15 Dec
2006
15 Dec
'06
10:02 a.m.
> And the question then is, will wikipedia allow us
to create all
> these sub-categories? (linux-audio-Demos, linux-audio-digital-dj, and so
> on.)
I am not an experienced Wikipedia contributor, but it seems that they
are generally fine with it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold
"It is usually worth proposing any changes to categories and/or
templates on talk or other relevant WikiProject pages prior to making
any change."
The general guidelines for creating categories and subcategories are here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization#How_to_create_categor…
I'd say that wikipedia should be used as a summary
page, rather than an
exhaustive resource with app-specific documentation. So, I guess in that
respect I do agree with your ideas. However, I do not see it as an
exhaustive documentation resource for every app.
I think that is what the Wikipedia policies also have in mind. I
thought that the point, from the subject, was attracting more
developers (and non-Linux users, especially). For that purpose,
Wikipedia is probably a much better starting point than a more
Linux-centric site.
As for the specific documentation, my suggestion is to limit the
number of wikis. One is really better than three. It means less
maintenance work for the maintainers (and thanks to those who decide
to do it). It will be much easier for a community of this limited size
to clean up the vandalism of spammers or correct mistakes than
dividing our efforts among three locations. Maybe most importantly, if
I have a question, I don't have to go to three different places to
look for the information. Similarly, if I have documentation to
contribute, I don't have to go three places to add it.
--
Renick Bell
http://www.the3rd2nd.com
15 Dec
15 Dec
12:51 p.m.
I'd say
that wikipedia should be used as a summary page, rather than an
exhaustive resource with app-specific documentation. So, I guess in that
respect I do agree with your ideas. However, I do not see it as an
exhaustive documentation resource for every app.
I think that is what the Wikipedia policies also have in mind. I
thought that the point, from the subject, was attracting more
developers (and non-Linux users, especially). For that purpose,
Wikipedia is probably a much better starting point than a more
Linux-centric site.
As for the specific documentation, my suggestion is to limit the
number of wikis. One is really better than three. It means less
maintenance work for the maintainers (and thanks to those who decide
to do it). It will be much easier for a community of this limited size
to clean up the vandalism of spammers or correct mistakes than
dividing our efforts among three locations. Maybe most importantly, if
I have a question, I don't have to go to three different places to
look for the information. Similarly, if I have documentation to
contribute, I don't have to go three places to add it.
1:14 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] linux-sound porting & documentation proposal (Was: Attracting more Linux audio developers)
How about we stop the seemingly endless discussion and instead all roll-up
our sleeves and actually do this?
Here's what I offer on behalf of linuxaudio.org:
1) generous hosting space
2) virtually unlimited bandwidth
3) docs.linuxaudio.org and apps.linuxaudio.org domains
4) accounts to maintainers
5) server support as needed
What we need volunteers to do:
1) port Dave's pages over into a legible and appealing format to
apps.linuxaudio.org
2) cross-link those pages to docs.linuxaudio.org page (in addition to apps
homepages) which will be a wiki with documentation templates and
standardized layout
3) need to design an appealing interface for both sites (hence consider this
an open call for volunteer designers) -- this cannot be emphasized enough:
we do not want an ugly, plain website, but a nice inviting and user-oriented
resource.
4) create a generic wikipedia entry which gives a summary, philosophy, and
notable achievements of the linux audio scene and provides critical links
(hence it would be used as a portal rather than an exhaustive resource for a
moving target which would never fly with the wikipedia editors anyhow)
On a side note, here's another offer:
As per my discussion with Joern, on behalf of linuxaudio.org I also offer
free unlimited space for porting over LAU and LAD lists to
lists.linuxaudio.org in hopes that we continue consolidating these
invaluable resources. Maintainers will be given appropriate access
privileges etc.
Any takers?
Best wishes,
Ico
2:16 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] linux-sound porting & documentation proposal (Was: Attracting more Linux audio developers)
On 12/15/06, Ivica Ico Bukvic <ico(a)vt.edu> wrote:
How about we stop the seemingly endless discussion and
instead all roll-up
our sleeves and actually do this?
