Forum OpenACS Q&A: my 2 cents -(from another newbie)

Checking my first post I saw it is dated Oct 2001. I have to say I'm not a developer but for a reason or another I was attracted by oacs. I have a postnuke website and if I had the opportunity I would have switched it to oacs few years ago. I've installed HEAD version from CVS under vmware.

I writing this post with the intention it will contribute to the oacs community.

1) For the years I know oacs it was never usable by a non programmer.

oacs seems to target only large organization that can afford hiring very skilled programmer and with large budget.

Is this the goal? If you take postnuke (example) a non programmer can install and make it work quite easily. Then some (a lot) of people are hacking the code to no end. some concentrate on templating; other on expanding capabilities etc.

Wouldn't it be possible (and a priority) to design such a basic installation with basic functionalities? This would permit people like me to start USING oacs and then -with the time- learn how to hack some of it.

2) For about 2 years I'm asking myself how I could learn oacs and still haven't a clue to tell the truth. I have the feeling I should stop my work and go back to university for few years to be able to learn it. As a newbie it is quite intimidating to bother professional  programmers with trivial question like how to manually feed sql to the database ...

wouldn't it be possible to create forum only for newbies so they will "dare" to participate and learn.
and if the answer to my point 1) is that the community has an interest attracting "end-user" then maybe a "end-user" forum will help this purpose too.

I hope this post bring something and await to read your reaction.

Thanks.

Yves.

I feel I am in a similar boat here. I also been messing about with Oacs for some time and my only wish was that I went straight into programming after highschool and did nothing else. On the other hand something inside me tells me that my non-programming experience could also prove/has proved useful, so maybe it was all for a reason.
As far as OpenAcs is concerned I firstly appreciate the fact that the code is open. I know this is trivial, but it doesn't stop me appreciate it. The fact that all seems to be script whether is sql, tcl,  is also good. It allows me to see how stuff is put together and learn from it.
Yes, it is hard, I used to spend months just installing things but now I can do full system installation (operating system and all) in a matter of hours. And still I fell as if I am scratching the surface of what I need to learn. But that's the nature of things. I know that if I am to make a success of my web development skill I've got to master pretty much everything from scripting TCL and writting sql querries on the fly to backup solution, thin client set-up etc.
As far as posting on the forum is concerned, I also feel intimidated by the skill and depth of knowledge of some people here, but this only means that I have good models to follow which could only be good. While the indimation factor is real, I tend to just not bother too much about it. Yes it makes me think more before asking questions and sometimes I feel I am getting it wrong anyway, but at the end of the day what's the worse that can happen ? My post either gets ignored and some good-intended sould tells me to go and read stuff... which is also good.

Yves,

I am, as well as you say to be, not a programmer.  Education-wise I have finance background, albeit I was always attracted to the techie side of my profession.

While I would agree with you that running something like postnuke (ar most other LAMP-type solution) is easier, I would not go as far as to say that OACS has never been easy for a non-programmer.  It has become (a lot) more difficult for a non-programmer in 4 and 5 incarnations, but 3.x was quite easy.

The general issue is that many of alternatives are wel-packaged things that one can either RPM or apt-get install, while it is generally not the case with at least 2 main componanets of OACS: AOL Server (in OACS-acceptable config) and the toolkit itself.

Yet even first time around, nearly 3 years ago, it has not taken me more than a day or two to get a 3.4 (I think) running under Vmware on Debian GNU/Linux (not even a recommended RedHat, mind you).

On your second comment -- I'd tend to sympathise with you more than on the first.  I also feel that to wrap my mind around current toolkit I'd need to spend *a* *lot* more time on it than I can/have.  I simply lack proper training/background to be efficient.

Lastly, on the newbie forum -- I amnot sure that it' such a goof ides.  If anything, the forum you've posted into should be the noob one -- developers have a spearate OpenACS Development one.

