David,
> That is simply not true. I never said I would not address it
And so, you wouldn't mind us addressing it for you. Unless I'm mistaken.
> Besides, for the 2 issues you mentioned above, what do they have to do
> with OOTB use orientation? Those 2 things sound a lot like exactly what
> we're doing in OFBiz right now...
I'd say "that is simply not true". But I'm kinda tired from all this talk back and forth. I'll
just get down to "doing things", ie doing exactly those "2 things" I mentioned.
>> So, it's open season for us. :) We'll be swimming in another pond, so
>> David shouldn't mind.
>
> This is true though. It is always open season for you. There are means
> for contribution and the more you contribute and get involved in the
> project the more we'll want to give you permissions so it is easier for
> us to work together.
For the record, I don't need committer permissions, if that's what you're referring to. I believe
that a non-comitter can just as effectively help a few committers as if the non-committer were a
committer himself. And that will be preferably because we'd have lower admin and accounting costs
(as opposed to having 100s of committers). Anyway, reread my posts agreeing with you on some kind
of moderation. I'm too tired to repeat.
It's difficult for me to work with you NOT because I have no committer permissions. It's the
community's lack of time to draw up technical references once and for all. With such references, I
can easily churn out focused HowTo(s) for Ian or Paul Gear or whoever, if the need arises. See
further below for more on this.
>> I do stress that this isn't a fork of OFBiz.
>
> Hmmmm.... if you're encouraging people to send you fixes and
> enhancements that are core to OFBiz instead of sending them to the main
> project, that sounds an awful lot like a fork to me...
What do you want me to do? Become a committer and commit all the enhancements and bugfixes I am
currently holding on my private harddisk?
There's some posts that show that many OFBiz users like myself are also holding on to bugfixes,
not just "open my special tin can upside-down" enhancements.
I kept trying to remind all those users (who are able to fix OFBiz faster than OFBiz
community/committers can) to remember where the source came from. Kept trying to remind everyone
that there wouldn't be our own bugfixes to OFBiz if there wasn't OFBiz in the first place. You
think I'm the only reverse-engineer in this world? Go take an inside look into Intel, AMD, even SAP.
And yes, sorry to say this, but I learned OFBiz in a tenth of time myself what your training
videos tried to teach in 110 minutes. Which is really nothing much concrete. Where are the textual
references I can search or grep through? REFERENCES, not overviews done with razzle-dazzle
multimedia videos and PDFs and whatnot. The resources you spent on those overviews could've easily
been spent to churn out REAL references, from which we can (given time) draw up focused HowTo(s)
for less techie folks. Get the basics and fundamentals right first, not the commercials (or is
this some form of marketing strategy?).
Take the final line of one of your training videos: "Now we've seen the BASICS of the user
interface artifacts."
And the first line of your final video: "I hope you've enjoyed this overview..."
You've by now added a new definition into my dictionary: "Overview, meaning DO NOT waste 110
minutes to see if you're a developer who can trace through whole framework yourself in 10
minutes." Which practically refers to the MILLIONS of reverse-engineers around the world. Yeah,
burn us all at a stake if you want that definition seared away.
As for "sending fixes to me", ask Mike Wong from Hong Kong what is my preferred channel of comms.
But I'm not so sure what to think anymore by now.
> I don't see how any of this is necessary. To have a better OOTB experience we
> need feedback from users including bug reports, bug fixes, and enhancements
> as well. It sounds like this is mostly what you are proposing.
Yes, that's it. "To have a better OOTB experience...". Reread my very first posts to the ML, and
make a guess about my experience, and about many others' who've touched OFBiz and left for more
expensive and perhaps long-term-bad solutions. We'd be lucky if those folks actually stayed on the
ML to watch us from a distance. Most just leave thinking "OFBiz is another ragtag open source
fall-apart or not-quite-there solution". You yourself said that your focus (possibly only possible
focus for now) are those who can fork out the cash to pay us to:
1. Implement/Deploy OFBiz.
2. Fix any fall-apart, show-stopping issues.
Even MS doesn't make us pay for bugfixes (patches/updates).
If you cannot see that I had met the community more than halfway (not that community is at fault,
just economics of time resources), then you probably won't welcome my contributions to your
fundamentals (nor Ian's or any other concerned parties).
> It sounds like what I wrote about applications well suited for real world
> OOTB use didn't make it through. The point I was trying to make is that
> generic user interfaces will never be well suited to all possible tasks. In
> order to create a true fully feature system to use OOTB you have to define a
> target audience, like a specific type of company to create a complete system
> for.
Yes, that did come through to me. I personally don't think a "one-size-fits-all" solution exists,
but then I'm not the creator of AirAsia (one-size-fits-all airways passenger service). Ian kinda
convinced me with a simple remark: "only got to satisfy some folks some of the time". I've even
seen big corporations settle for a workaround just to save $100,000 (you know the economics of
paying a premium for top 5% of products). So Ian may even sell to your customers with such a
solution, not just to poorer businesses not worth your second glance.
And do note that I've "boiled me down" to considering just removing red herrings, and completing
implementation of currently half-baked functions, and comprehensively documenting all fully-baked
functions.
