You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@ofbiz.apache.org by Ruth Hoffman <rh...@aesolves.com> on 2010/02/05 20:13:35 UTC
What I would like to see [was: Re: Nice job on keeping the download
site up-to-date.]
Hi Tim:
Since you asked:
I'd like to have a download site where any user, especially a new user,
could visit, feel comfortable about the project (and life in general),
and then proceed about the business of downloading code. Easy, simple
and painless. Yes, the nightly builds are a HUGE step in that direction.
Thanks again to everyone who makes this possible. But, lets put that in
perspective: That only makes the process of downloading easier.
I'd also like to have a seat on the project's oversight group. I don't
understand how a project of this magnitude can continue to grow and
prosper without business oriented people helping to guide it. The
oversight group (whoever they happen to be) is like a bunch of very
clever "foxes" guarding the "chicken coop". (Where the "chicken coop" is
the code base.) There is so much more to making software successful than
anything clever "foxes" will ever have time to consider.
Actually, I take that back. If I'm part of the committer's group, I
won't be able to "whine" and "troll" from the comfort of my desktop
anymore.
Regards,
Ruth
Tim Ruppert wrote:
> Thanks - again that was super helpful.
>
> I took the time to lay it out like a towel what was there, what looks to be broken when we migrated to the ASF infra and no you wont' go thru it? There are some obvious spots for you to say something or point to projects you like, but you just continue to roll your eyes. I didn't push for or want this move to the ASF infra - but I'm still trying to help here.
>
> What else do you want here Ruth?
>
> Cheers,
> Ruppert
>
> On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>
>
>> Hi Tim:
>> I've been through this already. Several times over.
>>
>> All I can say at this point is, no one is minding the store. I just don't get it: You guys spend hours agonizing over how and where to put spaces in Java files, yet you can't see the most obvious flaws in how OFBiz does business.
>>
>> Oh well...
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ruth
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Tim Ruppert wrote:
>>
>>> Ruth, I'm sure there's some good that could come out of your message - so against my general nature of responding to this type of attitude, I'm going to try and help you phrase this in a way that will help us help infra to try to meet what you're looking for. Here's what I see when I go to the site(s):
>>>
>>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/snapshots/ - not downloading and testing anything - just looking at what I see:
>>>
>>> 1. The nightly trunk seems to be updated daily.
>>> 2. The 9.04 builds seem to, for some reason not be being updated on this page.
>>> 3. There aren't many 4.0 releases being built.
>>>
>>> Then I go to here - http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/archive/snapshots/ - and I see a slightly different picture:
>>>
>>> 1. The trunk builds aren't really archives they're simply another copy after it was moved over. -- The archives are there though from when HotWax was managing it.
>>> 2. The 9.04 builds seem to really be the ones that we'd want on that first page.
>>>
>>> Now, since I know that this release and the downloads are super important to you, I'm really more interested in hearing you:
>>>
>>> 1. Lay out the way you'd like to see these pages work.
>>> 2. Even show some examples of other projects that you _do_ like
>>>
>>> I hope this helps Ruth - as Adrian and Jacopo mentioned, what you've sent here is just a whine, not a helpful way for anyone to improve. Put in the time and help us to make it more like you like and I'm sure you'll be more pleased with the result. Btw, all of those other options are not the same type of community driven projects as the ASF, so it's hard to manage the same way. When commercial interests are more intertwined with the project, there are definitely benefits (as well as drawbacks), so let's at least acknowledge those.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Ruppert
>>>
>>> On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> If there is a problem with the OFBiz site, it would be helpful to know what it is. Remarks like this are not helpful.
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
>>>>
>>>> Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> This was meant as a sarcastic, "I can't believe this kind of thing keeps falling through the cracks", kind of remark. No wonder new users shy away. I mean, no wonder new users run as fast as their browsers will take them to OpenBravo, OpenERP, Magento...
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Ruth
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Find me on the web at http://www.myofbiz.com or Google keyword "myofbiz"
>>>>> ruth.hoffman@myofbiz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: What I would like to see [was: Re: Nice job on keeping the
download site up-to-date.]
Posted by David E Jones <de...@me.com>.
On Feb 5, 2010, at 1:13 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
> I'd also like to have a seat on the project's oversight group. I don't understand how a project of this magnitude can continue to grow and prosper without business oriented people helping to guide it. The oversight group (whoever they happen to be) is like a bunch of very clever "foxes" guarding the "chicken coop". (Where the "chicken coop" is the code base.) There is so much more to making software successful than anything clever "foxes" will ever have time to consider.
Ruth,
If you'd like it, you'll have to earn it, and that is done by contributing.
Perhaps the PMC has overlooked your contributions that merit your invitation. If so, please send a message to private@ofbiz.apache.org and explain your position.
And yes, there are many ways to contribute that don't involve code.
On the other hand, what sort of "power" do you think you'll have once you are a PMC member? What do you think you'll be able to do that you can't do now?
-David
Re: What I would like to see [was: Re: Nice job on keeping the download
site up-to-date.]
Posted by Ruth Hoffman <rh...@aesolves.com>.
Hi Tim:
It is so much easier to "wing my salvos" from over here!
Regards,
Ruth
Tim Ruppert wrote:
> You're definitely right about that :)
>
> Cheers,
> Ruppert
>
> On Feb 5, 2010, at 12:13 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>
>
>> Actually, I take that back. If I'm part of the committer's group, I won't be able to "whine" and "troll" from the comfort of my desktop anymore.
>>
>
>
Re: What I would like to see [was: Re: Nice job on keeping the download site up-to-date.]
Posted by Tim Ruppert <ti...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Yes they do ... :)
Cheers,
Ruppert
On Feb 5, 2010, at 5:18 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>
> Plenty of PMC members, committers, and contributors still manage to do just that...
>
> -David
>
>
> On Feb 5, 2010, at 1:31 PM, Tim Ruppert wrote:
>
>> You're definitely right about that :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ruppert
>>
>> On Feb 5, 2010, at 12:13 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, I take that back. If I'm part of the committer's group, I won't be able to "whine" and "troll" from the comfort of my desktop anymore.
>>
>
Re: What I would like to see [was: Re: Nice job on keeping the
download site up-to-date.]
Posted by David E Jones <de...@me.com>.
Plenty of PMC members, committers, and contributors still manage to do just that...
-David
On Feb 5, 2010, at 1:31 PM, Tim Ruppert wrote:
> You're definitely right about that :)
>
> Cheers,
> Ruppert
>
> On Feb 5, 2010, at 12:13 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>
>> Actually, I take that back. If I'm part of the committer's group, I won't be able to "whine" and "troll" from the comfort of my desktop anymore.
>
Re: What I would like to see [was: Re: Nice job on keeping the download site up-to-date.]
Posted by Tim Ruppert <ti...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
You're definitely right about that :)
Cheers,
Ruppert
On Feb 5, 2010, at 12:13 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
> Actually, I take that back. If I'm part of the committer's group, I won't be able to "whine" and "troll" from the comfort of my desktop anymore.
Re: What I would like to see
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@free.fr>.
Please Babu,
For the ease of discussion keep at least a snippet of what you are referring to when answering.
From: "bsreekanth" <ba...@yahoo.com>
>
> Jaques,
> I disagree that the content/index/main page is same as finding it through
> wiki. Of course the information is there, and people desperate to find it
> may see it through search. But, as part of the discussion, the index give
> the depth of available information in a logically organized way.
Yes, that's true and I tried a couple of time to do what Matt and you seem engaged in, without much success it seems :/ (I did not
try too hard, things where moving too fast at this period)
Though most of the time, when I look for something (any subject) I begin to Google for then, refine locally. I read so much books
and forgot so much about them.
I'm an intuitive person, sometimes I'm lost, but not for a long time, sometimes I'm completly wrong also :D
>Even David
> mentioned in one of his tutorial that Freemaker has one of the best tutorial
> available, and I felt the same way just looking at it. I think most of the
> people get an overview looking at the contents, and decided to start looking
> at it in order.
I did not do that, I dived in code. But that's certainly a good thing to have good *up-to-date (versionned)* references handy.
Of course, when I need something in Freemarker, I Google for and refine ;) But yes, I have already an idea about what I'm looking
for, and you are right and I'm almost Out of Subject :D
>I agree that it doesn't make sense to change the index
> completely, but we may add to it. I looked at the wiki and I could add new
> pages, make changes etc. so, let's see what these newbies, including me, can
> do :-)
The difficulty is always history, what to do with it, just throw it away and begin anew?
Certainly not in the case of OFBiz documentation (and even less in the case of OFBiz applications), but I feel that I'm
misunderstanding here (O of S), you speak about the new index you created?
Jacques
> Babu.
> --
> View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Nice-job-on-keeping-the-download-site-up-to-date-tp1470517p1471989.html
> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Re: What I would like to see
Posted by bsreekanth <ba...@yahoo.com>.
Jaques,
I disagree that the content/index/main page is same as finding it through
wiki. Of course the information is there, and people desperate to find it
may see it through search. But, as part of the discussion, the index give
the depth of available information in a logically organized way. Even David
mentioned in one of his tutorial that Freemaker has one of the best tutorial
available, and I felt the same way just looking at it. I think most of the
people get an overview looking at the contents, and decided to start looking
at it in order. I agree that it doesn't make sense to change the index
completely, but we may add to it. I looked at the wiki and I could add new
pages, make changes etc. so, let's see what these newbies, including me, can
do :-)
Babu.
--
View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Nice-job-on-keeping-the-download-site-up-to-date-tp1470517p1471989.html
Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: What I would like to see
Posted by bsreekanth <ba...@yahoo.com>.
my bad.. there are some details already here ..
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Data+Model+Packages
I may add the information I collected somewhere there.
thanks.
Babu.
--
View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Nice-job-on-keeping-the-download-site-up-to-date-tp1470517p1471721.html
Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: What I would like to see
Posted by bsreekanth <ba...@yahoo.com>.
Hi,
I was a software engineer by career, so I knew I could get hold of it one
day, though trying to be efficient. Also, it is difficult with ofbiz as
there are more way to do the same thing. events, actions, then
implementation in Java, Minilang, Groovy, I guess still BSH ... etc. hope we
could make it bit more fun.
About the data model, you may just need the first volume. you can check the
contents of the other two, but the second one was specific to few
industries. Not sure, whether Ofbiz took some from it. I was making some
diagrams which shows the table relations. see the attached images (Inventory
and POS tables).
http://n4.nabble.com/file/n1471670/INVENTORY_TABLES2.jpg
and POS
http://n4.nabble.com/file/n1471670/POS_TABLES2.jpg
well, these may not be perfect as there could be even more tables linked to
it. But these are helpful than individually looking at 791 tables. I could
explain the details in the wiki (like I said, don't want to repeat the
effort). Also, will update all the ones I have.
Best regards,
Babu.
--
View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Nice-job-on-keeping-the-download-site-up-to-date-tp1470517p1471670.html
Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: What I would like to see
Posted by Brendan Vogt <br...@gmail.com>.
Hi guys,
I think this is the issue that most people have when starting out on OFBiz.
I gave up 2 years ago, but going to give it another shot now. I am going to
buy those data modeling books.
Brendan
On 6 February 2010 20:29, Christopher Snow <sn...@snowconsulting.co.uk>wrote:
> Hi Babu,
>
> 1) I found this very frustrating too.
> 2) I requested the site to be indexed by google, but in the meantime I
> always do my search from the search box on www.ofbiz.org. Make sure to
> prefix your search term with 'ofbiz' so you don't get back stuff from all
> apache projects.
> 3 & 4) I was amazed at how much stuff gets repeatedly answered on the
> forum. My contribution is that I put a page on the FAQ whenever I get help
> clarifying how to do something.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
> bsreekanth wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>> this is my first post to the group, and learning Ofbiz the hard way
>> (debugging through code, following the Beginner's Development Guide,
>> Packet
>> book, Data modelling etc.). Though everyone desire to have more documents
>> etc, it is amazing the contribution mainly by few individuals. Few things
>> I
>> noted,
>> 1. rather than the lack of information, I was stuck with the mix of
>> old//outdated and current info, which lead to distrust and extra effort.
>> 2. The documents are not indexed correctly, and cannot navigate from the
>> main wiki page. I got the below link through another website, during
>> google
>> search.
>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/How+to+Setup+a+Company
>> not sure how relevant, but the point is it is wasted effort by the author,
>> and someone needed the info.
>> 3. It is amazing the level of help people get through the forum. I have
>> seen
>> almost all questions were answered on the same day. At the same time, it
>> would be much effortless if we had a properly indexed documentation.
>> Rather
>> than explaining things over and over, we should be able to point to the
>> correct section in the manual. It also help many people, if the mentor
>> doesn't see the relevant information in the document, to add the content
>> himself or raise a (Jira) issue for that.
>> 4. I myself collecting information regarding the data model, making notes
>> during my learning etc. It would be easy for me to add the content if we
>> have a skeleton of required information as mentioned by Matt. It would be
>> great if someone senior in the group can just start with an index page.
>> thanks,
>> Babu.
>>
>>
>
>
Re: What I would like to see
Posted by Christopher Snow <sn...@snowconsulting.co.uk>.
Hi Jacques, like most pages on the wiki I didn't even know that one
existed - sorry...
Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> I think I make it pretty clear
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Mailing+Lists#MailingLists-OFBizWikiSearch
> (there
> is also a backlink from FAQ 1st paragraph)
> 3/4: I created the FAQ for this reason, but obviously we can't put all
> in/from the FAQ
>
> It's hard to organize an open wiki, I tried many times but, as it's
> open, quickly things move and you have to begin again...
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Christopher Snow" <sn...@snowconsulting.co.uk>
>> Hi Babu,
>>
>> 1) I found this very frustrating too.
>> 2) I requested the site to be indexed by google, but in the meantime
>> I always do my search from the search box on www.ofbiz.org.
>> Make sure to prefix your search term with 'ofbiz' so you don't get
>> back stuff from all apache projects.
>> 3 & 4) I was amazed at how much stuff gets repeatedly answered on the
>> forum. My contribution is that I put a page on the FAQ
>> whenever I get help clarifying how to do something.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> bsreekanth wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> this is my first post to the group, and learning Ofbiz the hard way
>>> (debugging through code, following the Beginner's Development Guide,
>>> Packet
>>> book, Data modelling etc.). Though everyone desire to have more
>>> documents
>>> etc, it is amazing the contribution mainly by few individuals. Few
>>> things I
>>> noted,
>>> 1. rather than the lack of information, I was stuck with the mix of
>>> old//outdated and current info, which lead to distrust and extra
>>> effort. 2. The documents are not indexed correctly, and cannot
>>> navigate from the
>>> main wiki page. I got the below link through another website, during
>>> google
>>> search.
>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/How+to+Setup+a+Company
>>> not sure how relevant, but the point is it is wasted effort by the
>>> author,
>>> and someone needed the info.
>>> 3. It is amazing the level of help people get through the forum. I
>>> have seen
>>> almost all questions were answered on the same day. At the same
>>> time, it
>>> would be much effortless if we had a properly indexed documentation.
>>> Rather
>>> than explaining things over and over, we should be able to point to the
>>> correct section in the manual. It also help many people, if the mentor
>>> doesn't see the relevant information in the document, to add the
>>> content
>>> himself or raise a (Jira) issue for that.
>>> 4. I myself collecting information regarding the data model, making
>>> notes
>>> during my learning etc. It would be easy for me to add the content
>>> if we
>>> have a skeleton of required information as mentioned by Matt. It
>>> would be
>>> great if someone senior in the group can just start with an index page.
>>> thanks,
>>> Babu.
>>>
>>
>
Re: What I would like to see
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@free.fr>.
I think I make it pretty clear http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Mailing+Lists#MailingLists-OFBizWikiSearch (there
is also a backlink from FAQ 1st paragraph)
3/4: I created the FAQ for this reason, but obviously we can't put all in/from the FAQ
It's hard to organize an open wiki, I tried many times but, as it's open, quickly things move and you have to begin again...
Jacques
From: "Christopher Snow" <sn...@snowconsulting.co.uk>
> Hi Babu,
>
> 1) I found this very frustrating too.
> 2) I requested the site to be indexed by google, but in the meantime I always do my search from the search box on www.ofbiz.org.
> Make sure to prefix your search term with 'ofbiz' so you don't get back stuff from all apache projects.
> 3 & 4) I was amazed at how much stuff gets repeatedly answered on the forum. My contribution is that I put a page on the FAQ
> whenever I get help clarifying how to do something.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
> bsreekanth wrote:
>> Hello,
>> this is my first post to the group, and learning Ofbiz the hard way
>> (debugging through code, following the Beginner's Development Guide, Packet
>> book, Data modelling etc.). Though everyone desire to have more documents
>> etc, it is amazing the contribution mainly by few individuals. Few things I
>> noted,
>> 1. rather than the lack of information, I was stuck with the mix of
>> old//outdated and current info, which lead to distrust and extra effort. 2. The documents are not indexed correctly, and cannot
>> navigate from the
>> main wiki page. I got the below link through another website, during google
>> search.
>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/How+to+Setup+a+Company
>> not sure how relevant, but the point is it is wasted effort by the author,
>> and someone needed the info.
>> 3. It is amazing the level of help people get through the forum. I have seen
>> almost all questions were answered on the same day. At the same time, it
>> would be much effortless if we had a properly indexed documentation. Rather
>> than explaining things over and over, we should be able to point to the
>> correct section in the manual. It also help many people, if the mentor
>> doesn't see the relevant information in the document, to add the content
>> himself or raise a (Jira) issue for that.
>> 4. I myself collecting information regarding the data model, making notes
>> during my learning etc. It would be easy for me to add the content if we
>> have a skeleton of required information as mentioned by Matt. It would be
>> great if someone senior in the group can just start with an index page.
>> thanks,
>> Babu.
>>
>
Re: What I would like to see
Posted by Christopher Snow <sn...@snowconsulting.co.uk>.
Hi Babu,
1) I found this very frustrating too.
2) I requested the site to be indexed by google, but in the meantime I
always do my search from the search box on www.ofbiz.org. Make sure to
prefix your search term with 'ofbiz' so you don't get back stuff from
all apache projects.
3 & 4) I was amazed at how much stuff gets repeatedly answered on the
forum. My contribution is that I put a page on the FAQ whenever I get
help clarifying how to do something.
Cheers,
Chris
bsreekanth wrote:
> Hello,
> this is my first post to the group, and learning Ofbiz the hard way
> (debugging through code, following the Beginner's Development Guide, Packet
> book, Data modelling etc.). Though everyone desire to have more documents
> etc, it is amazing the contribution mainly by few individuals. Few things I
> noted,
> 1. rather than the lack of information, I was stuck with the mix of
> old//outdated and current info, which lead to distrust and extra effort.
> 2. The documents are not indexed correctly, and cannot navigate from the
> main wiki page. I got the below link through another website, during google
> search.
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/How+to+Setup+a+Company
> not sure how relevant, but the point is it is wasted effort by the author,
> and someone needed the info.
> 3. It is amazing the level of help people get through the forum. I have seen
> almost all questions were answered on the same day. At the same time, it
> would be much effortless if we had a properly indexed documentation. Rather
> than explaining things over and over, we should be able to point to the
> correct section in the manual. It also help many people, if the mentor
> doesn't see the relevant information in the document, to add the content
> himself or raise a (Jira) issue for that.
> 4. I myself collecting information regarding the data model, making notes
> during my learning etc. It would be easy for me to add the content if we
> have a skeleton of required information as mentioned by Matt. It would be
> great if someone senior in the group can just start with an index page.
>
> thanks,
> Babu.
>
Re: What I would like to see
Posted by bsreekanth <ba...@yahoo.com>.
Hello,
this is my first post to the group, and learning Ofbiz the hard way
(debugging through code, following the Beginner's Development Guide, Packet
book, Data modelling etc.). Though everyone desire to have more documents
etc, it is amazing the contribution mainly by few individuals. Few things I
noted,
1. rather than the lack of information, I was stuck with the mix of
old//outdated and current info, which lead to distrust and extra effort.
2. The documents are not indexed correctly, and cannot navigate from the
main wiki page. I got the below link through another website, during google
search.
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/How+to+Setup+a+Company
not sure how relevant, but the point is it is wasted effort by the author,
and someone needed the info.
3. It is amazing the level of help people get through the forum. I have seen
almost all questions were answered on the same day. At the same time, it
would be much effortless if we had a properly indexed documentation. Rather
than explaining things over and over, we should be able to point to the
correct section in the manual. It also help many people, if the mentor
doesn't see the relevant information in the document, to add the content
himself or raise a (Jira) issue for that.
4. I myself collecting information regarding the data model, making notes
during my learning etc. It would be easy for me to add the content if we
have a skeleton of required information as mentioned by Matt. It would be
great if someone senior in the group can just start with an index page.
thanks,
Babu.
--
View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Nice-job-on-keeping-the-download-site-up-to-date-tp1470517p1471428.html
Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: What I would like to see [was: Re: Nice job on keeping the download site up-to-date.]
