Documentation index

I have noticed a few oddities on the main Documentation index

Firstly, the “User Guide” link goes to the User Guide project (now finished) rather than the page in the Merchandise section.

Secondly, the “Frequently Asked Questions” link has text which suggests it is for matters related to ROOL rather than RISC OS in general. New users might not realise there is a “Beginner’s FAQ” hiding behind the link. Should we promote the Beginner’s FAQ to the main Documentation index (perhaps below the “User Guide” link) or would a mention on the “Introduction to RISC OS” page suffice?

Thirdly, the i.Mx6 port is mentioned but not linked. There is an “iMx6 port” page in the wiki, but it’s an orphan. Since I know very little about the i.Mx6 there may be a good reason for this, but if there is wouldn’t the right thing be to add the link and update the “iMx6 port” page accordingly?

Thirdly, the i.Mx6 port is mentioned but not linked. There is an “iMx6 port” page in the wiki, but it’s an orphan. Since I know very little about the i.Mx6 there may be a good reason for this, but if there is wouldn’t the right thing be to add the link and update the “iMx6 port” page accordingly?

I think the issue is that various people were supposed to update the different sets of information (and features of the builds and their documentation) so as to document a reasonably uniform set of builds with stable releases and beta releases.
OMAP5 was slightly late to the party and only recently made it into the main downloads page. The beta of iMX6 has been around a while but various elements of the build and lacking documentation meant it missed the 5.24 stable status.
The page you found is probably a partial attempt.

The page you found is probably a partial attempt.

Fair enough. I’ll leave i.Mx6 well alone in that case, as I’m certainly in no position to supply full documentation.

The i.MX6 port is primarily available from us in the form of mini.m or ARMX6 (etc etc.) It is provided on our users’ download site for the machines. It is actively maintained and updated. We haven’t done anything regarding the ROOL wiki, as that would suggest that users update via the ROOL path. Since the ARMX6 and mini.m OS builds contain extra functionality (eg. USB audio support, improved HDMI audio, SPI, Partition support to name a few) we don’t recommend users source their OS outside of our eco-system. They can, but they’ll get a more complete experience with the ROMs we release.

The irony is, of course, that next to the pi, it is probably the most-used/active RISC OS port!

The irony is, of course, that next to the pi, it is probably the most-used/active RISC OS port!

I’d say the real irony is that documenting what’s in the beta on the ROOL site and what functionality only exists in the “from the supplier” version is easy, free, publicity on a site that’s easier to find than the suppliers web site. (Sorry, but you do hide a little, and possibly hide better than they who have many things (but not iMX6))
There’s also the possibility, if ROOL are inclined to agree, that a link from there to the suppliers site might be a useful feature for users. For boards where more than one supplier exists then it would be alphabetical order or some such for the links.

I’d say the real irony is that documenting what’s in the beta on the ROOL site and what functionality only exists in the “from the supplier” version is easy

Thats a good idea though it may throw up other issues whilst say one version from supplier A has some added bits but lags behind in some areas as it is not based on the current build and hence why it’s not signed off as a stable build.

Andrew is also rightly concerned about the user experience and expectations of say loading ROOL builds that have not been validated in their ROM /set up and hence potential support costs.

Your suggestion on identifying suppliers and their supported product would mitigate some of that.

Thats a good idea though it may throw up other issues whilst say one version from supplier A has some added bits but lags behind in some areas as it is not based on the current build and hence why it’s not signed off as a stable build.

It just struck me that Andrew, and others, are missing the publicity opportunity although the primary irony is who shelled out cash for the IPR and then didn’t use the simpler bits of the marketing. As to stable build:

Andrew is also rightly concerned about the user experience and expectations of say loading ROOL builds that have not been validated in their ROM /set up and hence potential support costs.

That should be part of the information about beta status and reflected in the information about the supplier validated or stable version. NB. Andrew also sells the software OS and support package.

Now if the stable version on the ROOL site was 5.24 and the R-Comp version was 5.26 (with extras) or on due course 5.26 base and 5.28 (with extras) it’s a marketing plus on the +0.2 and extras.

Your suggestion on identifying suppliers and their supported product would mitigate some of that.

Primary reason for that suggestion was that it’s even-handed on the publicity angle, which ROOL need to be to avoid antagonizing any particular supplier. I’m sure you’ll agree we’ve seen enough arguing.
The extras I mention above should specifically include the support.
If people don’t want to pay for support then they have Community Support and the wider Acorn community on c.s.a to talk to, although the latter would probably point back to Community Support

Edit: I should point out, the rather obvious point, that if you’ve not seen a net based free/basic/deluxe software marketing page then you can’t possibly be reading this because you don’t have an internet connected computer. So, you just know what has to be the design of the supplier page linked to…

Documentation index … User Guide and Beginner’s FAQ

I have put references to both pages into the first section of the Documentation page.