Last time I worked with Odoo (v15/v16, enterprise, self hosted) we had to send a dump of the production database over to you to be migrated to the new version and then it was sent back. The upgrade path for third-party and custom addons was not defined.
And since it is Odoo, everything is in that database: from employee's time tracking to customer support chats, from stock info to accounting data, from e-mail addresses to password hashes. I found this inacceptable but at that point we had no choice.
You can crypt the data before sending to the upgrade platform. Before it was an external script, and since Odoo 16 you can use the `oboo-bin obfuscate` command, before running the upgrade script.
See `./odoo-bin obfuscate --help` to check how to crypt your custom data and uncrypt after upgrade.
It's not perfect (crypt specific columns rather than full DB) but, unfortunatelly, to operate our upgrade service, we need access to the database. Upgrades are complex and requires testing, fine tuning scripts to your specific use cases, etc.
The other alternative is to not use our services, but do it yourself using upgrade scripts from the community: https://github.com/OCA/OpenUpgrade
1/ Upgrade are super complex: requires a service, not just a script
2/ We used it to monetize Odoo Enterprise
Upgrade: Even after 1000+ upgrades, we still run into issues regularly as every environment is different (set of modules, customizations, community apps, ...). So we need to test the database, and fix scripts when necessary. If we would just provide scripts, it would cost us a lot in support for issues... and a bad customer experience. At least, by having the control we can ensure a smooth customer experience; it just works - and you don't see everything we do behind. (most of the time)
Monetization: The open core business model is hard, when your goal is to do a maximum open source. Our main competitor being Odoo Community, we charge 5x less than competitors for a better software. (25€ vs 180€)
So, we had to pick a few apps and services to monetize Odoo Enterprise, like the accounting app, or the upgrade service.
Fortunetally, there is OpenUpgrade (scripts from the community) so that there is no lock-in on the upgrade. (you spend time with open-upgrade or go to Enterprise and we do it)
Me and my customers are perfectly happy to even pay for the upgrade scripts, just allow us to run them on-prem.
Make it an encrypted binary for all I care, just allow us to run it on-prem.
Edit-due-to-pinky07-reply-edit:)
1+2 - I get all that. Perhaps provide enterprise customers with a GitHub repo to the upgrade scripts? Require the same subscription key like for Enterprise proper. Then you can continue to iterate on the scripts while still giving customers who wants (and pays extra!) for it as a white glove service to run it on their own servers.
Might be that me and some of my customers are old-school "server huggers", but I think it is holy to be able to decide on which CPU and disk my DB is processed on.
Is it possible to pay to have an Odoo employee execute the migration script on the on premise server? I remember I heard about that but I don't know if it's still an option.
These approaches should be completely flipped, the default should be your upgrade engineers get remote access to the customer's database (vpn, etc) and run the standardized and ad-hoc upgrade scripts on their system. Shipping the customer's data back and forth for every upgrade is absurd and a privacy nightmare.
Too lazy to build it: Physically accurate bird view of the solar system at year zero of <INSTERT CALENDAR>. Grab whatever object with your mouse and move until reaching the desired point in time. Like grab Pluto to get somewhat near today, finetune with our Moon.
If you are a paying subscriber, you are self-identifying as (likely) a higher net-worth. The problem for ad platforms allowing paid opt-out is that the most valuable users leave the network.
Then they have to go to advertisers and say, “advertise on our network where all the wealthier people are not.” A brand like Tiffany’s or Rolex (both huge advertisers) aren’t going to opt into that.
It's a decent chunk of change for the sole purpose of avoiding ads on a single platform that barely pays the people actually producing the content. If you're looking to access premium content and YouTube Music, it's a slightly better value proposition (but only slightly, because YTM sucks, especially compared to what GPM used to be). For that ~$120 a year, you could buy a bunch of Steam games to occupy the same amount of time as your YT habit. Or you could buy a sub to services like Nebula which actually pay content creators decently. Or you could buy an external hard drive, install yt-dlp, and embrace Talk Like A Pirate Day, Groundhog Day-style.
I mean, yeah, if you don’t actually get much use out of YouTube, then it might not be worth it to you. But that’s the same for all streaming services. And I wasn’t commenting on whether it’s worth it or not, which of course is subjective, but on how big an expense it is in absolute terms. The former doesn’t relate to the “higher net worth ads” argument, the latter does.
Personally I do like YouTube Music, due to all the user-uploaded content that isn’t available on other platforms.
$12 is a week of chicken thighs, man. It's enough gas to make $60-$80 running UberEats orders. In America. In "absolute terms", it's $100+ dollars a year to turn off ads on a single platform for content the creators are compensated pennies for.
