Anyone can certainly create a forked project at any time. Some have
even done so, with varying levels of success. BTW, if you look at the
actual experiences of projects that have forked from OFBiz, be careful
to recognize what is marketing material intended to attract users, and
what represents actual happenings in the projects.
In any case, I hope not to beat a dead horse... but it sounds like
this proposal is for those who are not currently contributing much to
OFBiz and who are not happy with how certain things are to split off
and work on what they think is important... plus take on everything
else that the current OFBiz community does.
Wouldn't it be easier to work with others in the community so that you
can focus on contributing in areas that you think are most important?
If anyone doesn't think that's easier, then by all means try the
approach you think is easier, and just commit to revisiting the
question in 2-3 years after you've had a chance to really get into it.
If after reading this you (whoever is reading this) is still
interested in my opinion, here is a blog post from a while back that I
think is directly relevant:
http://osofbiz.blogspot.com/2008/01/glass-cathedrals-and-community-versus.html
-David
On Nov 13, 2009, at 8:24 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Michael,
why do you think it is time for a fork? It seems to me a crazy
conversation...
Jacopo
On Nov 13, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Michael Xu (xudong) wrote:
hi Ruth,
I do agree with you that it is time for a fork in the road. But
before that,
maybe it is better to split ofbiz into subprojects, like framework,
BI, etc.
Then we can choose where to fork. And also the future merge should be
easier.
--
Regards,
Michael Xu (xudong)
www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: (86)
135 0135
9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Ruth Hoffman
<rhoff...@aesolves.com> wrote:
Hi Chris:
IMHO: Having watched the project for a long time now, I think it
is time
for a fork in the road. There are too many competing interests
here. This
sort of reminds me of Unix before AT& T let BSD birth. No? And
look what
that spawned :-)
Ruth
Christopher Snow wrote:
Thanks BJ - that's the conclusion I'm starting to reach.
Perhaps it would be worth some of us like minded people to getting
together?
BJ Freeman wrote:
I had the same complaint at one time.
I now keep my own version under a different brand name.
That is about all you can do.
Christopher Snow sent the following on 11/13/2009 2:40 AM:
Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
On Nov 13, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Christopher Snow wrote:
I was thinking about your comment of leaving the components
in place
even though they are not used. Does leaving unused
components in
place have a performance impact on ofbiz? Do those components
consume memory? - they are certainly using disk space. Some
of the
components for example BIRT consume a fair amount of space.
Disk and memory are very cheap nowadays...
I think I have answered your other concerns in another email.
Jacopo
Disk and memory are cheap nowadays, but small businesses don't
see it
like that, for example David Jones' ezBiz will be competing with
lightweight applications like OpenERP.
Also, there's the security issues of having code running that
isn't
required.
Anyway, I get the picture. A modular ofbiz is not an option!
People in
control like ofbiz just the way it is - it suits their business
model.
