Posted by Eric Kraieski on Thu, Aug 06, 2009
Openbravo is developing a new User Interface to be introduced with release 3.0 in late 2010. Follow the links below to get a sneak peak at these enhancements.
View the Openbravo 3.0 Part 1 Design Concepts (Master Detail) tutorial below:
View the Openbravo 3.0 Part 2 Design Concepts (Search and Filter) tutorial below:
View the Openbravo 3.0 Part 1 Design Concepts (My Workspace) tutorial below:
Posted by Emad Omar on Tue, Apr 28, 2009
Is it just me or did anyone else ROFL when they learned about the pending Snoracle merger? On one hand, you have a company (Sun) that pioneered and embraced open source (UNIX, Java and MySQL). On the other (Oracle), you have something more along the lines of Star Wars’ interstellar crime lord Jabba the Hutt: "As long I get my cut, everything's good."
Oracle chairman Larry Ellison says: "The acquisition of Sun transforms the IT industry, combining best-in-class enterprise software and mission-critical computing systems. Oracle will be the only company that can engineer an integrated system - applications to disk - where all the pieces fit and work together so customers do not have to do it themselves. Our customers benefit as their systems integration costs go down while system performance, reliability and security go up."
Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz had this to add: "This is a fantastic day for Sun's customers, developers, partners and employees across the globe, joining forces with the global leader in enterprise software to drive innovation and value across every aspect of the technology marketplace."
Oh, really? So Ellison and Schwartz want us to believe that their primary motivation was to make everything better for their customers and the industry. Oracle and Sun simply saw an opportunity to drive value and innovation across the technology marketplace. That's nice, but I'm not buying it.
CIOs, you may want to stop doing that happy dance now.
During an April 20 analyst call, Ellison called Java "the single most important software asset we ever acquired." Now we’re getting warmer. I agree with Citigroup analyst Brent Thill who said Oracle looked at Java as a $1 billion business even though it contributed just $220 million of Sun’s 2008 $14 billion revenue. Now you tell me: Will Oracle get Java from $220 million to $1 billion by increasing sales, or is it more likely that innovative re-pricing, like the Death Star, is heading our way?
Thrill also noted that Oracle expects half its 2009 revenue to come from the support and maintenance of products its customers have already licensed – support contracts that carry profit margins approaching 90 percent. Given that interesting expectation, can open source maintenance and support fees be far behind?
And, in this brave new world, what happens to MySQL, the leading open source database alternative? How will Oracle monetize MySQL, and will its attempt to extract value from this market backfire into a mass exodus to other open source database alternatives like PostgreSQL?
When I made my five hype-free predictions for 2009, two trends appear directly relevant to the Snoracle merger. Here’s what I said then:
- Open source enterprise software will continue to displace expensive royalty-based and seat license-based services.
- Facing slumping sales, many technology suppliers will try to increase revenue by raising their service fees and trying to force their clients to upgrade to new hardware and software.
If I may say so, the Force seems to have been with me. It looks like Oracle is building their game plan straight from this playbook.
And, to be fair, it all makes business sense. Sure, Oracle will slash the workforce on the server side of the Sun line, and Ellison will milk it as long as he can. That's not a bad idea and probably it’s the same thing IBM would have done if it had been able to snatch Sun itself.
On the other hand, I don't see Oracle emerging as a leading server company nor as the next Jedi guardian of open source software. As they say, a Wookie can't help being shaggy, and servers and opensource are two things missing from Larry "Java the Hutt" Ellison's DNA.
Posted by Eric Kraieski on Fri, Feb 13, 2009
Here are three video tutorials that demonstrate the basic struture of the Openbravo User Interface through release (Note: each will open in a new window).
You may also want to check out the new UI enhancements planned for Release 3.0 to be available in late 2010.
Openbravo User Interface:
Openbravo Integration - Part 1
Openbravo Integration: Part 2
Posted by Michael Bullock on Wed, Dec 17, 2008
I recently was interviewed by Francis Rose of WFED radio in Washington D.C. His show, “In Depth with Francis Rose,” focuses on topics of interest to federal IT leaders and professionals. (You can listen to the interview online.)
Now, Francis is not a technology guy so I was curious as to why he was interested in dedicating 20 minutes of his show to data center relocation. Why did he think that was newsworthy? Of course, folks in the know understand that aging facilities are forcing companies to consolidate and relocate data centers all over the country. But why did Francis care, and what did it have to do with the government?
I quickly saw where he was heading. Francis had read an article I wrote about the five pitfalls of data center relocation and how the State of Oregon managed (disastrously) to fall into every one. Francis wanted me to expand on how IT managers could avoid repeating Oregon’s mistakes.
You can read about all five pitfalls in the article, but I wanted to focus on one in particular because it’s a seductive trap that’s snaring a lot of organizations: thinking about the move as an opportunity to introduce new technologies (particularly virtualization) and methodologies. As I told Francis, we strongly advise against introducing any new moving parts during data center relocations. Doing is so like performing open heart surgery while throwing in a hip replacement on the side. It can be done, but it’s an enormous risk—and one not worth taking. Francis agreed; it seemed like a no-brainer to him.
So why do so many companies do it? They usually do so for two basic reasons:
1. Pent-up demand. When everything in the IT function (including the data center) is working smoothly, there aren’t a lot of CIOs willing to introduce infrastructure changes (or CFOs willing to fund them) unless the ROI is overwhelming. Especially in this economy, the guiding principle seems to be, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Therefore, projects (including virtualization) tend to be pushed off even when they make business sense. Over time, this creates a project backlog—an itch that IT organizations want to scratch.
In the excitement of a data center relocation, the organization discovers a new enthusiasm for IT improvement and innovation. With all its resources allocated to the relocation, the organization convinces itself that the staff, energy, and budget is available to do anything and everything. In other words, it gets to scratch that backlog itch. Instead of “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” the order of the day becomes, “Let’s take advantage of this focus on IT to fix everything!”
If you find yourself in a similar place, and the pressure to virtualize is mounting, at least make sure you have the time, money, staff, and expertise to do it right. If you’re not absolutely convinced, my advice is to finish the relocation first, satisfy yourself that your new data center is functioning optimally, and then think about virtualization.
2. Vendor hype. Let’s face it, most vendors know the best time to sell you anything new is when it aligns with changes that are already taking place. That’s the easiest and best time to capture your attention, not to mention your budget. Vendors specialize in taking advantage of any fears and uncertainties you may have to tell you that they have the tools and expertise to make them all go away. So if your virtualization software provider says virtualizing during a relocation is a good idea, and your hardware vendor says it’s a good idea, and the press and the analysts agree (as they often do as they spend a lot of time with and get a lot of their information from those same vendors), then it must be a good idea, right?
Well, not exactly. Performing two complex IT operations at the same time is almost always a recipe for disaster.
If you’re ready to make a move to a virtualized environment, you need to accept that fact that no matter what your vendors say, you will be beginning a complex, resource-intensive project. It’s important to be sure that all your systems will be able to support appropriate service levels throughout the transition. Unless those service levels can be maintained to the business’ satisfaction, it doesn’t matter how smoothly the virtualization initiative goes.
And if you’re also scheduled to relocate your data center at the same time, please, stop and reflect upon the risk you’ll be assuming by attempting to pull off two complex projects at the same time, essentially under a stop watch held by a watchful business.
Me, I wouldn’t want to do it.