Some time ago BJ Freeman had suggested an installation wizard that would
walk
users through the installation process. Something along that line
packaged
on a
CD might be what's needed.
Daniel Kunkel wrote:
> Hi Ian
>
> I'm going to jump in and say I think there may be a better way.
>
>>From what I'm reading, I get the idea that you want to create some
sort
> of fork in the development in order to have a version that is simpler
> and more easily implemented out of the box.
>
> I REALLY don't like the idea of any kind of development fork even
though
> I see how alluring it is given the huge untapped markets. With a
project
> as big and encompassing as OFBiz, it's easy to see how certain design
> decisions have affected the appropriateness of the application for
> particular markets.
>
> I would like to see if we can build on the strength of OFBiz's
framework
> and create more "interchangeable plug-ins" like those in the
specialized
> directory that add or remove features as needed. I think this could be
> used to create an app that is easily configured for the needs of any
> particular company.
>
> Furthermore, it might help to create a simpler, more intuitive
> interface. If the interface is clear and easy to use, even small
> companies will appreciate most of the extra features.
>
> Perhaps some developers on this list already have modules they've
> created can share them as a specialized modules.
>
> Thanks
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 18:22 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
>
>>Andrew,
>>
>>Me again :)
>>
>>Right on the money old son. OFBiz light was one of the possible
>>strategies that came to mind.
>>
>>The principal would be that to move from a high-end, high-value,
>>tailor-made service where a skilled wheelwright is needed to
re-factor,
>>if not reinvent, the wheel on every installation, to more of a
>>mass-market solution with a wider user-base, requires offering easily
>>understood, preconfigured solutions in price bands customers can
afford.
>>
>>That's a whole science in itself!
>>
>>In the absence of that, the strategy would be to use the net for
what it
>>has proved to be best at. Building user-groups and user-generated
content.
>>
>>The functionality of the user interface on ;the mailing list we are
>>currently communicating through is proven for it's efficacy in
focusing
>>the attention of a relatively small and highly motivated group onto
>>resolution of sticky technical issues. But in this context, an
avalanche
>>of n00bies asking the same old questions would be indifferentiable
from
>>an avalanche of spam.
>>
>>A format which would welcome a range of basic questions from a wider
>>user group who might be interested but are currently neither informed,
>>confident nor motivated enough to RTFM would be more along the
lines of
>>those run by osCommerce, Zen Cart, Ubuntu and the like. This is, imho,
>>the single most important contribution these projects have made to
>>developments in the field.
>>
>>On those kind of forums the default is not that the experts are
>>inundated with every single post in their inbox, but that they can
>>browse and choose to address issues or not at their leisure. The
result
>>is a much more comfortable environment for a wider group of potential
>>users to adopt.
>>
>>'OFBiz Lite' would certainly be a major stepping stone along the way.
>>But the effort to do something like that is perhaps more than the
>>current community could bear.
>>
>>So the answer would be to widen the community, delegate the tasks, and
>>spread the load.
>>
>>The creation of some kind of extra web page, gathering site or forum
>>with this objective as the only focus could be a soft way forward to a
>>wider user base. To be taken or left by anybody, as the case may be.
>>
>>Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>Andrew Sykes wrote:
>>
>>>Ian,
>>>
>>>A fascinating insight, perhaps you could go a bit further in
explaining
>>>a strategy?
>>>
>>>I wonder how relevant OfBiz is to the very small end of the market,
>>>there's an awful lot to learn and (from a small business perspective)
an
>>>awful lot that could go wrong.
>>>
>>>I almost think that you are talking about a different product perhaps
>>>"OfBiz Lite" or something...
>>>
>>>- Andrew
>>>
>>>
>>>On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 10:15 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I've been having this email discussion with David which he's
asked me
to
>>>>move out onto this mailing list. I guess that probably means I'm in
for
>>>>a good kicking. But here goes anyway
>>>>
>>>>First, some background to give some kind of handle on where I'm
coming
from.
>>>>
>>>>I started working with computers in the late 60s as a physicist
>>>>modelling plasma dynamics. I've switched careers several times
since,
>>>>but my relationship to computers remains the same. As a user,
interested
>>>>not so much in the tool itself, but with what it can do.
>>>>
>>>>I first came across OFBiz a month ago whilst researching a client's
>>>>request for back-end integration with osCommerce. As someone who was
>>>>raised in a generation that really did believe that 2001 was
going to
be
>>>>like Stanley Kubrick said it was going to be, I can count on one
hand
>>>>the number of times a piece of technology has had enough wow to stop
me
>>>>dead in my tracks. OFBiz would be one!
>>>>
>>>> From the outset it was clear that it was way too big a leap for any
>>>>client I know of to contemplate making. But the technology looked so
>>>>sweet I just had to find out more.
>>>>
>>>>The more I looked the more fascinated I became. Platform
independent.
>>>>Modular. Scale-able. Open Source. Wow! What a magnificent tool this
>>>>could be! Why would anybody ever want to use anything else?
