On Thursday 12 August 2004 08:07 pm, tim hall wrote: > 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 Actually, I have the resources to pull it off and host it, I just have to make the time to do it. That you'd be happy to use it makes me smile, because the system has to make life easier for it's end users. I'll start a thread for feedback on monday. > 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. WIKI is another tool in the chain, so by all means take advantage of what we have now. I've got some ideas for automating extraction of data from wikis and list archives. > > cheers > > tim hall
