Working on the OS FAQ [Mega-Tokyo Wiki]

[Pype.Clicker]

http://www.osdev.org/osfaq2/index.php/BabyStep

just promoted the baby steps to the wiki ... bugs hunt is open ...

[Solar]

df was so kind to pass me the Wiki admin password. That means I can:

1) keep backups of the Wiki contents;

2) set up static (XHTML) snapshots of the Wiki (e.g. for download, or further processing towards a printable version);

3) delete obsoleted pages (as listed in the TODO list).

1) and 3) I already did, and will continue to do so on a regular basis. 2) is more long-term, to be done when the Wiki became structured enough for such an endeavour. (See 3)...)

Thanks to df for trusting me with this.

[Solar]

Update: In a flurry of activity and between Pype and myself, we eliminated all pending administrative tasks... go us!



Seriously, when you look at The TODO list, you will probably realize the progress we made. Espacially the weeding out of unlinked and linked-but-nonexistent pages is a big step towards a downloadable / printable version of the FAQ.

Long-term speaking, I would very much like to reword the page titles. "Is it possible to use Unit Testing with my OS" is about as un-Wiki-like a page title as can be. UnitTesting would be more like it. This makes for better readable Wiki pages, and easier linking into the Wiki.

Any idea on how to do this?

- not at all because it's a stupid idea due to a reason I overlooked; or

- step by step renaming and re-linking of the pages over a period of time (including the clutter this will generate in the RecentChanges log); or

- grunt "close the Wiki for a day and do it all in one sweep" (including the risk of screwing up and having to roll back to a backup)?

(The latter would require df's agreement and cooperation.)

[Therx]

I think the last would be the best idea. If people think that having it down for a day would be "the end of the world" then you could always do an XHTML output and use that for the day...

Keep up the good work! ;D

Pete

[Pype.Clicker]

Long-term speaking, I would very much like to reword the page titles. "Is it possible to use Unit Testing with my OS" is about as un-Wiki-like a page title as can be. UnitTesting would be more like it. This makes for better readable Wiki pages, and easier linking into the Wiki.

Hmm. I see what you mean. However, would it be really a plus to have WikiWords rather than plain sentences for a FAQ ?

Seeing "How kernel, compiler, and C library work together" makes more sense than "AboutKernelAndStdLib" in a FAQ, and if we decide to place [How ... together|AboutKernelAndStdLib] it could become confusing due to the fact several places could name pages in a different way.

Chances that you point directly to "How kernel ... together" from another page are small. It makes sense for things like "ProtectedMode" or "RalfBrown", but not that much for those pages, imho.

Therefore, i'd leave it as is, for the moment, until someone can point out that things would be *really* better if all pages were titled with wikiword. But that's just my point of view ...

[Therx]

I've just tried to do a bit more from the TODO list. From the "Orphaned Pages" section. I linked to "How to ask questions" in a sub title on the Homepage of "Forum Information etc." For a link to a strange page "OSRC" from the links page. And a page called "Where can i get inb, outb etc. for C ?" I linked to from the Enviroment heading on the Homepage and also added it to the HardwareCpu. I hope these catorgarisations are right.

Pete

[Therx]

A few more things:-

- Under the TODO list page there is a list of pages that are linked to but don't exist. How do you find out which page links to them? (e.g. "23" seems a bit odd)

- This is very minor but shouldn't we replace the phpwiki logo in the top right at some point?

Pete

[Solar]

Well, for one, the page titles turn into XHTML file names when you dump the Wiki contents (e.g. to assemble a printable version)...

I agree that many of the current verbose page titles do not have obvious shorthand equivalents... we'd have to be creative there.

As I said, long-term. Let's try to find WikiWords for new pages for the time being, and I'll try to assemble a list of replacement titles.

df (in case you're listening), a sweep-change would require to:

- download a snapshot of the Wiki (I can do that);
- temporarily redirect web access away from the Wiki, and toward a static XHTML snapshot (I could provide the XHTML snapshot, but you would have to do the redirect);
- suffer a few days of having the OS FAQ "static only" while I do the sweep-change offline;
- empty the database tables (5?) that relate to the Wiki;
- upload the ZIP file I'd assemble to /osfaq2/pgsrc;
- redirect the web access back to the Wiki (first access loads the new / renamed pages from the ZIP file).

Read, it requires FTP/SCP write access to the webserver, and privileges on the database.

Would you be able and willing (say, in two months' time) to suffer such a sweep-change?

[Therx]

With these renames. I've just downloaded the latest phpWiki for my site and there (at a first glance) appears to be a rename utility on the admin page

Pete

[df]

i dont really have any access to my site to do anything. My ssh keys are in england, on my laptop burried in the attic. So I cant really get on to it...

[Solar]

OK, so it's step-by-step-rename anyway.

[Solar]

Question: Assembler Source

Right now, we happily mix NASM (Intel syntax) and GAS (AT&T syntax) in the Wiki when it comes to ASM examples.

Should this stay as is, or should we try to use only one ASM "example format"? And if, should that be NASM or GAS?

My voice would be to use GAS (to stay "compatible" to "GCC Cross-Compiler" and "BareBones), but then I'm heavily biased since those are "my" pages in the first line.

[DennisCGc]

Should this stay as is, or should we try to use only one ASM "example format"? And if, should that be NASM or GAS?

Depends on what it's the most used "standard", and what "standard" is the easiest to understand...
Personal, I don't mind...

[Solar]

NASM is somewhat of a "standard" due to popularity, while GNU as is part of any GCC setup anyway and nicely inlines with C/C++ code...

Good reasons for either one...

[Therx]

I also think there should be a page detailing how to do inline assembly. I fnd this complicated and usually have to look at other code to work out what the write values to put for the inputs/output/clobber are.

Pete

PS. Personally I prefer NASM BTW