Some Structure Changes Implemented

[rockedge]

Hello Everyone,
Some changes to the forum structure have been completed to reduce the length of the index page. Weighing a lot of good ideas and suggestions that have been posted and so giving them a try out. The sub-forum "Hardware" might be eliminated but for now it is in Puppy Projects to cover any home brew engineered devices that members are building in the basement laboratory or out in the back in the shed workshop.

On a side note:
I would like a mini-nuclear reactor maybe used from a scrapped submarine or intended for a satellite, to put in a bunker out in the yard to power up with electricity, my neighborhood for the next 10 years, for free. I will consider a home built model if the controller is running a Puppy Linux.

[williwaw]

forum looking nice, BTW

[rockedge]

Hello Again!

Some more repositioning has occurred to shorten the index page length. A Quirky forum has been included. No position is finalized and we still find ourselves in a dynamically flowing Beta phase.

[nic007]

Hello Again!

Some more repositioning has occurred to shorten the index page length. A Quirky forum has been included. No position is finalized and we still find ourselves in a dynamically flowing Beta phase.

You can save a line by deleting " that don't really have anything to do with Puppy." in the description of the Programming section...as many discussions here may actually have a lot to do with programming/scripts for Puppy.

[wiak]

Yes, I would also remove the words (for Programming):

, and projects that don't really have anything to do with Puppy.

Programming/scripts should be considered "Advanced topics" that are of relevance to all distros discussed in the forum. It's enough just to say:

For discussions about programming, programming questions/advice, and projects at development stage

Projects which are already at 'release' stage should be getting put into their appropriate section (as for example a tar.gz, or better/easier-for-most-users a dotpet) in Additional Software anyway, and discussed there rather than in Programming section. The author of program mmview, for example, has stated that it is not yet ready for general release and hence continued to be discussed under Programming section for a very long time on old Puppy forum. That gives it more exposure of course, since not buried away in lower-level Additional Software category, which is fine for a while at least. However that kind of program discussion being kept in Programming section should not be encouraged long term.

It seems unreasonable to me to keep a program's discussions under Programming section once it has already reached the stage of being usefully already usable and mainly just added to by its own creator. My opinion, therefore, is that moderators should move any long term and/or already usable app/util project thread into the appropriate Additional Software category, like everyone elses working apps and utils, or maybe we all should move our app/util threads into Programming section, for equal overall exposure, and clog it up?????!

Since there remains a danger of developers occupying Programming thread endlessly with their favourite own-project (since most of us don't do that), it may alternatively be better to leave Programming section only "For discussions about programming, and for programming questions and advice". I think that is better to avoid already working projects having their main thread space there, which is not the appropriate place or indeed the purpose of such a section.

Summary. I favour sub-heading being only:

For discussions about programming, and for programming questions and advice

Program snippets are fine, but 'Programming' is not the appropriate place to keep an actual working project, which should have its own thread under Additional Software like everyone else's efforts. No one of course needs to release their often unlicensed project if they are not ready to do so anyway - this is supposed to be a forum primarily concerning open source software, which does not simply mean that the source is visible, but also that it has a proper open source license so others are free to use it and fork it or whatever. No license code means copyright its author only - it does not mean public domain use as you like unless that is stated as its license. Programs for Puppy/Dogs should at least contain a statement from their author saying whether it is under an open-source license or not so people are aware of whether it is actually free to use and copy and re-distribute or fork or not, rather than leaving out license, which actually means it isn't free to use (without author permission) at all...

wiak

[bigpup]

Projects which are already at 'release' stage should be getting put into their appropriate section (as for example a tar.gz, or better/easier-for-most-users a dotpet) in Additional Software anyway, and discussed there rather than in Programming section.

That will make, two topics for the same whatever, in two different locations.
Just moving the topic, to Additional Software whatever section applies, would be best.
But, rockedge would keep active, having to move topics

Welcome to the world of humans, that do not follow any common sense, or really read and understand!

[wiak]

Projects which are already at 'release' stage should be getting put into their appropriate section (as for example a tar.gz, or better/easier-for-most-users a dotpet) in Additional Software anyway, and discussed there rather than in Programming section.

That will make, two topics for the same whatever, in two different locations.
Just moving the topic, to Additional Software whatever section applies, would be best.
But, rockedge would keep active, having to move topics

Welcome to the world of humans, that do not follow any common sense, or really read and understand!

Oh but I entirely agree: there should be only one place and that is in the appropriate section of Additional Software. If code is not ready for publishing in an author's opinion then don't publish it! And even more important, if the code is not proper open-source license conditions, tell us so we can make an informed choice whether to use proprietry copyright code or not! No license statement in the code or accompanying it means it is copyright to the author alone and not contributing to open-source movement; other developers cannot modify and share or fork or use routines from it since marked as 'copyright'.