No problem on the Wiki.
But I think some more work is still needed on the Insllation section. The whole first section talks about how you can install OpenWRT and then install Gargoyle on top of it. Do you really think this is the best approach? That impression is given because so much of the installation instructions are dedicated to this concept.
For the common man the combined install is the way to go. You should redraft the first section to recommend that and show explicitly how simple it is. Thoughts about the install on top of OpenWRT approach should be religated to a section at the end and clearly labeled "For experts only".
I toned down the red warning some as well. Lets not scare everyone thats might want to give it a try.
In addition, delete builds like 1.05 that you know have a problem from the server. There is no sense in someone using that and having a bad experience for no reason.
More thoughts.
QoS Philosophy
Moderator: Moderators
Re: QoS Philosophy
Linksys WRT1900ACv2
Netgear WNDR3700v2
TP Link 1043ND v3
TP-Link TL-WDR3600 v1
Buffalo WZR-HP-G300NH2
WRT54G-TM
Netgear WNDR3700v2
TP Link 1043ND v3
TP-Link TL-WDR3600 v1
Buffalo WZR-HP-G300NH2
WRT54G-TM
Re: QoS Philosophy
I like the idea of moving the installation as a set of packages to the end of the page, for those experts who might be interested. I made this modification in the wiki. I'm not sure it needs to be labeled "for experts only," but putting it at the end should indicate it is a secondary method of installation, and not the preferred method of installation.
I'm not as thrilled with the idea of deleting old builds, even ones with known bugs. First, most people are going to download the latest build -- I don't know of anyone who's going to grab 1.0.5 when 1.0.6 is available unless they have a very good reason to do so. Secondly, it's good practice to allow downloading of previous releases -- it's possible that while I fixed a couple important bugs another one somehow snuck in, and someone wants a version with the original bugs, not the new ones. I try to eliminate as many bugs as I can, but if one doesn't get reported, or doesn't show up in my setup I may not find it. It's in the spirit of open software development to try to keep old releases available, even if they are flawed.
I'm not as thrilled with the idea of deleting old builds, even ones with known bugs. First, most people are going to download the latest build -- I don't know of anyone who's going to grab 1.0.5 when 1.0.6 is available unless they have a very good reason to do so. Secondly, it's good practice to allow downloading of previous releases -- it's possible that while I fixed a couple important bugs another one somehow snuck in, and someone wants a version with the original bugs, not the new ones. I try to eliminate as many bugs as I can, but if one doesn't get reported, or doesn't show up in my setup I may not find it. It's in the spirit of open software development to try to keep old releases available, even if they are flawed.