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@yahoo.com>.
--- On Sat, 2/6/10, Matt Warnock <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com> wrote:
> What is OFBiz
> ERP basics
> Open Source/Apache License
> Capabilities (as of now)
> Who is using OFBiz, and how
> Websites based on OFBiz (production
> use)
> OFBiz demo sites
> VAR products (OpenTaps, Neogia, etc)
> Getting OFBiz
> System requirements
> OFBiz versions and methods (svn vs
> http)
> Download current/archives
> Installation (and ./ant target options)
> Customizing
> Updates and upgrades
> Using OFBiz
> Manager evaluation/planning manual
> Administrator implementation/operation
> manual
> User operation manual
> Developer reference manual
> Training videos
> Customizing for industry, best
> practices
> ecommerce, services,
> manufacturing, distributing etc
> Getting help
> FAQ
> Wiki
> Mailing lists & archives
> IRC channels
> Resources
> Search documentation
> Data model background
> Universal data modeling
> Parties and Party Groups, contact info,
> etc
> Users, authentication and
> authorization/permissions
> Stores, catalogs, virtual & variant
> products
> etc
> Developing in OFBiz
> Code organization
> Entity engine
> MCV model
> Screen design
> CRUD operations
> Code style guidelines
> Code validation and testing
> OFBiz Project
> Credits
> Version history
> Known bugs
> To-do list
> Future plans
> OFBiz resources and news
> Recent news
> Websites & blogs
> books, articles, presentations
> Hosting, developers, consultants
This is very close to what I imagined as a good start. There is only one thing I would add:
OFBiz New Users Start Here
...
Re: What I would like to see [was: Re: Nice job on keeping the
download site up-to-date.]
Posted by Matt Warnock <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com>.
On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 18:21 -0700, Tim Ruppert wrote:
> What I'm looking for are actual examples and thought put in to _how_ I
> can help design and bring to fruition the type of snapshot website
> that you would be stoked about. As I said earlier, even examples of
> someone else doing it really well is out there. What you've written
> below is really general and doesn't make much sense to me
I can't look at the snapshot web page separately from the rest. For me,
the biggest issue is that there is a lot of stuff on the site in several
formats, and it is hard to see where the various parts are, how they
relate to each other, whether they are up to date, and where to start.
Various elements have given me clues, but a 30000-foot overview would be
really nice. Much of this is that the site is obviously in transition.
For example, most pages come up in a weird default Confluence format
where the top level is in one list and the children are all lumped
together in a second list under "Children". Clicking "view in hierarchy"
puts things in the "normal" outline format, while "hide children" gives
the "collapsed" view. This seems really awkward compared to the more
conventional collapsible outline view:
[+] This is a collapsed item with hidden children
[-] This item has no hidden children
[+] This is a collapsed child with children
[-] This item has no children
Why would you ever want all children lumped in a separate paragraph at
the bottom and separated from their parents? And especially by default?
If articles or pages are long, with complicated parents and children,
then I'd suggest the Wikipedia convention of an outline at the top, so
you can quickly get to what you want. I'm not a fan of left-nav,
multicolumn layouts that render weirdly on cell-phones, PDAs, and
netbooks, and never print as expected.
So here is my ideal site map outline (from what I know today, which is
admittedly really limited). These should NOT all be on the home page,
but the 8 or so top-levels should all be reachable and at least somewhat
described on that page. Each line probably deserves a page to itself.
Downloads would be at second or third level (about where they are now).
The object here is to get things into a comprehensible order, so that a
new user has a way to get a handle on it and see how the various pieces
fit together. I'm sure these could be refined and shortened.
What is OFBiz
ERP basics
Open Source/Apache License
Capabilities (as of now)
Who is using OFBiz, and how
Websites based on OFBiz (production use)
OFBiz demo sites
VAR products (OpenTaps, Neogia, etc)
Getting OFBiz
System requirements
OFBiz versions and methods (svn vs http)
Download current/archives
Installation (and ./ant target options)
Customizing
Updates and upgrades
Using OFBiz
Manager evaluation/planning manual
Administrator implementation/operation manual
User operation manual
Developer reference manual
Training videos
Customizing for industry, best practices
ecommerce, services, manufacturing, distributing etc
Getting help
FAQ
Wiki
Mailing lists & archives
IRC channels
Resources
Search documentation
Data model background
Universal data modeling
Parties and Party Groups, contact info, etc
Users, authentication and authorization/permissions
Stores, catalogs, virtual & variant products
etc
Developing in OFBiz
Code organization
Entity engine
MCV model
Screen design
CRUD operations
Code style guidelines
Code validation and testing
OFBiz Project
Credits
Version history
Known bugs
To-do list
Future plans
OFBiz resources and news
Recent news
Websites & blogs
books, articles, presentations
Hosting, developers, consultants
--
Matt Warnock <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com>
RidgeCrest Herbals, Inc.
Re: What I would like to see [was: Re: Nice job on keeping the
download site up-to-date.]
Posted by Matt Warnock <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com>.
I've always thought the perl Mason site was pretty good. Simple, clean,
easy to find stuff. A little intro on the front page, and well
organized, easy to find links to the various areas.
http://www.masonhq.com/
On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 18:21 -0700, Tim Ruppert wrote:
> Well - I think what we went thru was the difference between targeting the trunk and targeting the release branch - and we do still differ there in a big way - so that's not what I want to talk about. What I'm looking for are actual examples and thought put in to _how_ I can help design and bring to fruition the type of snapshot website that you would be stoked about. As I said earlier, even examples of someone else doing it really well is out there. What you've written below is really general and doesn't make much sense to me
>
> >>> I'd like to have a download site where any user, especially a new user, could visit, feel comfortable about the project (and life in general), and then proceed about the business of downloading code. Easy, simple and painless.
>
> I'm down to spend my time and my companies time in marketing OFBiz - (I think I've proven that) - but I'd like a little guidance - at least in this discussion - towards an example of doing it right.
>
> Cheers,
> Ruppert
>
> On Feb 5, 2010, at 1:12 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>
> > Hi Tim:
> > I'm a little surprised. I thought we went through this a while back (maybe a few months ago) and the answer was: "the site is targeted at project committers". I left that discussion with the impression that was the last word. Are you saying that you might be open to discussing this again?
> > Regards,
> > Ruth
> >
> > Tim Ruppert wrote:
> >> Thanks for the feedback. I'm going to think on it this weekend and will try and come up with some ideas of how this could work better. If you could show me some sites that you do like, that would be a big help - then I can see how to get that working in our world.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Ruppert
> >>
> >> On Feb 5, 2010, at 12:13 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Hi Tim:
> >>> Since you asked:
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to have a download site where any user, especially a new user, could visit, feel comfortable about the project (and life in general), and then proceed about the business of downloading code. Easy, simple and painless. Yes, the nightly builds are a HUGE step in that direction. Thanks again to everyone who makes this possible. But, lets put that in perspective: That only makes the process of downloading easier.
> >>>
> >>> I'd also like to have a seat on the project's oversight group. I don't understand how a project of this magnitude can continue to grow and prosper without business oriented people helping to guide it. The oversight group (whoever they happen to be) is like a bunch of very clever "foxes" guarding the "chicken coop". (Where the "chicken coop" is the code base.) There is so much more to making software successful than anything clever "foxes" will ever have time to consider.
> >>>
> >>> Actually, I take that back. If I'm part of the committer's group, I won't be able to "whine" and "troll" from the comfort of my desktop anymore.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Ruth
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Tim Ruppert wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Thanks - again that was super helpful. I took the time to lay it out like a towel what was there, what looks to be broken when we migrated to the ASF infra and no you wont' go thru it? There are some obvious spots for you to say something or point to projects you like, but you just continue to roll your eyes. I didn't push for or want this move to the ASF infra - but I'm still trying to help here.
> >>>>
> >>>> What else do you want here Ruth? Cheers,
> >>>> Ruppert
> >>>>
> >>>> On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi Tim:
> >>>>> I've been through this already. Several times over.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All I can say at this point is, no one is minding the store. I just don't get it: You guys spend hours agonizing over how and where to put spaces in Java files, yet you can't see the most obvious flaws in how OFBiz does business.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Oh well...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ruth
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Tim Ruppert wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Ruth, I'm sure there's some good that could come out of your message - so against my general nature of responding to this type of attitude, I'm going to try and help you phrase this in a way that will help us help infra to try to meet what you're looking for. Here's what I see when I go to the site(s):
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/snapshots/ - not downloading and testing anything - just looking at what I see:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1. The nightly trunk seems to be updated daily.
> >>>>>> 2. The 9.04 builds seem to, for some reason not be being updated on this page.
> >>>>>> 3. There aren't many 4.0 releases being built.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Then I go to here - http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/archive/snapshots/ - and I see a slightly different picture:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1. The trunk builds aren't really archives they're simply another copy after it was moved over. -- The archives are there though from when HotWax was managing it.
> >>>>>> 2. The 9.04 builds seem to really be the ones that we'd want on that first page.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Now, since I know that this release and the downloads are super important to you, I'm really more interested in hearing you:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1. Lay out the way you'd like to see these pages work.
> >>>>>> 2. Even show some examples of other projects that you _do_ like
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I hope this helps Ruth - as Adrian and Jacopo mentioned, what you've sent here is just a whine, not a helpful way for anyone to improve. Put in the time and help us to make it more like you like and I'm sure you'll be more pleased with the result. Btw, all of those other options are not the same type of community driven projects as the ASF, so it's hard to manage the same way. When commercial interests are more intertwined with the project, there are definitely benefits (as well as drawbacks), so let's at least acknowledge those.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>> Ruppert
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If there is a problem with the OFBiz site, it would be helpful to know what it is. Remarks like this are not helpful.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -Adrian
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ruth Hoffman wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This was meant as a sarcastic, "I can't believe this kind of thing keeps falling through the cracks", kind of remark. No wonder new users shy away. I mean, no wonder new users run as fast as their browsers will take them to OpenBravo, OpenERP, Magento...
> >>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>> Ruth
> >>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>> Find me on the web at http://www.myofbiz.com or Google keyword "myofbiz"
> >>>>>>>> ruth.hoffman@myofbiz.com
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
>
--
Matt Warnock <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com>
RidgeCrest Herbals, Inc.
Re: What I would like to see [was: Re: Nice job on keeping the download site up-to-date.]
Posted by Tim Ruppert <ti...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Well - I think what we went thru was the difference between targeting the trunk and targeting the release branch - and we do still differ there in a big way - so that's not what I want to talk about. What I'm looking for are actual examples and thought put in to _how_ I can help design and bring to fruition the type of snapshot website that you would be stoked about. As I said earlier, even examples of someone else doing it really well is out there. What you've written below is really general and doesn't make much sense to me
>>> I'd like to have a download site where any user, especially a new user, could visit, feel comfortable about the project (and life in general), and then proceed about the business of downloading code. Easy, simple and painless.
I'm down to spend my time and my companies time in marketing OFBiz - (I think I've proven that) - but I'd like a little guidance - at least in this discussion - towards an example of doing it right.
Cheers,
Ruppert
On Feb 5, 2010, at 1:12 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
> Hi Tim:
> I'm a little surprised. I thought we went through this a while back (maybe a few months ago) and the answer was: "the site is targeted at project committers". I left that discussion with the impression that was the last word. Are you saying that you might be open to discussing this again?
> Regards,
> Ruth
>
> Tim Ruppert wrote:
>> Thanks for the feedback. I'm going to think on it this weekend and will try and come up with some ideas of how this could work better. If you could show me some sites that you do like, that would be a big help - then I can see how to get that working in our world.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ruppert
>>
>> On Feb 5, 2010, at 12:13 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi Tim:
>>> Since you asked:
>>>
>>> I'd like to have a download site where any user, especially a new user, could visit, feel comfortable about the project (and life in general), and then proceed about the business of downloading code. Easy, simple and painless. Yes, the nightly builds are a HUGE step in that direction. Thanks again to everyone who makes this possible. But, lets put that in perspective: That only makes the process of downloading easier.
>>>
>>> I'd also like to have a seat on the project's oversight group. I don't understand how a project of this magnitude can continue to grow and prosper without business oriented people helping to guide it. The oversight group (whoever they happen to be) is like a bunch of very clever "foxes" guarding the "chicken coop". (Where the "chicken coop" is the code base.) There is so much more to making software successful than anything clever "foxes" will ever have time to consider.
>>>
>>> Actually, I take that back. If I'm part of the committer's group, I won't be able to "whine" and "troll" from the comfort of my desktop anymore.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Ruth
>>>
>>>
>>> Tim Ruppert wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks - again that was super helpful. I took the time to lay it out like a towel what was there, what looks to be broken when we migrated to the ASF infra and no you wont' go thru it? There are some obvious spots for you to say something or point to projects you like, but you just continue to roll your eyes. I didn't push for or want this move to the ASF infra - but I'm still trying to help here.
>>>>
>>>> What else do you want here Ruth? Cheers,
>>>> Ruppert
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Tim:
>>>>> I've been through this already. Several times over.
>>>>>
>>>>> All I can say at this point is, no one is minding the store. I just don't get it: You guys spend hours agonizing over how and where to put spaces in Java files, yet you can't see the most obvious flaws in how OFBiz does business.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh well...
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Ruth
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tim Ruppert wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ruth, I'm sure there's some good that could come out of your message - so against my general nature of responding to this type of attitude, I'm going to try and help you phrase this in a way that will help us help infra to try to meet what you're looking for. Here's what I see when I go to the site(s):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/snapshots/ - not downloading and testing anything - just looking at what I see:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. The nightly trunk seems to be updated daily.
>>>>>> 2. The 9.04 builds seem to, for some reason not be being updated on this page.
>>>>>> 3. There aren't many 4.0 releases being built.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then I go to here - http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/archive/snapshots/ - and I see a slightly different picture:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. The trunk builds aren't really archives they're simply another copy after it was moved over. -- The archives are there though from when HotWax was managing it.
>>>>>> 2. The 9.04 builds seem to really be the ones that we'd want on that first page.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, since I know that this release and the downloads are super important to you, I'm really more interested in hearing you:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Lay out the way you'd like to see these pages work.
>>>>>> 2. Even show some examples of other projects that you _do_ like
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hope this helps Ruth - as Adrian and Jacopo mentioned, what you've sent here is just a whine, not a helpful way for anyone to improve. Put in the time and help us to make it more like you like and I'm sure you'll be more pleased with the result. Btw, all of those other options are not the same type of community driven projects as the ASF, so it's hard to manage the same way. When commercial interests are more intertwined with the project, there are definitely benefits (as well as drawbacks), so let's at least acknowledge those.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Ruppert
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there is a problem with the OFBiz site, it would be helpful to know what it is. Remarks like this are not helpful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This was meant as a sarcastic, "I can't believe this kind of thing keeps falling through the cracks", kind of remark. No wonder new users shy away. I mean, no wonder new users run as fast as their browsers will take them to OpenBravo, OpenERP, Magento...
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Ruth
>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> Find me on the web at http://www.myofbiz.com or Google keyword "myofbiz"
>>>>>>>> ruth.hoffman@myofbiz.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
Re: What I would like to see
Posted by bsreekanth <ba...@yahoo.com>.
David,
I made a mistake, as I didn't look enough the wiki while I was supporting
the new index. It would only do harm to have duplication of source for same
information as it would become hard to maintain. I would link any of my
addition to wiki pages to this index, as it is the main resource index. I
request if Matt could consider incorporating his idea
(http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Documentation+Overview) in
to the main index. the intention is not to split our effort, but strengthen
the project.
thanks,
Babu.
David E Jones-4 wrote:
>
>
> This page may answer your questions:
>
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Apache+OFBiz+Getting+Started
>
> On a related note, here is the current documentation index (yes, it is
> linked to from the ofbiz.apache.org home page, so it is probably one of
> the more hidden wiki documents):
>
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Documentation+Index
>
> -David
>
>
> On Feb 7, 2010, at 9:07 AM, bsreekanth wrote:
>
>>
>> Jaques,
>> I'm curious too why the trunk is right solution. It would be known to
>> everyone (not in the mailing list) experimenting with Ofbiz if you could
>> add
>> that paragraph (which version to use for production, etc) to
>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Downloading :-)
>>
>> Babu.
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://n4.nabble.com/Nice-job-on-keeping-the-download-site-up-to-date-tp1470517p1472001.html
>> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Nice-job-on-keeping-the-download-site-up-to-date-tp1470517p1472339.html
Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: What I would like to see
Posted by David E Jones <de...@me.com>.
This page may answer your questions:
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Apache+OFBiz+Getting+Started
On a related note, here is the current documentation index (yes, it is linked to from the ofbiz.apache.org home page, so it is probably one of the more hidden wiki documents):
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Documentation+Index
-David
On Feb 7, 2010, at 9:07 AM, bsreekanth wrote:
>
> Jaques,
> I'm curious too why the trunk is right solution. It would be known to
> everyone (not in the mailing list) experimenting with Ofbiz if you could add
> that paragraph (which version to use for production, etc) to
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Downloading :-)
>
> Babu.
> --
> View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Nice-job-on-keeping-the-download-site-up-to-date-tp1470517p1472001.html
> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: What I would like to see
Posted by bsreekanth <ba...@yahoo.com>.
Jaques,
I'm curious too why the trunk is right solution. It would be known to
everyone (not in the mailing list) experimenting with Ofbiz if you could add
that paragraph (which version to use for production, etc) to
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Downloading :-)
Babu.
--
View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Nice-job-on-keeping-the-download-site-up-to-date-tp1470517p1472001.html
Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Learning and Using OFBiz (was: Re: What I would like to see)
Posted by David E Jones <de...@me.com>.
On Feb 7, 2010, at 9:40 PM, Matt Warnock wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-02-07 at 14:58 -0600, David E Jones wrote:
>> We're covering all sorts of ground in this thread! On the other hand,
>> if we look closely at the ground there are hints that all of this has
>> been covered before... ;)
>
> No doubt. :) I have renamed my index to "New User Guide"-- better
> describes it, more consistent with suggestions from this list, and less
> overlap with what is already there. It is a different approach from
> "Getting Started with OFBiz", and "OFBiz Documentation Index" but mine
> references both of those. It just organizes some of the stuff that PHBs
> will want to see right away, and lays out a clear plan for getting from
> here to there. Still a lot to flesh out, though, mostly finding and
> organizing the stuff already there.
>
>> Matt, I think what Chris Snow is referring to is the difficulty of
>> learning to effectively use the OFBiz framework versus learning to
>> effectively reuse the applications (both the base and specialpurpose
>> application). Based on what Chris has written in other messages he is
>> still struggling with how OFBiz is organized (ie the base applications
>> are intentionally NOT organized around business processes in order to
>> be as reusable as possible in different business processes, and
>> instead are organized around the data structures).
>
> So we're saying that "hello world" in the OFBiz framework requires
> knowing the framework, but repurposing an existing app to fill a new
> need requires 1) knowing which apps are in the toolbox, 2) knowing which
> one is the closest fit, and 3) making, testing, and deploying the
> changes. Is that about it? If so, thanks, that makes more sense to me.
>
>> In any case, there are a few reasons why the business side of OFBiz
>> (the applications) are a lot more complicated and difficult to learn
>> than the technical side of OFBiz. The basic problem is the size of
>> each, but that's over-simplifying things.
>>
>> Read Before You Write: It's not really human nature to do this, and it
>> takes a lot of patience. This is made worse because if individuals
>> have a hard time with patience, organizations are simply incapable of
>> it. The PHBs want results... and reading sure doesn't look like it's
>> producing any. What's worse is if the individual manages to produce a
>> result with a couple of dozen lines of configuration and bits of code
>> instead of a couple of thousand lines of raw, meaty, manly Java then a
>> semi-technical PHB may find it really unsatisfying to have paid for so
>> much time to get so little, not realizing that the individual just
>> save him 10-100 times what the alternative would have cost initially
>> and over its useful lifetime.
>
> This is an Organizational Behavior problem that certainly exists, but is
> by no means universal, or even in the majority. Most managers worth
> their salary know that the right tool makes all the difference. But
> they also know that there is a tradeoff between how many times you do a
> thing, and how right it needs to be. We use nail guns in construction,
> but hammers also have a purpose, even in construction.
>
> "Close enough" is OK in horseshoes and hand grenades, and in business
> processes that are not repeated often enough to make the effort of
> fine-tuning worthwhile. My wife calls the other end of the spectrum
> "analysis paralysis" and business managers can't much tolerate that,
> either.
>
> As I pointed out before, its the 80/20 rule. I don't WANT to build a
> custom tool for 80% of my business, and if I have to do that, the value
> of the whole is greatly diminished. But you are correct that PHBs do
> NEED to be able to customize the 20% that generates the profits and is
> repeated with high frequency. That 20% will differ in every business.
>
> It's like code optimization-- do you really want to unroll every loop by
> hand, and write all the code in optimized assembly for maximum speed?
