btw, anyone knows who still has access to edit/maintain Pd's FLOSS Manual? Em dom., 30 de mai. de 2021 às 17:19, Alexandre Torres Porres < [email protected]> escreveu:
> Folks, we're on a roll debating all things related to Pd documentation > here and there and I'm now focusing on the Pd FLOSS Manuals issue. > > Pd has this very famous and long lasting FLOSS Manual. It's old and it > tells you how to instal Pd Extended 0.39! So, it's from the extended era > and still references to 'extended objects'. For what I see, it was a Manual > that came to be in the Extended era as a Manual to it. Back in the day we > basically all used just Extended anyway and were mostly oblivious to > Pd Vanilla and its manual. > > And by Pd's manual, I mean http://msp.ucsd.edu/Pd_documentation/index.htm > - I know that's called 'Pd Documentation', and that it is confusing, cause > it actually is an 'html Manual' and it refers to itself as "this html > manual". Anyway, this is also something I brought up on github and is not > the issue here.. > > The point is that there's a conflict and I guess this made sense then, but > it's a problem nowadays. A documentation noise problem. Lots of people seem > to get to it and consider it "the manual for Pd". We're still struggling > with a post Pd Extended issue and what was consolidated in its era but now > sits as ruins. Actually, Pd Vanilla's manual also refers to FLOSS Manuals. > But these days we have something weird, which is simply the fact that Pure > Data has these two manuals. One is the official one, included as part of Pd > Vanilla and its documentation, and this other one, which is terribly > outdated and actually refers to this unsupported and abandoned fork of Pd. > > But the point is, one software cannot have two concurring Manuals, even if > both are up to date - that'd be silly. The point of FLOSS is to provide the > one and only official and single Manual for a piece of software. See the > problem? Csound uses FLOSS Manuals as a place to provide its official > manual. It's clearly linked in csound.com. Csound also has the > 'Canonical Csound reference manual', which is actually something else and > not to be confused with "The" manual they provide in FLOSS. > > So, my point is we have to get rid of one of them and have a single > official one. > > Should we then remove the included and official manual from Pd and 'move > it' to FLOSS and completely overhaul that online version? > > Or just get rid of the FLOSS version? Well, that is there, and people know > it. Burn it down, purge and disappear with it would be bad. > > Well, I don't know, so I'm asking... > > Another scenario is that FLOSS can still be around, of course, but as a > museum piece, for those interested in web archeology, as extended is now an > archeological piece of software. No one touches it, it stays there, but we > try to make it clear how that is an old, outdated, unofficial and that Pd > has its own 'real manual. This would help a lot. Or... also, treat it for > what it is, a manual reference for Pd Extended, not Vanilla, and make it > clear how Pd Extended is abandoned and so is this manual. > > Other than these, the only option I see is we maintain and update these > two manuals somehow. And I already said how I think that's pointless. I > also don't know who'd do that... but maybe there'd be a way to manage them > as two clearly distinct guides. One would be the 'Canonical Vanilla Manual' > and the other could be 'The Pure Data Manual' (or some other name)? The > question would be, why to do that? What is the advantage in keeping another > FLOSS version around? > > The thing I can think people like about the FLOSS version is: > - A) A friendlier look for beginners; > - B) A nice beginner level tutorial; > - C) Support for many externals, external libraries, how to use Arduino > and stuff (more as a tutorial than a 'manual'); > > These can all be compensated. With 'A)', we can try and make the Pd manual > look nicer maybe? As for the rest, what really seems to be the substance of > this is the fact that it serves as a tutorial. > > Well, a tutorial is not necessarily a "Manual". > > We can add tutorials to Vanilla too... actually, even though it's based on > Extended, many of the examples there are 'vanilla', so they can be > easily ported and shipped as part of Vanilla! > > As for tutorials that use externals. Well, they would really benefit from > an update. But a tutorial is a tutorial, this could live somewhere else. > > By the way, tutorials can easily be uploaded to deken and be available > from there. You'd have a tutorial that relies on externals, but that's ok > too (my live electronics tutorial comes as part of the ELSE download)... > just give instructions in the tutorial on how to install the needed > libraries from deken as well... > > But if the case is made that we should really keep FLOSS and update it. > Well, maybe we could manage and do that, taking care on how to not overlap > even know I don't know who'd do it, but it'd mean completely rewrite from > scratch and get rid of some of the stuff. That's bad too, as the old > version would be lost (so have it sit as an 'old extended manual'?). > > So, in short, possible scenarios include: > 1) Forget about floss, tell it's outdated (rename it to pd extended manual > maybe), focus on Vanilla's manual. Bring stuff we miss and like from FLOSS > to current Pd in some new form. > 2) 'Move' Pd's manual to a new FLOSS incarnation > 3) Keep and manage two versions > > My thoughts on these are here, and I think the best scenario is number "1)" > > Any other thoughts? > > Cheers >
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
