Sounds extremely good to me.
My major client is currently complaining about a £60 bill for travelling
300 miles to recce their current installation, so I'm wondering how much
more of this I can afford to be involved in.
I'd certainly be interested in joining a group heading in the direction
we've been discussing. But I'm not sure how much of a contribution I
could make.
I barely have a handle on much of OFBiz at the moment.
In my ignorance I assumed Andrew's list of 'flavours' was what it was
already supposed to do - give or take a few semi-functional features
along the way - which really ought to be no big deal to sort - for those
who understand such things.
As someone who has also been involved in computing for more than 30
years, I'd have to agree with the guy from MS who said that Open Source
is a cancer rotting everything it touches.
As a scientist who believes we see further only because we have licence
to stand on the shoulders of great men, I know he's got it completely
upside down.
Ian
Andrew Ballantine wrote:
> I think what David is saying is the OFBiz open source project can only
> support and develop the framework in the direction that the major
> contributors wish to go. And I fully understand that.
>
> However this discussion has been most useful to me in firming up my vision
> for OFBiz. I also find it encouraging that I am not entirely alone in what I
> think we could do with OFBiz.
>
> As an individual that has worked in the computer industry for over 30 years,
> I do not have the financial muscle to do a project speculatively. However I
> do think that we have an opportunity here to form a group within the OFBiz
> community to further this cause and share the benefits with the OFBiz
> project.
>
> I am currently trying to get my major client to agree to start a development
> project based on OFBiz and once that happens I can contribute a whole lot
> more, but even if that doesn't go through I am very keen to set up an OFBiz
> consultancy in the UK, but I don't want to do it on my own.
>
> Some of you have commented that you would not like to see a fork and I most
> definitely agree. There is no technical requirement for a fork. What I
> envisage is a sub-project that works on the usability, presentation, sample
> data, OOTB functionality and installability issues that we have been
> discussing. The under-lying framework would be OFBiz. If different vertical
> markets require different procedures within the framework, then I would
> suggest that conditional code in the framework be used to handle different
> "Flavours" of use. The advantage of this is that anyone modifying the
> Framework code can see what effect their changes might have on a different
> flavour of the framework.
>
> Some obvious flavours might be:
> USA accounting and taxation
> EU accounting and VAT with various country flavours
> Manufacturing
> Direct Sales
> Retail shop
> eCommerce
> ...
> These flavours would be set at install time in the configuration files, but
> interpreted at run time.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Andrew Ballantine.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian McNulty [mailto:ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk]
> Sent: 04 January 2007 09:32
> To: ofbiz-user@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: What does "OOTB front-end accessibility" mean to you?
>
>
>
>
> David E Jones wrote:
>
>> On Jan 4, 2007, at 12:59 AM, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I think this is very much of interest, and to a lot of people. These
>>>> all sound like they would make great derivative works of OFBiz,
>>>> either commercial or open source. I'd say for right now that getting
>>>> something very slick for any of these groups it outside the scope
>>>> and current resources of OFBiz, but that doesn't mean these are a
>>>> bad idea.
>>>>
>>> Sounds good to me. Am now wondering where the necessary resources may
>>> be?
>>>
>> Yes, very good question... elusive little buggers these do seem to be
>> at best!
>>
>> If you happen to find any, do ring me right away!
>>
>
> I'm no Mark Shuttleworth. But I'd bet there's more than one of them
> around! The trick would be to have a door through which such a person
> may feel comfortable walking.
>
>
>> More seriously, I think there is some potential for open source
>> communities based around certain industries, but my guess has been and
>> remains to be that gathering resources to address these smaller
>> markets will be more difficult than it was to attract a developer and
>> contributor base to something more generic like OFBiz. So, in many of
>> the small markets a more financial means of collaboration may be
>> necessary.
>>
>
> I don't really get this at all.
>
> Think of how Sage and Intuit started. I remember early versions of
> Quicken as little more than colourful toys for desktops. They were in no
> way aiming for the high end. That had been taken care of quite nicely
> for decades by mainframes running true enterprise grade systems like
> Unix and people who wouldn't have been seen dead with a Commodore in the
> house.
>
> I have more intimate knowledge of Sage, which was started only a few
> miles away from where I live by a university undergraduate working a
> summer job at a very small printing shop. He knocked up a quick demo in
> BASIC to demonstrate how they could run the accounts department of the
> whole (very small) organisation on a Sinclair. Mainly jut for fun!