> No, you get a working prototype first, then you profile it, and you
> optimize only where you must to achieve your performance goals. Much
> (most) of the time, code clarity is more important than optimization.
The point is not to get into "analysis paralysis", but to avoid rewriting things so that you can leverage the hopefully 80% that matches your business.
On a side note: I think "Analysis Paralysis" a bad name for a common problem... a better name might be "we have no idea what we're doing paralysis" or "we can't agree on how to do this paralysis". Good analysis involves a fairly straight course with a clearly defined target, and when walking into an existing analysis project or an implementation project that lacks adequate planning it is pretty clear where things have gone wrong. Implementation consultant managers often like this because it's a great alternative to sales when you get to implement things over and over. That's a bit of a jaded perspective though, so moving on...
Anyway, you're absolutely right that the point is to reuse as much as possible (the proverbial 80%), so you can focus on the remaining (ie the 20%). The problem is you never know where the 20% is going to be. It is typically spread all over the place and parts of it sometimes pop up in the most annoying of places, like picking or billing or automated GL posting or whatever annoying nook or cranny the poor designer of the system forgot to consider making changeable. ;)
I'm watching "The Right Stuff" right now and there is a great quote by a German scientist when Alan Shepard had to do #1: "we didn't think of that" (sounded more like "vee didn't sink of dat".
>> Scratching the Surface: A business application is not like an operating
>> system, or even a framework for building business applications (which
>> is like an operating, except the interfaces are tuned to a different
>> type of input, a less technical and more business-oriented type of
>> input). The difference is by nature there is no way to design an
>> interface adequate to represent a business application, and that is
>> what both operating systems and application frameworks are all about.
>> Unfortunately business people don't like being told that an interface
>> with a few little parameters is supposed to represent the entirety of
>> options for ANY process in their business, even "standard" ones like
>> billing or shipping. Business people don't like not be able to change
>> and tune any part of their business that they want, and if the systems
>> can't keep up then they don't get used. SAP and most ERPs out there
>> are great examples of this. They are proprietary software works and
>> you don't get the source code, and can only change what they've
>> decided it's okay to change (unless you want to rewrite something,
>> usually more than you think). Those sorts of systems don't let you get
>> below the surface, which is unfortunate because then you don't even
>> have an option to Read Before You Write.
>
> So you are saying that these systems only scratch the surface of the
> problem, because they only allow certain modifications? I wasn't fully
> clear on whether scratching the surface is a good thing, or not, from
> what you wrote here.
What I mean is that with operating systems and frameworks the surface is all the user cares about. With business applications every little bit of it is subject to examination and change (or needs to be).
> Granted, a Business App (BA) is not an OS, and a BA is not a BA
> framework (a meta-BA, if you will). I assume OFBiz is your meta-BA, and
> you seem to be saying that there is no way to create a truly universal
> BA, because it needs to be able to be customized, and I agree. But it
> doesn't ALL need to be customized, and the part that needs customizing
> will be different in each case.
For a given company you're right, they certainly (hopefully!) won't have to customize everything. However, over the course of thousands of organizations chances are every bit of the system will at some point become a candidate for customization.
> Besides, if its open source, I CAN customize anything and everything--
> but that doesn't mean I want to rewrite the whole app-- only those few
> parts that are worthwhile. That is the value of HAVING an app to
> rewrite, rather than building from scratch. The beauty of OSS is that
> it offers a third option in the classic "Buy vs. Build" decision.
Yeah, my first attempt at a marketing message was just that: "Build vs Buy vs OFBiz".
>> In other words, the way you go about adding value (via easy of reuse)
>> in a business application is very different from how you go about
>> adding value in an operating system or a business application
>> framework. With the OFBiz framework you can learn the "interface" to
>> it, but with the applications you pretty much have to deal with it
>> all. On the other hand, there are more concise "interfaces" to it,
>> like the data model and browsing things related to data model
>> elements, which is made easier with the Artifact Info and other
>> related tools in the OFBiz WebTools application.
>>
>> And how do you apply that in your business? The basic answer is you
>> don't. OFBiz is meant to adapted to businesses, not businesses to
>> OFBiz. You can certainly run it OOTB, but that's not how it's meant to
>> be used and you'll find that a painful experience. It's not going to
>> hold your hand because it was never designed to run your business.
>> Frankly, how could it be? Some systems claim they are in their
>> marketing, but that marketing isn't honest because how do they know
>> how you want to run your business? When you start trying to use those
>> systems in your business you find out pretty quick that they really
>> don't know.
>
> I think you overestimate the pain of a "good" OOTB solution. Maybe
> OFBiz isn't that, at this point. And granted, every business will
> differ. But if my 80% problem is largely solved OOTB, I have a LOT more
> time and money to throw at the 20% that NEEDS to be customized, and a
> lot more incentive to do it.
When I think of an OOTB solution it's not 80% there... that could mean it's a million dollars away. OOTB to me means at least 95% there, and preferably 100% (though subjectivity pretty much makes that impossible, IMO), but at least close enough to what the business needs to not force them to rely on spreadsheets or additional systems in order to completely run whatever part of their business it is meant for.
I guess by current standards covering 80% of what the software is meant for is actually spectacular, and fortunately people aren't too picky about that. The fact is that a lot of companies are happy with QuickBooks even if they have half a dozen other apps and/or spreadsheets to run other parts of their business. In larger businesses the difficult to change ERP system may be supplemented by a hundreds, or even hundreds, of other systems.
> Every body is different, too-- but that doesn't mean that every article
> of clothing needs to be hand-tailored to fit decently (not perfectly).
> But most any article CAN be tailored, if the need arises, and if such
> tailoring is worthwhile.
>
>> So, your best bet is to define your business and then do a gap/overlap
>> analysis with OFBiz to see what you can use, what needs to be adapted,
>> and what needs to be built to fill gaps.
>
> This is precisely where the huge learning curve is the impediment. I
> know my business, but I don't know OFBiz, so even the most basic
> gap/overlap analysis requires hiring an OFBiz expert (if I can find one)
> and then I have to educate them on my business. If I could use OFBiz
> effectively OOTB, then the gaps/overlaps would be apparent by trial and
> error, probably ranging from mild annoyances to (rarely) deal-breakers.
> But I can always continue to use existing systems and processes, until
> the deal-breaker gaps in OFBiz can be filled. In the meantime, it is
> still useful.
Actually you don't need an experienced person. Once you have business activities listed out anyone can go through and try to figure out how to use the system to do them, and then document the steps (with specific screen references, including URLs for clarity and buttons/links pressed, etc).
The only place you really need an expert is to verify gaps. In other words, if you can't find any way to do a certain thing then talk to an expert (or to save money, get a list of them, in the context of your general business process and the overlaps you've found, and have the expert review them).
But yeah, as OFBiz is right now anyone with a web-capable computer and an understanding of common business terms and a good deal of time can identify and document overlaps. In fact, the only thing that makes an "expert" an expert is that they have (hopefully!) already invested this sort of time and they understand the general patterns of the system well enough to do this quickly.
BTW, my experience with larger enterprise systems is that there usually isn't a person who is an expert on the entire system, and both analysts and developers tend to specialize in specific parts of the system.
>> If you really want a tuned
>> system, like for a larger company or for a derivative work (like a
>> commercial application targeted at a certain type of company) then you
>> can define the business, design the application, and build it, and
>> save resources building it by reusing as much as possible from
>> something like OFBiz (which gets back to why OFBiz is organized like
>> it is). To do these things effectively takes some experience, and to
>> shorten the path certain tools are helpful like the HEMP approach
>> (http://www.dejc.com/home/HEMP.html).
>
> Not what I need, but others will. But the absolute number of people
> needing either of these scenarios will be much smaller, IMO, than the
> number of SMB owners.
>
> The Fortune 1000 will have big budgets for ERP, and will be hard to land
> (long buying cycle). You really need a sales army of "elephant hunters"
> to play in that space.
>
> If you envision VARs being your principal sales channel, then this
> design choice makes perfect sense. I don't see that happening myself.
Actually, VARs are the primary sales channel for OFBiz-based solutions. In fact, they are the only "sales" channel because service providers are the only ones who "sell" anything. Of course, that's a play on words, but the concept really does mean something.
How did all of this stuff magically get into OFBiz? It wasn't a company developing something with the hope of getting a return on that investment in terms of sales (except for the developers who contribute things or become active on the mailing lists or whatever in order to attract clients, ie as a marketing channel). The majority of what exists in OFBiz, especially the business apps, was created because some VAR added it for a client and contributed it back to the project.
IMO that's what makes OFBiz interesting. It doesn't make it super clean or consistent in design (well, not any more), but it does make it very "real", and very organic.
> The differences from one type of company to another are probably not so
> overwhelming as you think. Why was John Sculley pulled from PepsiCo to
> run Apple? Because businesses are not that different. Apple and Pepsi
> have more in common from the marketing side than most people think-- its
> all about the brand. Sure, one item has a lifetime is seconds, the
> other in years. But the processes are largely similar, though the
> terminology may change. Is there a role for VARs? Absolutely. Is it
> the primary sales channel? I doubt it, but YMMV.
John Sculley! I'm surprised you'd bring up that example. ;) Isn't that the PERFECT example of a CEO transplant gone bad? Yeah, Apple was big and successful enough before he came on board that he wasn't able to trash and loot the entire company and force it into bankruptcy, but those weren't exactly the most stellar years in the history of Apple...
There may be some similarities between business approaches, but business systems don't deal with such generalities, they help automate the nitty-gritty details that are difficult and/or boring for humans to keep track of. For large companies like Apple the external auditors generally know more about such details than any C-level officer, and still the external auditors don't know nearly enough about the company to even specify sufficiently detailed requirements for the systems for that company.
> VARs are always a step removed from customers and users, which makes it
> that much harder to be customer-focused. I should know-- we sell to
> distributors, which sell to retailers, which sell to users. If I didn't
> go out of my way to talk to end users, I'd NEVER know what they think of
> our products. I could tell you some war stories...
But you sell an off-the-shelf product, right? That's a little bit different isn't it?
Usually (for software) VARs are the ones who make the software fit the business, and if they are to do a good job they need to be more familiar with the business than most of the people running the business are (and by more familiar, I mean they should be able to hide some of the complexity by verifying things at a high level that imply certain lower level details).
Of course, most software consultants and analysts really honestly aren't very good, and not always because they are not experienced. In many cases they just don't know what works and what doesn't, what's a good idea and what isn't, what matters and is relevant and what isn't, and so on. Of course, sometimes even the best consultant simply can't contribute to a good software solution, some businesses just won't budge on certain things (usually related to unwillingness to address or even acknowledge certain problems, or even accept enough that they might be problems in order to test whether they are or not!).
Anyway, I believe you about a disconnect between manufacturers and end-users because of resellers! In the software world this is frustration usually pops up with the gap between developers and end-users. Again, sometimes analysts are actually WORSE than developers at gathering requirements and designing solutions.
>> Stepping back a little... there is a bigger trick... and that is how
>> many people believe what I wrote above Read Before You Write and
>> Scratching the Surface? Well, not many. For those that do understand
>> and agree OFBiz is great (could be better, lots better, because even
>> many people involved with OFBiz don't believe or don't understand
>> those two ideas and as the number of contributors increases that
>> painful fact becomes more apparent). For those who don't understand or
>> don't agree, they are destined to a life of making things painful for
>> them and others they work with, whether they attempt to use OFBiz
>> (probably won't last long) or whether they choose a likely painful
>> commercial route filled with reasons to spend more and more money on
>> more and more different software.
>>
>> -David
>
> This really boils down to a basic marketing issue: who is your customer,
> and what do they really need? If you really meet that need effectively,
> delivering solid value, you will be successful beyond your ability to
> expand and serve. How do you segment the market? By revenues? By
> industry? By employees? What are your sales channels? Direct? Through
> VARs or consultants? What are your customers' real needs and how well
> do you meet them? In the venture capital community, we sometimes talk
> about "a solution in search of a problem." Companies (or non-profits)
> that don't know what their customers really need will always struggle.
>
> If this is indeed a "missionary sale", in that you have to sell people
> on a value proposition that they can't really see, or won't see for
> months or years, then you do have an uphill battle, no question.
> Thinking that they are stupid won't help. Suffice it to say that I
> don't think it absolutely HAS to be that way.
>
> In my management experience, if I'm not getting the sales results I
> want, I try to re-examine what I'm doing, and I usually find that the
> reasons are both apparent and solvable. A better mousetrap is often in
> the eye of the beholder-- a completely customizable mousetrap might not
> be the overwhelming marketing advantage, if you want to be catching mice
> like, yesterday. (And who doesn't?) But if you give me a better
> mousetrap today, and it *immediately* solves 80% (or even 60% or 40%) of
> my mouse problem, who do you think I'll call for the more intractable
> part of the problem?
I think OFBiz, from my point of view anyway, has a pretty clearly defined target market and is doing just fine there. However, this isn't the target market that people think it should be, or perhaps more accurately _wish_ that it was.
The target market of OFBiz is... enterprise application service providers (including those who work for other companies, and those who work for internally in their own company, ie IT departments and such). As for end-users the intended audience is clients or customers of these service providers, ie including both companies that want to customize software for themselves, and companies that want others to customize software for them.
Another target market that is maturing is the derivative work company. This is a variation on a service provider where instead of customizing OFBiz for a single company they customize it for a type of company, or a vertical industry, and then instead of charging for customization and other such services they charge for a license and support.
The real point of the OFBiz target market is that is HAS to be something that leads to the project being self-sustaining. There may not be a revenue model for OFBiz, but there still must be a resource and motivation model. In fact, it is kind of fun because it is one of the few resource and motivation models that does not involve revenue.
> When I get entrenched in a particular view, my wife sometimes asks me:
> "do you want to be right, or do you want to be happy?" Or as Dr. Phil
> would say, "How's that working for you?" Often the only difference
> between a martyr and a hero is-- well, the hero actually WON the battle
> in question. If you find yourself in an uphill fight to sell a solution
> to someone else's problem, maybe it isn't (yet) quite the solution it
> needs to be. Not that it isn't great-- it just may need a bit of work
> yet to really break loose.
Yeah, the Dr. Phil view of the world. I love his frequent quote "the past is the best predictor of the future." Why do I love it? Because it's horridly silly truism. The past is in fact the only possible predictor of the future. The implication that one can predict the future is ridiculous, as is the implication that Dr. Phil any sort of special way to cherry pick things from the past that support his chosen portrayal of a possible future. It's not that I think what he says is not true, it is just so terribly not useful, and his conclusions and recommendations seem to be so arbitrary instead of based on any real logic. A good read or listen through Mark Joyner's "Simple.ology" is helpful for recognizing this and all sorts of logical fallacies.
The "How's that working for you" question is similar. Yes, sometimes things make sense, but more often than not people know a lot less than they'd like others to believe they do. I'm more of the school of thought portrayed in Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers". The basic tenet of that book is that context and circumstance have FAR more to do with success or failure. People like to credit and blame others far more than is probably usually deserved, in various aspects of life and certainly in business. Maybe the reason that I like "Outliers" so much is that it is totally contrary to the current popular notions that drive most of business and politics.
On the other hand, perhaps it is my persistent failure in business that pushes me to prefer such schools of thought. Perhaps that's best as another topic... ;)
> You've brought OFBiz this far (and that is a LONG bloody way), so I
> figure that you are a pragmatist and a problem-solver at heart. And I
> think you have the groundwork laid to blow this market wide open,
> building a much larger, more committed, and more wealthy community, if
> you can make the value proposition more palatable to average SMB
> leaders, who I think are often smarter than you sometimes give them
> credit for.
>
> Not all PHBs got there under the Peter Principle. Especially in the SMB
> sector, which is where I see the biggest potential for OFBiz. ;)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle
I have no doubt about the value of small businesses. In fact, I am of the opinion that the majority of innovation and progress in the world comes from small businesses, and that small businesses are FAR more efficient that large businesses. I'm also of the more controversial opinion that if it were not for government interference in market places that large businesses would simply not exist as they do today because smaller organizations would serve the market so much better that larger ones would never have a chance. There may be something to the strength of branding and familiarity that help companies get bigger, but I have my doubts about that as the primary reason, and of course governments interfere with advertising in major ways. If your business is herbs as your email implies, you've probably either experienced this or heard the stories of men with guns shutting down small herbal businesses just for advertising, while protecting the larger companies that are actually allowed to cause death without any penalty as long as they play ball.
Anyway, back on topic...
OFBiz can't go after the SMB market. It's not because many people involved with OFBiz don't want to, in fact I think many people in the community would prefer it. It's because it can't.
Like you mentioned all organizations need a business model, not necessarily a revenue model, but they MUST have a resource and motivation model. Most resource and motivation models rely on revenue since money really is usually the easiest way to get people to do things (only people with money will deny that... and only because they've failed to get people to do certain things in spite of substantial offers of money, and then they just need to realize that an individual isn't a market and there is always someone who will willingly do something for money, anything really).
Anyway, in this regard OFBiz is a spectacular experiment. People collaborate and build and share things and get real work done that benefits others, and they do so without money flowing through a central organization. It IS in fact a resource and motivation model that doesn't involve revenue. I don't know if OFBiz will be recognized in this light, but I personally like to think of it as a masterpiece of revenue-free business. But aren't most community-driven open source projects this way, what about other Apache projects? Each project most certainly has a resource and motivation model, but many of them rely on (or to get started relied on) corporate sponsorship, and/or are driven by the "scratch an itch" or hobby theory.
Most contributions to OFBiz are not things they would do as a hobby. Dealing with legal requirements and ugly/complicated aspects of business is not fun for most people, and I'd wager that most people involved with OFBiz would only work on the framework or more technical things generally if they were not paid to do it. Still, the Apache OFBiz project is not paying them, someone else is and they or their client is voluntarily giving the results of that work to their project. Why do they do it? Because the value of collaboration on this software is higher than the cost of performing the contribution.
So, I know how to setup a community-driven open source project that is targeted at service providers who have a motivation to contribute back. What I DON'T know how to do (or in spite of trying haven't figured out yet) is how to get people to create, without monetary compensation, software that is meant for OOTB/as-is use by small businesses.
The problem with small businesses is that they typically can't contribute back to the project. Typically their employees can't (or don't have time to), and typically they can't afford to pay someone else to. So, if the project was targeted specifically at small businesses, where would the contributions come from? What revenue and motivation model would make that sustainable?
Creating derivative works for certain types of small businesses could, IMO, be VERY profitable. However, it would require investment to create the work based on OFBiz. I can't say how many times I've seen such things fail because in spite of being able to reduce the development budget the marketing isn't free. You can reduce it a lot by targeting a specific market because you inherently have more targeted advertising, but it's still not zero and if you don't budget for it then you are unknowingly already on the road to failure, and may have a hard to recovering your even modest investment in the software. Fortunately people are still trying this, and I really think it holds a lot of promise and is the key to the SMB market, ie vertically oriented derivative works of open source software, and there is no better starting point for that than Apache OFBiz.
Can software be created for small business? Most certainly yes, and has been, many many times in quite profitable ways. Am I interested in doing so? Not really. But wait, won't I get spectacularly rich if I do so and it succeeds? Well, no, probably not. I've been involved with a number of startups, both as an employee and as a consultant. Based on a half dozen such experiences I know a wide variety of strategies to get work for very little from gullible programmers. I know now that I'm just a resource and an expense and the business goal related to me is to reduce the size of that expense, or maximize its efficiency by getting as much out of it for as little as possible. There are ways to reduce such expenses just in case the business fails, and ways to reduce expenses with changes and technicalities later on just in case the business succeeds.
I'm happy work on an hourly (or well-defined fixed-bid) basis for a fair consulting rate (or at least one that competes with whatever other opportunities I may have), but I won't offer discounts and unless the business plan is really good and I'm impressed with the people (which has never happened, not even among the dozen startups that have approached me in the last year). These days if I offer a discount it means I'm having a hard getting higher paying work, and of course clients should be careful of that because it really is fickle and doesn't foster any sort of a long-term relationship or a commitment. Yeah, people will accept getting beaten up on price if they have no other choice, but once they do... Of course, this opinion about startups may be a catch-22 because the part I'm usually not impressed with is the revenue and marketing plan... whereas if they have sufficient funding then chances are they'll pay my full rate and not try to get me to work for a percentage of the company. So, yeah, sorry if it seems a little bit funny, and I know that there certainly are those who are more interested in such risks, and perhaps I will be again in the future at some point.
To sum up, I don't know how to produce software for SMBs that they could get directly from a community-driven open source project. My opinion right now, until I see someone successfully do so over the period of at least a decade (okay, 9 years like OFBiz) is that there is no resource or motivation model that will get it done. People just don't work that way. The only "open source" model that I know of that produces good, clean, OOTB usable business applications for small businesses is the dual-license (typically GPL/commercial) model where they actually have a staff of paid designers and developers, and they have investments and a revenue model and all other traditional software business things, including expected revenue from software licensing, control over service and support markets, and so on.
