22 karma · joined September 14, 2026
Scientists write for other scientists who already know why they use the language they use. Compromising that language to try to cater to fools who couldn't care less about the truth would just make the scientist a greater fool for trying.
Of course, we can't forget the rampant elitism among sysops (and no, I'm not counting myself outside of that group - I was downright insufferable back in the day).
It is ironic and somewhat interesting that the biggest aspects of the BBS scene that most people seem to miss (the community/local culture, meeting like-minded people in real life, some of the games, ANSI art, Echomail discussions), are all things borne from the technical limitations of the time. Slow modems and high long distance charges meant most people kept to their local boards. Games had to be designed in text with only a rudimentary colour scheme (sure, there was RoboBoard, RIP, NAPLPS and other graphical protocols - none which really caught on all that much) and still be compelling. Most were limited turn based (which meant being forced to only spend a couple hours a day playing, then having to wait). "World-wide" networks like FidoNet were dog-slow by today's standards (it was a toss-up whether a message would reach its recipient faster on an FTN network or via snail-mail), so discussion threads would last for days but only have several hundred messages in them to sort through.
I remember the years and work spent to try to improve on these limitations. Galacticomm and eSoft had their huge hackish ways to get past the non-multitasking nature of DOS and the IRQ limits of PCs to allow people to run huge multi-line boards on regular PCs. We saw Planet Connect dramatically lower the cost of distributing FidoNet packets via satellite downlink (still needed telephone uplink if you were sending, though). We saw big serial breakout boards and modem boxes (Galactibox?) come out. And of course, faster modems. Up to rip-roaring 33.6kbps speeds at the peak of the BBS era.
Ultimately, the internet and the "real" operating systems that are commonplace today overcame those limitations in ways that were pretty unfathomable to most of us common BBS users and sysops of the day. Unfortunately, BBS's today really only appeal to those of us who had lived through the struggle of configuring COM ports or QWK readers (or for many of us, a tosser/scanner, door game, FOSSIL driver, or getting DESQview working just right).
SyncTerm: https://syncterm.bbsdev.net/ Zoc: https://www.emtec.com/zoc/index.html
I will preface this by saying that my initial thoughts are based solely on the website and documentation (which is fairly sparse and includes few screen shots or examples of how the software is actually used). I did not and probably will not* sign up or install this software to review further, so I'll fully admit that I'm probably missing a lot and likely not giving a completely fair review.
My first impression, looking at the documentation for the system and how some of the actual ERP-related functionality is described, is that barbinbrad is an expert in software development with a lot of experience writing software to support ERP systems, but has a fairly narrow understanding of how all of the functions of an ERP system are supposed to work. To use a tired old analogy: this can be likened to a highly-skilled heavy-duty mechanic and a veteran long-haul truck driver deciding to start their own trucking business. Between the two of them, they know a ton about the mechanics of driving and maintaining large tractor-trailors and may even know how to keep proper driving and service logs and how to train apprentice mechanics and new drivers. But their knowledge on all the other minutia of running a trucking business is just enough to give them false confidence that they know the industry. Without seeking outside help, many of these startups fail because of mistakes made on these details.
There is a lot of detail on how to set up the technical parts of the system (there are definitely two things that are abundantly clear: the database back-end is postgres and the software is open source), there is some good developer-related information on API calls and such. But the documentation on how it all works is very sparse and the functionality that is described appears very rudimentary. Accounting functionality is very simplistic (limited chart of accounts definition, unclear link between subledgers and the G/L, no apparent EFT functionality, limited multicurrency/revaluation capabilities). Similarly, inventory, purchasing, and sales appear to be similar in capability to a basic Quickbooks system. A couple of more advanced manufacturing-specific features like MRP and routing/scheduling seem to exist, but MRP will only "suggest" order - users still have to enter them manually in the system, and it is unclear whether there is any linkage with general inventory planning or sales forecasts. Basically, it looks like the software can build a BOM, and it can help run most of the assembly steps for that BOM, complete with some very strong traceability and visual cues, but all of the other business functions surrounding that BOM are very limited.
To be clear, this is not meant as a direct criticism of barbinbrad or the software itself. The software has potential, and barbinbrad appears to have a lot of experience working on manufacturing ERP systems. What is needed is more guidance from people with the expertise on the "other side of the keyboard". Preferably people who have worked in ERP systems across multiple manufacturing industries.
This a huge example of a classic problem that plagues many (if not most) "non-tech"* open source projects. Developers who are immersed in a specific type of software can see what it is they're developing and get a very good idea of what the software does and how it works (according to the specs that they've been working on). So they go about building what they see as the "better version" of what they've worked on before. In the process, they often do solve some of the glaring individual problems they've encountered in the past, but they do so without understanding the bigger picture of what the system as a whole needs to do. ERP software especially is hard, because it is very complicated, used in many different ways (even by companies in the same industry) and have to support so many different facets of a business. The experts are not developers. They are accountants, operations managers, procurement and warehouse managers, production managers, payroll managers, and the C-Level executives who consume the information that ERP systems spit out. The people guiding development have to have expertise in these areas, not the developers. And in the open source world, this is where the subject-matter expertise is often lacking.
(couple of footnotes): I'm not prepared to enter my credit card number to try it out, don't have the time to install it in my own environment just for a review, and already am a bit annoyed that I had to enter my work e-mail address just to get to the point where I realized I'd have to do one of those two things to get anywhere.
*By "non-tech", I mean that the audience for which the project is intended is a non-technical audience - ERP systems, despite being very sophisticated software with a lot of server infrastructure involved, are systems meant to serve very non-technical people.
To be further clear: it would create an obligation on the Alberta government to negotiate. A provincial referendum creates no such obligation on the Canadian government.
He has the charisma of a mouldy grapefruit. It certainly wasn't his charisma.
He was elected because he was able to convince many, many people that there are simple solutions to complex problems and that he was the only person in the world "brave" enough to implement them.
Trump does. His inner circle does. His supporters do.
> Canada and the US will have to decide what it means for their ongoing relationship.
Sounds like an abusive husband's version of "think of what this will do to the children."
> Why anthropomorphize geopolitics?
Because some people need to have complex issues explained to them in ways that are simple to understand. Particularly when it comes to issues involving Trump politics, the people who desperately need to understand these issues are those who also seem to need the issues explained to them like they are a fourth-grader.
Hence, the replies you have been seeing.