Here's what I offer on behalf of linuxaudio.org:
1) generous hosting space
2) virtually unlimited bandwidth
3) docs.linuxaudio.org and apps.linuxaudio.org domains
4) accounts to maintainers
5) server support as needed
What we need volunteers to do:
1) port Dave's pages over into a legible and appealing format to
apps.linuxaudio.org
2) cross-link those pages to docs.linuxaudio.org page (in addition to apps
homepages) which will be a wiki with documentation templates and
standardized layout
3) need to design an appealing interface for both sites (hence consider this
an open call for volunteer designers) -- this cannot be emphasized enough:
we do not want an ugly, plain website, but a nice inviting and user-oriented
resource.
4) create a generic wikipedia entry which gives a summary, philosophy, and
notable achievements of the linux audio scene and provides critical links
(hence it would be used as a portal rather than an exhaustive resource for a
moving target which would never fly with the wikipedia editors anyhow)
On a side note, here's another offer:
As per my discussion with Joern, on behalf of linuxaudio.org I also offer
free unlimited space for porting over LAU and LAD lists to
lists.linuxaudio.org in hopes that we continue consolidating these
invaluable resources. Maintainers will be given appropriate access
privileges etc.
Any takers?
Best wishes,
Ico
2:09 p.m.
"Ivica Ico Bukvic" <ico(a)vt.edu> writes:
we agree?
No;).
As long as there is no solution to combine not registering and
registering, there will at least be two wikis'.
I'm sure there is a solution to this and I can see it, but I don't
know if there are any implementations of such features:
An entry into the wiki for approved revisions by "maintainers" (people
who register) and an entry for those of us that believe that a wiki
should be free. That way, "maintainers" could sequentially approve
revisions.
We also still don't agree if we should have a combined effort on
wikipedia;) and this is a real problem, cause wikipedia will always be
there.
Wikipedia might not be the best solution, I agree, but if we don't use
it, there will probably be a split, now 4, but minimal 3:
Wikipedia, Fugal and the LAD wiki.
I honestly don't know the solution, but I guess those who start doing
something will determine the outcome.
--
Esben Stien is b0ef@e s a
http://www. s t n m
irc://irc. b - i . e/%23contact
sip:b0ef@ e e
jid:b0ef@ n n
3:07 p.m.
Please do not take what follows personally, but rather as a critical
observation of your comments. :)
As long as there is no solution to combine not
registering and
registering, there will at least be two wikis'.
Well, so be it. Please correct me if I am wrong, but so far I know for sure
that this particular thing bothers only you, and I've not gotten a clear
answer whether you would be willing to put in time to maintain such a
potential spamfest of a Wiki. Hence, on behalf of linuxaudio.org I am
inclined to make an offer to the Linux audio community that favors majority
(again, please correct me if I am wrong).
Wikipedia might not be the best solution, I agree, but
if we don't use
it, there will probably be a split, now 4, but minimal 3:
Wikipedia, Fugal and the LAD wiki.
I can almost guarantee it that Wikipedia will decline a full-blown
documentation page simply because Linux audio software, just as any other
software is a moving target which may radically change, making documentation
outdated, and/or become deprecated, making respective wiki pages obsolete,
and as such should not be a part of an online encyclopedia. Hence, this one
will be out of the race before you know it (unless we use it as a general
introduction/portal to other resources in which case it does not collide
with the existence of a dedicated Wiki, but rather, it is there to redirect
traffic).
As far as the LAD Wiki is concerned, I am not sure which one you are
referring to, but if it is already a part of the linuxaudio.org domain, I am
quite sure that a cross-pollination of ideas and/or consolidation will be
possible, hence this is most likely also a non-issue.
So, IMHO this leaves us with only two possibilities: Fugal and what I've
proposed. If Fugal maintainers are willing I would love to see a
collaborative endeavor develop between linuxaudio.org and Fugal.
We simply must understand that as long as we propose fragmentation of the
humble Linux audio scene because of our hard-line stands/preferences (most
of whose impact is superficial at best while creating an unreasonable amount
of overhead), we will be spending immense amounts of time and effort
reinventing the wheel. This fact alone should make any sane person cry from
frustration.
Best wishes,
Ico
6:31 p.m.
"Ivica Ico Bukvic" <ico(a)vt.edu> writes:
Please do not take what follows personally
I'm very hard to offend;).
I know for sure that this particular thing bothers
only you
;), not so sure.
The problem is, I don't believe in a documentation system where you
have to register; I've seen too many that gets updated so very
infrequent.
I've not gotten a clear answer whether you would
be willing to put
in time to maintain such a potential spamfest of a Wiki.
My answer was that the user does this himself. Each time the user
visits the wiki, if there is spam there, he reverts it to a previous
revision.