Community-driven open source projects are GREAT for people and organizations that want to collaborate with peers to develop something bigger than they could alone, and in a way that is more efficient than paying for all of it. The software gets built, the clients get what they want (hopefully...), the contributors get more work because of offering a solution for less than other market alternatives and get attention (and sometimes more work because of that attention) because of their contributions, and the software exists and the project grows and progresses in a sustainable way.
If someone can tell me how I'm wrong, and how you could get people to contribute to a community-driven project meant for SMBs that can't contribute back, then please do so and it will be worth all of the effort in this thread and more.
-David
> And BTW, I'd still like to take you to lunch next time you are in town.
> Do you know when yet? :)
>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 7, 2010, at 10:45 AM, Matt Warnock wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 2010-02-07 at 08:30 +0000, Christopher Snow wrote:
>>>> Matt, what was the 300 - 400 hours for?
>>>
>>> It was Milind Parikh's estimate of the learning curve, except I
>>> misquoted. He said people should be "expected" to spend 200-400 hours
>>> to "understand OFBiz".
>>>
>>>> I think that time would give
>>>> you the capability to develop a standalone solution. If you want to use
>>>> existing functionality (order mgt, invoicing, shipping, mfg, workeffort,
>>>> etc) you need a lot more time depending on which functionality you use.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I understand this. After 300-400 hours you can develop
>>> standalone apps, but using existing functionality takes longer? I would
>>> think it was the other way around?
>>>
>>>> I've been using ofbiz pretty heavily for nearly a year now, and have a
>>>> 'good' understanding of developing solutions. In terms of the
>>>> components, I am only really starting to get a deep understanding of how
>>>> workefforts work. If fact some discussions I've had on the ML suggest
>>>> that it may not be possible to know all of ofbiz at all. Instead you
>>>> have to know how to find the answers to the areas you are trying to
>>>> implement. However to know how to get the answers, you need to know the
>>>> questions to ask. For this you need a good understanding of the overall
>>>> system, for which there is no documentation except the universal data
>>>> models.
>>>
>>> I can take any Linux (or BSD) distribution off the shelf, spend a
>>> half-hour installing it, and immediately get SOME useful work done. It
>>> may not do everything I want, but OOTB, it does the basics. And OOTB, I
>>> can use it well enough to at least evaluate how well it meets my general
>>> needs.
>>>
>>> I can then work on tuning the system to my specific needs, or use it as
>>> a platform to develop custom apps. I don't need to understand all of
>>> the kernel (say the schedule or VM code) to get my job done, let alone
>>> the whole system. If I need to write a new driver, filesystem, text
>>> filter, or whatever, I take an existing one as a template or example,
>>> and I write another that can be plugged in. And you're right, I doubt
>>> anyone knows it all, and that's OK.
>>>
>>> By the same token, IMO, you should not have to understand all of OFBiz
>>> to either 1) use it productively, or 2) write apps (or other plugin
>>> code) for it. If that is not the case, then the system design and
>>> modularization needs improvement.
>>>
>>> And that is exactly why (I think) your work on framework independence
>>> and attention to dependencies is really important.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matt Warnock <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com>
>>> RidgeCrest Herbals, Inc.
>>>
>
>
> --
> Matt Warnock <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com>
> RidgeCrest Herbals, Inc.
>
Re: Learning and Using OFBiz (was: Re: What I would like to see)
Posted by Shi Jinghai <sh...@langhua.cn>.
In the high-end market, there is no room for channels/vars.
在 2010-02-07日的 20:40 -0700，Matt Warnock写道：
> On Sun, 2010-02-07 at 14:58 -0600, David E Jones wrote:
> > We're covering all sorts of ground in this thread! On the other hand,
> > if we look closely at the ground there are hints that all of this has
> > been covered before... ;)
>
> No doubt. :) I have renamed my index to "New User Guide"-- better
> describes it, more consistent with suggestions from this list, and less
> overlap with what is already there. It is a different approach from
> "Getting Started with OFBiz", and "OFBiz Documentation Index" but mine
> references both of those. It just organizes some of the stuff that PHBs
> will want to see right away, and lays out a clear plan for getting from
> here to there. Still a lot to flesh out, though, mostly finding and
> organizing the stuff already there.
>
> > Matt, I think what Chris Snow is referring to is the difficulty of
> > learning to effectively use the OFBiz framework versus learning to
> > effectively reuse the applications (both the base and specialpurpose
> > application). Based on what Chris has written in other messages he is
> > still struggling with how OFBiz is organized (ie the base applications
> > are intentionally NOT organized around business processes in order to
> > be as reusable as possible in different business processes, and
> > instead are organized around the data structures).
>
> So we're saying that "hello world" in the OFBiz framework requires
> knowing the framework, but repurposing an existing app to fill a new
> need requires 1) knowing which apps are in the toolbox, 2) knowing which
> one is the closest fit, and 3) making, testing, and deploying the
> changes. Is that about it? If so, thanks, that makes more sense to me.
>
> > In any case, there are a few reasons why the business side of OFBiz
> > (the applications) are a lot more complicated and difficult to learn
> > than the technical side of OFBiz. The basic problem is the size of
> > each, but that's over-simplifying things.
> >
> > Read Before You Write: It's not really human nature to do this, and it
> > takes a lot of patience. This is made worse because if individuals
> > have a hard time with patience, organizations are simply incapable of
> > it. The PHBs want results... and reading sure doesn't look like it's
> > producing any. What's worse is if the individual manages to produce a
> > result with a couple of dozen lines of configuration and bits of code
> > instead of a couple of thousand lines of raw, meaty, manly Java then a
> > semi-technical PHB may find it really unsatisfying to have paid for so
> > much time to get so little, not realizing that the individual just
> > save him 10-100 times what the alternative would have cost initially
> > and over its useful lifetime.
>
> This is an Organizational Behavior problem that certainly exists, but is
> by no means universal, or even in the majority. Most managers worth
> their salary know that the right tool makes all the difference. But
> they also know that there is a tradeoff between how many times you do a
> thing, and how right it needs to be. We use nail guns in construction,
> but hammers also have a purpose, even in construction.
>
> "Close enough" is OK in horseshoes and hand grenades, and in business
> processes that are not repeated often enough to make the effort of
> fine-tuning worthwhile. My wife calls the other end of the spectrum
> "analysis paralysis" and business managers can't much tolerate that,
> either.
>
> As I pointed out before, its the 80/20 rule. I don't WANT to build a
> custom tool for 80% of my business, and if I have to do that, the value
> of the whole is greatly diminished. But you are correct that PHBs do
> NEED to be able to customize the 20% that generates the profits and is
> repeated with high frequency. That 20% will differ in every business.
>
> It's like code optimization-- do you really want to unroll every loop by
> hand, and write all the code in optimized assembly for maximum speed?
> No, you get a working prototype first, then you profile it, and you
> optimize only where you must to achieve your performance goals. Much
> (most) of the time, code clarity is more important than optimization.
>
> > Scratching the Surface: A business application is not like an operating
> > system, or even a framework for building business applications (which
> > is like an operating, except the interfaces are tuned to a different
> > type of input, a less technical and more business-oriented type of
> > input). The difference is by nature there is no way to design an
> > interface adequate to represent a business application, and that is
> > what both operating systems and application frameworks are all about.
> > Unfortunately business people don't like being told that an interface
> > with a few little parameters is supposed to represent the entirety of
> > options for ANY process in their business, even "standard" ones like
> > billing or shipping. Business people don't like not be able to change
> > and tune any part of their business that they want, and if the systems
> > can't keep up then they don't get used. SAP and most ERPs out there
> > are great examples of this. They are proprietary software works and
> > you don't get the source code, and can only change what they've
> > decided it's okay to change (unless you want to rewrite something,
> > usually more than you think). Those sorts of systems don't let you get
> > below the surface, which is unfortunate because then you don't even
> > have an option to Read Before You Write.
>
> So you are saying that these systems only scratch the surface of the
> problem, because they only allow certain modifications? I wasn't fully
> clear on whether scratching the surface is a good thing, or not, from
> what you wrote here.
>
> Granted, a Business App (BA) is not an OS, and a BA is not a BA
> framework (a meta-BA, if you will). I assume OFBiz is your meta-BA, and
> you seem to be saying that there is no way to create a truly universal
> BA, because it needs to be able to be customized, and I agree. But it
> doesn't ALL need to be customized, and the part that needs customizing
> will be different in each case.
>
> Besides, if its open source, I CAN customize anything and everything--
> but that doesn't mean I want to rewrite the whole app-- only those few
> parts that are worthwhile. That is the value of HAVING an app to
> rewrite, rather than building from scratch. The beauty of OSS is that
> it offers a third option in the classic "Buy vs. Build" decision.
>
> > In other words, the way you go about adding value (via easy of reuse)
> > in a business application is very different from how you go about
> > adding value in an operating system or a business application
> > framework. With the OFBiz framework you can learn the "interface" to
> > it, but with the applications you pretty much have to deal with it
> > all. On the other hand, there are more concise "interfaces" to it,
> > like the data model and browsing things related to data model
> > elements, which is made easier with the Artifact Info and other
> > related tools in the OFBiz WebTools application.
> >
> > And how do you apply that in your business? The basic answer is you
> > don't. OFBiz is meant to adapted to businesses, not businesses to
> > OFBiz. You can certainly run it OOTB, but that's not how it's meant to
> > be used and you'll find that a painful experience. It's not going to
> > hold your hand because it was never designed to run your business.
> > Frankly, how could it be? Some systems claim they are in their
> > marketing, but that marketing isn't honest because how do they know
> > how you want to run your business? When you start trying to use those
> > systems in your business you find out pretty quick that they really
> > don't know.
>
> I think you overestimate the pain of a "good" OOTB solution. Maybe
> OFBiz isn't that, at this point. And granted, every business will
> differ. But if my 80% problem is largely solved OOTB, I have a LOT more
> time and money to throw at the 20% that NEEDS to be customized, and a
> lot more incentive to do it.
>
> Every body is different, too-- but that doesn't mean that every article
> of clothing needs to be hand-tailored to fit decently (not perfectly).
> But most any article CAN be tailored, if the need arises, and if such
> tailoring is worthwhile.
>
> > So, your best bet is to define your business and then do a gap/overlap
> > analysis with OFBiz to see what you can use, what needs to be adapted,
> > and what needs to be built to fill gaps.
>
> This is precisely where the huge learning curve is the impediment. I
> know my business, but I don't know OFBiz, so even the most basic
> gap/overlap analysis requires hiring an OFBiz expert (if I can find one)
> and then I have to educate them on my business. If I could use OFBiz
> effectively OOTB, then the gaps/overlaps would be apparent by trial and
> error, probably ranging from mild annoyances to (rarely) deal-breakers.
> But I can always continue to use existing systems and processes, until
> the deal-breaker gaps in OFBiz can be filled. In the meantime, it is
> still useful.
>
> > If you really want a tuned
> > system, like for a larger company or for a derivative work (like a
> > commercial application targeted at a certain type of company) then you
> > can define the business, design the application, and build it, and
> > save resources building it by reusing as much as possible from
> > something like OFBiz (which gets back to why OFBiz is organized like
> > it is). To do these things effectively takes some experience, and to
> > shorten the path certain tools are helpful like the HEMP approach
> > (http://www.dejc.com/home/HEMP.html).
>
> Not what I need, but others will. But the absolute number of people
> needing either of these scenarios will be much smaller, IMO, than the
> number of SMB owners.
>
> The Fortune 1000 will have big budgets for ERP, and will be hard to land
> (long buying cycle). You really need a sales army of "elephant hunters"
> to play in that space.
>
> If you envision VARs being your principal sales channel, then this
> design choice makes perfect sense. I don't see that happening myself.
> The differences from one type of company to another are probably not so
> overwhelming as you think. Why was John Sculley pulled from PepsiCo to
> run Apple? Because businesses are not that different. Apple and Pepsi
> have more in common from the marketing side than most people think-- its
> all about the brand. Sure, one item has a lifetime is seconds, the
> other in years. But the processes are largely similar, though the
> terminology may change. Is there a role for VARs? Absolutely. Is it
> the primary sales channel? I doubt it, but YMMV.
>
> VARs are always a step removed from customers and users, which makes it
> that much harder to be customer-focused. I should know-- we sell to
> distributors, which sell to retailers, which sell to users. If I didn't
> go out of my way to talk to end users, I'd NEVER know what they think of
> our products. I could tell you some war stories...
>
> > Stepping back a little... there is a bigger trick... and that is how
> > many people believe what I wrote above Read Before You Write and
> > Scratching the Surface? Well, not many. For those that do understand
> > and agree OFBiz is great (could be better, lots better, because even
> > many people involved with OFBiz don't believe or don't understand
> > those two ideas and as the number of contributors increases that
> > painful fact becomes more apparent). For those who don't understand or
> > don't agree, they are destined to a life of making things painful for
> > them and others they work with, whether they attempt to use OFBiz
> > (probably won't last long) or whether they choose a likely painful
> > commercial route filled with reasons to spend more and more money on
> > more and more different software.
> >
> > -David
>
> This really boils down to a basic marketing issue: who is your customer,
> and what do they really need? If you really meet that need effectively,
> delivering solid value, you will be successful beyond your ability to
> expand and serve. How do you segment the market? By revenues? By
> industry? By employees? What are your sales channels? Direct? Through
> VARs or consultants? What are your customers' real needs and how well
> do you meet them? In the venture capital community, we sometimes talk
> about "a solution in search of a problem." Companies (or non-profits)
> that don't know what their customers really need will always struggle.
>
> If this is indeed a "missionary sale", in that you have to sell people
> on a value proposition that they can't really see, or won't see for
> months or years, then you do have an uphill battle, no question.
> Thinking that they are stupid won't help. Suffice it to say that I
> don't think it absolutely HAS to be that way.
>
> In my management experience, if I'm not getting the sales results I
> want, I try to re-examine what I'm doing, and I usually find that the
> reasons are both apparent and solvable. A better mousetrap is often in
> the eye of the beholder-- a completely customizable mousetrap might not
> be the overwhelming marketing advantage, if you want to be catching mice
> like, yesterday. (And who doesn't?) But if you give me a better
> mousetrap today, and it *immediately* solves 80% (or even 60% or 40%) of
> my mouse problem, who do you think I'll call for the more intractable
> part of the problem?
>
> When I get entrenched in a particular view, my wife sometimes asks me:
> "do you want to be right, or do you want to be happy?" Or as Dr. Phil
> would say, "How's that working for you?" Often the only difference
> between a martyr and a hero is-- well, the hero actually WON the battle
> in question. If you find yourself in an uphill fight to sell a solution
> to someone else's problem, maybe it isn't (yet) quite the solution it
> needs to be. Not that it isn't great-- it just may need a bit of work
> yet to really break loose.
>
> You've brought OFBiz this far (and that is a LONG bloody way), so I
> figure that you are a pragmatist and a problem-solver at heart. And I
> think you have the groundwork laid to blow this market wide open,
> building a much larger, more committed, and more wealthy community, if
> you can make the value proposition more palatable to average SMB
> leaders, who I think are often smarter than you sometimes give them
> credit for.
>
> Not all PHBs got there under the Peter Principle. Especially in the SMB
> sector, which is where I see the biggest potential for OFBiz. ;)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle
>
> And BTW, I'd still like to take you to lunch next time you are in town.
> Do you know when yet? :)
>
> >
> >
> > On Feb 7, 2010, at 10:45 AM, Matt Warnock wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 2010-02-07 at 08:30 +0000, Christopher Snow wrote:
> > >> Matt, what was the 300 - 400 hours for?
> > >
> > > It was Milind Parikh's estimate of the learning curve, except I
> > > misquoted. He said people should be "expected" to spend 200-400 hours
> > > to "understand OFBiz".
> > >
> > >> I think that time would give
> > >> you the capability to develop a standalone solution. If you want to use
> > >> existing functionality (order mgt, invoicing, shipping, mfg, workeffort,
> > >> etc) you need a lot more time depending on which functionality you use.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure I understand this. After 300-400 hours you can develop
> > > standalone apps, but using existing functionality takes longer? I would
> > > think it was the other way around?
> > >
> > >> I've been using ofbiz pretty heavily for nearly a year now, and have a
> > >> 'good' understanding of developing solutions. In terms of the
> > >> components, I am only really starting to get a deep understanding of how
> > >> workefforts work. If fact some discussions I've had on the ML suggest
> > >> that it may not be possible to know all of ofbiz at all. Instead you
> > >> have to know how to find the answers to the areas you are trying to
> > >> implement. However to know how to get the answers, you need to know the
> > >> questions to ask. For this you need a good understanding of the overall
> > >> system, for which there is no documentation except the universal data
> > >> models.
> > >
> > > I can take any Linux (or BSD) distribution off the shelf, spend a
> > > half-hour installing it, and immediately get SOME useful work done. It
> > > may not do everything I want, but OOTB, it does the basics. And OOTB, I
> > > can use it well enough to at least evaluate how well it meets my general
> > > needs.
> > >
> > > I can then work on tuning the system to my specific needs, or use it as
> > > a platform to develop custom apps. I don't need to understand all of
> > > the kernel (say the schedule or VM code) to get my job done, let alone
> > > the whole system. If I need to write a new driver, filesystem, text
> > > filter, or whatever, I take an existing one as a template or example,
> > > and I write another that can be plugged in. And you're right, I doubt
> > > anyone knows it all, and that's OK.
> > >
> > > By the same token, IMO, you should not have to understand all of OFBiz
> > > to either 1) use it productively, or 2) write apps (or other plugin
> > > code) for it. If that is not the case, then the system design and
> > > modularization needs improvement.
> > >
> > > And that is exactly why (I think) your work on framework independence
> > > and attention to dependencies is really important.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Matt Warnock <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com>
> > > RidgeCrest Herbals, Inc.
> > >
>
>
Re: Learning and Using OFBiz (was: Re: What I would like to see)
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Hi Matt,
On Feb 8, 2010, at 4:40 AM, Matt Warnock wrote:
> This is precisely where the huge learning curve is the impediment. I
> know my business, but I don't know OFBiz, so even the most basic
> gap/overlap analysis requires hiring an OFBiz expert (if I can find one)
> and then I have to educate them on my business.
this is definitely a critical phase of every ERP project; you have to know both sides if you want to join them in a good way.
But since OFBiz applications are (mostly) based on generic and universal concepts, if your business is a
Unfortunately most of the time people think that the processes of their own company represent a good template of universal processes, but this is not true and they are very specific (of the industry or even company), and they cannot find the same processes in OFBiz they get confused.
That said, I agree that much more can be done on the OFBiz side to make it more user friendly and understandable, while keeping it enough generic/universal.
Really, a lot can be done to improve OFBiz, and a lot has beed done already in the past. But we have to improve this.
Kind regards,
Jacopo
Re: Learning and Using OFBiz (was: Re: What I would like to see)
Posted by Matt Warnock <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com>.
On Sun, 2010-02-07 at 14:58 -0600, David E Jones wrote:
> We're covering all sorts of ground in this thread! On the other hand,
> if we look closely at the ground there are hints that all of this has
> been covered before... ;)
No doubt. :) I have renamed my index to "New User Guide"-- better
describes it, more consistent with suggestions from this list, and less
overlap with what is already there. It is a different approach from
"Getting Started with OFBiz", and "OFBiz Documentation Index" but mine
references both of those. It just organizes some of the stuff that PHBs
will want to see right away, and lays out a clear plan for getting from
here to there. Still a lot to flesh out, though, mostly finding and
organizing the stuff already there.
> Matt, I think what Chris Snow is referring to is the difficulty of
> learning to effectively use the OFBiz framework versus learning to
> effectively reuse the applications (both the base and specialpurpose
> application). Based on what Chris has written in other messages he is
> still struggling with how OFBiz is organized (ie the base applications
> are intentionally NOT organized around business processes in order to
> be as reusable as possible in different business processes, and
> instead are organized around the data structures).
So we're saying that "hello world" in the OFBiz framework requires
knowing the framework, but repurposing an existing app to fill a new
need requires 1) knowing which apps are in the toolbox, 2) knowing which
one is the closest fit, and 3) making, testing, and deploying the
changes. Is that about it? If so, thanks, that makes more sense to me.
> In any case, there are a few reasons why the business side of OFBiz
> (the applications) are a lot more complicated and difficult to learn
> than the technical side of OFBiz. The basic problem is the size of
> each, but that's over-simplifying things.
>
> Read Before You Write: It's not really human nature to do this, and it
> takes a lot of patience. This is made worse because if individuals
> have a hard time with patience, organizations are simply incapable of
> it. The PHBs want results... and reading sure doesn't look like it's
> producing any. What's worse is if the individual manages to produce a
> result with a couple of dozen lines of configuration and bits of code
> instead of a couple of thousand lines of raw, meaty, manly Java then a
> semi-technical PHB may find it really unsatisfying to have paid for so
> much time to get so little, not realizing that the individual just
> save him 10-100 times what the alternative would have cost initially
> and over its useful lifetime.
