I get it. Makes sense with me.

Personally, I think the firmware filename should include the version (or build revision for trunk) so that users DO know what they've downloaded, even when they check a few months later when they have a problem. It's very common to see a problem reported here on the forums and the user reports a generic filename for which "version" they're using. This does not help anyone troubleshoot. Not sure if a symlink could be compatible with this approach.

(Last edited by drawz on 16 Apr 2015, 23:09)

Agree with everything here!

By the way, great work here guys! I agree that lowering the barrier to entry is HUGE for expanding the OpenWrt user base. There's no reason DD-WRT should be the most popular and defacto firmware alternative in use with what we've got here.

Since there seem to be a couple web developers involved with this thread and also believe in making OpenWrt easier to use, here are a few ideas I had to improve the user experience:

https://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?id=54056

If I could build them myself, I would! Hoping one of you would be interested in doing so.

Just out of curiosity: Why is it good to have many users?

Congratulations, you just advanced to the "OpenWrt Improvement, Dept. GUI" leader! ;-)
Really, an idea needs someone to push it. I feel that for the GUI, it could be you.

When I started with OpenWrt around the same time as you, I thought in many cases: "No, I can not do this, I don't know how to accomplish this.".
Now, some time later, I have to say: If there's enough interest and the will to learn and help, then you can do it.
You have good ideas. Slice them down to manageable size, get people involved for each of those slices.

More general questions:

I noticed some attempts to improve OpenWrt:
- Documentation (this thread)
-- toh
-- Device pages
- Statistics (also this thread)
-- Forum statistics
-- Download statistics
-- Wiki statistics
- Polls (also this thread)
- GUI -> https://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?id=54056

I feel that there are several discussions about several improvement topics are discussed in this thread, and some other scattered in other threads.

I'm asking myself and you: Would it be helpful to slice down the ideas in manageable tasks and canalize the ideas and work in a new forum cathegory "OpenWrt improvement", or if we don't get a new cathegory, then at least break the ideas down in separate threads?

That would make it easier to focus the attention of willing and capable users to nice and small, manageable tasks that improve OpenWrt step by step.

Once you have set reasonable goals, you only need someone working on them

I'd suggest to open a new thread about this topic and ask for the developers opinion regarding this proposal.

To me it makes perfectly sense!

Generally, this sounds like a good idea. However, I fear that this would lead to just more noise at the moment. Lots of users don't really read the subforum titles and post their questions in unfitting subforums, and "OpenWrt improvement" sounds like an invitation for everyone to pose any random question. Maybe stick to separate threads for the moment, but hey, let's put them in Development at least?

Thanks for the encouragement! Happy to help lead the effort on enhancing the GUI, but I really don't have the coding skills to pull it off. Maybe one day I'll find the time to learn...

As for expanding the user base, wouldn't it be nice to tell your not so technical friends to use OpenWrt without having to do it for them? Or your parents? Besides, it would just make the world a better place in general

Agree it's a great idea, but it may sound too much like a feature request forum. Maybe the discussion should go to the mailing list where there are fewer newbies? Or maybe moderate the topics posted in the subforum?

(Last edited by drawz on 18 Apr 2015, 04:17)

Critical mass, which comes in handy to get things done from hardware vendors etc.?

A big userbase should not be a goal in itself, but it has certain advantages (and drawbacks, as every Linux fiend will tell you ).

As @boromini says, "Critical Mass". It's important because:

- It keeps new developers coming to OpenWrt. Nobody wants to learn how to develop for a backwater project. (This is certainly true for me, if I'm gonna make the effort to contribute, I want people to know and benefit from my work, now and for a long time to come.)

- It exploits the "bazaar" (of the Cathedral and the Bazaar) by enticing lots of people to pay attention to OpenWrt. Most will install and go happily on their way. A few will do a little development work. But some will become sufficiently intrigued to develop a new, wacky and immensely powerful/wonderful feature that never existed.

- It's critical to keep that funnel (user -> developer -> genius/wacky feature) wide open at the front end, so that we have enough people to make the transitions to each of those stages.