We can have a feed, like Fugal, that notifies us of updates; if
someone spams we'll know immediately, but nevertheless, a user is
fully capable of reverting to a previous revision; it's not like a
wiki is unknown territory.
There should be no reason to maintain a wiki in the common sense, as
far as I believe.
on behalf of linuxaudio.org I am inclined to make an
offer to the
Linux audio community that favors majority
I understand your position, but also understand my disbelief. I can
understand that people don't want spam, but I only see less
contributors with such a scheme. I can only speak for my own behavior,
seeing myself editing frequent Fugal entries, in this context. In
other contexts, when I stumble over incorrect or outdated entries of
information at sites where you have to register, I just continue my
Internet navigation, except some instances where I send a mail to the
administrator, asking him to free the wiki.
I can almost guarantee it that Wikipedia will decline
a full-blown
documentation page simply because Linux audio software, just as any other
software is a moving target which may radically change, making documentation
outdated, and/or become deprecated, making respective wiki pages obsolete,
and as such should not be a part of an online encyclopedia.
I'm not so sure about my stance on wikipedia and I'd like to hear what
other people feel. I know that I will back such an effort if people
want it and of course, contribute.
Hence, this one will be out of the race before you
know it (unless
we use it as a general introduction/portal to other resources in
which case it does not collide with the existence of a dedicated
Wiki, but rather, it is there to redirect traffic
Yes, but the wikipedia issue will not go away. As long as you have
reference, wikipedia will keep the entry, because an encyclopedia
documents the past and the present.
As far as the LAD Wiki is concerned, I am not sure
which one you are
referring to
The potential future one that you talk about.
as long as we propose fragmentation of the humble
Linux audio scene
because of our hard-line stands/preferences [..] we will be spending
immense amounts of time and effort reinventing the wheel.
It's more a fact. If you make a registration required wiki, someone
WILL make a non registration required wiki.
How about just setting up a wiki, have it open and see how it
goes?. How about just pointing wiki.linuxaudio.org to the Fugal wiki,
work on it and see how the cookie crumbles?.
--
Esben Stien is b0ef@e s a
http://www. s t n m
irc://irc. b - i . e/%23contact
sip:b0ef@ e e
jid:b0ef@ n n
7:03 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: Wiki (Was: Attracting more Linux audio developers)
Please do not
take what follows personally
I'm very hard to offend;). I know for sure that this particular thing
bothers only you
;), not so sure.
The problem is, I don't believe in a documentation system where you
have to register; I've seen too many that gets updated so very
infrequent. My answer was that the user does this himself. Each
time the user
visits the wiki, if there is spam there, he reverts it to a previous
revision.
We can have a feed, like Fugal, that notifies us of updates; if
someone spams we'll know immediately, but nevertheless, a user is
fully capable of reverting to a previous revision; it's not like a
wiki is unknown territory.
My inbox is alredy a mess. The last thing I need is another mess waiting to
happen to flood my inbox asking extra time from me which I already have too
little of. The only reason I am replying to this topic so verbosely is because:
1) I am very much interested in this particular topic and
2) it is the end of semester here and I can actually afford to reply
Again, if you volunteer to maintain this overhead (either by organizing a
dedicated 0-day response team who will manage this or whichever other way you
wish to do that in order to ensure that the University server does not host
Viagra adds and other messages of questionable nature), I will gladly provide
space for such a Wiki. "Users will take care of it" does not cut it in the real
world because:
1) It creates a paradoxal situation where no one is responsible for misuse,
meaning linuxaudio.org will be responsible and subsequently may lose its right
to be hosted by a University for free
2) Does not guarrantee 0-day response
Both of these points can be summarized to "the model yields no structure one can
uphold when facing circumstances which require accountability."
There should be no reason to maintain a wiki in the
common sense, as
far as I believe.
I appreciate that but I am also equivalently skeptical about your model based
upon my Internet/admin experience. I also fear that at the end of the day most
users will prove to be indiferrent, or worse yet, they will post to the LAU
list how a particular page is mangled asking someone else to take care of it,
ultimately forcing me or someone else in linuxaudio.org to clean-up.