This is an Organizational Behavior problem that certainly exists, but is
by no means universal, or even in the majority. Most managers worth
their salary know that the right tool makes all the difference. But
they also know that there is a tradeoff between how many times you do a
thing, and how right it needs to be. We use nail guns in construction,
but hammers also have a purpose, even in construction.
"Close enough" is OK in horseshoes and hand grenades, and in business
processes that are not repeated often enough to make the effort of
fine-tuning worthwhile. My wife calls the other end of the spectrum
"analysis paralysis" and business managers can't much tolerate that,
either.
As I pointed out before, its the 80/20 rule. I don't WANT to build a
custom tool for 80% of my business, and if I have to do that, the value
of the whole is greatly diminished. But you are correct that PHBs do
NEED to be able to customize the 20% that generates the profits and is
repeated with high frequency. That 20% will differ in every business.
It's like code optimization-- do you really want to unroll every loop by
hand, and write all the code in optimized assembly for maximum speed?
No, you get a working prototype first, then you profile it, and you
optimize only where you must to achieve your performance goals. Much
(most) of the time, code clarity is more important than optimization.
> Scratching the Surface: A business application is not like an operating
> system, or even a framework for building business applications (which
> is like an operating, except the interfaces are tuned to a different
> type of input, a less technical and more business-oriented type of
> input). The difference is by nature there is no way to design an
> interface adequate to represent a business application, and that is
> what both operating systems and application frameworks are all about.
> Unfortunately business people don't like being told that an interface
> with a few little parameters is supposed to represent the entirety of
> options for ANY process in their business, even "standard" ones like
> billing or shipping. Business people don't like not be able to change
> and tune any part of their business that they want, and if the systems
> can't keep up then they don't get used. SAP and most ERPs out there
> are great examples of this. They are proprietary software works and
> you don't get the source code, and can only change what they've
> decided it's okay to change (unless you want to rewrite something,
> usually more than you think). Those sorts of systems don't let you get
> below the surface, which is unfortunate because then you don't even
> have an option to Read Before You Write.
So you are saying that these systems only scratch the surface of the
problem, because they only allow certain modifications? I wasn't fully
clear on whether scratching the surface is a good thing, or not, from
what you wrote here.
Granted, a Business App (BA) is not an OS, and a BA is not a BA
framework (a meta-BA, if you will). I assume OFBiz is your meta-BA, and
you seem to be saying that there is no way to create a truly universal
BA, because it needs to be able to be customized, and I agree. But it
doesn't ALL need to be customized, and the part that needs customizing
will be different in each case.
Besides, if its open source, I CAN customize anything and everything--
but that doesn't mean I want to rewrite the whole app-- only those few
parts that are worthwhile. That is the value of HAVING an app to
rewrite, rather than building from scratch. The beauty of OSS is that
it offers a third option in the classic "Buy vs. Build" decision.
> In other words, the way you go about adding value (via easy of reuse)
> in a business application is very different from how you go about
> adding value in an operating system or a business application
> framework. With the OFBiz framework you can learn the "interface" to
> it, but with the applications you pretty much have to deal with it
> all. On the other hand, there are more concise "interfaces" to it,
> like the data model and browsing things related to data model
> elements, which is made easier with the Artifact Info and other
> related tools in the OFBiz WebTools application.
>
> And how do you apply that in your business? The basic answer is you
> don't. OFBiz is meant to adapted to businesses, not businesses to
> OFBiz. You can certainly run it OOTB, but that's not how it's meant to
> be used and you'll find that a painful experience. It's not going to
> hold your hand because it was never designed to run your business.
> Frankly, how could it be? Some systems claim they are in their
> marketing, but that marketing isn't honest because how do they know
> how you want to run your business? When you start trying to use those
> systems in your business you find out pretty quick that they really
> don't know.
I think you overestimate the pain of a "good" OOTB solution. Maybe
OFBiz isn't that, at this point. And granted, every business will
differ. But if my 80% problem is largely solved OOTB, I have a LOT more
time and money to throw at the 20% that NEEDS to be customized, and a
lot more incentive to do it.
Every body is different, too-- but that doesn't mean that every article
of clothing needs to be hand-tailored to fit decently (not perfectly).
But most any article CAN be tailored, if the need arises, and if such
tailoring is worthwhile.
> So, your best bet is to define your business and then do a gap/overlap
> analysis with OFBiz to see what you can use, what needs to be adapted,
> and what needs to be built to fill gaps.
This is precisely where the huge learning curve is the impediment. I
know my business, but I don't know OFBiz, so even the most basic
gap/overlap analysis requires hiring an OFBiz expert (if I can find one)
and then I have to educate them on my business. If I could use OFBiz
effectively OOTB, then the gaps/overlaps would be apparent by trial and
error, probably ranging from mild annoyances to (rarely) deal-breakers.
But I can always continue to use existing systems and processes, until
the deal-breaker gaps in OFBiz can be filled. In the meantime, it is
still useful.
> If you really want a tuned
> system, like for a larger company or for a derivative work (like a
> commercial application targeted at a certain type of company) then you
> can define the business, design the application, and build it, and
> save resources building it by reusing as much as possible from
> something like OFBiz (which gets back to why OFBiz is organized like
> it is). To do these things effectively takes some experience, and to
> shorten the path certain tools are helpful like the HEMP approach
> (http://www.dejc.com/home/HEMP.html).
Not what I need, but others will. But the absolute number of people
needing either of these scenarios will be much smaller, IMO, than the
number of SMB owners.
The Fortune 1000 will have big budgets for ERP, and will be hard to land
(long buying cycle). You really need a sales army of "elephant hunters"
to play in that space.
If you envision VARs being your principal sales channel, then this
design choice makes perfect sense. I don't see that happening myself.
The differences from one type of company to another are probably not so
overwhelming as you think. Why was John Sculley pulled from PepsiCo to
run Apple? Because businesses are not that different. Apple and Pepsi
have more in common from the marketing side than most people think-- its
all about the brand. Sure, one item has a lifetime is seconds, the
other in years. But the processes are largely similar, though the
terminology may change. Is there a role for VARs? Absolutely. Is it
the primary sales channel? I doubt it, but YMMV.
VARs are always a step removed from customers and users, which makes it
that much harder to be customer-focused. I should know-- we sell to
distributors, which sell to retailers, which sell to users. If I didn't
go out of my way to talk to end users, I'd NEVER know what they think of
our products. I could tell you some war stories...
> Stepping back a little... there is a bigger trick... and that is how
> many people believe what I wrote above Read Before You Write and
> Scratching the Surface? Well, not many. For those that do understand
> and agree OFBiz is great (could be better, lots better, because even
> many people involved with OFBiz don't believe or don't understand
> those two ideas and as the number of contributors increases that
> painful fact becomes more apparent). For those who don't understand or
> don't agree, they are destined to a life of making things painful for
> them and others they work with, whether they attempt to use OFBiz
> (probably won't last long) or whether they choose a likely painful
> commercial route filled with reasons to spend more and more money on
> more and more different software.
>
> -David
This really boils down to a basic marketing issue: who is your customer,
and what do they really need? If you really meet that need effectively,
delivering solid value, you will be successful beyond your ability to
expand and serve. How do you segment the market? By revenues? By
industry? By employees? What are your sales channels? Direct? Through
VARs or consultants? What are your customers' real needs and how well
do you meet them? In the venture capital community, we sometimes talk
about "a solution in search of a problem." Companies (or non-profits)
that don't know what their customers really need will always struggle.
If this is indeed a "missionary sale", in that you have to sell people
on a value proposition that they can't really see, or won't see for
months or years, then you do have an uphill battle, no question.
Thinking that they are stupid won't help. Suffice it to say that I
don't think it absolutely HAS to be that way.
In my management experience, if I'm not getting the sales results I
want, I try to re-examine what I'm doing, and I usually find that the
reasons are both apparent and solvable. A better mousetrap is often in
the eye of the beholder-- a completely customizable mousetrap might not
be the overwhelming marketing advantage, if you want to be catching mice
like, yesterday. (And who doesn't?) But if you give me a better
mousetrap today, and it *immediately* solves 80% (or even 60% or 40%) of
my mouse problem, who do you think I'll call for the more intractable
part of the problem?
When I get entrenched in a particular view, my wife sometimes asks me:
"do you want to be right, or do you want to be happy?" Or as Dr. Phil
would say, "How's that working for you?" Often the only difference
between a martyr and a hero is-- well, the hero actually WON the battle
in question. If you find yourself in an uphill fight to sell a solution
to someone else's problem, maybe it isn't (yet) quite the solution it
needs to be. Not that it isn't great-- it just may need a bit of work
yet to really break loose.
You've brought OFBiz this far (and that is a LONG bloody way), so I
figure that you are a pragmatist and a problem-solver at heart. And I
think you have the groundwork laid to blow this market wide open,
building a much larger, more committed, and more wealthy community, if
you can make the value proposition more palatable to average SMB
leaders, who I think are often smarter than you sometimes give them
credit for.
Not all PHBs got there under the Peter Principle. Especially in the SMB
sector, which is where I see the biggest potential for OFBiz. ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle
And BTW, I'd still like to take you to lunch next time you are in town.
Do you know when yet? :)
>
>
> On Feb 7, 2010, at 10:45 AM, Matt Warnock wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2010-02-07 at 08:30 +0000, Christopher Snow wrote:
> >> Matt, what was the 300 - 400 hours for?
> >
> > It was Milind Parikh's estimate of the learning curve, except I
> > misquoted. He said people should be "expected" to spend 200-400 hours
> > to "understand OFBiz".
> >
> >> I think that time would give
> >> you the capability to develop a standalone solution. If you want to use
> >> existing functionality (order mgt, invoicing, shipping, mfg, workeffort,
> >> etc) you need a lot more time depending on which functionality you use.
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand this. After 300-400 hours you can develop
> > standalone apps, but using existing functionality takes longer? I would
> > think it was the other way around?
> >
> >> I've been using ofbiz pretty heavily for nearly a year now, and have a
> >> 'good' understanding of developing solutions. In terms of the
> >> components, I am only really starting to get a deep understanding of how
> >> workefforts work. If fact some discussions I've had on the ML suggest
> >> that it may not be possible to know all of ofbiz at all. Instead you
> >> have to know how to find the answers to the areas you are trying to
> >> implement. However to know how to get the answers, you need to know the
> >> questions to ask. For this you need a good understanding of the overall
> >> system, for which there is no documentation except the universal data
> >> models.
> >
> > I can take any Linux (or BSD) distribution off the shelf, spend a
> > half-hour installing it, and immediately get SOME useful work done. It
> > may not do everything I want, but OOTB, it does the basics. And OOTB, I
> > can use it well enough to at least evaluate how well it meets my general
> > needs.
> >
> > I can then work on tuning the system to my specific needs, or use it as
> > a platform to develop custom apps. I don't need to understand all of
> > the kernel (say the schedule or VM code) to get my job done, let alone
> > the whole system. If I need to write a new driver, filesystem, text
> > filter, or whatever, I take an existing one as a template or example,
> > and I write another that can be plugged in. And you're right, I doubt
> > anyone knows it all, and that's OK.
> >
> > By the same token, IMO, you should not have to understand all of OFBiz
> > to either 1) use it productively, or 2) write apps (or other plugin
> > code) for it. If that is not the case, then the system design and
> > modularization needs improvement.
> >
> > And that is exactly why (I think) your work on framework independence
> > and attention to dependencies is really important.
> >
> > --
> > Matt Warnock <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com>
> > RidgeCrest Herbals, Inc.
> >
--
Matt Warnock <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com>
RidgeCrest Herbals, Inc.
Learning and Using OFBiz (was: Re: What I would like to see)
Posted by David E Jones <de...@me.com>.
We're covering all sorts of ground in this thread! On the other hand, if we look closely at the ground there are hints that all of this has been covered before... ;)
Matt, I think what Chris Snow is referring to is the difficulty of learning to effectively use the OFBiz framework versus learning to effectively reuse the applications (both the base and specialpurpose application). Based on what Chris has written in other messages he is still struggling with how OFBiz is organized (ie the base applications are intentionally NOT organized around business processes in order to be as reusable as possible in different business processes, and instead are organized around the data structures).
In any case, there are a few reasons why the business side of OFBiz (the applications) are a lot more complicated and difficult to learn than the technical side of OFBiz. The basic problem is the size of each, but that's over-simplifying things.
Read Before You Write: It's not really human nature to do this, and it takes a lot of patience. This is made worse because if individuals have a hard time with patience, organizations are simply incapable of it. The PHBs want results... and reading sure doesn't look like it's producing any. What's worse is if the individual manages to produce a result with a couple of dozen lines of configuration and bits of code instead of a couple of thousand lines of raw, meaty, manly Java then a semi-technical PHB may find it really unsatisfying to have paid for so much time to get so little, not realizing that the individual just save him 10-100 times what the alternative would have cost initially and over its useful lifetime.
Scratching the Surface: A business application is not like an operating system, or even a framework for building business applications (which is like an operating, except the interfaces are tuned to a different type of input, a less technical and more business-oriented type of input). The difference is by nature there is no way to design an interface adequate to represent a business application, and that is what both operating systems and application frameworks are all about. Unfortunately business people don't like being told that an interface with a few little parameters is supposed to represent the entirety of options for ANY process in their business, even "standard" ones like billing or shipping. Business people don't like not be able to change and tune any part of their business that they want, and if the systems can't keep up then they don't get used. SAP and most ERPs out there are great examples of this. They are proprietary software works and you don't get the source code, and can only change what they've decided it's okay to change (unless you want to rewrite something, usually more than you think). Those sorts of systems don't let you get below the surface, which is unfortunate because then you don't even have an option to Read Before You Write.
In other words, the way you go about adding value (via easy of reuse) in a business application is very different from how you go about adding value in an operating system or a business application framework. With the OFBiz framework you can learn the "interface" to it, but with the applications you pretty much have to deal with it all. On the other hand, there are more concise "interfaces" to it, like the data model and browsing things related to data model elements, which is made easier with the Artifact Info and other related tools in the OFBiz WebTools application.
And how do you apply that in your business? The basic answer is you don't. OFBiz is meant to adapted to businesses, not businesses to OFBiz. You can certainly run it OOTB, but that's not how it's meant to be used and you'll find that a painful experience. It's not going to hold your hand because it was never designed to run your business. Frankly, how could it be? Some systems claim they are in their marketing, but that marketing isn't honest because how do they know how you want to run your business? When you start trying to use those systems in your business you find out pretty quick that they really don't know.
So, your best bet is to define your business and then do a gap/overlap analysis with OFBiz to see what you can use, what needs to be adapted, and what needs to be built to fill gaps. If you really want a tuned system, like for a larger company or for a derivative work (like a commercial application targeted at a certain type of company) then you can define the business, design the application, and build it, and save resources building it by reusing as much as possible from something like OFBiz (which gets back to why OFBiz is organized like it is). To do these things effectively takes some experience, and to shorten the path certain tools are helpful like the HEMP approach (http://www.dejc.com/home/HEMP.html).
Stepping back a little... there is a bigger trick... and that is how many people believe what I wrote above Read Before You Write and Scratching the Surface? Well, not many. For those that do understand and agree OFBiz is great (could be better, lots better, because even many people involved with OFBiz don't believe or don't understand those two ideas and as the number of contributors increases that painful fact becomes more apparent). For those who don't understand or don't agree, they are destined to a life of making things painful for them and others they work with, whether they attempt to use OFBiz (probably won't last long) or whether they choose a likely painful commercial route filled with reasons to spend more and more money on more and more different software.
-David
On Feb 7, 2010, at 10:45 AM, Matt Warnock wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-02-07 at 08:30 +0000, Christopher Snow wrote:
>> Matt, what was the 300 - 400 hours for?
>
> It was Milind Parikh's estimate of the learning curve, except I
> misquoted. He said people should be "expected" to spend 200-400 hours
> to "understand OFBiz".
>
>> I think that time would give
>> you the capability to develop a standalone solution. If you want to use
>> existing functionality (order mgt, invoicing, shipping, mfg, workeffort,
>> etc) you need a lot more time depending on which functionality you use.
>
> I'm not sure I understand this. After 300-400 hours you can develop
> standalone apps, but using existing functionality takes longer? I would
> think it was the other way around?
>
>> I've been using ofbiz pretty heavily for nearly a year now, and have a
>> 'good' understanding of developing solutions. In terms of the
>> components, I am only really starting to get a deep understanding of how
>> workefforts work. If fact some discussions I've had on the ML suggest
>> that it may not be possible to know all of ofbiz at all. Instead you
>> have to know how to find the answers to the areas you are trying to
>> implement. However to know how to get the answers, you need to know the
>> questions to ask. For this you need a good understanding of the overall
>> system, for which there is no documentation except the universal data
>> models.
>
> I can take any Linux (or BSD) distribution off the shelf, spend a
> half-hour installing it, and immediately get SOME useful work done. It
> may not do everything I want, but OOTB, it does the basics. And OOTB, I
> can use it well enough to at least evaluate how well it meets my general
> needs.
>
> I can then work on tuning the system to my specific needs, or use it as
> a platform to develop custom apps. I don't need to understand all of
> the kernel (say the schedule or VM code) to get my job done, let alone
> the whole system. If I need to write a new driver, filesystem, text
> filter, or whatever, I take an existing one as a template or example,
> and I write another that can be plugged in. And you're right, I doubt
> anyone knows it all, and that's OK.
>
> By the same token, IMO, you should not have to understand all of OFBiz
> to either 1) use it productively, or 2) write apps (or other plugin
> code) for it. If that is not the case, then the system design and
> modularization needs improvement.
>
> And that is exactly why (I think) your work on framework independence
> and attention to dependencies is really important.
>
> --
> Matt Warnock <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com>
> RidgeCrest Herbals, Inc.
>
Re: What I would like to see
Posted by Matt Warnock <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com>.
On Sun, 2010-02-07 at 08:30 +0000, Christopher Snow wrote:
> Matt, what was the 300 - 400 hours for?
It was Milind Parikh's estimate of the learning curve, except I
misquoted. He said people should be "expected" to spend 200-400 hours
to "understand OFBiz".
> I think that time would give
> you the capability to develop a standalone solution. If you want to use
> existing functionality (order mgt, invoicing, shipping, mfg, workeffort,
> etc) you need a lot more time depending on which functionality you use.
I'm not sure I understand this. After 300-400 hours you can develop
standalone apps, but using existing functionality takes longer? I would
think it was the other way around?
> I've been using ofbiz pretty heavily for nearly a year now, and have a
> 'good' understanding of developing solutions. In terms of the
> components, I am only really starting to get a deep understanding of how
> workefforts work. If fact some discussions I've had on the ML suggest
> that it may not be possible to know all of ofbiz at all. Instead you
> have to know how to find the answers to the areas you are trying to
> implement. However to know how to get the answers, you need to know the
> questions to ask. For this you need a good understanding of the overall
> system, for which there is no documentation except the universal data
> models.
I can take any Linux (or BSD) distribution off the shelf, spend a
half-hour installing it, and immediately get SOME useful work done. It
may not do everything I want, but OOTB, it does the basics. And OOTB, I
can use it well enough to at least evaluate how well it meets my general
needs.
I can then work on tuning the system to my specific needs, or use it as
a platform to develop custom apps. I don't need to understand all of
the kernel (say the schedule or VM code) to get my job done, let alone
the whole system. If I need to write a new driver, filesystem, text
filter, or whatever, I take an existing one as a template or example,
and I write another that can be plugged in. And you're right, I doubt
anyone knows it all, and that's OK.
By the same token, IMO, you should not have to understand all of OFBiz
to either 1) use it productively, or 2) write apps (or other plugin
code) for it. If that is not the case, then the system design and
modularization needs improvement.
And that is exactly why (I think) your work on framework independence
and attention to dependencies is really important.
--
Matt Warnock <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com>
RidgeCrest Herbals, Inc.
Re: What I would like to see
Posted by Christopher Snow <sn...@snowconsulting.co.uk>.
Hi Jacques,
In my comment about the lack of overall system documentation, I meant
about the business processes behind the components. Technical
documentation is actually quite good for ofbiz.
Cheers,
Chris
Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> From: "Christopher Snow" <sn...@snowconsulting.co.uk>
> [Snip]
>> For this you need a good understanding of the overall system, for
>> which there is no documentation except the universal data models.
>
> Wrong, from an OFBiz technical POV:
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/MoBr
> See AdvancedFrameworkTranscription20060824.pdf in attachment
> This document is as important to me as the Silvertson's data model.
> It's free and open (see .doc)!
> Related http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/I4Br
>
> If you want to have a quick grasp, the Pack book is good enough (even
> if based on R4.0). I was a reviewer, and I know well Ruppert,
> who actually wrote the book. Jonathon gave up, but as he began he got
> to keep his name 1st.
