those would certainly "attract David". IMHO, David seems to be becoming a stronger "benevolent
dictator" (more free time now? terminology related to some past posts) for OFBiz, which is great
for OFBiz.
As usual, to cut the discussion short and clean, I'll not respond to this thread anymore. I just
wanted to mention that it's good you're "seeing for yourself" over time. That's what we should all
do, including/especially OFBiz core team, be objective. Though "the people" do make "the project",
it's often useful to look to the leader in predicting future directions than to look to the
members (like myself!).
Time will tell, and I'm placing my bets on OFBiz for now.
>> As a general rule, never try to restate what you think that other said, just
>> express your thoughts (if they are of interest for the project)
Jacopo is right here. But more specifically, we should not assume or second-guess intent of
posters; quoting other posters in order to respond to them is more grounded and less risky.
Jonathon
Shi Jinghai wrote:
> I don't think so.
>
> In Chinese, 兼听则明, which means you hear more on a thing's good and
> bad, you see more on what the thing really is.
>
> Time will show its justice.
>
> 在 2007-03-06二的 06:49 +0100，Jacopo Cappellato写道：
>> Jonathon, all,
>>
>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>> David (Jones),
>>>
>>> What about those open source projects that are polished for OOTB
>>> convenience and experience? Even Apache (httpd) and Tomcat (both under
>>> Apache Licence 2.0?) have better OOTB "operational readiness" than
>>> OFBiz. Ie, they work well OOTB and they have very good and widely
>>> published docs to further fuel explosive rate of community development.
>>> (I understand you believe that approach won't benefit OFBiz; I don't
>>> know so I can't say.)
>>> ...
>> I'm sorry to interfere with a mail addressed to David Jones (via the
>> mailing list), but I think that my comments (not specifically addressed
>> to this Jonathon's mail) are worth of consideration:
>>
>> 1) if it's not really necessary, I would not want to see David Jones
>> time wasted reading/answering this kind of long messages about a subject
>> discussed at least 1000 times; David is one of the best
>> architects/developers in the project and we should all do our best to
>> leave him concentrated in the most critical tasks that can make the
>> project grow; in the last months I've noticed the bad habit to attempt
>> to attract David (and other core developers as well) in long and
>> unnecessary discussions
>>
>> 2) another very bad habit is to attribute to others your personal
>> re-elaboration of what others said: in this way, if the concept is
>> reported in an incomplete or incorrect way, you can create confusion to
>> new users and oblige the person to jump in and correct it. As a general
>> rule, never try to restate what you think that other said, just express
>> your thoughts (if they are of interest for the project).
>> For example, Jonathon said: "I understand you (David) believe that
>> approach won't benefit OFBiz"
>> I really don't think that David ever said something like this; the main
>> point here is that OFBiz and Tomcat are totally different products (as
>> discussed 10000 times).
>>
>> In general #1, #2 are harmful habits for a project and we should avoid them.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>
>
Re: ComputerWorld Article, Mentions OFBiz
Posted by Shi Jinghai <sh...@langhua.cn>.
I don't think so.
In Chinese, 兼听则明, which means you hear more on a thing's good and
bad, you see more on what the thing really is.
Time will show its justice.
在 2007-03-06二的 06:49 +0100，Jacopo Cappellato写道：
> Jonathon, all,
>
> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> > David (Jones),
> >
> > What about those open source projects that are polished for OOTB
> > convenience and experience? Even Apache (httpd) and Tomcat (both under
> > Apache Licence 2.0?) have better OOTB "operational readiness" than
> > OFBiz. Ie, they work well OOTB and they have very good and widely
> > published docs to further fuel explosive rate of community development.
> > (I understand you believe that approach won't benefit OFBiz; I don't
> > know so I can't say.)
> > ...
>
> I'm sorry to interfere with a mail addressed to David Jones (via the
> mailing list), but I think that my comments (not specifically addressed
> to this Jonathon's mail) are worth of consideration:
>
> 1) if it's not really necessary, I would not want to see David Jones
> time wasted reading/answering this kind of long messages about a subject
> discussed at least 1000 times; David is one of the best
> architects/developers in the project and we should all do our best to
> leave him concentrated in the most critical tasks that can make the
> project grow; in the last months I've noticed the bad habit to attempt
> to attract David (and other core developers as well) in long and
> unnecessary discussions
>
> 2) another very bad habit is to attribute to others your personal
> re-elaboration of what others said: in this way, if the concept is
> reported in an incomplete or incorrect way, you can create confusion to
> new users and oblige the person to jump in and correct it. As a general
> rule, never try to restate what you think that other said, just express
> your thoughts (if they are of interest for the project).
> For example, Jonathon said: "I understand you (David) believe that
> approach won't benefit OFBiz"
> I really don't think that David ever said something like this; the main
> point here is that OFBiz and Tomcat are totally different products (as
> discussed 10000 times).
>
> In general #1, #2 are harmful habits for a project and we should avoid them.
>
> Jacopo
>
>
Re: ComputerWorld Article, Mentions OFBiz
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ti...@sastau.it>.
Jonathon, all,
Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> David (Jones),
>
> What about those open source projects that are polished for OOTB
> convenience and experience? Even Apache (httpd) and Tomcat (both under
> Apache Licence 2.0?) have better OOTB "operational readiness" than
> OFBiz. Ie, they work well OOTB and they have very good and widely
> published docs to further fuel explosive rate of community development.