As most of you will know by now have been around for quite some time, trying address end user issues. I am with Andrei, that just a forum will not do the trick. A seperate website, including all modules that allow end users to find out if OACS sollutions could be helpfull, is probably the easiest sollution.

End users ususaly have relatively simple demands, that can be solved with default OACS tools, however, trying to find your way in the maze of options is a diffrent story. Thats not a hacker issue, but it's a creativity issue.

A simple example. Today I started building a businessplan module for a new project I am working on. Developers feel ëdit this Page 4.6" is not in a production state and needs a lot of enhancements. I agree to some extend, but, form my position, of haveing nothing, ETP works pretty well, if not perfect. The few errors I encounter are minor hick ups for now. In my experience this allwos me to do what I need, and I look forward to fancy enhancements. Working with the tool i might even discover a few things that could be added, but where never thought of, because nobody used the tool in a production environment.

The main problem of the toolkit is that for end users it's almost impossible to scale down, and decide what would be the most effective module to use for X task. That's not a development issue, but user experience. Developers usually have a diferent focus. In order for developers to come up with the ultiamte sollution, it often can pay of to enhance the quick and directy work arounds end user can come up with, because they havn't got any programming experience.

I am sure the way I use ETP right now, will motivate package maintainers to make some simple adjustments, and this will apply to all modules the more endusers are working with them. So end user is basicaly research I feel.

The point I am trying to make is that by changing the focus from development to end user, you solve one major prolmem of open source development I read recently. Most projects fail to deliver because there are no clients asking for specifics. Just like you have developers working on the kit, I feel we need to have playground of end users.

In my vision it should be a clean environement, with no reference to development issues discussed on OACS.org, other than a blog providing a daily update of important general developments, and reference to the apropiate sections of OACS.org.

This aproach will make it easier to find out what end users are looking for, and will ease barrier on posting on the main forum with the risk of being misunderstood. If you folks are ok, I will set up sub site on my server, provided get a write up on OACS.org.

I volunteer to act as editor for the time beeing.

cheers
Ben

Spot on, Ben. As mentioned elsewhere -- OACS is indeed suffering the second system syndrome, and that is what shows...

The start is now live If things don't work don't worry, either report them here, or be aptient. I havn't come around fixing the permissions. To be continued ben

Wow, Ben, way to go!  Ultra-minor nit: "developer" only has one "p" in it BTW ...

Great!  When can we make you a Featured Article?

98 % of default OACS funtionality is now available in demo mode. I have not yet addressed the following issues:

1. Permissions. The instance I am using was previously build for a network of PC service engineers, and we messed around with the permissions, and to be honoust got lost. i st here away to restore default permission settings?

2. Some descriptions may contain useless refernces to IWW and 3iii. They relate to the same inititive, now defunct. I need to find the easiest way to replace those references with : "Timedesk". Any thoughts how to sweep the installation and replace text? this is critical, as I am no longer authorized to use those names.

3. I am trying to concentrate on useful functionality, end users could be looking for. I added a number features in the playground, based on Oacs.3.2.5 to offer a general yet comprehnsive overview of options. In those cases I used /page module to incorporate the functionality in the index.

4. Next phase will be reference guides for:
- End user
- Administrators
I decided to use OACS, but have 2 choices. "Edit this page" or "Wimpy". Personaly I would prefer to use Edit this page, but the release I am using has a bug, which means I can only use the "new page" function.(so no option to use the sub topic) Who can help solving the bug? I understad developers use docbook, this is no option in a non techie environment. ( just mail mailto:ben@timedesk.nl and i will give you admin authorisation).

5. I definately need to be able to use glossary in my further efforts. Unfortunatly my installation contains a bug. Any content entered in glossary is deleted within 24 hours. I reported this as a bug, but judging the reply it seems to be a local problem. Please can anybody help me solve this mess? A-Z categorisations is very effective in helping people understand the toolkit, and from what I have seen sofar Glossary is one of the most versatile modules of the system. I am realy disapointed that i can't use it.

To be continued...
Ben