And that is something I am not ready to do. Rather, I would like to see
some kind of an accountability. For Dave's legacy sakes, I think we owe it to
him to provide resource with the same kind of accountability as his site.
on behalf of linuxaudio.org I am inclined to make
an offer to the
Linux audio community that favors majority
I understand your position, but also understand my disbelief. I can
understand that people don't want spam, but I only see less
contributors with such a scheme. I can only speak for my own behavior,
seeing myself editing frequent Fugal entries, in this context. In
other contexts, when I stumble over incorrect or outdated entries of
information at sites where you have to register, I just continue my
Internet navigation, except some instances where I send a mail to the
administrator, asking him to free the wiki. I can almost
guarantee it that Wikipedia will decline a full-blown
documentation page simply because Linux audio software, just as any other
software is a moving target which may radically change, making
documentation
outdated, and/or become deprecated, making
respective wiki pages obsolete,
and as such should not be a part of an online encyclopedia.
I'm not so sure about my stance on wikipedia and I'd like to hear what
other people feel. I know that I will back such an effort if people
want it and of course, contribute.
Hence, this one will be out of the race before
you know it (unless
we use it as a general introduction/portal to other resources in
which case it does not collide with the existence of a dedicated
Wiki, but rather, it is there to redirect traffic
Yes, but the wikipedia issue will not go away. As long as you have
reference, wikipedia will keep the entry, because an encyclopedia
documents the past and the present. As far as the LAD Wiki is concerned, I am not
sure which one you are
referring to
The potential future one that you talk about.
as long as we propose fragmentation of the humble
Linux audio scene
because of our hard-line stands/preferences [..] we will be spending
immense amounts of time and effort reinventing the wheel.
It's more a fact. If you make a registration required wiki, someone
WILL make a non registration required wiki. How about just setting up a wiki, have it open and see
how it
goes?. How about just pointing wiki.linuxaudio.org to the Fugal wiki,
work on it and see how the cookie crumbles?.
As long as there is a path of accountability as stated above, I am fine with
setting up a wiki.
Linking Fugal site is something that needs to be discussed between
linuxaudio.org and Fugal, hence I feel that I am not in a position to give you
a definite answer on that particular point...
Best wishes,
Ico
7:46 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: Wiki (Was: Attracting more Linux audio developers)
ico(a)vt.edu wrote:
agreed. Also, you'll get more than Viagra ads!
>> I know for sure that this particular thing bothers only you
> ;), not so sure.
>
> The problem is, I don't believe in a documentation system where you
> have to register; I've seen too many that gets updated so very
> infrequent.
I don't believe that registration is a deterrent to contribution.
And I do appreciate your stance. However, please note
that your statements have
provided plenty of "I"s, but no "We"s. Hence, I would like to hear
what others
have to say about this.
I think it's a no-brainer that the wiki must be configured so that
people have to register. What's hard about registering? You do it once,
firefox takes care of your password and your done.
We have several wikis where we did not have registration and graffiti
was horrible. With registration, it's manageable. (right, you still get it!)
> My answer was that the user does this himself.
Each time the user
> visits the wiki, if there is spam there, he reverts it to a previous
> revision.
Why have this mess in the first place? The admin will have enough
problems and the users should be in the position of adding content, not
fixing problems.
We can have a
feed, like Fugal, that notifies us of updates; if
someone spams we'll know immediately, but nevertheless, a user is
fully capable of reverting to a previous revision; it's not like a
wiki is unknown territory.
My inbox is alredy a mess. The last thing I need is another mess waiting to
happen to flood my inbox asking extra time from me which I already have too
little of. The only reason I am replying to this topic so verbosely is because:
1) I am very much interested in this particular topic and
2) it is the end of semester here and I can actually afford to reply
Again, if you volunteer to maintain this overhead (either by organizing a
dedicated 0-day response team who will manage this or whichever other way you
wish to do that in order to ensure that the University server does not host
Viagra adds and other messages of questionable nature), I will gladly provide
space for such a Wiki. "Users will take care of it" does not cut it in the
real
world because:
1) It creates a paradoxal situation where no one is responsible for misuse,
meaning linuxaudio.org will be responsible and subsequently may lose its right
to be hosted by a University for free
2) Does not guarrantee 0-day response Both of these points can be summarized to "the
model yields no structure one can
uphold when facing circumstances which require accountability."
> There should be no reason to maintain a wiki in the common sense, as
> far as I believe.
>
>> on behalf of linuxaudio.org I am inclined to make an offer to the
>> Linux audio community that favors majority
> I understand your position, but also understand my disbelief. I can
> understand that people don't want spam, but I only see less
> contributors with such a scheme.