> (I understand you believe that approach won't benefit OFBiz; I don't
> know so I can't say.)
> ...
I'm sorry to interfere with a mail addressed to David Jones (via the
mailing list), but I think that my comments (not specifically addressed
to this Jonathon's mail) are worth of consideration:
1) if it's not really necessary, I would not want to see David Jones
time wasted reading/answering this kind of long messages about a subject
discussed at least 1000 times; David is one of the best
architects/developers in the project and we should all do our best to
leave him concentrated in the most critical tasks that can make the
project grow; in the last months I've noticed the bad habit to attempt
to attract David (and other core developers as well) in long and
unnecessary discussions
2) another very bad habit is to attribute to others your personal
re-elaboration of what others said: in this way, if the concept is
reported in an incomplete or incorrect way, you can create confusion to
new users and oblige the person to jump in and correct it. As a general
rule, never try to restate what you think that other said, just express
your thoughts (if they are of interest for the project).
For example, Jonathon said: "I understand you (David) believe that
approach won't benefit OFBiz"
I really don't think that David ever said something like this; the main
point here is that OFBiz and Tomcat are totally different products (as
discussed 10000 times).
In general #1, #2 are harmful habits for a project and we should avoid them.
Jacopo
Re: ComputerWorld Article, Mentions OFBiz
Posted by Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>.
David (Jones),
What about those open source projects that are polished for OOTB convenience and experience? Even
Apache (httpd) and Tomcat (both under Apache Licence 2.0?) have better OOTB "operational
readiness" than OFBiz. Ie, they work well OOTB and they have very good and widely published docs
to further fuel explosive rate of community development. (I understand you believe that approach
won't benefit OFBiz; I don't know so I can't say.)
I still maintain that there are 2 sections to OFBiz --- core and ERP. And I'd say the core
certainly works very well OOTB (like Springs, Freemarker, Apache, Tomcat, Mantis, PHP, etc).
Maybe we make that clear to new users?
Imagine if Tomcat was advertised as a shopping cart software, and the shopping cart software built
on top of the webserver was incomplete (or "almost ready to fly, but not quite"). There'd be
complaints, even though Tomcat is really a solid webserver and not a shopping cart.
But of course, I understand you may want OFBiz to stand for an ERP solution, not just an entity
engine (which as many had said is the "jewel in the crown"). I think if you work at things the way
you do now, we'd probably have a solid ERP solution in a few years' time.
There are "services divisions" for open source projects. That's the community itself! Nobody would
pick up an open source project for use or solutioning if it lacks this "services division". In
many companys' open source adoption policies, wide adoption aka community support aka "services
division" is the TOP concern. This "services division" counterpart in open source projects is what
gives them the decided edge over commercial projects with paid and comparatively limited (not
world-wide and free flow) REAL services division.
I don't know if the ML knows this, but the ML is often the first channel to be watched in
assessing the project's "services division". The quality and demographics (techie to hobbyist
spectrum) of the "services division" makes or breaks the open source projects.
But still, I do admit it probably makes more sense (and cents) to advertise "My ERP consulting
company" rather than advertise OFBiz itself. I'd say I'd have more success promoting "My ERP
consulting company" than OFBiz, as things are now. OFBiz core is a solid product, and that's not ERP.
By the way, I'm getting real good at taking apart my RC helicopter. The major diff between RC
helicopters and RC planes is that helicopters need major calibration (more moving parts). So, what
is advertised as "Ready-To-Fly (RTF)" for helicopters really means "Almost-Ready-to-Fly (ARF)"
(one notch down). More people buy planes than helicopters; those who give up on helicopters (steep
learning curve) just go for planes or cars thereafter.
I like OFBiz. :)
Jonathon
David E. Jones wrote:
>
> This is actually a very accurate part of the article. OFBiz is an open
> source project, with no commercial interests, so there really is no
> services division. In fact, there is no company.
>
> In a way it seems another failure to distinguish between commercial and
> community driven open source projects. For open source business software
> projects like OFBiz are really rather rare, and don't get much press.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Mar 5, 2007, at 9:05 AM, David Shere wrote:
>
>> What does this article mean when it says that OFBiz has no "services
>> division"?
>>
>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>> Not a lot of detail on the project, nor terribly accurate on the ones
>>> it does have, but an interesting read with some good points anyway:
>>> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9011649
>>> -David
>>
>> --David Shere
>> Information Technology Services
>> Steele Rubber Products
>> www.SteeleRubber.com
>>
>
Re: ComputerWorld Article, Mentions OFBiz
Posted by "David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
This is actually a very accurate part of the article. OFBiz is an
open source project, with no commercial interests, so there really is
no services division. In fact, there is no company.
In a way it seems another failure to distinguish between commercial
and community driven open source projects. For open source business
software projects like OFBiz are really rather rare, and don't get
much press.
-David
On Mar 5, 2007, at 9:05 AM, David Shere wrote:
> What does this article mean when it says that OFBiz has no
> "services division"?
>
> David E. Jones wrote:
>> Not a lot of detail on the project, nor terribly accurate on the
>> ones it does have, but an interesting read with some good points
>> anyway:
>> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?
>> command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9011649 -David
>
> --
> David Shere
> Information Technology Services
> Steele Rubber Products
> www.SteeleRubber.com
>