12 Aug
2004
12 Aug
'04
8:23 p.m.
Last Thursday 12 August 2004 17:39, John Check was like:
On Thursday 12 August 2004 06:31 am, tim hall wrote:
I can see your point.
Last Thursday 12 August 2004 01:12, John Check
was like:
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. On Wednesday 11 August 2004 06:16 am, tim hall
wrote:
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] 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? 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