Ian, It depends on what you're looking for.
If the focus is still a "small business accounting package" as the subject line says - I know I know, there have been a zillion posts to this thread, so perhaps not. - If it's accounting, two spring to mind... For a desktop system, have a look at GnuCash... http://www.gnucash.org/ For a web based system, SQLLedger seems good and I've heard a few favourable reports about it... http://www.sql-ledger.org/ Finally, for a project which *seems* to have a more OOTB focus, although I've really only started looking at it this weekend, take a look at the Project:Open stuff... http://www.project-open.com/ I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this one as I've only just scratched the surface... One of the criteria you should consider is the cost of upgrading from an OOTB solution sometime in the future versus the cost of implementing OfBiz now. Generally if you are at the stage of being an enterprise with more "M" than "S" turnover (SME) and have implemented a lot of bespoke business processes which form part of you USP then OfBiz is a safe bet. If you plan to get to that point one day, it's probably better waiting for that day to come and using something OOTB in the meantime. Consider the analogy with office space, you wouldn't buy up half an industrial estate because the business plan you had written in your front room said one day you'd be bigger than ICI! Even if you factored the cost of hiring a van to help with the move, it would still look a bit dodgy on the balance sheet! Choosing the right system is about being on top of your overall business strategy, where are you going? how long and how much is it going to take to get you there? Can you really afford the luxury of servicing something as large as OfBiz en route? - Andrew On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 09:58 +0000, Ian McNulty wrote: > OK David. Maybe just one last thing. > > No more soap-boxing. A simple question for a change :) > > David E. Jones wrote: > > > > Looking around the OFBiz documents and such I don't think this > > distinction is adequately represented, so I added some text similar to > > the above to the home page of ofbiz.apache.org. It should be public > > within a few hours, ie whenever the next deployment job runs. > > Reading your new text, this stood out: > > "OFBiz can certainly be used OOTB (out of the box), but if you're > looking for something that works really well for that there are many > open source projects that do a great job there." > > OK. So maybe those projects might be more what I'm looking for. > > I searched a couple of months ago and didn't find anything I thought > could do a better job than OFBiz. What other open source projects are > you thinking of here? > > Ian > > > > > > > > -David > > > > > > On Jan 20, 2007, at 3:49 AM, Ian McNulty wrote: > > > >> Chris, David, Everybody. > >> > >> One last thought on the subject before I have my porridge and another > >> lie down ;) > >> > >> I'm wondering if any of you guys have ever taken a good hard look at > >> the osCommerce, Zen Cart or Ubuntu forums? > >> > >> http://www.zen-cart.com/forum > >> > >> http://forums.oscommerce.com > >> > >> http://www.ubuntuforums.org/ > >> > >> Yes. I know php is nasty. But that's not the point. > >> > >> Look at the accessibility and structure of the interface. > >> > >> All user levels are accommodated. > >> > >> All find their natural place. > >> > >> Nearly a quarter of a million members on Ubuntu. 120K on osCommerce. > >> 2,347 and 824 currently active respectively at this very moment as we > >> speak > >> > >> A working model of how to build a user base surely, if nothing else? > >> > >> Ian > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Chris Howe wrote: > >>> Ian, > >>> > >>> While I certainly enjoy the analogies, who are you > >>> ultimately suggesting create these lowest common > >>> denominator (LCD) documents? > >>> As has already been mentioned, once you pass that > >>> "aha" moment in OFBiz, it's difficult to understand > >>> why the engineering documentation didn't make sense > >>> the first time around. 3D vector calculus, as you put > >>> it, seems so elementary obvious at that point that > >>> it's difficult to convey it in simpler terms; even > >>> though you remember it not being obvious when you > >>> started. I don't think it's very time/quality > >>> productive for someone who's passed that "aha" moment > >>> to produce this documentation; at least not without > >>> the aid of an "uninitiated". > >>> If you'd like to be that test subject, I'm sure there > >>> are a mess of people, including myself, that would be > >>> willing to help explain things to you as you make your > >>> way through the concepts, documenting as you go. But > >>> the POV of the documentation cannot be from someone > >>> who's already gotten the bird off the ground, because > >>> they're not really sure which button they pressed to > >>> make it all seem second nature. > >>> > >>> > >>> --- Ian McNulty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> David, > >>>> > >>>> I don't get the proposition that there are 100 > >>>> different pilot roles. > >>>> > >>>> There are many 1,000s of different destinations. > >>>> Maybe more than