>
> HTH
>
> Jacques
Re: What I would like to see
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@free.fr>.
From: "Christopher Snow" <sn...@snowconsulting.co.uk>
[Snip]
>For this you need a good understanding of the overall system, for which there is no documentation except the universal data models.
Wrong, from an OFBiz technical POV: http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/MoBr
See AdvancedFrameworkTranscription20060824.pdf in attachment
This document is as important to me as the Silvertson's data model. It's free and open (see .doc)!
Related http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/I4Br
If you want to have a quick grasp, the Pack book is good enough (even if based on R4.0). I was a reviewer, and I know well Ruppert,
who actually wrote the book. Jonathon gave up, but as he began he got to keep his name 1st.
HTH
Jacques
>
>
> Matt Warnock wrote:
>> Jaques, I think you have hit the nail on the head. Specific responses
>> follow.
>>
>> Sat, 2010-02-06 at 17:02 +0100, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> From: "David E Jones" <de...@me.com>
>>>
>>>> On Feb 5, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> One feeling I have though, PHBs are often pushing this way, note that I did not say that you are a PHB :p
>>>>> Actually, I agree with you about "our" lack of interest for end user. I think this is due to the nature of OFBiz itself...
>>>>>
>>>> I won't agree there is any lack of interest for end-users. In fact, nearly everything in OFBiz is the result of some end-user
>>>> or
>>>> other requesting functionality and being willing to sponsor its creation and contribution back to the project.
>>>>
>>> That's not exactly what I meant. Who are those end-users I was trying to talk about? Technical aware persons, with influence in
>>> companies but not enough time to look into every technical details (CTO, CIO, etc.). So they make (or at least help to make)
>>> very
>>> important decisions (financial decision, I mean) for the future of their entreprises. And for that try to get as much as
>>> possible
>>> information when making a choice between competitors. It's already a good news when they are considering OSS. Then chances are
>>> they
>>> will compare projects. This is the target I was talking about. I personnaly think that a *huge* effort as been already done in
>>> OFBIz
>>> to give them ways to make their choice. I was simply saying that we should try to continue this effort. Not only some persons as
>>> it
>>> was some years ago, when the knowledge was not as shared as today. For instance the effort you made, David, on the Framework
>>> *open
>>> and (now) free* documentation was certainly one the most important the project benefited. But I'm not quite sure (euphemism ;o)
>>> all
>>> the decision-makers (or helpers) take the time to read it thourougly and to understand all subtleties while evaluating OFBiz. So
>>> now, what we need is a satellite map (kind of marketing) to facilitate the decisions of these guys and, as much as possible, to
>>> make
>>> them happy to choice OFBiz :o)
>>>
>>
>> I admit it, I am one of these PHBs. I am looking to implement OFBiz as
>> a long-term solution. But the learning curve is steep. Someone earlier
>> today estimated 300-400 hours. That's 10 weeks, and I would submit
>> there ain't a PHB alive, tech-savvy or not, who that has that kind of
>> time. Hiring it is expensive and assumes availability, which is
>> uncertain.
>> We need more ease of use OOTB (including clearer and more concise docs),
>> so that (as they say in perl) the easy stuff is easy, and the hard
>> stuff is possible.
>>
>>
>>> Some themes I foresee:
>>>
>>> 1) Why you should use the trunk instead of a release,
>>> 2) Why OFBIz is here to stay, independtly of the people working currently on it
>>> 3) Why... ok I'm lazy today (actually more knackered but who cares ;o)...
>>>
>>> The theme 1 is one of the most important to me because it distinguishs OFBiz from its competitors, even VAR projects based on
>>> OFBiz.
>>> It allows to follow the projects and, if inclined to, to contribute to it and to make it grow along your own needs.
>>>
>>
>> As a PHB, themes 1 and 2 are really important to me, and I still don't
>> know that I made the "right" decision. I just hope so. Don't know how
>> you can satisfy me on point 2, but I watched a long time before pulling
>> the trigger (and I still haven't pulled the trigger except in devoting
>> resources to get into it).
>>
>> On theme 1, I seemed to read, and was also told by experienced people
>> that I should be on 9.04, as it is more stable than trunk. But I now
>> really doubt that should be the case, for several reasons.
>>
>> 1) development is progressing at a rapid rate, perhaps too rapid, and
>> the 9.04 code base is 10 months old now.
>>
>> 2) Bug fixes don't generally get applied to the releases, only to trunk.
>>
>> 3) It seems from discussions here that the underlying model doesn't
>> usually change much, and while code is being added, it isn't often
>> breaking prior code. This is good.
>>
>> So if I want to contribute (and I do, though I doubt my ability to
>> contribute much) I gather I should really be on trunk.
>>
>>> When you Google for "OFBiz" in France you get these pages in this order
>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/
>>> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OFBiz
>>> http://www.les7arts.com/assist/ArgumentaireOFBiz.htm
>>>
>>> The 1st is obvious, the 2d I frequently garden and I'm happy to see it there, the 3d was a page I wrote in 2005, and is a free
>>> translation (with a lot of changes and adaptation through the years) from an old Automation Group site page. Something is
>>> missing in
>>> this document, the point 1. It's now months that I want to write something about that. Because I believe it's why so much
>>> projects
>>> based on OFBiz did not evolve with OFBiz and became legacy. This is bad for 2 reasons: these projects will not benefit of all
>>> the
>>> enhancements OFBiz is able to give them, OFBiz does not benefit of potential long term contributors. From my experience, few
>>> projects succeed in this way (even VAR projects) because they neglict this paramount point!
>>>
>>> There are already a lot of things spreaded in the wiki. I will try, when I will get a chance, to make something more
>>> comprehensible
>>> for new comers (I prefer this word than newbies or even worse noobs ;o)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I agree there is a lot in the Wiki, but it isn't very accessible. A lot
>> of people (me included) are asking questions here, and being referred to
>> things they couldn't find on their own. We need to fix that, and I'm
>> happy to help organize the wiki with some kind of index if I can.
>>
>> Just to give old hands an idea what newbies (and PHBs) like me struggle
>> with, and need to find easily:
>>
>> I am an OFBiz newbie, so that is the first issue. But it isn't the only
>> one. I am an SVN newbie too. And a Java newbie. And an XML newbie.
>> Haven't tried Eclipse yet. Not to mention half a dozen other new
>> technologies here.
>>
>> Java is just another language, I have learned about 20 to date, so that
>> isn't that big an issue, but there are a lot of libraries out there to
>> learn.
>> XML is close enough to HTML that I don't feel completely at sea, but I
>> don't know where all the DTDs are. I see seed and configuration data
>> and the like stored in XML files which to me seems a very verbose and
>> error-prone way to edit/change data, but I assume there are reasons for
>> this that I don't understand yet. Generally when I have seen XML files
>> used for configuration (like /etc/cups/printers.conf) you don't edit
>> those by hand, there is a GUI for that.
>>
>> Subversion seems simple enough in the classic shared-codebase scenario,
>> but if there is a tutorial out there on "How to update from a shared
>> repository without clobbering your local modifications" I haven't seen
>> it. As a PHB relying on a moving SVN target, I need to know how to keep
>> my local changes intact while updating code.
>>
>> Very little about OFBiz seems intuitive. To some extent I know that is
>> a result of necessary complexity, like Party/Party Groups and related
>> data. No one thinks that way in business, or even in law (I was a
>> lawyer in a previous life), we all think about People and Organizations,
>> but terms are relatively easy to learn, at least compared to alien
>> concepts like workflows and virtual products. But I still don't know
>> yet how to get standard Sales Leads (source, date, name, address, phone,
>> comments) into my OFBiz database in an automated fashion.
>>
>> The code is currently structured into Framework (which I think I
>> understand, though the edges are fuzzy to more than just me),
>> Applications (which seem to be subject-related, though OFBiz itself is
>> an application), Special Purpose (an odd catch-all, since everything has
>> a Special Purpose, but like Steve Martin in The Jerk, we might not know
>> what it is yet) and Hot-Deploy (which really seems to mean "local").
>>
>> The whole update process makes me nervous. I don't know what quality
>> controls are applied to code that is merged into the base, or whether
>> database design changes break things. With perl for example, an
>> automated test suite runs every time I update a library, so I get a warm
>> fuzzy feeling that the update hasn't broken anything I use. DBMS code
>> is traditionally the easiest to break, and at the same time production
>> systems have huge data investments, and a day outage due to a DBMS
>> change is NOT an option. What does OFBiz do to ensure that doesn't
>> happen?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Sorry for he long post, I have this in mind for a long time...
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: What I would like to see
Posted by Christopher Snow <sn...@snowconsulting.co.uk>.
Matt, what was the 300 - 400 hours for? I think that time would give
you the capability to develop a standalone solution. If you want to use
existing functionality (order mgt, invoicing, shipping, mfg, workeffort,
etc) you need a lot more time depending on which functionality you use.
I've been using ofbiz pretty heavily for nearly a year now, and have a
'good' understanding of developing solutions. In terms of the
components, I am only really starting to get a deep understanding of how
workefforts work. If fact some discussions I've had on the ML suggest
that it may not be possible to know all of ofbiz at all. Instead you
have to know how to find the answers to the areas you are trying to
implement. However to know how to get the answers, you need to know the
questions to ask. For this you need a good understanding of the overall
system, for which there is no documentation except the universal data
models.
Matt Warnock wrote:
> Jaques, I think you have hit the nail on the head. Specific responses
> follow.
>
> Sat, 2010-02-06 at 17:02 +0100, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> From: "David E Jones" <de...@me.com>
>>
>>> On Feb 5, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> One feeling I have though, PHBs are often pushing this way, note that I did not say that you are a PHB :p
>>>> Actually, I agree with you about "our" lack of interest for end user. I think this is due to the nature of OFBiz itself...
>>>>
>>> I won't agree there is any lack of interest for end-users. In fact, nearly everything in OFBiz is the result of some end-user or
>>> other requesting functionality and being willing to sponsor its creation and contribution back to the project.
>>>
>> That's not exactly what I meant. Who are those end-users I was trying to talk about? Technical aware persons, with influence in
>> companies but not enough time to look into every technical details (CTO, CIO, etc.). So they make (or at least help to make) very
>> important decisions (financial decision, I mean) for the future of their entreprises. And for that try to get as much as possible
>> information when making a choice between competitors. It's already a good news when they are considering OSS. Then chances are they
>> will compare projects. This is the target I was talking about. I personnaly think that a *huge* effort as been already done in OFBIz
>> to give them ways to make their choice. I was simply saying that we should try to continue this effort. Not only some persons as it
>> was some years ago, when the knowledge was not as shared as today. For instance the effort you made, David, on the Framework *open
>> and (now) free* documentation was certainly one the most important the project benefited. But I'm not quite sure (euphemism ;o) all
>> the decision-makers (or helpers) take the time to read it thourougly and to understand all subtleties while evaluating OFBiz. So
>> now, what we need is a satellite map (kind of marketing) to facilitate the decisions of these guys and, as much as possible, to make
>> them happy to choice OFBiz :o)
>>
>
> I admit it, I am one of these PHBs. I am looking to implement OFBiz as
> a long-term solution. But the learning curve is steep. Someone earlier
> today estimated 300-400 hours. That's 10 weeks, and I would submit
> there ain't a PHB alive, tech-savvy or not, who that has that kind of
> time. Hiring it is expensive and assumes availability, which is
> uncertain.
>
> We need more ease of use OOTB (including clearer and more concise docs),
> so that (as they say in perl) the easy stuff is easy, and the hard
> stuff is possible.
>
>
>> Some themes I foresee:
>>
>> 1) Why you should use the trunk instead of a release,
>> 2) Why OFBIz is here to stay, independtly of the people working currently on it
>> 3) Why... ok I'm lazy today (actually more knackered but who cares ;o)...
>>
>> The theme 1 is one of the most important to me because it distinguishs OFBiz from its competitors, even VAR projects based on OFBiz.
>> It allows to follow the projects and, if inclined to, to contribute to it and to make it grow along your own needs.
>>
>
> As a PHB, themes 1 and 2 are really important to me, and I still don't
> know that I made the "right" decision. I just hope so. Don't know how
> you can satisfy me on point 2, but I watched a long time before pulling
> the trigger (and I still haven't pulled the trigger except in devoting
> resources to get into it).
>
> On theme 1, I seemed to read, and was also told by experienced people
> that I should be on 9.04, as it is more stable than trunk. But I now
> really doubt that should be the case, for several reasons.
>
> 1) development is progressing at a rapid rate, perhaps too rapid, and
> the 9.04 code base is 10 months old now.
>
> 2) Bug fixes don't generally get applied to the releases, only to trunk.
>
> 3) It seems from discussions here that the underlying model doesn't
> usually change much, and while code is being added, it isn't often
> breaking prior code. This is good.
>
> So if I want to contribute (and I do, though I doubt my ability to
> contribute much) I gather I should really be on trunk.
>
>
>> When you Google for "OFBiz" in France you get these pages in this order
>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/
>> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OFBiz
>> http://www.les7arts.com/assist/ArgumentaireOFBiz.htm
>>
>> The 1st is obvious, the 2d I frequently garden and I'm happy to see it there, the 3d was a page I wrote in 2005, and is a free
>> translation (with a lot of changes and adaptation through the years) from an old Automation Group site page. Something is missing in
>> this document, the point 1. It's now months that I want to write something about that. Because I believe it's why so much projects
>> based on OFBiz did not evolve with OFBiz and became legacy. This is bad for 2 reasons: these projects will not benefit of all the
>> enhancements OFBiz is able to give them, OFBiz does not benefit of potential long term contributors. From my experience, few
>> projects succeed in this way (even VAR projects) because they neglict this paramount point!
>>
>> There are already a lot of things spreaded in the wiki. I will try, when I will get a chance, to make something more comprehensible
>> for new comers (I prefer this word than newbies or even worse noobs ;o)
>>
>>
>
> I agree there is a lot in the Wiki, but it isn't very accessible. A lot
> of people (me included) are asking questions here, and being referred to
> things they couldn't find on their own. We need to fix that, and I'm
> happy to help organize the wiki with some kind of index if I can.
>
> Just to give old hands an idea what newbies (and PHBs) like me struggle
> with, and need to find easily:
>
> I am an OFBiz newbie, so that is the first issue. But it isn't the only
> one. I am an SVN newbie too. And a Java newbie. And an XML newbie.
> Haven't tried Eclipse yet. Not to mention half a dozen other new
> technologies here.
>
> Java is just another language, I have learned about 20 to date, so that
> isn't that big an issue, but there are a lot of libraries out there to
> learn.
>
> XML is close enough to HTML that I don't feel completely at sea, but I
> don't know where all the DTDs are. I see seed and configuration data
> and the like stored in XML files which to me seems a very verbose and
> error-prone way to edit/change data, but I assume there are reasons for
> this that I don't understand yet. Generally when I have seen XML files
> used for configuration (like /etc/cups/printers.conf) you don't edit
> those by hand, there is a GUI for that.
>
> Subversion seems simple enough in the classic shared-codebase scenario,
> but if there is a tutorial out there on "How to update from a shared
> repository without clobbering your local modifications" I haven't seen
> it. As a PHB relying on a moving SVN target, I need to know how to keep
> my local changes intact while updating code.
>
> Very little about OFBiz seems intuitive. To some extent I know that is
> a result of necessary complexity, like Party/Party Groups and related
> data. No one thinks that way in business, or even in law (I was a
> lawyer in a previous life), we all think about People and Organizations,
> but terms are relatively easy to learn, at least compared to alien
> concepts like workflows and virtual products. But I still don't know
> yet how to get standard Sales Leads (source, date, name, address, phone,
> comments) into my OFBiz database in an automated fashion.
>
> The code is currently structured into Framework (which I think I
> understand, though the edges are fuzzy to more than just me),
> Applications (which seem to be subject-related, though OFBiz itself is
> an application), Special Purpose (an odd catch-all, since everything has
> a Special Purpose, but like Steve Martin in The Jerk, we might not know
> what it is yet) and Hot-Deploy (which really seems to mean "local").
>
> The whole update process makes me nervous. I don't know what quality
> controls are applied to code that is merged into the base, or whether
> database design changes break things. With perl for example, an
> automated test suite runs every time I update a library, so I get a warm
> fuzzy feeling that the update hasn't broken anything I use. DBMS code
> is traditionally the easiest to break, and at the same time production
> systems have huge data investments, and a day outage due to a DBMS
> change is NOT an option. What does OFBiz do to ensure that doesn't
> happen?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Sorry for he long post, I have this in mind for a long time...
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>
>
>
Re: What I would like to see
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@free.fr>.
From: "Matt Warnock" <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com>
> Jaques, I think you have hit the nail on the head. Specific responses
> follow.
>
> Sat, 2010-02-06 at 17:02 +0100, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> From: "David E Jones" <de...@me.com>
>> > On Feb 5, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> >
>> >> One feeling I have though, PHBs are often pushing this way, note that I did not say that you are a PHB :p
>> >> Actually, I agree with you about "our" lack of interest for end user. I think this is due to the nature of OFBiz itself...
>> >
>> > I won't agree there is any lack of interest for end-users. In fact, nearly everything in OFBiz is the result of some end-user
>> > or
>> > other requesting functionality and being willing to sponsor its creation and contribution back to the project.
>>
>> That's not exactly what I meant. Who are those end-users I was trying to talk about? Technical aware persons, with influence in
>> companies but not enough time to look into every technical details (CTO, CIO, etc.). So they make (or at least help to make) very
>> important decisions (financial decision, I mean) for the future of their entreprises. And for that try to get as much as possible
>> information when making a choice between competitors. It's already a good news when they are considering OSS. Then chances are
>> they
>> will compare projects. This is the target I was talking about. I personnaly think that a *huge* effort as been already done in
>> OFBIz
>> to give them ways to make their choice. I was simply saying that we should try to continue this effort. Not only some persons as
>> it
>> was some years ago, when the knowledge was not as shared as today. For instance the effort you made, David, on the Framework
>> *open
>> and (now) free* documentation was certainly one the most important the project benefited. But I'm not quite sure (euphemism ;o)
>> all
>> the decision-makers (or helpers) take the time to read it thourougly and to understand all subtleties while evaluating OFBiz. So
>> now, what we need is a satellite map (kind of marketing) to facilitate the decisions of these guys and, as much as possible, to
>> make
>> them happy to choice OFBiz :o)
>
> I admit it, I am one of these PHBs. I am looking to implement OFBiz as
> a long-term solution. But the learning curve is steep. Someone earlier
> today estimated 300-400 hours. That's 10 weeks, and I would submit
> there ain't a PHB alive, tech-savvy or not, who that has that kind of
> time. Hiring it is expensive and assumes availability, which is
> uncertain.
I agree with the answer Chris made you earlier. But bypassing the applications power is not ideal to me, and should not be
recommended... for long term solutions...
> We need more ease of use OOTB (including clearer and more concise docs),
> so that (as they say in perl) the easy stuff is easy, and the hard
> stuff is possible.
I saw your try, when I will get some time (and my high rate connection back, grrrr) I will review, complete and link. For instance
did you know that we have a maturing Glossary?
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Glossary
>> Some themes I foresee:
>>
>> 1) Why you should use the trunk instead of a release,
>> 2) Why OFBIz is here to stay, independtly of the people working currently on it
>> 3) Why... ok I'm lazy today (actually more knackered but who cares ;o)...
>>
>> The theme 1 is one of the most important to me because it distinguishs OFBiz from its competitors, even VAR projects based on
>> OFBiz.
>> It allows to follow the projects and, if inclined to, to contribute to it and to make it grow along your own needs.
>
> As a PHB, themes 1 and 2 are really important to me, and I still don't
> know that I made the "right" decision. I just hope so. Don't know how
> you can satisfy me on point 2, but I watched a long time before pulling
> the trigger (and I still haven't pulled the trigger except in devoting
> resources to get into it).
Quickly : because it's a real community based project backed by Apache. A company may disappear (look at what is happening to even
Sun, MySQL, etc.) Apache and OFBiz community is less prone to disappear
> On theme 1, I seemed to read, and was also told by experienced people
> that I should be on 9.04, as it is more stable than trunk. But I now
> really doubt that should be the case, for several reasons.
>
> 1) development is progressing at a rapid rate, perhaps too rapid, and
> the 9.04 code base is 10 months old now.
Too rapid, you are kidding ;o), or you mean not controlled enough maybe? I will later try to explain, as clearly as possible, why
the trunk is the right solution. If you search in the ML you will already find many good explanations by David.
> 2) Bug fixes don't generally get applied to the releases, only to trunk.
Wrong, as a commiter I always apply bug fixes 1st in trunk then backport them in last releases (and even if possible in older
releases). And we all (commiters) try to do so (sometimes some seem to forget though)
> 3) It seems from discussions here that the underlying model doesn't
> usually change much, and while code is being added, it isn't often
> breaking prior code. This is good.
