Hi,
Tally, it's never good not to post a flame, so you did well ... 😊 Particularly because I did not intend to say that OACS should change, you've got me somehow wrong. My question was more related to organization then to code. The only question for me to consider is _when_ to port Project/Open to OACS. And yes, Project/Open is build on ACS 3.4.8, and not OACS. Anyway, I thought I had mentioned OACS on the site. Sorry if it's not in there yet, I'll add id the next time.
Jade,
first of all: congratulations to your marridge. I hope you're going to be very happy together!
<blockquote> I do wish we had been in touch earlier
</blockquote>
Yes, me too. This was exactly my feeling when I first saw the dotWrk pages. And yes, I do think that it would be a good idea if both systems could merge. I intentionally did not introduce any structure to project/subprojects, because of the complexities involved (having worked many years as a PM...). So there is a 100% complement.
<blockquote> here aren't any screen shots or demos or anything.
</blockquote>
I'm frenetically preparing a demo system. I've written an "anonymizer", but SLS still has to say OK to putting their precious corporate data into the wild...
<blockquote> porting
</blockquote>
As mentioned above, the only question for me is "when?". I'll need some fresh money to survive the next few months, so it's definitely not going to happen before the end of this year. Let's see.
<blockquote> IRC
</blockquote>
I'm on MSM I have to admit, due to work reasons. Could you tell me the details of your channels and what client to use?
Actually, telephone isn't that bad. We've got a flat rate here from Spain to Europe after 20:00 and during the weekend. Where are you located (timezone)?
<blockquote>conflict between open source and proprietary software
</blockquote>
Ok, you're developing for an internal customer. I'm "out in the wild" and I'll have to sell my projects. And sure customers want to know their code protected. Somebody wrote about charging higher prices for writing proprietary code.
<blockquote> Integration
</blockquote>
Yes, certainly a package on top, but probably severals! The point with several "vertical" solutions is that you need to have a "core" module plus several extension modules. I'll have to check it out. I may need need to be two levels of modules. But actually I would prefer to wait for 5.0, until the dotLrn stuff is merged in and the change speed of OACS decreases...
I'll post a link as soon as I've got the online-demo running.
Bests,
Frank
mailto:fraber@fraber.de, http://www.fraber.de/
