[OpenWrt-Devel] Gargoyle -- another (new) web interface for OpenWrt Kamikaze
It is ironic that the LuCI team decided to make an announcement regarding their project today. I have also been working on a new (open source) web interface for Kamikaze called Gargoyle, and am now releasing the first beta version, which can be found at gargoyle-router.com. The decision to release now was made completely independently of this announcement, and was made some time ago based on the progress of the project. It is just a coincidence that these announcements come on the same day. Right up front I want to emphasize that Gargoyle is, like both LuCI and X-Wrt a front-end for OpenWrt and NOT a fork. It can be installed as a set of packages on top of a default installation of Kamikaze 7.09, as well as via firmware images. Currently it is designed to run on top of Kamikaze 7.09 and not the trunk, but as soon as another stable version is released it will be engineered to run on top of that. However, several features included in the current trunk have been incorporated (e.g. the new UCI) and are installed as packages on top of the default Kamikaze release. I have chosen to incorporate the features this way so that the interface could be built around a stable version vs. the ever-changing trunk. Gargoyle takes a very different philosophical approach to interface design than X-Wrt or what I've seen of the new LuCI. Both X-Wrt and LuCI seem to be designed with the goal of providing the absolute maximum functionality possible. However, this often comes at the expense of making the interface more difficult to use, and can turn off novice users. There seems to be a belief that open-source software should be designed for power-users, without much thought to those with less expertise. Currently all router web interfaces that place a strong emphasis on ease-of-use are proprietary (their licenses do not permit redistribution of modified versions of their code without the author's permission). Gargoyle aims to be the first open-source web interface that places a strong emphasis on usability, and aimed at less experienced users. Because Gargoyle runs on top of OpenWrt, a more experienced user can also configure extra functionality relatively easily. Gargoyle includes a custom bandwidth monitoring package, a customized version of minihttpd , a new package for performing dynamic dns updates (similar to the ddns-scripts package which I submitted a few months ago, but written in C to be faster and linked to MatrixSSL to allow updates via https) and a custom set of QoS scripts (I found the current default OpenWrt implementation a bit convoluted). The modified web server does not, however, provide any of the interface code -- it's mostly modified to allow password protecting the interface more appropriately. The backend of the interface uses haserl, like X-wrt, but does not rely heavily on these shell-scripts. The interface is mostly javascript, which makes the interface feel faster than if it relied heavily on server-side scripts. Gargoyle is an open-source project and contributions are very, very welcome. I am releasing it under the terms of the GPL v2.0, with an exception/clarification that states that it may be modified to configure proprietary back-end software so long as all portions of the web interface are released under the terms of the GPL. See the FAQ (gargoyle-router.com/faq.html#qfoss) for more details. It is likely that the other web interface project(s) may benefit from some of the components that I've created, and also very likely that Gargoyle could benefit from some components of other open-source interfaces. I would be happy to share knowledge/code/ideas with other projects, even though the goals/philosophy of the projects may differ -- please contact me if interested. More information / documentation is available at gargoyle-router.com for those interested. Eric ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org http://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Gargoyle -- another (new) web interface for OpenWrt Kamikaze
On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 17:04 -0400, Eric Bishop wrote: > It is ironic that the LuCI team decided to make an announcement > regarding their project today. I have also been working on a new > (open source) web interface for Kamikaze called Gargoyle, and am now > releasing the first beta version, which can be found at > gargoyle-router.com. Another. ~sigh~ I'm all for choice, but too much choice possibly means an unnecessary division of labour and unfortunately all Open Source projects suffer from a shortage of labour. I wonder how much better and more complete one (or two perhaps) web UIs for OpenWRT would be if the resources were pooled into a common project that kept all of the stakeholders happy. > Right up front I want to emphasize that Gargoyle is, like both LuCI > and X-Wrt a front-end for OpenWrt and NOT a fork. Right. All trying to achieve the same thing. Hence my division of labour comment. > Currently it is designed to run on top of Kamikaze 7.09 and not the > trunk, but as soon as another stable version is released it will be > engineered to run on top of that. So you will only remain compatible with released versions? How much lag do you expect after a release becomes stable before you will have your UI working on it? > However, several features included in the current trunk have been > incorporated (e.g. the new UCI) and are installed as packages on top > of the default Kamikaze release. I have chosen to incorporate the > features this way so that the interface could be built around a stable > version vs. the ever-changing trunk. Right, but unless you track trunk, you will always have a lag between waiting for a stable release and porting your work to it. > Gargoyle takes a very different philosophical approach to interface > design than X-Wrt or what I've seen of the new LuCI. Both X-Wrt and > LuCI seem to be designed with the goal of providing the absolute > maximum functionality possible. Which is a good thing. With the hackabilty of OpenWRT, people are doing all kinds of neat things to it, a lot which less-power-users might like, if there were UI to configure it. > However, this often comes at the expense of making the interface more > difficult to use, and can turn off novice users. Indeed, there should be a simplified interface for the simple use-cases, but also a more advanced interface for power users. But there is nothing wrong with those both being available in the same UI. They are not mutually exclusive. Just my $0.02. b. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org http://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Gargoyle -- another (new) web interface for OpenWrt Kamikaze