Right, in case it changes, there is always this page
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBTECH/Revisions+Requiring+Data+Migration
> So if I want to contribute (and I do, though I doubt my ability to
> contribute much) I gather I should really be on trunk.
Good decision! I will explain later why, you can already look for David's answers in archives (MLs archives I mean)
>> When you Google for "OFBiz" in France you get these pages in this order
>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/
>> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OFBiz
>> http://www.les7arts.com/assist/ArgumentaireOFBiz.htm
>>
>> The 1st is obvious, the 2d I frequently garden and I'm happy to see it there, the 3d was a page I wrote in 2005, and is a free
>> translation (with a lot of changes and adaptation through the years) from an old Automation Group site page. Something is missing
>> in
>> this document, the point 1. It's now months that I want to write something about that. Because I believe it's why so much
>> projects
>> based on OFBiz did not evolve with OFBiz and became legacy. This is bad for 2 reasons: these projects will not benefit of all the
>> enhancements OFBiz is able to give them, OFBiz does not benefit of potential long term contributors. From my experience, few
>> projects succeed in this way (even VAR projects) because they neglict this paramount point!
>>
>> There are already a lot of things spreaded in the wiki. I will try, when I will get a chance, to make something more
>> comprehensible
>> for new comers (I prefer this word than newbies or even worse noobs ;o)
I will let you know when I will have written this article (actually only a new paragraph) For the moment it's only in French but I
will make an English version (I'd love to still have the original from Automation Group)
> I agree there is a lot in the Wiki, but it isn't very accessible. A lot
> of people (me included) are asking questions here, and being referred to
> things they couldn't find on their own. We need to fix that, and I'm
> happy to help organize the wiki with some kind of index if I can.
The FAQ is useful (it was done with the same idea in mind), but I agree limited and mostly technical
> Just to give old hands an idea what newbies (and PHBs) like me struggle
> with, and need to find easily:
>
> I am an OFBiz newbie, so that is the first issue. But it isn't the only
> one. I am an SVN newbie too. And a Java newbie. And an XML newbie.
> Haven't tried Eclipse yet. Not to mention half a dozen other new
> technologies here.
Eclipse is frigthening when you begin but some days of use and it's ok (some months you begin to see its power, years are needed to
get the best from it).
With tools around ( Tortoise on Windows makes miracles, Subclipse is not bad and complementary) SVN is not a problem.
For XML I'd recommend to use a goods tool like Oxygen but now there are also good capabilities OOTB in Eclipse
Java is not hard to use when you don't dive in details, else follow Adam's advices on dev ML :o)
> Java is just another language, I have learned about 20 to date, so that
> isn't that big an issue, but there are a lot of libraries out there to
> learn.
Yes and a jargon :/ But don't be afraid, as long as you don't dive in technical and architectural details, you don't have to worry
about them
> XML is close enough to HTML that I don't feel completely at sea, but I
> don't know where all the DTDs are.
Did you miss to read this page?
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Documentation+Index
>I see seed and configuration data
> and the like stored in XML files which to me seems a very verbose and
> error-prone way to edit/change data, but I assume there are reasons for
> this that I don't understand yet. Generally when I have seen XML files
> used for configuration (like /etc/cups/printers.conf) you don't edit
> those by hand, there is a GUI for that.
You will have to have you hand dirty, but with XML completion (Oxygen does a good job as I said) it's not as hard as it may look at
1st glance.
> Subversion seems simple enough in the classic shared-codebase scenario,
> but if there is a tutorial out there on "How to update from a shared
> repository without clobbering your local modifications" I haven't seen
> it. As a PHB relying on a moving SVN target, I need to know how to keep
> my local changes intact while updating code.
There are strategies for that, look for "vendor" in wiki. But as I said (not clearly yet), using hot-deploy is the real thing...
> Very little about OFBiz seems intuitive. To some extent I know that is
> a result of necessary complexity, like Party/Party Groups and related
> data. No one thinks that way in business, or even in law (I was a
> lawyer in a previous life), we all think about People and Organizations,
Silverton's concepts...
> but terms are relatively easy to learn, at least compared to alien
> concepts like workflows and virtual products. But I still don't know
> yet how to get standard Sales Leads (source, date, name, address, phone,
> comments) into my OFBiz database in an automated fashion.
>
> The code is currently structured into Framework (which I think I
> understand, though the edges are fuzzy to more than just me),
> Applications (which seem to be subject-related, though OFBiz itself is
> an application), Special Purpose (an odd catch-all, since everything has
> a Special Purpose,
As concepts,
Applications correspond rougly to the Silverstion's Book 1
Special Purpose Applications correspond to the Silverstion's Book 2+3
>but like Steve Martin in The Jerk, we might not know
> what it is yet) and Hot-Deploy (which really seems to mean "local").
>
> The whole update process makes me nervous. I don't know what quality
> controls are applied to code that is merged into the base, or whether
> database design changes break things. With perl for example, an
> automated test suite runs every time I update a library, so I get a warm
> fuzzy feeling that the update hasn't broken anything I use.
http://ci.apache.org/waterfall?show_events=false&branch=&builder=ofbiz-trunk&reload=none
>DBMS code
> is traditionally the easiest to break, and at the same time production
> systems have huge data investments, and a day outage due to a DBMS
> change is NOT an option. What does OFBiz do to ensure that doesn't
> happen?
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBTECH/Revisions+Requiring+Data+Migration
HTH
Jacques
>
>
>
>
>> Sorry for he long post, I have this in mind for a long time...
>>
>> Jacques
>
>
> --
> Matt Warnock <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com>
> RidgeCrest Herbals, Inc.
>
Re: What I would like to see
Posted by Matt Warnock <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com>.
Jaques, I think you have hit the nail on the head. Specific responses
follow.
Sat, 2010-02-06 at 17:02 +0100, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> From: "David E Jones" <de...@me.com>
> > On Feb 5, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> >
> >> One feeling I have though, PHBs are often pushing this way, note that I did not say that you are a PHB :p
> >> Actually, I agree with you about "our" lack of interest for end user. I think this is due to the nature of OFBiz itself...
> >
> > I won't agree there is any lack of interest for end-users. In fact, nearly everything in OFBiz is the result of some end-user or
> > other requesting functionality and being willing to sponsor its creation and contribution back to the project.
>
> That's not exactly what I meant. Who are those end-users I was trying to talk about? Technical aware persons, with influence in
> companies but not enough time to look into every technical details (CTO, CIO, etc.). So they make (or at least help to make) very
> important decisions (financial decision, I mean) for the future of their entreprises. And for that try to get as much as possible
> information when making a choice between competitors. It's already a good news when they are considering OSS. Then chances are they
> will compare projects. This is the target I was talking about. I personnaly think that a *huge* effort as been already done in OFBIz
> to give them ways to make their choice. I was simply saying that we should try to continue this effort. Not only some persons as it
> was some years ago, when the knowledge was not as shared as today. For instance the effort you made, David, on the Framework *open
> and (now) free* documentation was certainly one the most important the project benefited. But I'm not quite sure (euphemism ;o) all
> the decision-makers (or helpers) take the time to read it thourougly and to understand all subtleties while evaluating OFBiz. So
> now, what we need is a satellite map (kind of marketing) to facilitate the decisions of these guys and, as much as possible, to make
> them happy to choice OFBiz :o)
I admit it, I am one of these PHBs. I am looking to implement OFBiz as
a long-term solution. But the learning curve is steep. Someone earlier
today estimated 300-400 hours. That's 10 weeks, and I would submit
there ain't a PHB alive, tech-savvy or not, who that has that kind of
time. Hiring it is expensive and assumes availability, which is
uncertain.
We need more ease of use OOTB (including clearer and more concise docs),
so that (as they say in perl) the easy stuff is easy, and the hard
stuff is possible.
> Some themes I foresee:
>
> 1) Why you should use the trunk instead of a release,
> 2) Why OFBIz is here to stay, independtly of the people working currently on it
> 3) Why... ok I'm lazy today (actually more knackered but who cares ;o)...
>
> The theme 1 is one of the most important to me because it distinguishs OFBiz from its competitors, even VAR projects based on OFBiz.
> It allows to follow the projects and, if inclined to, to contribute to it and to make it grow along your own needs.
As a PHB, themes 1 and 2 are really important to me, and I still don't
know that I made the "right" decision. I just hope so. Don't know how
you can satisfy me on point 2, but I watched a long time before pulling
the trigger (and I still haven't pulled the trigger except in devoting
resources to get into it).
On theme 1, I seemed to read, and was also told by experienced people
that I should be on 9.04, as it is more stable than trunk. But I now
really doubt that should be the case, for several reasons.
1) development is progressing at a rapid rate, perhaps too rapid, and
the 9.04 code base is 10 months old now.
2) Bug fixes don't generally get applied to the releases, only to trunk.
3) It seems from discussions here that the underlying model doesn't
usually change much, and while code is being added, it isn't often
breaking prior code. This is good.
So if I want to contribute (and I do, though I doubt my ability to
contribute much) I gather I should really be on trunk.
> When you Google for "OFBiz" in France you get these pages in this order
> http://ofbiz.apache.org/
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OFBiz
> http://www.les7arts.com/assist/ArgumentaireOFBiz.htm
>
> The 1st is obvious, the 2d I frequently garden and I'm happy to see it there, the 3d was a page I wrote in 2005, and is a free
> translation (with a lot of changes and adaptation through the years) from an old Automation Group site page. Something is missing in
> this document, the point 1. It's now months that I want to write something about that. Because I believe it's why so much projects
> based on OFBiz did not evolve with OFBiz and became legacy. This is bad for 2 reasons: these projects will not benefit of all the
> enhancements OFBiz is able to give them, OFBiz does not benefit of potential long term contributors. From my experience, few
> projects succeed in this way (even VAR projects) because they neglict this paramount point!
>
> There are already a lot of things spreaded in the wiki. I will try, when I will get a chance, to make something more comprehensible
> for new comers (I prefer this word than newbies or even worse noobs ;o)
>
I agree there is a lot in the Wiki, but it isn't very accessible. A lot
of people (me included) are asking questions here, and being referred to
things they couldn't find on their own. We need to fix that, and I'm
happy to help organize the wiki with some kind of index if I can.
Just to give old hands an idea what newbies (and PHBs) like me struggle
with, and need to find easily:
I am an OFBiz newbie, so that is the first issue. But it isn't the only
one. I am an SVN newbie too. And a Java newbie. And an XML newbie.
Haven't tried Eclipse yet. Not to mention half a dozen other new
technologies here.
Java is just another language, I have learned about 20 to date, so that
isn't that big an issue, but there are a lot of libraries out there to
learn.
XML is close enough to HTML that I don't feel completely at sea, but I
don't know where all the DTDs are. I see seed and configuration data
and the like stored in XML files which to me seems a very verbose and
error-prone way to edit/change data, but I assume there are reasons for
this that I don't understand yet. Generally when I have seen XML files
used for configuration (like /etc/cups/printers.conf) you don't edit
those by hand, there is a GUI for that.
Subversion seems simple enough in the classic shared-codebase scenario,
but if there is a tutorial out there on "How to update from a shared
repository without clobbering your local modifications" I haven't seen
it. As a PHB relying on a moving SVN target, I need to know how to keep
my local changes intact while updating code.
Very little about OFBiz seems intuitive. To some extent I know that is
a result of necessary complexity, like Party/Party Groups and related
data. No one thinks that way in business, or even in law (I was a
lawyer in a previous life), we all think about People and Organizations,
but terms are relatively easy to learn, at least compared to alien
concepts like workflows and virtual products. But I still don't know
yet how to get standard Sales Leads (source, date, name, address, phone,
comments) into my OFBiz database in an automated fashion.
The code is currently structured into Framework (which I think I
understand, though the edges are fuzzy to more than just me),
Applications (which seem to be subject-related, though OFBiz itself is
an application), Special Purpose (an odd catch-all, since everything has
a Special Purpose, but like Steve Martin in The Jerk, we might not know
what it is yet) and Hot-Deploy (which really seems to mean "local").
The whole update process makes me nervous. I don't know what quality
controls are applied to code that is merged into the base, or whether
database design changes break things. With perl for example, an
automated test suite runs every time I update a library, so I get a warm
fuzzy feeling that the update hasn't broken anything I use. DBMS code
is traditionally the easiest to break, and at the same time production
systems have huge data investments, and a day outage due to a DBMS
change is NOT an option. What does OFBiz do to ensure that doesn't
happen?
> Sorry for he long post, I have this in mind for a long time...
>
> Jacques
--
Matt Warnock <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com>
RidgeCrest Herbals, Inc.
Re: What I would like to see [was: Re: Nice job on keeping the download site up-to-date.]
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@free.fr>.
From: "David E Jones" <de...@me.com>
> On Feb 5, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> One feeling I have though, PHBs are often pushing this way, note that I did not say that you are a PHB :p
>> Actually, I agree with you about "our" lack of interest for end user. I think this is due to the nature of OFBiz itself...
>
> I won't agree there is any lack of interest for end-users. In fact, nearly everything in OFBiz is the result of some end-user or
> other requesting functionality and being willing to sponsor its creation and contribution back to the project.
That's not exactly what I meant. Who are those end-users I was trying to talk about? Technical aware persons, with influence in
companies but not enough time to look into every technical details (CTO, CIO, etc.). So they make (or at least help to make) very
important decisions (financial decision, I mean) for the future of their entreprises. And for that try to get as much as possible
information when making a choice between competitors. It's already a good news when they are considering OSS. Then chances are they
will compare projects. This is the target I was talking about. I personnaly think that a *huge* effort as been already done in OFBIz
to give them ways to make their choice. I was simply saying that we should try to continue this effort. Not only some persons as it
was some years ago, when the knowledge was not as shared as today. For instance the effort you made, David, on the Framework *open
and (now) free* documentation was certainly one the most important the project benefited. But I'm not quite sure (euphemism ;o) all
the decision-makers (or helpers) take the time to read it thourougly and to understand all subtleties while evaluating OFBiz. So
now, what we need is a satellite map (kind of marketing) to facilitate the decisions of these guys and, as much as possible, to make
them happy to choice OFBiz :o)
Some themes I foresee:
1) Why you should use the trunk instead of a release,
2) Why OFBIz is here to stay, independtly of the people working currently on it
3) Why... ok I'm lazy today (actually more knackered but who cares ;o)...
The theme 1 is one of the most important to me because it distinguishs OFBiz from its competitors, even VAR projects based on OFBiz.
It allows to follow the projects and, if inclined to, to contribute to it and to make it grow along your own needs.
When you Google for "OFBiz" in France you get these pages in this order
http://ofbiz.apache.org/
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OFBiz
http://www.les7arts.com/assist/ArgumentaireOFBiz.htm
The 1st is obvious, the 2d I frequently garden and I'm happy to see it there, the 3d was a page I wrote in 2005, and is a free
translation (with a lot of changes and adaptation through the years) from an old Automation Group site page. Something is missing in
this document, the point 1. It's now months that I want to write something about that. Because I believe it's why so much projects
based on OFBiz did not evolve with OFBiz and became legacy. This is bad for 2 reasons: these projects will not benefit of all the
enhancements OFBiz is able to give them, OFBiz does not benefit of potential long term contributors. From my experience, few
projects succeed in this way (even VAR projects) because they neglict this paramount point!
There are already a lot of things spreaded in the wiki. I will try, when I will get a chance, to make something more comprehensible
for new comers (I prefer this word than newbies or even worse noobs ;o)
Sorry for he long post, I have this in mind for a long time...
Jacques
Re: What I would like to see [was: Re: Nice job on keeping the
download site up-to-date.]
Posted by David E Jones <de...@me.com>.
On Feb 5, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> One feeling I have though, PHBs are often pushing this way, note that I did not say that you are a PHB :p
> Actually, I agree with you about "our" lack of interest for end user. I think this is due to the nature of OFBiz itself...
I won't agree there is any lack of interest for end-users. In fact, nearly everything in OFBiz is the result of some end-user or other requesting functionality and being willing to sponsor its creation and contribution back to the project.
However, end-users have different interests than vendors, so one should not expect the same results of end-user driven efforts as of vendor-driven efforts.
-David
Re: What I would like to see [was: Re: Nice job on keeping the download site up-to-date.]
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@free.fr>.
Ruth,
I think it's because we have this opportunity while moving from Contegix to the ASF support: we will not use the same infrastrucure,
ie new tools, scripts, locations, etc.
But unfortunately (damned ISP I should say) as I said I'm currently not in a position too help much, Hans and Tim are still
volunteering, and maybe some others will help too...
One feeling I have though, PHBs are often pushing this way, note that I did not say that you are a PHB :p
Actually, I agree with you about "our" lack of interest for end user. I think this is due to the nature of OFBiz itself...
But I have no time to comment this more, and I have even the feeling that anyway commenting is not what is making the project
progress. I remember Jacopo having a such speech some months (years?) ago... time goes by...
Jacques
From: "Ruth Hoffman" <rh...@aesolves.com>
> Hi Tim:
> I'm a little surprised. I thought we went through this a while back (maybe a few months ago) and the answer was: "the site is
> targeted at project committers". I left that discussion with the impression that was the last word. Are you saying that you might
> be open to discussing this again?
> Regards,
> Ruth
>
> Tim Ruppert wrote:
>> Thanks for the feedback. I'm going to think on it this weekend and will try and come up with some ideas of how this could work
>> better. If you could show me some sites that you do like, that would be a big help - then I can see how to get that working in
>> our world.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ruppert
>>
>> On Feb 5, 2010, at 12:13 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi Tim:
>>> Since you asked:
>>>
>>> I'd like to have a download site where any user, especially a new user, could visit, feel comfortable about the project (and
>>> life in general), and then proceed about the business of downloading code. Easy, simple and painless. Yes, the nightly builds
>>> are a HUGE step in that direction. Thanks again to everyone who makes this possible. But, lets put that in perspective: That
>>> only makes the process of downloading easier.
>>>
>>> I'd also like to have a seat on the project's oversight group. I don't understand how a project of this magnitude can continue
>>> to grow and prosper without business oriented people helping to guide it. The oversight group (whoever they happen to be) is
>>> like a bunch of very clever "foxes" guarding the "chicken coop". (Where the "chicken coop" is the code base.) There is so much
>>> more to making software successful than anything clever "foxes" will ever have time to consider.
>>>
>>> Actually, I take that back. If I'm part of the committer's group, I won't be able to "whine" and "troll" from the comfort of my
>>> desktop anymore.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Ruth
>>>
>>>
>>> Tim Ruppert wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks - again that was super helpful. I took the time to lay it out like a towel what was there, what looks to be broken when
>>>> we migrated to the ASF infra and no you wont' go thru it? There are some obvious spots for you to say something or point to
>>>> projects you like, but you just continue to roll your eyes. I didn't push for or want this move to the ASF infra - but I'm
>>>> still trying to help here.
>>>>
>>>> What else do you want here Ruth? Cheers,
>>>> Ruppert
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Tim:
>>>>> I've been through this already. Several times over.
>>>>>
>>>>> All I can say at this point is, no one is minding the store. I just don't get it: You guys spend hours agonizing over how and
>>>>> where to put spaces in Java files, yet you can't see the most obvious flaws in how OFBiz does business.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh well...
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Ruth
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tim Ruppert wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ruth, I'm sure there's some good that could come out of your message - so against my general nature of responding to this
>>>>>> type of attitude, I'm going to try and help you phrase this in a way that will help us help infra to try to meet what you're
>>>>>> looking for. Here's what I see when I go to the site(s):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/snapshots/ - not downloading and testing anything - just looking at what I see:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. The nightly trunk seems to be updated daily.
>>>>>> 2. The 9.04 builds seem to, for some reason not be being updated on this page.
>>>>>> 3. There aren't many 4.0 releases being built.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then I go to here - http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/archive/snapshots/ - and I see a slightly different picture:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. The trunk builds aren't really archives they're simply another copy after it was moved over. -- The archives are there
>>>>>> though from when HotWax was managing it.
>>>>>> 2. The 9.04 builds seem to really be the ones that we'd want on that first page.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, since I know that this release and the downloads are super important to you, I'm really more interested in hearing you:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Lay out the way you'd like to see these pages work.
>>>>>> 2. Even show some examples of other projects that you _do_ like
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hope this helps Ruth - as Adrian and Jacopo mentioned, what you've sent here is just a whine, not a helpful way for anyone
>>>>>> to improve. Put in the time and help us to make it more like you like and I'm sure you'll be more pleased with the result.
>>>>>> Btw, all of those other options are not the same type of community driven projects as the ASF, so it's hard to manage the
>>>>>> same way. When commercial interests are more intertwined with the project, there are definitely benefits (as well as
>>>>>> drawbacks), so let's at least acknowledge those.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Ruppert
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there is a problem with the OFBiz site, it would be helpful to know what it is. Remarks like this are not helpful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This was meant as a sarcastic, "I can't believe this kind of thing keeps falling through the cracks", kind of remark. No
>>>>>>>> wonder new users shy away. I mean, no wonder new users run as fast as their browsers will take them to OpenBravo, OpenERP,
>>>>>>>> Magento...