> Lastly a quick question: why do you keep saying my name? What in blazes does
> ANY OF THIS have to do with me? I don't own OFBiz. I don't control OFBiz. I
> don't even implement most of what goes into OFBiz any more. I'm just a
> moderator trying to keep things flowing smoothly for the project and clarify
> to the best of what I can see what is and isn't a good idea. I can't force
> anyone to do anything, nor can I even manage and moderate every bit that
> makes it into the project. That just isn't realistic. This is why there is
> an organization and why we need more people involved with the project.
Because I consider you the father of this movement! We all need an anchor, the original vision,
original visionary. You're it for me. I don't know what the rest of the folks think.
I may accidentally reinvent wheels in my fervent rush to round off OFBiz. But I'm certainly not
gonna reinvent YOU. So what if I wake up tomorrow with an idea similar to what you throw up years
ago? I need a point of reference, not many Jonathon-Speak-A-Louds down the road with the same idea
every year. I want to know I only have to memorize one name --- David E. Jones --- when it comes
to OFBiz.
Sorry if you've become a brand name. But sorry too that I can't change that for you. Talk to the
market and masses.
Like it or not, if OFBiz goes south, your name is attached to the trend.
Likewise if it goes north.
> I'm just a moderator trying to keep things flowing smoothly for the project
> and clarify to the best of what I can see what is and isn't a good idea.
And I've always been with you. No, actually I'm with what's best for OFBiz, which happens to be
"with you" sometimes. Thought you would've known by now that my interests lie in developing OFBiz.
> So, yes, you can create your own project and try to recruit people to it. I
> just hope you have a long term sustainable plan, direction, and scope for it.
You know, I'm beginning to think I must be really dysfunctional in my
communication. I'm on your side!
Some folks have even mentioned they "see my strategy... trying to offend you with my
niceness".
Just because my nice comments do reveal sore spots doesn't mean I'm trying to tear you down. Look
at all my posts and my general inclination for context.
Tell you what. I give up. No point fighting the market forces. You do what you will with open
source. I'll try to keep my job first.
You should know by now that I'm a constructive pacifist; I'm not the one doing any boxing here. If
you don't, then you really should worry about your own inclination to unconstructively fight
societal and market forces and facts.
Jonathon
David E. Jones wrote:
On Jan 22, 2007, at 5:28 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
Right off bat, you'll see some functionalities fully fleshed out
(half-baked in mainstream OFBiz). You'll also spot (or not spot) many
bugsfixes.
For now, I'm just moving my boss' OFBiz along his requirements. But if
you, like Ian, has a vision for fleshing out all "best practices"
(commonly needed, "duh, why isn't it there" functionalities), then you
are free (like Ian is) to submit issues (via Mantis) to me. Together,
we'll:
1. Round off all half-implemented concepts so newcomers don't have so
many red
herrings to deal with.
2. Document all fully-implemented concepts so newcomers know that
undocumented
concepts are either not there or not fully there.
The above is something David has clearly said he will not address (not
OOTB-oriented).
That is simply not true. I never said I would not address it, and of
course since the fact is that I am not OFBiz I should also make it clear
that this is not the OFBiz policy. I never said we would not do
something that works great OOTB, I just said that is not currently the
focus of OFBiz given that we have to set priorities so that limited
resources are best used, and that we have a sustainable model for
growing and perpetuating the project.
Besides, for the 2 issues you mentioned above, what do they have to do
with OOTB use orientation? Those 2 things sound a lot like exactly what
we're doing in OFBiz right now...
So, it's open season for us. :) We'll be swimming in another pond, so
David shouldn't mind.
This is true though. It is always open season for you. There are means
for contribution and the more you contribute and get involved in the
project the more we'll want to give you permissions so it is easier for
us to work together.
I do stress that this isn't a fork of OFBiz.
Hmmmm.... if you're encouraging people to send you fixes and
enhancements that are core to OFBiz instead of sending them to the main
project, that sounds an awful lot like a fork to me...
If that's not a fork, what is?
I don't support dilution of open source resources (yes yes, in many
cases it's simply necessary, and yes I do have my own fork of
hibernated project phpMVC, even relatively active Mantis, and many
others).
(* military band starting to drum a march *)
Some of us may be currently breaking off to handle smaller skirmishes
(smaller clients who cannot afford non-OOTB, big customization
projects); some will stay in fatherland factory to continue plodding
along, serving the bigger (easier?) clients. I believe David will give
his blessing to those of us who will venture out, who stick our necks
out to take the horizons.
I don't see how any of this is necessary. To have a better OOTB
experience we need feedback from users including bug reports, bug fixes,
and enhancements as well. It sounds like this is mostly what you are
proposing.
It sounds like what I wrote about applications well suited for real
world OOTB use didn't make it through. The point I was trying to make is
that generic user interfaces will never be well suited to all possible
tasks. In order to create a true fully feature system to use OOTB you
have to define a target audience, like a specific type of company to
create a complete system for.
Lastly a quick question: why do you keep saying my name? What in blazes
does ANY OF THIS have to do with me? I don't own OFBiz. I don't control
OFBiz. I don't even implement most of what goes into OFBiz any more. I'm
just a moderator trying to keep things flowing smoothly for the project
and clarify to the best of what I can see what is and isn't a good idea.
I can't force anyone to do anything, nor can I even manage and moderate
every bit that makes it into the project. That just isn't realistic.
This is why there is an organization and why we need more people
involved with the project.
So, yes, you can create your own project and try to recruit people to
it. I just hope you have a long term sustainable plan, direction, and
scope for it.
-David
