> I prefer editing static files than the wiki approach. Are the two methods mutually exclusive? I mean, does having an 'edit' button keep one from manipulating files directly?
> I understand that's possible to make things easier for contributors to > contribute Yes, that's exactly the point. > keep in mind that manage another one CMS costs a bit more I can't imagine that it's that much more. > put more load on the server [and on Pankso], etc I doubt that. While pansko complains about wordpress taking an hour to upgrade (don't know why), we are only talking about a simple wiki -- either way, there are commits that have to be reviewed -- and we are talking about saving many, many hours of work for contributors who may not contribute, otherwise. It's not up to me, of course, but I still think (whatever small hassle it is) it would be good for the project. @pansko -- I didn't meant to complain about you on a personal level. I realize maintaining a distro is a lot of work. You, yourself, said you should have been more involved with the new tazwok months before it was finished. But I am defensive because I've been helping as I can on IRC for almost two years (this being only my second break from it), and numerous people have said they think I'm the only one offering technical support. I've stayed there to learn, but also because IRC is the best place to find out what users want and what problems they're having -- it's better than bug reports, and most active linux projects have an active IRC channel. In the first year, there was almost no activity, and rarely a developer apart from taziden. (Although, I did meet Caudinei there, and Bellard). I also understand how the mailing list is a more efficient medium for communication, since we are coming from all over the world with different time zones. However, my point about KISS stands. (Incidentally, I learned it as Keep It Simple Stupid, but I do like Keep It Short and Simple better.) But is there a blueprint? I have seen the ARM project, the libre project, the uclibc/tiny project, the modular project, and on and on. I said this the other day on IRC: If a tree has so many branches, but no strong trunk, it's just a bush. I think the ideas manifest here are genius -- especially things like tazpanel -- and that's why I've stayed, because I'm very much interested in seeing Slitaz evolve into the mainstream distro is could be. (By 'mainstream', I don't mean like Ubuntu or Debian, just that it could be commonly used my the mainstream public.) Slitaz has the potential to do what no other distro has ever done, to be usable on most any machine, live or installed, easily customized, portable, capable of using packages from other repos or from source -- the incredible part, while still being simple and light. Please don't take my ranting personally, because it really wasn't meant that way. I do think the project is a bit like a foundation without a mission statement, at times, and it often appears to be something that's getting designed as we go along. I just think if there's a clear destination -- a solid trunk -- then anyone can contribute, and that benefits the whole... but only with oversight, of course. Straying from my analogy of architecture, I should stay with that of food. If the focus is only on the ingredients and the process (the KISS part), then we have a buffet. And to be a four-star restaurant, we need more than just a chef (you), we need a menu (the blueprint). I really don't mean to sound critical. I just think Slitaz lacks a clear goal and that this whole conflict comes from a number of people with their own personal goals that don't always go well together. Like three different cooks making their specialty, they're gourmet in their own right, but they don't necessarily belong on the same plate. (Damn, this has made me hungry!) I apologize, too, for how long-winded I am.... --- SliTaz GNU/Linux Mailing list - http://www.slitaz.org/