Brian J. Murrell wrote: > On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 17:04 -0400, Eric Bishop wrote: >> It is ironic that the LuCI team decided to make an announcement >> regarding their project today. I have also been working on a new >> (open source) web interface for Kamikaze called Gargoyle, and am now >> releasing the first beta version, which can be found at >> gargoyle-router.com. > > Another. ~sigh~ > > I'm all for choice, but too much choice possibly means an unnecessary > division of labour and unfortunately all Open Source projects suffer > from a shortage of labour. > > I wonder how much better and more complete one (or two perhaps) web UIs > for OpenWRT would be if the resources were pooled into a common project > that kept all of the stakeholders happy. > In a perfect world, yes, but pleasing everyone is hard. Existing projects are simply not suited to what I want. I looked carefully at existing projects before starting Gargoyle and concluded that to do what I wanted would require re-writing almost everything, so I started my own project. > >> Currently it is designed to run on top of Kamikaze 7.09 and not the >> trunk, but as soon as another stable version is released it will be >> engineered to run on top of that. > > So you will only remain compatible with released versions? How much lag > do you expect after a release becomes stable before you will have your > UI working on it? > You are right, there will be a lag -- probably about a month. However I fail to see how this is a major problem. It makes a lot more sense to develop for a stable release than for something that can (and does) change at a moment's notice. Any key must-have features/bug-fixes in the trunk can be added on top of the Gargoyle versions released for older distributions. This is how the new UCI is currently incorporated. >> Gargoyle takes a very different philosophical approach to interface >> design than X-Wrt or what I've seen of the new LuCI. Both X-Wrt and >> LuCI seem to be designed with the goal of providing the absolute >> maximum functionality possible. > > Which is a good thing. With the hackabilty of OpenWRT, people are doing > all kinds of neat things to it, a lot which less-power-users might like, > if there were UI to configure it. Right, but only if that UI is easy to understand. Just because a feature CAN be configured via a web interface does not mean that it is accessible to your average user. In order for an average user to be able to use a feature it must be relatively easy to 1) understand what it is/does and 2) understand how to use the controls avaialable to configure it. Even if the feature is available via a web interface there is a barrier to usage unless the feature is properly labeled and the controls are easy to use and to understand. >> However, this often comes at the expense of making the interface more >> difficult to use, and can turn off novice users. > > Indeed, there should be a simplified interface for the simple use-cases, > but also a more advanced interface for power users. But there is > nothing wrong with those both being available in the same UI. They are > not mutually exclusive. Again this is true in a perfect world. It is POSSIBLE to create a user interface that incorporates all desirable features for power-users and is still very user-friendly. However, as you note above, there is always a developer shortage, and there is ALWAYS another new feature that can be implemented. Therefore, there is always a tradeoff in how much time is spent developing each individual feature so that it will be user-friendly and how many features you have. Existing projects devote almost all of their time to implementing new features as opposed to spending the time (and it always does take a lot of extra time) to make features very user-friendly. The result is that existing projects have tons of really cool features, but many aren't accessible to the average user, and need drastic changes to make them accessible. Hence, Gargoyle. Eric ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org http://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Gargoyle -- another (new) web interface for OpenWrt Kamikaze
Its funny you all speak about division, being i cant completely functionally use any of them that exists, being x-wrt, gargoyle, or luci so to each there own, there is CoovaAP also which is a diversion gargoyle doesnt even configure WDS from where i can see, looking at Luci next, x-wrt leaves a bit to be desired quite honestly, i believe there is room in this space for other, better more complete GUIs, not to compare anything openwrt to dd-wrt, the only good thing dd-wrt has is the GUI, the rest well we have found problematic and unstable, also its encrypted. not sure why he decided to shoot himself that way but hey, whole other topic. now if all of you were to come together, and join forces and take the best features from each of what exists, you might get my attention, the one gui that does what i require is Coova, though its not complete either. overall you all lack some functionality in both design and features capabilities. so stop whining or compalining and GET to work before someone else wrties another, by the way Luci... well its fast kudos to you guys for that, though i cant read german :) On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 09:57 -0400, Brian J. Murrell wrote: > On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 17:04 -0400, Eric Bishop wrote: > > It is ironic that the LuCI team decided to make an announcement > > regarding their project today. I have also been working on a new > > (open source) web interface for Kamikaze called Gargoyle, and am now > > releasing the first beta version, which can be found at > > gargoyle-router.com. > > Another. ~sigh~ > > I'm all for choice, but too much choice possibly means an unnecessary > division of labour and unfortunately all Open Source projects suffer > from a shortage of labour. > > I wonder how much better and more complete one (or two perhaps) web UIs > for OpenWRT would be if the resources were pooled into a common project > that kept all of the stakeholders happy. > > > Right up front I want to emphasize that Gargoyle is, like both LuCI > > and X-Wrt a front-end