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Ruth
>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> Find me on the web at http://www.myofbiz.com or Google keyword "myofbiz"
>>>>>>>> ruth.hoffman@myofbiz.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: What I would like to see [was: Re: Nice job on keeping the download
site up-to-date.]
Posted by Ruth Hoffman <rh...@aesolves.com>.
Hi Tim:
I'm a little surprised. I thought we went through this a while back
(maybe a few months ago) and the answer was: "the site is targeted at
project committers". I left that discussion with the impression that was
the last word. Are you saying that you might be open to discussing this
again?
Regards,
Ruth
Tim Ruppert wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback. I'm going to think on it this weekend and will try and come up with some ideas of how this could work better. If you could show me some sites that you do like, that would be a big help - then I can see how to get that working in our world.
>
> Cheers,
> Ruppert
>
> On Feb 5, 2010, at 12:13 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>
>
>> Hi Tim:
>> Since you asked:
>>
>> I'd like to have a download site where any user, especially a new user, could visit, feel comfortable about the project (and life in general), and then proceed about the business of downloading code. Easy, simple and painless. Yes, the nightly builds are a HUGE step in that direction. Thanks again to everyone who makes this possible. But, lets put that in perspective: That only makes the process of downloading easier.
>>
>> I'd also like to have a seat on the project's oversight group. I don't understand how a project of this magnitude can continue to grow and prosper without business oriented people helping to guide it. The oversight group (whoever they happen to be) is like a bunch of very clever "foxes" guarding the "chicken coop". (Where the "chicken coop" is the code base.) There is so much more to making software successful than anything clever "foxes" will ever have time to consider.
>>
>> Actually, I take that back. If I'm part of the committer's group, I won't be able to "whine" and "troll" from the comfort of my desktop anymore.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ruth
>>
>>
>> Tim Ruppert wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks - again that was super helpful.
>>> I took the time to lay it out like a towel what was there, what looks to be broken when we migrated to the ASF infra and no you wont' go thru it? There are some obvious spots for you to say something or point to projects you like, but you just continue to roll your eyes. I didn't push for or want this move to the ASF infra - but I'm still trying to help here.
>>>
>>> What else do you want here Ruth?
>>> Cheers,
>>> Ruppert
>>>
>>> On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi Tim:
>>>> I've been through this already. Several times over.
>>>>
>>>> All I can say at this point is, no one is minding the store. I just don't get it: You guys spend hours agonizing over how and where to put spaces in Java files, yet you can't see the most obvious flaws in how OFBiz does business.
>>>>
>>>> Oh well...
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Ruth
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tim Ruppert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Ruth, I'm sure there's some good that could come out of your message - so against my general nature of responding to this type of attitude, I'm going to try and help you phrase this in a way that will help us help infra to try to meet what you're looking for. Here's what I see when I go to the site(s):
>>>>>
>>>>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/snapshots/ - not downloading and testing anything - just looking at what I see:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. The nightly trunk seems to be updated daily.
>>>>> 2. The 9.04 builds seem to, for some reason not be being updated on this page.
>>>>> 3. There aren't many 4.0 releases being built.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then I go to here - http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/archive/snapshots/ - and I see a slightly different picture:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. The trunk builds aren't really archives they're simply another copy after it was moved over. -- The archives are there though from when HotWax was managing it.
>>>>> 2. The 9.04 builds seem to really be the ones that we'd want on that first page.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, since I know that this release and the downloads are super important to you, I'm really more interested in hearing you:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Lay out the way you'd like to see these pages work.
>>>>> 2. Even show some examples of other projects that you _do_ like
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope this helps Ruth - as Adrian and Jacopo mentioned, what you've sent here is just a whine, not a helpful way for anyone to improve. Put in the time and help us to make it more like you like and I'm sure you'll be more pleased with the result. Btw, all of those other options are not the same type of community driven projects as the ASF, so it's hard to manage the same way. When commercial interests are more intertwined with the project, there are definitely benefits (as well as drawbacks), so let's at least acknowledge those.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Ruppert
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> If there is a problem with the OFBiz site, it would be helpful to know what it is. Remarks like this are not helpful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This was meant as a sarcastic, "I can't believe this kind of thing keeps falling through the cracks", kind of remark. No wonder new users shy away. I mean, no wonder new users run as fast as their browsers will take them to OpenBravo, OpenERP, Magento...
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Ruth
>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> Find me on the web at http://www.myofbiz.com or Google keyword "myofbiz"
>>>>>>> ruth.hoffman@myofbiz.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: Newbie Docs Overview [was Re: What I would like to see]
Posted by Bruno Busco <br...@gmail.com>.
Thank you Matt,
I think this schematic approach will help.
-Bruno
2010/2/7 Matt Warnock <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com>:
> On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 12:32 -0700, Tim Ruppert wrote:
>> Thanks for the feedback. I'm going to think on it this weekend and
>> will try and come up with some ideas of how this could work better.
>> If you could show me some sites that you do like, that would be a big
>> help - then I can see how to get that working in our world.
>
> Based on your feedback and that of others, I have added a new outline
> page to the home page of the wiki at the following URL:
>
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Documentation+Overview
>
> This contains the ordered overview I started and shared earlier. I hope
> I haven't stepped on anyone's toes. It isn't pretty, just wiki pages,
> but hopefully it helps the newbies like me.
>
> I have started to add a couple of pages to flesh it out, but I know most
> of this stuff exists elsewhere. I only added a couple 1) as proof of
> concept, so people could get a feel for what I am suggesting, and 2) to
> see how I need to link things both inside and outside the wiki (personal
> sandbox). I still have things to learn there.
>
> I am really new to all this, so please, if 1) I have done something
> wrong, please advise, and 2) if I have done it right, please add the
> best links you know of to flesh out this index. As I say, I know it is
> out there, but strewn all over, and I'd like to collect it up, if you
> can tell me where to find it. In particular, if I am polluting the wiki
> namespace with this, please let me know what I should do differently.
>
> I have tried to keep the stuff really succinct and clear from a newbie's
> point of view-- which I know only too clearly.
>
> --
> Matt Warnock <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com>
> RidgeCrest Herbals, Inc.
>
>
Re: Newbie Docs Overview [was Re: What I would like to see]
Posted by Matt Warnock <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com>.
I was actually reviewing that last night and saw that there is a
significant overlap with some of the indexes you proposed. I agree, we
should work together to accomplish this as it sounds like we have many
similar goals and ideas.
On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 20:09 +0100, Jeroen van der Wal wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> Thanks for taking up the glove and perhaps you want to take a look to my
> proposal to restructure the wiki(s) and can join forces as my initiative
> hasn't gained much thrust yet. There are also two attachments available with
> all the current documents:
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Wiki+Reorganization+Proposal
>
> Jeroen van der Wal
> Stromboli b.v.
> +31 655 874050
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 3:59 PM, bsreekanth <ba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Matt,
> > good beginning.. I have some thoughts.
> > 1. We may delete (if Jaques, etc agrees) the older pages once we compile it
> > it into the new ones. Ideally there should only be one source for the same
> > information, otherwise it leads to conflict over the course, hard to
> > maintain etc.
> > 2. It would be great if someone know the system well to do a quick review
> > of
> > the pages. David wrote many tutorials (entity engine, service engine,
> > framework training etc), but they dated 2006. I think most of the contents
> > are accurate, but any outdated info makes it hard to fully rely on it, and
> > you have to wait till you fully understand the system to believe in it
> > (well
> > that's the way I think. some people may smart enough to weed out it
> > earlier)
> > Babu.
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> > http://n4.nabble.com/Nice-job-on-keeping-the-download-site-up-to-date-tp1470517p1471994.html
> > Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
--
Matt Warnock <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com>
RidgeCrest Herbals, Inc.
Re: Newbie Docs Overview [was Re: What I would like to see]
Posted by Jeroen van der Wal <jv...@stromboli.it>.
Hi Matt,
Thanks for taking up the glove and perhaps you want to take a look to my
proposal to restructure the wiki(s) and can join forces as my initiative
hasn't gained much thrust yet. There are also two attachments available with
all the current documents:
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Wiki+Reorganization+Proposal
Jeroen van der Wal
Stromboli b.v.
+31 655 874050
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 3:59 PM, bsreekanth <ba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Matt,
> good beginning.. I have some thoughts.
> 1. We may delete (if Jaques, etc agrees) the older pages once we compile it
> it into the new ones. Ideally there should only be one source for the same
> information, otherwise it leads to conflict over the course, hard to
> maintain etc.
> 2. It would be great if someone know the system well to do a quick review
> of
> the pages. David wrote many tutorials (entity engine, service engine,
> framework training etc), but they dated 2006. I think most of the contents
> are accurate, but any outdated info makes it hard to fully rely on it, and
> you have to wait till you fully understand the system to believe in it
> (well
> that's the way I think. some people may smart enough to weed out it
> earlier)
> Babu.
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://n4.nabble.com/Nice-job-on-keeping-the-download-site-up-to-date-tp1470517p1471994.html
> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Re: Newbie Docs Overview [was Re: What I would like to see]
Posted by bsreekanth <ba...@yahoo.com>.
Matt,
good beginning.. I have some thoughts.
1. We may delete (if Jaques, etc agrees) the older pages once we compile it
it into the new ones. Ideally there should only be one source for the same
information, otherwise it leads to conflict over the course, hard to
maintain etc.
2. It would be great if someone know the system well to do a quick review of
the pages. David wrote many tutorials (entity engine, service engine,
framework training etc), but they dated 2006. I think most of the contents
are accurate, but any outdated info makes it hard to fully rely on it, and
you have to wait till you fully understand the system to believe in it (well
that's the way I think. some people may smart enough to weed out it earlier)
Babu.
--
View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Nice-job-on-keeping-the-download-site-up-to-date-tp1470517p1471994.html
Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Newbie Docs Overview [was Re: What I would like to see]
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@yahoo.com>.
That looks great - thanks Matt!
-Adrian
--- On Sat, 2/6/10, Matt Warnock <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com> wrote:
> From: Matt Warnock <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com>
> Subject: Newbie Docs Overview [was Re: What I would like to see]
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Date: Saturday, February 6, 2010, 11:36 PM
> On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 12:32 -0700,
> Tim Ruppert wrote:
> > Thanks for the feedback. I'm going to think on
> it this weekend and
> > will try and come up with some ideas of how this
> could work better.
> > If you could show me some sites that you do
> like, that would be a big
> > help - then I can see how to get that working in
> our world.
>
> Based on your feedback and that of others, I have added a
> new outline
> page to the home page of the wiki at the following URL:
>
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Documentation+Overview
>
> This contains the ordered overview I started and shared
> earlier. I hope
> I haven't stepped on anyone's toes. It isn't pretty,
> just wiki pages,
> but hopefully it helps the newbies like me.
>
> I have started to add a couple of pages to flesh it out,
> but I know most
> of this stuff exists elsewhere. I only added a couple
> 1) as proof of
> concept, so people could get a feel for what I am
> suggesting, and 2) to
> see how I need to link things both inside and outside the
> wiki (personal
> sandbox). I still have things to learn there.
>
> I am really new to all this, so please, if 1) I have done
> something
> wrong, please advise, and 2) if I have done it right,
> please add the
> best links you know of to flesh out this index. As I
> say, I know it is
> out there, but strewn all over, and I'd like to collect it
> up, if you
> can tell me where to find it. In particular, if I am
> polluting the wiki
> namespace with this, please let me know what I should do
> differently.
>
> I have tried to keep the stuff really succinct and clear
> from a newbie's
> point of view-- which I know only too clearly.
>
> --
> Matt Warnock <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com>
> RidgeCrest Herbals, Inc.
>
>
Newbie Docs Overview [was Re: What I would like to see]
Posted by Matt Warnock <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com>.
On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 12:32 -0700, Tim Ruppert wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback. I'm going to think on it this weekend and
> will try and come up with some ideas of how this could work better.
> If you could show me some sites that you do like, that would be a big
> help - then I can see how to get that working in our world.
Based on your feedback and that of others, I have added a new outline
page to the home page of the wiki at the following URL:
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Documentation+Overview
This contains the ordered overview I started and shared earlier. I hope
I haven't stepped on anyone's toes. It isn't pretty, just wiki pages,
but hopefully it helps the newbies like me.
I have started to add a couple of pages to flesh it out, but I know most
of this stuff exists elsewhere. I only added a couple 1) as proof of
concept, so people could get a feel for what I am suggesting, and 2) to
see how I need to link things both inside and outside the wiki (personal
sandbox). I still have things to learn there.
I am really new to all this, so please, if 1) I have done something
wrong, please advise, and 2) if I have done it right, please add the
best links you know of to flesh out this index. As I say, I know it is
out there, but strewn all over, and I'd like to collect it up, if you
can tell me where to find it. In particular, if I am polluting the wiki
namespace with this, please let me know what I should do differently.
I have tried to keep the stuff really succinct and clear from a newbie's
point of view-- which I know only too clearly.
--
Matt Warnock <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com>
RidgeCrest Herbals, Inc.
Re: What I would like to see [was: Re: Nice job on keeping the download site up-to-date.]
Posted by Tim Ruppert <ti...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Thanks for the feedback. I'm going to think on it this weekend and will try and come up with some ideas of how this could work better. If you could show me some sites that you do like, that would be a big help - then I can see how to get that working in our world.
Cheers,
Ruppert
On Feb 5, 2010, at 12:13 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
> Hi Tim:
> Since you asked:
>
> I'd like to have a download site where any user, especially a new user, could visit, feel comfortable about the project (and life in general), and then proceed about the business of downloading code. Easy, simple and painless. Yes, the nightly builds are a HUGE step in that direction. Thanks again to everyone who makes this possible. But, lets put that in perspective: That only makes the process of downloading easier.
>
> I'd also like to have a seat on the project's oversight group. I don't understand how a project of this magnitude can continue to grow and prosper without business oriented people helping to guide it. The oversight group (whoever they happen to be) is like a bunch of very clever "foxes" guarding the "chicken coop". (Where the "chicken coop" is the code base.) There is so much more to making software successful than anything clever "foxes" will ever have time to consider.
>
> Actually, I take that back. If I'm part of the committer's group, I won't be able to "whine" and "troll" from the comfort of my desktop anymore.
>
> Regards,
> Ruth
>
>
> Tim Ruppert wrote:
>> Thanks - again that was super helpful.
>> I took the time to lay it out like a towel what was there, what looks to be broken when we migrated to the ASF infra and no you wont' go thru it? There are some obvious spots for you to say something or point to projects you like, but you just continue to roll your eyes. I didn't push for or want this move to the ASF infra - but I'm still trying to help here.
>>
>> What else do you want here Ruth?
>> Cheers,
>> Ruppert
>>
>> On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi Tim:
>>> I've been through this already. Several times over.
>>>
>>> All I can say at this point is, no one is minding the store. I just don't get it: You guys spend hours agonizing over how and where to put spaces in Java files, yet you can't see the most obvious flaws in how OFBiz does business.
>>>
>>> Oh well...
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Ruth
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tim Ruppert wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ruth, I'm sure there's some good that could come out of your message - so against my general nature of responding to this type of attitude, I'm going to try and help you phrase this in a way that will help us help infra to try to meet what you're looking for. Here's what I see when I go to the site(s):
>>>>
>>>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/snapshots/ - not downloading and testing anything - just looking at what I see:
>>>>
>>>> 1. The nightly trunk seems to be updated daily.
>>>> 2. The 9.04 builds seem to, for some reason not be being updated on this page.
>>>> 3. There aren't many 4.0 releases being built.
>>>>
>>>> Then I go to here - http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/archive/snapshots/ - and I see a slightly different picture:
>>>>
>>>> 1. The trunk builds aren't really archives they're simply another copy after it was moved over. -- The archives are there though from when HotWax was managing it.
>>>> 2. The 9.04 builds seem to really be the ones that we'd want on that first page.
>>>>
>>>> Now, since I know that this release and the downloads are super important to you, I'm really more interested in hearing you:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Lay out the way you'd like to see these pages work.
>>>> 2. Even show some examples of other projects that you _do_ like
>>>>
>>>> I hope this helps Ruth - as Adrian and Jacopo mentioned, what you've sent here is just a whine, not a helpful way for anyone to improve. Put in the time and help us to make it more like you like and I'm sure you'll be more pleased with the result. Btw, all of those other options are not the same type of community driven projects as the ASF, so it's hard to manage the same way. When commercial interests are more intertwined with the project, there are definitely benefits (as well as drawbacks), so let's at least acknowledge those.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Ruppert
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If there is a problem with the OFBiz site, it would be helpful to know what it is. Remarks like this are not helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>
>>>>> Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This was meant as a sarcastic, "I can't believe this kind of thing keeps falling through the cracks", kind of remark. No wonder new users shy away. I mean, no wonder new users run as fast as their browsers will take them to OpenBravo, OpenERP, Magento...
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Ruth
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Find me on the web at http://www.myofbiz.com or Google keyword "myofbiz"
>>>>>> ruth.hoffman@myofbiz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
Re: What I would like to see [was: Re: Nice job on keeping the download
site up-to-date.]
Posted by Ruth Hoffman <rh...@aesolves.com>.
Adrian Crum wrote:
> --- On Fri, 2/5/10, Ruth Hoffman <rh...@aesolves.com> wrote:
>
>> I'd also like to have a seat on the project's oversight
>> group.
>>
>
>
> Apache OFBiz is based on meritocracy - there is no oversight group. We are all peers and volunteers.
>
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#meritocracy
>
>
Except when it comes to updating the website or adding code to the code
base. Now, why do I need to be a Java developer to maintain the website?
>
>> I don't understand how a project of this magnitude
>> can continue to grow and prosper without business oriented
>> people helping to guide it.
>>
>
> There are business oriented people guiding it. Many of the committers are or have been business owners.
>
>
Really? I hope they don't run their businesses the same way they run the
project.
>> There is so much more to making software
>> successful than anything clever "foxes" will ever have time
>> to consider.
>>
>
> You make it sound as though you have some special insight no one else has. If you feel the project can benefit from your insight, then it would help if you made meaningful contributions in the form of software patches - instead of busying yourself with writing hyperbole.
>
>
Well, Adrian perhaps I do have some insight. BTW, I have made several
patch and other contributions in the past.
> -Adrian
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: What I would like to see [was: Re: Nice job on keeping the
download site up-to-date.]
Posted by David E Jones <de...@me.com>.
On Feb 5, 2010, at 3:03 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> --- On Fri, 2/5/10, Ruth Hoffman <rh...@aesolves.com> wrote:
>> There is so much more to making software
>> successful than anything clever "foxes" will ever have time
>> to consider.
>
> You make it sound as though you have some special insight no one else has. If you feel the project can benefit from your insight, then it would help if you made meaningful contributions in the form of software patches - instead of busying yourself with writing hyperbole.
Contributions certainly do not have to be software patches.
Non-developers are needed and can contribute to gathering and document requirements, producing designs, and then collaborating with others to get them built. Feedback on current functionality is especially helpful if there is a documented business context to help define how it should be (aka "requirements"). There is also a great need for documentation of existing features, public relations and marketing efforts, business development (different from traditional business development, but building "partnerships" of a sort still applies to projects like OFBiz), lobbying in government and large organizations and industry associations and so on, organizing and facilitating volunteer efforts (doing so effectively is not easy), and many other things.
In fact, I think perhaps the list of possible contributions that don't involve development are larger at this point than those that do involve development. With a little creativity there is always something to do, and with OFBiz there are SO many untapped opportunities.
For a more specific example, if someone wanted to build their network and help build OFBiz at the same time they could start gathering stories and testimonials of end-user organizations and of service provider organizations (even starting with the public/voluntary lists on the wiki), and then organize and publish them. It has been a long time since anything like this has been done, and the stories available now are far better than then... so the field is "white" and certainly ready for harvest.
Even building a business that uses OFBiz, or even better one that helps others use OFBiz, helps the project. However, that's not really a direct contribution that helps the project and it wouldn't really be considered a "contribution" per-se.
-David
Re: What I would like to see [was: Re: Nice job on keeping the download site up-to-date.]
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@yahoo.com>.
--- On Fri, 2/5/10, Ruth Hoffman <rh...@aesolves.com> wrote:
> I'd also like to have a seat on the project's oversight
> group.
Apache OFBiz is based on meritocracy - there is no oversight group. We are all peers and volunteers.
http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#meritocracy
> I don't understand how a project of this magnitude
> can continue to grow and prosper without business oriented
> people helping to guide it.
There are business oriented people guiding it. Many of the committers are or have been business owners.
> There is so much more to making software
> successful than anything clever "foxes" will ever have time
> to consider.
You make it sound as though you have some special insight no one else has. If you feel the project can benefit from your insight, then it would help if you made meaningful contributions in the form of software patches - instead of busying yourself with writing hyperbole.
-Adrian