[Rule] what's next?

[M. Fioretti]

On Wed, August 22, 2007 5:54 pm, chris at idlelion.net wrote:
>> This is normal, I have to enable it first and will do it tonight from
>> home.
>
> The web page needs to be fixed

which one exactly? May I ask you the exact URL?

> It seems there isn't the manpower in place for Rule to keep up to date
> with Fedora and the 12 to 18 months between RHEL releases seems more
> compatible with our resources, at least so far.

Theoretically, the only work would be to port Slinky. This has not happened
so far with the desired frequency because, basically, it was made by one
or two people without putting together (this is also my fault...) a
complete documentation of what must be done. This is why I would like
so much to manage once and for all to document Slinky thouroughly, because
it could make updating it much faster even to project newcomers, even
every 6/8 months after Fedora.

But if there is a more substainable way to achieve the project goals, so
be it, see again "Summary / thoughts on RULE". Not to mention that one
thing doesn't exclude the other, if and when somebody else only interested
in Fedora joins the project.

> I meant to ask if it will help the project for me to install FC5
> using Rule on my old laptop and report my results.

Of course it will be very helpful if you can try that and report!

Meaning that someone

> If we want to promote the use of Rule with end users as opposed to
> developers, slinky has to be easy to use and have good documentation.

This is why I'd like to put everything in order on the website. Please
also note that not all end users would have to know that slinky exists.
See what Ingo L. and the VUM project did with Rule in Uganda a few years
ago: they customized slinky to make their own desktop which was installed
inside several schools and just used, period.

> Personally, I'd like to avoid customization at all costs. I want it to
> work so I can use it. I don't want to have to know its architecture until
> I want to improve it.
>
> ANYTHING would be better than uploading outdated docs.

Yes, but the existing docs are not outdated: they are incomplete but darn
current, meaning that they apply to the last or one-before-last version of
slinky that we have :-)  What is outdated is slinky itself.

Hope this helps to decide what to do

Marco