Am 08.09.2016 um 22:32 schrieb Johan Ström:
>
> .. what else?
>
First: I'd love to get rid of are these personal blogs who give stray
information bites which are quickly outdated and totally out of control.
This is the source of most misfortune for owfs users. I'm pretty sure
only 1 of 10 shows up here at the mailing list and ask us. Nine of ten
people will give up or just live with their brittle setup.
I have to admit: I personally hate those people who endlessly copypaste
that blurb about using a pullup of 4.7k to 5V on the Raspberry Pi GPIO4.
The simple reason people can tell this is because... the authoritative
source of information... our site... had nothing about this. Or at
least, it's covered by layers and layers of owfs internals which sound
like nonsense to anybody but us developers.
Same with using the FUSE binding. People endlessly copypaste blurbs
about using the FUSE binding.
We really, really should say people: Hey, we have a FUSE binding, it's a
nice technical demo. But it turned out using FUSE for pseudofilesystems
is a bad idea because of race conditions so... don't do that. Forget
that thing exists. Thank you.
The SWIG bindings, our next construction site. People usually *don't*
know there are at least three python bindings to owfs for example, with
the best one OFF-SITE. Or what the difference between owlib, owcapi and
ownet is.
And our zoo of host adapter options has to be explained. Simply. When to
use which host adapter.
And we should make people interested in owfs look right and left, too.
The w1 kernel driver can make them happy, too (for example for using the
DS28E17). The owfs external mechanism on the other hand can be used to
put GPIOs into OWFS, which makes owserver some sort of Network I/O
expander. And the two can be combined, making arbitrary I²C sensors into
network-enabled owfs nodes with very little userspace code.
>
> Jan, your last lines talked about alternative to push/pull content. A
> github hosted page could actually be edited directly in the github UI,
> there is a Edit button which opens an editor directly. You'd of course
> have to fork it first, and you still need to do basic markup.
> But if instructed how to do it, is that too advanced?
>
Not too advanced.
My concern was: For end users, the biggest hurdle would be additional
software. They usually don't care about the markup, we have to fix that.
We need to have a documentation project where end users can easily edit
pages and we have bit of control about what is written there, so
outdated and wrong information cannot live forever. That's why I want to
encourage end users to document their owfs related stuff at a central
site. So we can maintain it.
This should be seperated from "official" documentation but in a way the
difference is only sublime. So people see "Hey, my owfs project is
recognized by the owfs people. Great!"
So, having two wikis, one along the official sources and one for end
users would be great.
I think we can push wiki pages created from manpages etc. so this will
make Colin and Stefano happy too, I think.
Okay? Can we settle on this? Or continue discussion?
Kind regards
Jan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Owfs-developers mailing list
Owfs-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/owfs-developers