- It is rewarding to see OpenWrt mentioned in the wider world. (And it hurts to see other, less capable, projects touted as the best "Alternate Firmware" to the vendor's stock.) This is especially so when you see comments like, "XXX firmware kinda sucks, but it's better than stock, and was an easy install..."

- There's a pride in sharing our work: "Hey, try out this firmware on your shiny new XXX router! I just bought one, and OpenWrt works great on it. And I'll show you how to get it going!"

- And a ton more reasons...

"More Users" isn't, in itself, a critical measure. Whether we had 100 or 105 people check it out in a week/month isn't inherently important.

But that number is a proxy for participation. Like that proverbial shark, if OpenWrt isn't moving forward, it's dying.

I don't think this will help. Here's why:

- It means that we could never post a long duration link to the "latest" firmware - any link would go to a single version, which could be different from day to day for an active project.

- We might solve this with a symlink to "latest". But then people would wind up with several (or a few dozen) images in their Downloads folder. Then they wonder, "Which of these is actually installed?"

- It's easy enough (and definitive) to go to the Web GUI or SSH in to get the version that's actually running.

- As @drawz says, No one reports their version number, anyway. (Of course, all the cool kids do :-)

(Last edited by richbhanover on 18 Apr 2015, 13:19)

I just updated it:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/906 … index.html

There are many good ideas... we are not very many people writing in this thread. I don't think we need to split into different topics at this time. I would rather suggest we focus on one or two things at a time, discuss them properly and then resolve them.

I'll try to do some more column-cleaning some day (the CPU column seems easy).

Update, please!
Just did some cleanup of the Wireless Standard column (some=the whole page .

Done!

Nice work with the Wireless column.
I am thinking about the Version column...
ANY = Any = ALL = All = all... (right?)

But what about
'?'
'-'
''
It seems like '?' is a good default for WIP/unknown/possible, but when supported it should be '-' if version is not relevant.
All=there are several versions, and all of them are equivalent.
'' should not be used.

Thoughts about this?

(Last edited by zo0ok on 19 Apr 2015, 18:19)

You were too fast!!!11 ;-)
I didn't expect such a quick action :-D
Did some final cleanup in the Wireless Standard colum, so: one more update please! Sees you have automated it and it doesn't take much efforts to update, right?

Done! It takes 10s when I sit at the right machine. I could essentially automate it 100%, but it is good to see if there are any errors.

OK, now I'm through Wireless Standard on all pages, not only toh (wip, unsupported...).
I'm done for today, can't see any more wiki syntax %-)

Update please!

Done!

Looks nice!
There seems to be two types of '-' in the Wireless Standard column, but I can have a look at that.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/906 … index.html

My thoughts:

- ALL = dangerous
Imagine Version = ALL, with versions 1.0 + 1.1 already existing.
Now there's Version 1.2... and the ALL is suddenly wrong.
- '?' = we don't know if there are any different HW versions;
- '-' not relevant; only one HW version; currently no different HW versions known;

I allowed myself to replace Wireless Standard="n/a" with "-" for two Buffalo Routers.
But then there is a jjPlus... there "n/a" = "depends on wireless card"?

I agree about the "All" for versions. But it says All/ALL/ANY/Any in some places, so even if we dont want to use it, I better replace them all with "All" for now (unless I find it wrong of course)?

(Last edited by zo0ok on 19 Apr 2015, 19:42)

I added a link to the actual article... however, there were some performance problems with the webpage itself, so (as a workaround) I right now show the link as a first column with the label "link". I shall try to improve it.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/906 … index.html

Oh, certainly! I hadn't realized that...
4 eyes see more than 2 ;-)

Good!

In the meantime, I tried to eliminate some of the "status = trunk" values. Quite successfully, I have to say. If there was an image available in 10.03.1 / 12.09 / 14.07, then I changed support from trunk to the respective earliest version.
-> Update please!

We should do this for all devices, to keep the number of "trunks" as low as possible.

(Last edited by tmo26 on 19 Apr 2015, 22:41)