People who choose that without much thought - because it's barely an expense for them - are definitely tending towards "higher net worth" nationally, let alone globally. A lot of those people just don't realize it, because the entire point of seeking that kind of status is so that they can enter a socioeconomic bubble and not have to care about annoyances (like advertising).
Because by paying you are demonstrating you have more than enough disposable income to waste on their extortion. You're paying for the privilege of segmenting yourself into the richer echelons of the market. You're basically doing their marketing job for them and paying for the privilege.
At some point some shareholder value maximizing CEO is going to sit down and notice just how much money he's leaving on the table by not advertising to paying customers like you. It's simply a matter of time.
Take a third option. Don't pay them and block their ads. Block their data collection too. It's your computer, you are in control.
You gotta love the mental gymnastics people will go through to convince themselves that not paying and blocking ads is the morally correct thing to do.
If you truly have those beliefs the right moral action is to not use YouTube at all but god forbid you'd have to make any sort of sacrifice.
There is nothing immoral about this at all. They're the ones who chose to send people videos for free, gambling on the notion that people would look at the ads. Nobody is obligated to make their unwarranted assumptions a reality. They are as entitled to our attention as a gambler is entitled to a jackpot.
If someone gives you an ad filled magazine, you can rip out the ad pages and throw them in the trash, leaving only the articles you actually want to read. Same principle applies here. If some random person on the street gives you a propaganda pamphlet, are you obligated to read it just because some businessman paid for it? Of course not.
I don't use Youtube at all, but I keep thinking I'm missing out and should make the effort to find a way to circumvent tracking. I can't see that the morality points to an obligation to absorb adverts. There can be no contract on the basis of what your mind must do.
Edit: let's step through this. If I use a towel placed over the computer to block ads, that's morally the same as using blocking software, I think? If I block the ads by putting my fingers in my ears and staring at the ceiling, also the same thing, morally. If I block them by watching them in a negative frame of mind, saying that I dislike ads and won't do what they suggest, I'm still doing the bad thing, the same as using an ad blocker - if it is a bad thing. My obligation, if it is an obligation, is to be receptive. Otherwise what, it's a sort of mind-fraud?
Adding: advertisements use as many hacks as possible to grab your attention. You could broadly categorize things that behave in this way as akin to a) a baby's cries (attention-seeking by something that absolutely requires your assistance), b) an alarm (attention-seeking by something that seeks to warn you), or c) being accosted (attention-seeking by something that seeks to harm you for its own benefit). Which are advertisements most closely aligned with? Is it the same across all advertisements, or do intentions vary? People likely assign varying levels of morality to the above examples; does advertising inherit the morality of the most closely aligned example?
Well then support an option to enable that kind behaviour? Make it an explicit decision by the devs. I think running in a type error and then adding an exception to your config is safer than silently pass and only learn about the mixed types in a production bug
I think this should be handled by a type assisted linter not typechecker.
Imo a type checker in a dynamic language should is primarily there to avoid runtime errors. In a list with multiple types the typechecker should instead force you to check the type before using an element in that list.
If you want static types python is the wrong language
While there seems to be an alternative, the root cause of Google's hostility to foss apps does not make me optimistic about this being a stable solution in the long run :(
I voted in the 2021 election for the current German government. Later, I moved to Berlin, where they had to repeat the election this spring due to some screw-ups back then (turns out running a marathon on election day is not a good idea). So I was asked to vote again and I did. I checked with the authorities and everything is fine.
I suppose there's some noise in any voting system, and it's fine if the magnitude is small and its distribution random. Looking at the US, I'd be more worried about gerrymandering than a few votes from the dead.
> I suppose there's some noise in any voting system, and it's fine if the magnitude is small and its distribution random.
This is the right answer. It's amazing how many people insist that elections have absolutely no fraud or other sources of error. In most elections throughout the world, it's apes counting paper with their squishy hands and blurry eyeballs. It's remarkable that we even get 3 significant figures reliably.
It's not unbiased noise though. People with the highest likelihood to die soon (elderly men) have different voting preferences than the general public.
I'm not sure I'm thinking about this correctly, but I'm not sure that it's relevant that elderly men die younger than elderly women. I think it would only be a bias is they were dying at a faster rate, relative to their population size, than other groups. That is, the size of the elderly male population was shrinking compared with the elderly female population.
Many years ago we ran an event at a hotel for few hundred delegates. One guys booking for shitpiled and he was complaining. My boss tried to explain that 99.9% of the delegates got everything they needed - he came back with “yeah but for me it was 100% wrong”
Voting matters. Individuals matter.
We should aim for no one being 100% wrong
Then again, I disagree with him. It’s just he was a customer.
