On 14 Nov 2008, at 21:04, Amit Singh wrote: > I'm sure your intentions are great, but I don't see why you'd want > people to go to yet another place for pretty much the same > information. If our users strongly feel a need for a FAQ on a FAQ, > they should let us know. > > The more filters there are on information, the more distorted it > becomes. At least in the official macfuse group, it's possible to > oversee things and ensure correctness even if somebody misinterprets > things. If you have satellite sites like this, doing that won't be > feasible. > > I also want to clarify that I'm not involved in this. > > Amit Singh
I apologise, I might have made the subject line more explanatory. I'm often too long-winded but on this occasion I was too brief. ---- A highlight from the announcement to Macfusion users and developers: >> Please be reassured that use of Diigo is complementary to (not >> detracting from) this Google Group -- and the same is true for the MacFUSE Google Group. In particular: whilst there's is a forum feature in Diigo, before announcing the Diigo group I began by discouraging use of that forum (users are directed to the Trac). As background: for Macfusion FAQ, some of the answers are still forming. For me, Diigo is easily the most efficient way to gather information. Key words: time saver. As noted in the announcement to Macfusion users and developers, there _is_ the intention to develop the wiki. I might have made it clearer that I'm using Diigo primarily for information gathering and highlights. (Highlighting is tremendously useful, especially where threads are long and complex. The dyslexic side of me _needs_ such things...) I do wholly support the drive for single definitive sources, but I suggest that the MacFUSE and Macfusion communities are uncommonly prone to newcomers -- end users in particular -- naturally failing to grasp the distinctions between MacFUSE, SSHFS binary, SSHFS.app, CurlFtpFS, NTFS-3G, Finder, et cetera.. With such a diversity of end users some diversity of approaches is inevitable. But again I'd like to reassure the Googl Group that there's no intention to splinter. Amit, do you a truly excellent job of clarifying things and (for me, if for no-one else) much of what I'll highlight will be yours. > If our users strongly feel a need for a FAQ on a FAQ One might produce a variety of FAQ pages aimed at different audiences (developers, end users, Finder issues, users of SSHFS, users of CurlFtpFS, users of NTFS-3G etc) but diverse and protracted discussions elsewhere tend to conclude that a range of audience-based documentation can be excessively difficult to maintain. I certainly should not expect MacFUSE developers to spend time tailoring any FAQ for Macfusion :) it's fully appreciated that developer time is best spent on development. A _particular_ benefit of, for example, drawing attention to aspects of point 4 of the existing FAQ for MacFUSE is this: * newcomers appreciate that there's much more to MacFUSE than initially meets the eye ... Best regards Graham --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacFUSE" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macfuse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
