Last Thursday 12 August 2004 17:39, John Check was like: > On Thursday 12 August 2004 06:31 am, tim hall wrote: > > Last Thursday 12 August 2004 01:12, John Check was like: > > > On Wednesday 11 August 2004 06:16 am, tim hall wrote: > > > > Last Wednesday 11 August 2004 06:44, John Check was like: > > > > > I'm sure I'll get flamed, but wikis leave a lot to be desired as > > > > > primary documentation. There are ways to address this, but they're > > > > > obvious. At least to me. > > > > > > > > It's not primary documentation, The links are ;-) > > > > > > I meant in general, not specific to Agnula. > > > > > > > This is due to the fact that I'm not a primary documenter for AGNULA, > > > > I'm just using the WIKIs as a talking shop and a place to gather > > > > together information so I can post shorter links. Contributions are > > > > welcome ;-) > > > > > > As long as you didn't ask ;) How does the stuff from the wiki find it's > > > way into the primary doco? > > > > Probably by me converting it to HTML (?) > > John, I'm not understanding your point here. > > If this is more than a personal dislike of WIKI I really would appreciate > > a bigger clue :-] [if really OT: Offlist is OK] > > That's not too far off the mark. I don't dislike them, per se. Wiki's are a > great concept, but the way they're used in practice makes an already bad > situation worse. There is already an overwhelming amount of doco, and it's > disorganized. This is of course, not something particular to linux audio. > As your reply indicates, wikis can be culled for good information which can > be brought into the primary doco, but it's not sexy, so whether it gets > done or not is a crapshoot for any given project. I can see your point. > I was being vague because the concept is still being tuned, and I'm busy > with some archival work just now, but I mentioned off list to Dave Phillips > about doing something along the lines of linux-sound.org, but adding MIDI > implementation charts and an API support matrix with a reporting system to > make it easy for projects to keep they stuff up to date, then linking to > projects Wikis and main doco from there. IOW if I want a sequencer with foo > & bar, a search returns appropriate hits ranked by development status with > direct links. Of course the weak spot there is getting people to use it; > That's the same problem Wiki's have, but they're conceptually too general. > As it stands now, it just takes too much time to evaluate what's out there > for linux music/audio to get any serious traction. > Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to denigrate anybody's hard work, but I > see a lot of things that make the current situation untenable from a > business context. It's potentially good for me, but bad for everybody else > that's interested in linux audio as a tool and not interested in the > geekery aspects. Thanks. Currently I'm playing with WIKI, it's easy to use and fun. What you're talking about is somewhat beyond my ken, but I would be happy to use some better system if it meant better documentation. The randomness factor is part of what makes the documentation hard to get through. A system which easily highlighted what documentation was either missing or duplicated would be a valuable resource for potential authors too. I shan't waste my time getting too much into WIKI if it's really not the way to go. I'm not attached to the means. cheers tim hall