Again, I don't think registering will deter those who want to
contribute. On the flip side, w/o registering opens up a whole lot of
potential vandalism.
>> I can almost guarantee it that Wikipedia will
decline a full-blown
>> documentation page simply because Linux audio software, just as any other
>> software is a moving target which may radically change, making
> documentation
>> outdated, and/or become deprecated, making respective wiki pages obsolete,
>> and as such should not be a part of an online encyclopedia.
> I'm not so sure about my stance on wikipedia and I'd like to hear what
> other people feel. I know that I will back such an effort if people
> want it and of course, contribute.
I don't know why wikipedia would deny the proposal because of
information changing. Why don't we ask them.
Wikipedia is a great place to do this because of it's visibility.
>> as long as we propose fragmentation of the
humble Linux audio scene
>> because of our hard-line stands/preferences [..] we will be spending
>> immense amounts of time and effort reinventing the wheel.
> It's more a fact. If you make a registration required wiki, someone
> WILL make a non registration required wiki.
I don't know why. however, if that's the case, that's ok. One will win
out. And, if two or three do, it'll be because they offer the people
slightly different value.
Again, fine. If that is what the community wants, we shall have it. I've made
my proposal under the terms which were the best I could offer. My proposal is
non-coercive nor definite, it is simply the best what linuxaudio.org could
offer. Now, it is up to you and the rest of the community to decide what you
wish to do about this.
brad fuller
http://www.Sonaural.com/
+1 (408) 799-6124
9:58 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: Wiki
Personally I agree with Esben Stien, that not requiring registration is
better. I beleive that we can manage spam. If we fail - registration can
be enabled. If both wikis (one requiring and one not requiring
registration) exist I'd prefer the linuxauido.org one, because having
common place is more important that registration barrier. If we end with
one not requiring registration it will be good option to have a bot
posting messages about changes in wiki to irc. If there is a rss feed I
have ready for use solution - a supybot that can be used.
--
Nedko Arnaudov <GnuPG KeyID: DE1716B0>
16 Dec
16 Dec
12:37 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: Wiki (Was: Attracting more Linux audio developers)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Brad Fuller wrote:
ico(a)vt.edu wrote:
[..]
What's hard about registering? You do it once,
firefox takes care of your password and your done.
AFAIR the discussion got started due to requiring a valid email address
for registration. username/password/privacy is a different issue.
Again, I don't think registering will deter those who want to
contribute. On the flip side, w/o registering opens up a whole lot of
potential vandalism.
agreed. There are alternatives but no quick'N'easy(TM) solution in
sight. I don't want to return to the auth-discussion. Can I sum it up as:
We can manage to set up a simple but effective system to:
- - restrict [media] upload and admin-capabilities to trusted users
(editors, LAD, LAU members, sign off strategy, ..)
- - limit anonymous edits to a minimal amount of SPAM while not annoying
anon. users. this will be an ongoing battle and we can discuss,
experiment and improve.. (CAPTCHA, timed IP locks, limit # of pages per
user,...)
I don't know why wikipedia would deny the proposal
because of
information changing. Why don't we ask them.
Wikipedia is a great place to do this because of it's visibility.
exactly. but most of the wikipedia entries are rather patchy with
details! A framework like arxiv.org is not really suitable for
linuxaudio.org either. although it would be nice if doc.linuxaudio.org
will provide SGML & docbook processing capabilities.
IMO diversity is a good thing. and I'd be surprised it linuxaudio will
only fragment to into 2 or 3 wiki installations worldwide! interwiki and
perma-links are already quite common, and with feeds, data import/export
plugins, etc information spreads. nevertheless linuxaudio.org should
become the site of choice for linux sound collaboration and claim some
authority!
Let's focus on user interface and templates.
democracy and taste won't match: I'll vote for a two column layout + a
(static/fixed?) top bar. (similar to wikipedia). It would be nice if
there were linuxaudio color & icon themes, but that's for later..
in the "menu column": list a handful of (constant) links +
wiki-commands; and a generated list of "quick-links" related to the
current page (category, tags,...)
The "main column" displays either a custom wiki page (doc.linuxaudio.)
or (for apps.linuxaudio.org) a fixed-layout, generated from Meta-data:
ie: info-pages, category lists.
IMO both doc.. and apps.. should make use of the same category system
and maybe even share the page-source for the title+abstract page.