>>>>
>>>>This is a tool for running any kind of business you like. None of us
can
>>>>survive without connection to some kind of business or other. This
could
>>>>be monumental. The next big leap forward.
>>>>
>>>>I didn't expect installation to be easy, and it wasn't! But then
again,
>>>>I've just installed XP on new PC and that wasn't all that easy
either
>>>>(what version of Windows ever was?)
>>>>
>>>>I managed to get pilot installations of OFBiz (opentaps flavour)
running
>>>>on Windows and Linux without too much trouble. But then again, I do
have
>>>>some experience of this kind of thing. When it comes to setting
up new
>>>>tools, I have several magnitudes more patience than anybody else I
know.
>>>>Which means that if an application is going to be of any use to
anybody
>>>>else apart from me, I have to hone usability down to the point
it's a
>>>>no-brainer!
>>>>
>>>>So I'm running opentaps and slowly working my way through the
various
>>>>manuals and documents trying to get a handle on what this thing can
>>>>really do.
>>>>
>>>>Pretty quickly I discover at least one glaringly obvious problem. So
>>>>obvious that if I demonstrated it to a client they would laugh me
out
of
>>>>the building in minutes.
>>>>
>>>>The problem itself is trivial. A simple matter of somebody sitting
down
>>>>for a few days and writing the necessary code. But who is going
to do
>>>>that? Not me surely? I have the Java textbook, but still haven't
found
>>>>time to sit down and read more than the first couple of chapters.
>>>>Finding other people with the expertise and the time to do that
would
be
>>>>the key. Or at least that's what I thought at the time!
>>>>
>>>>So I go back to the web sites and start looking at the organisation
and
>>>>the people rather than the code.
>>>>
>>>>Who could fix this problem? How much would it cost? Why hasn't it
been
>>>>fixed already?
>>>>
>>>> From the outset it's obvious that the Apache Incubator site is a
>>>>marvellous resource for engineers. But looking it from the user's
POV
-
>>>>as someone who wants to contact an engineer rather be one himself -
>>>>there isn't much I can get a handle on here.
>>>>
>>>>Opentaps, Opensource Strategies and Undersun look much more like
what
I
>>>>need. Clean. Crisp. Elegant designs. Engineering 'talkback' mixed
down
>>>>low in the background. You don't have to be an engineer to
understand
>>>>that, for enterprise-level installation, these guys look like the
business.
>>>>
>>>>But enterprise-level means high-end, expensive! Corporate lawyers
can
>>>>charge thousands an hour. Maybe these guys know they're worth
more? I
>>>>have seen odd references to multi-million dollar installations.
Sounds
>>>>par for that kind of course to me.
>>>>
>>>>So where does that leave the ordinary Joe?
>>>>
>>>>All businesses I personally deal with are small. 1 to 50 employees
max.
>>>>
>>>>OFBiz looks like it should be scalable, could be of value to all of
them.
>>>>
>>>>But how much value, and how much cost?
>>>>
>>>>If I was running the IT department at the White House I'd be
inviting
>>>>the OFBiz guys in and showing MS the door. With the prospect of
>>>>high-end, high-value contracts in the pipeline, I guess these guys
just
>>>>won't have time to even think about making this stuff accessible to
the
>>>>average Joe in the street. Oh well. Better start lowering my sights
and
>>>>start thinking about cobbling together some low-level XSLT
plugins for
>>>>the existing kit rather than thinking about a complete revamp of the
>>>>whole machine.
>>>>
>>>>Then I discover Si's Jan 09/06 blog - exactly a year ago! -
meditating
>>>>on exactly these issues.
>>>>
>>>>"If open source is to gain popularity and move "up the stack",
however,
>>>>open source software will need other advocates in the enterprise.
>>>>Somebody else besides the IT department must also be able to
convince
>>>>enterprise users that open source software is indeed a credible
>>>>solution. Whether that advocate ultimately is a consulting firm, a
>>>>distributor, or an ISV using open source software, we don't really
know yet.
>>>>
>>>>What we can be certain of is this: whoever makes open source a
credible
>>>>in the enterprise would ultimately win the "Linux wars."
>>>>
>>>>Aha. Now then. That's interesting.
>>>>
>>>>So credibility on the enterprise level isn't such a done deal after
all
>>>>then.
>>>>
>>>>So who could those advocates outside the IT department be? Is it the
>>>>consulting firm, the distributor, the ISV? Or is it all or none
of the
>>>>above?
>>>>
>>>>Rereading Si's blog, I was struck by this:
>>>>
>>>>"Most buyers of commercial software don't actually verify that its
>>>>features are bug free or check out its support lines. Instead, their
>>>>"due diligence" consists of making sure that there are other users
using
>>>>the software, including, most importantly, their golf buddies."
>>>>
>>>>How important an insight is that?
>>>>
>>>>So the key to credibility in the decision making process lies with
those
>>>>who know absolutely nothing about the technicalities and most
probably
>>>>care even less!