a dozen different pilot roles (commercial, fighter, > >>>> bomber, spotter, etc.). But but there IS a lowest common denominator. > >>>> They all fly planes. They all start off on fixed wing, single > >>>> engine props. They all need to understand basic navigation, > >>>> aerodynamics, > >>>> flight-engineering etc. > >>>> > >>>> But it is very basic. The need to understand lift, > >>>> drag, how to calculate take off velocities etc. But I doubt if > >>>> they start of with 3D vector calculus or need to know what a Reynold's > >>>> number is. > >>>> > >>>> So why can't the target be whatever denominators are > >>>> common to all pilots? > >>>> > >>>> How to find the door handle and the start button > >>>> would be top of my list. If they can't find those then they ain't > >>>> never > >>>> gonna fly. > >>>> > >>>> Ian > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> David E. Jones wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Ian McNulty wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> David, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I can see where you're coming from on this. This > >>>>>> > >>>> project is better > >>>>>> documented than anything else I've seen in the > >>>>>> > >>>> field.You yourself > >>>>>> have produced a truly awesome amount of > >>>>>> > >>>> documentation. I don't know > >>>>>> where you find the time. All are extremely well > >>>>>> > >>>> written, very clear, > >>>>>> very well laid out. A model of their kind. (No > >>>>>> > >>>> I'm not sucking up - I > >>>>>> mean it :) So what could possibly be the problem. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I found the Introduction Videos and Diagrams page > >>>>>> > >>>> you link to here a > >>>>>> couple of days ago myself. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It was whilst working through these videos that > >>>>>> > >>>> the light bulb went off. > >>>> > >>>>>> What you're talking us through is a diagram of > >>>>>> > >>>> the wiring harness of > >>>>>> a jumbo jet. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Essential for the engineers who need to service > >>>>>> > >>>> it. > >>>> > >>>>>> Absolutely the last kind of map a pilot wants to > >>>>>> > >>>> find on his lap. > >>>> > >>>>>> Know what I mean? > >>>>>> > >>>>> Uh, yeah, that's because it is meant to cover the > >>>>> > >>>> framework, not the > >>>>> applications. The two are very different, change > >>>>> > >>>> very differently, > >>>>> need to be understood by different people in > >>>>> > >>>> different ways, etc. My > >>>>> current estimate is that to produce something > >>>>> > >>>> adequate for a "pilot", > >>>>> given that there are about 100 different "pilot" > >>>>> > >>>> roles in OFBiz, would > >>>>> require many times the effort to produce that the > >>>>> > >>>> framework videos > >>>>> with their diagrams, reference materials, > >>>>> > >>>> transcriptions, etc. Right > >>>>> now I don't have the $500k to get into that... and > >>>>> > >>>> the $40k already > >>>>> spent on the documents which are now PDF-dumped > >>>>> > >>>> into the > >>>>> docs.ofbiz.org site was clearly inadequate, > >>>>> > >>>> especially as it is mostly > >>>>> reference materials (which is why you won't find > >>>>> > >>>> how-to stuff in the > >>>>> reference guides, they are references after all, > >>>>> > >>>> just for reference > >>>>> purposes). The Application Overview for Users is > >>>>> > >>>> probably more of what > >>>>> you're looking for, though that section only > >>>>> > >>>> represents maybe 3-5% of > >>>>> what is in OFBiz right now. > >>>>> > >>>>> Of course, that's assuming such documents could > >>>>> > >>>> even be written in a > >>>>> way that is close to generally useful. How do I > >>>>> > >>>> use it? Well, that > >>>>> depends on what you want to do... and > >>>>> > >>>> unfortunately across a few > >>>>> different industries that list grows into hundreds > >>>>> > >>>> of thousands of > >>>>> activities... > >>>>> > >>>>> So, that's the big question with any document: who > >>>>> > >>>> is the target > >>>>> audience? The more specific the answer, the better > >>>>> > >>>> the document will > >>>>> address their needs. But who is the target > >>>>> > >>>> audience for OFBiz? ... ? > >>>> > >>>>> -David > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> mcnultyMEDIA > >>>> 60 Birkdale Gardens > >>>> Durham > >>>> DH1 2UL > >>>> > >>>> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736 > >>>> e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> 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. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> ============================================================================================== > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > >> > >> mcnultyMEDIA > >> 60 Birkdale Gardens > >> Durham > >> DH1 2UL > >> > >> t: +44 (0)191 384 4736 > >> e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> 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. > >> ============================================================================================== > >> > >> > > > -- Kind Regards Andrew Sykes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sykes Development Ltd http://www.sykesdevelopment.com
