I've been reading the posts on this thread all day and trying to refrain from bashing my head on the keyboard thinking this topic was already answered definitively. Apache Ofbiz does have an auto-installation script and the only way to make it more automatic is to be bound by GPLv2 that would occur by bundling Java JDK.
However, this evening I had the opportunity to reintroduce myself to a dear old friend....Webmin (http://www.webmin.com/) And it dawned on me: installation and installation are two different things!! Looking at webmin, these are a collection of completely geeked out tools that can be configured by just about the average Joe (assuming the average Joe knows what the project is supposed to do based on the strange names that some projects program under). How difficult would it to be to make entityengine.xml, url.properties, general.properties, (heck every ofbiz file for that matter) configurable through a web interface? (Didn't the content component have this as somewhat as a goal at some point?) If someone could manufacturer a demo script on how to make this available, I'm sure the community could complete it. Any takers? --- Ian McNulty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That sounds like good news. > > But I also understand where those who are against > installers are coming > from. > > There's no point in having an easy installation if > subsequent > implementation is not equally trouble free. At least > at the moment the > difficulty of the installation gives good warning of > the condition of > the road ahead! > > Imho an installer should be somewhere on the list, > but not at the top of it. > > More important would be the presentation of a > proposition or a package > that users can easily understand. > > This does not necessarily mean a one-click > installation. > > Think of the development of any technology you like. > The motor car is as > good an example as any. Early installations were > tailor-made one-offs,. > hand-built by experts, of value only to engineers, > enthusiasts and the > extremely rich. The interface varied with each > installation. The > accelerator on the steering wheel and the brake > outside the drivers door > for godsakes! Who thought that one would ever fly? > It took years before > the interface settled down and standardised around > something even your > grandmother could learn to drive. Years more to move > beyond the > proposition you could have any color you liked just > as long as it was > Windows - ehr, sorry - black! Years more before most > drivers could be > assured that they wouldn't have to - in the words of > the old song - "get > out and get under" every time they popped down the > shops for a pint of milk. > > Everyone accepts that complex technology requires > some kind of learning > curve. And that, without proper maintenance, it will > probably break down. > > But it wasn't until the training could be > standardised, and maintenance > became more a matter of a regular oil change than a > regular engine > rebuild, that the the motor car became a proposition > that was easy to > understand, and the technology could move out of the > garage and onto the > highway. > > The change this precipitated was so radical that, > now, it's the > proposition of life WITHOUT the motor car that most > people would find > difficult to understand! > > Ian > > > > Anil Patel wrote: > > Regarding Installation, > > We have experimented with Building Ubuntu 6.06 > Live CD with Ofbiz. > > Also it > > installs to hard drive with Ubuntu. > > > > Anil > > > > On 1/3/07, Adrian Crum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> 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. > >> >> > === message truncated ===