- -> the apps.. will be a side product of doc..
here's a set of meta-tags that each doc. would need to provide on it's
title page:
1 req: TXT: title / name
2 req: TXT: description / abstract
3 opt: TXT: Author
4 opt: URL: screenshot, icon, banner
5 opt: TXT: version_string, release_date
6 opt: URL: source_repository (cvs,svn,darcs,.. URI)
7 opt: URL: website
8 req: TAG: one or more category tag(s).
discuss:
1. use wiki page name as title
3. also author email, license, etc. ?
4. allow multiple screenshots? screenshot_00, screenshot_01,..?? videos?
7. maybe use different URLs for: url_web, url_doc, url_src, url_other
I vote for a minimal set of meta info: 1,2,4,8 (+7) - other key&values
can get very specific and result in possibly inconsistent assignments ->
use custom wiki pages. For properly marked up documentation there's docbook!
a couple of ideas to generate the app listing:
- - generate lists with and without screenshots/banners/logos/abstract
- - each entry has at least a title and a link to doc.linuxaudio.org
-> wiki-title-page
- - optionally link directly to web-page, documentation or download ??
- - present a "related category" link list in the menu-column.
- - merge (sub-)categories in view.
- - browse or search
* search for a keyword
* selecting multiple tags from a tag-cloud.
* pager: next/prev, related categories, history trace, breadcrumbs
I suggest to use twiki, mediawiki or dokuwiki for the job. I don't think
that wordpress will do as nice; it could. but in that case, it should
become blog.linuxaudio.org. There are certainly many possible
implementations: we should consider stability & robustness; long live @
low maintenance; flexibility & speed; KISS. personally I've had good
experience with dokuwiki. OTOH. mediawiki will allow copy and paste to
wikipedia, but we usually want inter-wiki links rather than dup entries.
aaah and the above mentioned top-bar can connect the different
*.linuxaudio.org sites, hold a title, banner, drop-down menu,...
you name it! keep up the relentless flow of discussion and
nourish the advocatus diaboli in you. if your anger is not yet focused,
go and play your neighbors a series of tritoni for half an hour.
I'm sure we can come up with with a clean layout and icons for
visualizing meta-information after that. one could go as far as to
assign symbols to major-categories or design a children's look&feel
template for the title page(s). It'd be cool to have another prototype
wiki by January, but the final product should aim for quality and it's
yet too early to set a deadline. maybe the LAC2007 can provide a
platform for discussion and promotion.
#robin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFg3fweVUk8U+VK0IRAroKAJ9+HhVq1FoMxB020YYOds/skZ5PggCguioF
wVoE/ksHnNtze2S8Kqm+n04=
=i009
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
6:20 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: Wiki
ico(a)vt.edu wrote:
And I do appreciate your stance. However, please note
that your statements have
provided plenty of "I"s, but no "We"s. Hence, I would like to hear
what others
have to say about this.
I have no idealogical opposition to registration - just too many
accounts on too many systems to be able to remember them all.
If there's one LAU wiki, I'll probably bookmark it in my 'safe' browser
and rely on cookies. If it fragments, I doubt I'll update any
documentation.
cheers
R
15 Dec
15 Dec
10:06 p.m.
On Sat, 2006-12-16 at 01:11 +0100, Esben Stien wrote:
My answer was that the user does this himself. Each
time the user
visits the wiki, if there is spam there, he reverts it to a previous
revision.
this gets really tedious when the last 23 revisions are all spam. this
happens, really.
We can have a feed, like Fugal, that notifies us of
updates; if
someone spams we'll know immediately,
so now you're asking a limited set of people who get update
notifications to do the work rather than asking individual people to
register?
ever since browsers started managing passwords, its only the
registration phase that is a pain. its small and its one-time.
10:04 p.m.
We simply must understand that as long as we propose
fragmentation of the
humble Linux audio scene because of our hard-line stands/preferences (most
of whose impact is superficial at best while creating an unreasonable amount
of overhead), we will be spending immense amounts of time and effort
reinventing the wheel. This fact alone should make any sane person cry from
frustration.
fragmentation is not the isssue. implementation is the issue, and on
that plane is reality an issue. working hardware is the only metric.
those that do, implement.
--
;
Jay Vaughan
6555
days inactive
6556
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
13 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
Brad Fuller -
chris beagles -
Esben Stien -
ico＠vt.edu -
Ivica Ico Bukvic
-
Jay Vaughan -
Nedko Arnaudov -
Paul Davis -
Renick Bell -
rob -
Robin Gareus