Clairifying the pareto need of OS
Thanks for cutting our news here. I just like to explain further the statement i made about not neccesary going 100% Open Source (OS) in Malaysia. It is meant to be a strategy in face of the low know-how as expected of many developing nations when it come to adopting OS. So much so, that our local government (govt) sort of faced with a burden of trying to support it with matchsticks, and thus reviewed its position to one of neutrality.
Of course, the local OS supporters are aghast at the govt's seeming bent towards proprietary pressure. But i see it more as pragmatic bending to the lack of bottom-up support.
Thus to me instead of the govt scratching its head on how to stand by OS, it should encourage a strategy of focus for the Total Cost of Ownersip (TCO) area that seems easier conquered, namely the business section, which the cost of going SAP, Oracle Financials or MSDynamics carries lots of proprietary lock-ins. By debunking at that fat middle layer, you can then work your way downwards or buy time while the lower techie layer catches up.
For ADempiere been a business layer, its not that techie demanding and more of a subject matter expertise (SME) demanding. Thus more non-techie people can join in and build its momentum.
We hope that one day we can close the great grand circle of Total Adoption, but meanwhile let's bring one brigade to bear across the enemies' defences.
happy new year!