Have you read the Rockbox Manual?

[aegis]

Re: actual question - well, I'm just getting started.

But putting the thing straight - there is a pretty nice guide on the wiki, for instance how to install and what features are actually present (well, it's pretty hard to start without that info ) and it's fair enough for me (I'm a sysop on Wikipedia and although it's not MediaWiki but tech wiki I get the idea ).

That's why maintaining the wiki is IMHO crucial. AFAIR there was one typo in iPod section in one of instructions to put in the command line but I'm pretty sure it has been corrected so far.

Maybe it's a Polish culture of not reading manuals, but Rockbox is still not a rocket science and you can use it effectively when you read forums and wiki. Of course it's nice to have this _complete_ manual somewhere to learn or send somebody to learn more easily (esp. if one has little time). But certainly tasks like compiling, porting to Rockbox, debugging, translating etc. require much more detailed knowledge and looking into documentation than just using it on day-to-day basis.

And I think it's good - Music Players should be simple enough to be used without reading the manual. 
Rockbox delivers that.

[Jillorious]

I read through the entire manual three to 4 times PRIOR to instalation. After instalation I've used it just to make sure that i understood everything correctly.
Call me a communist, but I personaly do think that anybody that hasn't read the manual should be banned from the forums until he/she has done so. Maybe there should be some kind of test upon registration.

[Febs]

But putting the thing straight - there is a pretty nice guide on the wiki, for instance how to install and what features are actually present (well, it's pretty hard to start without that info ) and it's fair enough for me (I'm a sysop on Wikipedia and although it's not MediaWiki but tech wiki I get the idea ).

That's why maintaining the wiki is IMHO crucial.

The problem with the wiki is that as the number of supported Rockbox platforms increases, it becomes extremely difficult to maintain separate wiki pages for each supported platform.  The manual, on the other hand, is set up in LaTex, so it can be configured relatively easily to support multiple platforms. 

Now that the manual is available not only in PDF form but also in HTML form, my personal feeling is that it should supplant the wiki page.  Obviously, that would make it more difficult for individuals to edit the documentation.  However, the upside is that we can maintain documentation that is customized for each supported platform.  Those with commit access can make changes directly to the manual; users without commit access can still make changes to the manual through use of the patch tracker.

[aegis]

Well... the idea of having just one manual is certainly tempting for the developers.

However, Wiki is not that bad. If you have the same content for multiple platforms, one common Wiki page will be just enough. And personally if I am looking for one certain thing Wiki seems to be more efficient for me.
Certainly if maintaining it requires too much effort, the number of Wiki pages should be simply reduced. But I'm not sure it's necessary; and I think Wiki is "more natural" to maintain for Rockbox users than manual and certainly through Flyspray.

Maybe if there were more explicit policy "Wiki for users. Help to maintain." it would solve some problems - or maybe not.
Results are hard to predict here.

[bascule]

Call me a communist, but I personaly do think that anybody that hasn't read the manual should be banned from the forums until he/she has done so. Maybe there should be some kind of test upon registration.

LOL - I totally agree

...and I think Wiki is "more natural" to maintain for Rockbox users than manual and certainly through Flyspray.

Agree with this as well. Once past the Wiki concept learning curve, I've found it quite easy. However, the whole rigmarole of download, install, learn and configure CVS, learn what source code looks like, make updates, build a manual to check etc., etc. puts me right off doing proper manual updates

[Febs]

...and I think Wiki is "more natural" to maintain for Rockbox users than manual and certainly through Flyspray.

Agree with this as well. Once past the Wiki concept learning curve, I've found it quite easy. However, the whole rigmarole of download, install, learn and configure CVS, learn what source code looks like, make updates, build a manual to check etc., etc. puts me right off doing proper manual updates

This is true in theory, but the fact of the matter is that despite the lower learning curve and higher ease of use, updates to the wiki are not happening--or at least they are not happening with nearly the frequency of updates to the manual.  Look at this page for example:

http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/ManualFileBrowser

The last time it was updated was more than six months ago when I made changes.  It only contains information about iriver, and lacks information about Archos, iAudio, iPod, etc. 

Look at some of the other pages in the WikiManual:

http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/ManualFileMenu (last update Feb 16)
http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/ManualMainMenu (last update May 5)
http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/ManualWpsContextMenu (last update May 18)

By contrast, the last update to the manual was less than an hour ago.

[Llorean]

It's true, most people who find information lacking in the wiki "can't be bothered" to add it once it's explained to them. And the explainer is often already busy elsewhere.

[aegis]

That's pretty said, Llorean.

Maybe some sound invitation / policy "please help us maintain the wiki" would help?

By the way, I've been curious - why tech wiki and not MediaWiki? Because it's simpler to keep files to download on it?

The sad thing is the most projects use MediaWiki and people know them better from Wikipedia and its sister projects, iPodLinux, iPodWizard etc. I think it's some kind of barreer - people rather modify environments they know already - but maybe I'm in minority here.

[carmenm]

By the time i discovered RB there was no manual, and now i dont need it anymore :p

[Bagder]

By the way, I've been curious - why tech wiki and not MediaWiki?

Because we picked one (a long time ago). It's not like the particular wiki flavour would matter in regard to keeping the information up-to-date.

[keuleJ]

Would it be possible to make a text-only version of the Manual (e.g one text file per chapter or so)? Then you could it add to the build and display it on your player. That way you would always have it around when you need it!  

[Mr. Brownstone]

Good idea!

[bluebrother]

You could dump the HTML manual using lynx or links to plain text. The output of links is really good, so I don't see a need generating another version of the manual.

[keuleJ]

Well, I just saved the stuff as plain text and its a bit cumbersome. I don't think it would be that difficult to build a text-only manual
With a uncompressed size of 210Kb, you could even include the text manual in builds.

[Yotto]

I don't think it would be that difficult to build a text-only manual

We look forward to what you can produce

Really, though, if you think it's a good thing to do, why not do it yourself and provide it to the community?