>
> I was working mainframes at the time. I thought Intel made nothing but
> toys. I thought the guy was wasting his time.
>
> That's exactly what Intel thought when Gates offered them DOS, or Decca
> thought when Brian Epstein offered them the Beatles!
>
> How wrong can you be?
>
> The magic trick in all those instances was to get the timing exactly
> right. To be in exactly the right place when the tide changed and the
> microchip washed away the mainframe.
>
> That was an engineering triumph. Carrying a toy operating system along
> in its wake was not necessarily so. That's something all Microsoft users
> are now starting to discover in one way or another. The tide is
> beginning to turn!
>
>
>> A lot of the discussion here seem to be around the fact that OFBiz is
>> so distastefully generic,
>>
>
> Not from me it's not. I think this is it's major USP.
>
>
>> and yet if it were too industry specific or meant to address only a
>> small part of the world of enterprise automation functionality, the
>> fact is most of us wouldn't be here...
>>
>
> That's true. And this mailing list is a core asset.
>
> But the question is, how does this knowledge flow down the supply chain
> and how does the cash flow back up?
>
> Where are the toll-gates? Who pays for the highway, the wagons and
> wagon-drivers tea?
>
> Is it better to sell one thing with a margin of a million, or a million
> things with a margin of just one?
>
> I guess it's a lifestyle decision really. How many master chefs want
> anything to do with McDonald's? And who could blame them?
>
>
>> This is about the point where the end of loop n meets the beginning of
>> loop n+1 and the search for a solution causes headaches, or at best
>> teaches one a great deal about cautious optimism and patience.
>>
>>
>
> Cautious optimism and patience I agree with. Not too sure about the
> recursive loop thing. Might it not simply be a case of being too close
> to the wood of the code to be able to get the full view of the outline
> of the trees?
>
>
>>>> In fact, even "in the beginning" we had the intent to build OFBiz in
>>>> such a way that such things could be built on top of it (or from it,
>>>> depending on how you look at things), and be done in either an open
>>>> source or commercial model, or even a combination of the two like
>>>> the CRMSFA application from Open Source Strategies. There are
>>>> actually a few other open source and commercial applications that
>>>> use different parts of OFBiz (see the User List page on
>>>> docs.ofbiz.org).
>>>>
>>> User List? Can't see that. Maybe I ought to try getting some sleep
>>> myself :)
>>>
>> Sorry for the nebulous reference. You can find such things using the
>> search box, hidden away in the upper right corner. Here is the actual
>> link:
>>
>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/ZQM
>>
>
> Thanks David. Sorry to be such a dummy. It takes a while to get into the
> swing of such things. :)
>
>
>> It should be noted that by our best guess this represents only a small
>> percentage of OFBiz users. Many of these were found a long time ago by
>> googling around for common URL patterns, which we really should do
>> again some time. Still, it is an interesting thing to review to liven
>> up a dreary winter day.
>>
>
> Sure does David.
>
> What you've set me thinking about now is the difference between a fork
> and a branch.
>
> A fork is a parting of the roads, all of which take you further from
> the source.
>
> But a branch is an addition to the total wealth of the tree.
>
> Branches need to be attached to trees to grow, and roots need to grow to
> balance them.
>
> The analogy could be stretched in as many directions as there are
> branches on trees.
>
> But the point would be that any addition should add to the whole, not
> distract from it.
>
> As far as I can see, the roots of OFBiz look as solid as roots can be.
>
> Built on Java. Open Sourced by Sun. A high-tech company with an
> immaculate pedigree, currently obliged to play Betacam to Microsoft's VHS.
>
> Operating system independent.
>
> Modular and scalable. From 1 to as many as you like.
>
> Network-native.
>
> All resources optimised to the bone.
>
> Start your business in your bedroom for very little money and if you
> should end up taking-over Virgin then we can deal with that too!
>
> Is that too over-the-top or wot?
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.4/615 - Release Date: 03/01/2007
> 13:34
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.4/615 - Release Date: 03/01/2007
> 13:34
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.4/615 - Release Date: 03/01/2007
> 13:34
>
>
>
> *****************************************************************
> This email has been checked by the altohiway Mailcontroller Service
> *****************************************************************
>
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mcnultyMEDIA
60 Birkdale Gardens
Durham
DH1 2UL
t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is
confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication,
its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited.
If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone
on +44 (0)191 384 4736
This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept any liability sustained
as a result of software viruses and would recommend that you carry out your own virus checks
before opening any attachment.
==============================================================================================
|