>>>>
>>>>Why else would IBM spend many millions advertising enterprise level
>>>>technology on prime time television? How many viewers are
actually in
>>>>the market for Blade servers?
>>>>
>>>>I doubt anybody in IBM marketing believes they're spending that
money
to
>>>>advertise servers. They're spending it to make sure that not only
the
>>>>average golf-buddy, but also his wife, kids, and grandmother all
know
>>>>that IBM is a credible player. Because they know that's how the big
>>>>decisions are actually made. Emotionally, by people who are so
far up
on
>>>>the bridge of the ship, away from the engine room, that they
probably
>>>>know less about the mechanics of it than their grandmothers!
>>>>
>>>>So making OFBiz emotionally accessible to the average Joe Soap's
>>>>grandmother could be the key to unlocking both enterprise level and
>>>>wider markets.
>>>>
>>>> From an outsiders perspective, it seems that Si in particular has
>>>>already done a considerable amount of work in this direction. As
someone
>>>>with formal financial rather than technical training, he is perhaps
more
>>>>focused on markets than most. But Si is in no way representative of
the
>>>>average user. His blog tells me his parents were postgrad
programmers
>>>>who taught him everything they knew. Most programmers would give
their
>>>>eye teeth for a background like that! How many management wonks
would
>>>>relish the idea of lifting up the bonnet everytime they wanted to
start
>>>>their car? They chose their roles in life precisely to keep away
from
>>>>that kind of thing. As indeed did Si when he chose a career in
finance.
>>>>
>>>>The moral of this would be that what is accessible to Si or most
other
>>>>users on this forum is not necessarily even slightly accessible
to the
>>>>average businessperson on the street.
>>>>
>>>>If you wanted to maintain an elite group of cognoscenti who are
in the
>>>>position to charge highly for their services then you may want to
keep
>>>>it that way - or not as the case may be.
>>>>
>>>>I would argue that the code is so radical and so deep that some
levels
>>>>will always remain expert only. Increasing accessibility to a wider
user
>>>>group would not threaten that core and could only lead to a wider
user
>>>>base and larger market share.
>>>>
>>>>OOTB, front-end, user accessibility to me means minimising any
factors
>>>>which take time and attention away from getting on with the job the
tool
>>>>was designed to do. From a purely user's POV, these are nothing more
>>>>than distractions, irritations and ultimately objections to buying
into
>>>>the programme. Noise drowning out signals on the marketing
channels if
>>>>you like.
>>>>
>>>>As in all user applications, a proportion of time spent
tooling-up and
a
>>>>level of unwanted noise is to be expected. But in the job-efficiency
>>>>equation, this is a drag component to be optimised out. In the
>>>>development of sleek, user-friendly implementations, a zero
tolerance
>>>>policy on noise, friction and drag is the only way to go!
>>>>
>>>>To me, OOTB accessibility means exactly what it says on the tin: I
don't
>>>>need a degree in anything to install or run it. It does
everything it
>>>>said it would do. Is easy to maintain. Has cost exactly what they
told
>>>>me it would. A brilliant tool for the job. Wouldn't even think of
using
>>>>anything else.
>>>>
>>>>But creating something like that means taking at least some of the
focus
>>>>away engineering a better mousetrap, to looking at the way it
appears
to
>>>>the average mouse. Is it easy for them to get to the cheese, or are
>>>>there still too many wires and cogs in the way? Closing a sale means
>>>>overcoming all the objections. Making offers people don't see any
reason
>>>>to refuse.
>>>>
>>>>The marketing proposition from Undersun and Opensource Strategies
looks
>>>>fine - if you're only interested in high end, enterprise-level
applications.
>>>>
>>>>The engineering proposition on Apache incubator looks fine - if
you're
>>>>interested in being an engineer.
>>>>
>>>>But where is the low-end proposition for the average
businessperson in
>>>>the street? Something his golf playing buddie's grandmother might
>>>>understand?
>>>>
>>>>It could be concluded that what I'm angling for here is a series of
>>>>television adverts.
>>>>
>>>>If I thought OFBiz had a couple of mill lying around spare then this
>>>>would certainly be the case. If it's good enough for IBM...
>>>>
>>>>But I doubt OFBiz is anywhere near that kind of position at the
moment.
>>>>
>>>>I just kinda don't see any reason why it shouldn't be at some
time in
>>>>the foreseeable future.
>>>>
>>>>But there would need to be a will to go in this direction and the
>>>>deliberate diversion of at least some of the time, creativity and
>>>>resources away from strictly engineering matters, into making the
>>>>application more accessible - acceptable - applicable, to a wider
user
base.
>>>>
>>>>That would mean opening up whatever channels of communication
with the
>>>>wider public are available and boosting the signal well above the
noise.
>>>>
>>>>Almost everybody has need of OFBiz. They just don't know it yet!
>>>>
>>>>Ian
>>>>
>>>>
>>