for OpenWrt and NOT a fork. > > Right. All trying to achieve the same thing. Hence my division of > labour comment. > > > Currently it is designed to run on top of Kamikaze 7.09 and not the > > trunk, but as soon as another stable version is released it will be > > engineered to run on top of that. > > So you will only remain compatible with released versions? How much lag > do you expect after a release becomes stable before you will have your > UI working on it? > > > However, several features included in the current trunk have been > > incorporated (e.g. the new UCI) and are installed as packages on top > > of the default Kamikaze release. I have chosen to incorporate the > > features this way so that the interface could be built around a stable > > version vs. the ever-changing trunk. > > Right, but unless you track trunk, you will always have a lag between > waiting for a stable release and porting your work to it. > > > Gargoyle takes a very different philosophical approach to interface > > design than X-Wrt or what I've seen of the new LuCI. Both X-Wrt and > > LuCI seem to be designed with the goal of providing the absolute > > maximum functionality possible. > > Which is a good thing. With the hackabilty of OpenWRT, people are doing > all kinds of neat things to it, a lot which less-power-users might like, > if there were UI to configure it. > > > However, this often comes at the expense of making the interface more > > difficult to use, and can turn off novice users. > > Indeed, there should be a simplified interface for the simple use-cases, > but also a more advanced interface for power users. But there is > nothing wrong with those both being available in the same UI. They are > not mutually exclusive. > > Just my $0.02. > > b. > > ___ > openwrt-devel mailing list > openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > http://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org http://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Gargoyle -- another (new) web interface for OpenWrt Kamikaze
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 20:59 +0700, OutBackDingo wrote: > Its funny you all speak about division, being i cant completely > functionally use any of them that exists, being x-wrt, gargoyle, or luci That's exactly my point. _Exactly_. Here we have 3 or 4 (or more) web UIs all going off in different directions and not one of them functional enough that I don't need a shell prompt. Don't get me wrong, I applaud all of the time and effort being put into development of FOSS, I just think that the OpenWRT WebUI effort would be better serviced by some collaboration of resources to yield one or two UIs that were functionally useful for the varied uses and functions that OpenWRT can be put to. I'm all for a simple and advanced UI, but those don't have to be different projects. The same framework (i.e. the meat behind the eye-candy) can be used to provide both rather than two completely different frameworks with two completely different lipstick-and-mascara covers on them. b. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org http://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Gargoyle -- another (new) web interface for OpenWrt Kamikaze
I think you might be reading between the lines here, clarifying my thoughts, diversification is good, controlled collaboration growing from that is even better overall I think its best you take a good look at the BSD arena, there are multiple BSDs all living and playing well, and sharing concepts, features, code. there is nothing wrong with diversion, of similiar concepts, but there should be some "collaboration" amongst these projects, meaning dont re-invent the whole wheel, but share concepts. its not the projects themselves that are broken, its the conceptual way people percieve development, take a lesson from BSD and even m0n0wall. M0n0wall has itself been forked into some 4 or 5 other projects each with a different target audience, though similiar concepts and code could be "shared" among the projects. I find in alot of ways the linux camp in general if very forked, they dont percieve doing things together in generalist terms, meaning whats common to you all, first its WRT. second is the goal of being able to configure it, third is features. if the 3 projects collaborated and understood one another there could be a good common re-usable code base, from there is the capability to develop divergent UIs that might appear conceptually the same but have differences among them, you all need to consider your goals, whats re-usable, whats common, whats unique to each individually. I never said all come together in one, that breaks potential innovation from individuals, but it does make sense to collaborate and consider the re-usabilities of your project and how / where it affects others. its not even they all have to be haserl, or lua, a language preference even make a difference. in both flexibilities and performance, though overall one might be faster, the other more flexible. im surprised theres no python gui, or php even. people want functionality and features without giving up performance. On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 10:10 -0400, Brian J. Murrell wrote: > On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 20:59 +0700, OutBackDingo wrote: > > Its funny you all speak about division, being i cant completely > > functionally use any of them that exists, being x-wrt, gargoyle, or luci > > That's exactly my point. _Exactly_. > > Here we have 3 or 4 (or more) web UIs all going off in different > directions and not one of them functional enough that I don't need a > shell prompt. > > Don't get me wrong, I applaud all of the time and effort being put into > development of FOSS, I just think that the OpenWRT WebUI effort would be > better serviced by some collaboration of resources to yield one or two > UIs that were functionally useful for the varied uses and functions that > OpenWRT can be put to. > > I'm all for a simple and advanced UI, but those don't have to be > different projects. The same framework (i.e. the meat behind the > eye-candy) can be used to provide both rather than two completely > different frameworks with two completely different lipstick-and-mascara > covers on them. > > b. > > ___ > openwrt-devel mailing list > openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > http://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org http://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
