Talk:OpenMFG
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Lords of Wikipedia declared:
"To meet Wikipedia's quality standards and comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, this article or section may require cleanup. This article or section reads like an advertisement."
OK. I certainly tried to keep it neutral-sounding, but it's true that I'm not completely unbiased, as I'm the CEO of the company. What would you suggest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nedlilly (talk • contribs) 00:44, 16 November 2006 ---
Perhaps the Lords of Wikipedia came to this conclusion because this stub really does not contain much information. How about adding something descriptive: What does it do? What are the featurs? What are the system requirements? In this case. people like myself in their search for unformation can at least get some clue, and are not stuck with a rather generic description. Example for improvement ideas: WebERP PH 2006-12-26
Contents |
[edit] Merger proposal
Since Postbooks is the basis and stripped down version of OpenMFG that was created after OpenMFG, there is a lot of redundancy between the two articles. In fact even the company article xTuple contains a lot of redundant information to both product articles. Therefore merging at least the the product articles seems right with a redirect from the other. --S.K. (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Would not agree with Merging OpenMFG & Postbooks
While the two products do share functional overlap, and have been written by the same company, the two products are very different. One is a commercial ERP_software application, one is a real FOSS software product. As two different communities control the each product's future direction, their futures could well continue to diverge (See Compiere and Adempiere). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallyton (talk • contribs) 18:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- If the products are very different as you claim, this is not reflected in the articles. From them I understand OpenMFG = Postbooks + additional features - CPAL + EULA. This is even stated explicitly in the History section of Postbook: PostBooks is a subset of the OpenMFG software product. The in large parts identical text in the three articles adds to this impression. The Compiere/Adempiere case seems quite different. There was a complete fork because of differing opinions between the company and the user community. This seems not (yet?) be the case with OpenMFG and Postbooks. --S.K. (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] There is ample precedence of derivative products/projects having separate articles
OpenMFG is a commercial product with a commercial license which alone makes it sufficiently different from PostBooks, which is an open source project with the CPAL license. There are many other examples of similar products or projects that have derivatives listed in Wikipedia including the Fedora Project and Red Hat Enterprise Linux, Kubuntu and Ubuntu (Linux distribution), and Mozilla Application Suite and SeaMonkey. How about Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable which are products manufactured by the same company on the same platform, but with only slightly different branding? As to the difference in the community, OpenMFG users are paying customers of that product with support. Most of them are manufacturers in the United States. PostBooks users are non-paying and appear, based on forum traffic, to be small companies of all types all over the world. This difference in community is very similar to the difference between users of Fedora and RHEL.Saleni (talk) 11:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't buy these comparisons. Looking at the Fedora/RHEL, Ubuntu/Kbuntu or Mozilla Application Suite/SeaMonkey articles, they have quite different content. The Taurus/Sable articles have quite a lot in common, but are still rather different. For them, I guess one could propose a merger as well. --S.K. (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Merger OpenMFG/PostBooks Proposal
I believe there is merit to the merger idea. Is a merger process documented anywhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallyton (talk • contribs) 21:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Is this Open Source?
As I understand OpenMFG is not open source, but based on a different license http://www.xtuple.com/about/license
If this is the case this page is inaccurate on: "OpenMFG is an open source based" —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlosRuiz (talk • contribs) 18:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
