On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 17:04 -0400, Eric Bishop wrote: > It is ironic that the LuCI team decided to make an announcement > regarding their project today. I have also been working on a new > (open source) web interface for Kamikaze called Gargoyle, and am now > releasing the first beta version, which can be found at > gargoyle-router.com.
Another. ~sigh~ I'm all for choice, but too much choice possibly means an unnecessary division of labour and unfortunately all Open Source projects suffer from a shortage of labour. I wonder how much better and more complete one (or two perhaps) web UIs for OpenWRT would be if the resources were pooled into a common project that kept all of the stakeholders happy. > Right up front I want to emphasize that Gargoyle is, like both LuCI > and X-Wrt a front-end for OpenWrt and NOT a fork. Right. All trying to achieve the same thing. Hence my division of labour comment. > Currently it is designed to run on top of Kamikaze 7.09 and not the > trunk, but as soon as another stable version is released it will be > engineered to run on top of that. So you will only remain compatible with released versions? How much lag do you expect after a release becomes stable before you will have your UI working on it? > However, several features included in the current trunk have been > incorporated (e.g. the new UCI) and are installed as packages on top > of the default Kamikaze release. I have chosen to incorporate the > features this way so that the interface could be built around a stable > version vs. the ever-changing trunk. Right, but unless you track trunk, you will always have a lag between waiting for a stable release and porting your work to it. > Gargoyle takes a very different philosophical approach to interface > design than X-Wrt or what I've seen of the new LuCI. Both X-Wrt and > LuCI seem to be designed with the goal of providing the absolute > maximum functionality possible. Which is a good thing. With the hackabilty of OpenWRT, people are doing all kinds of neat things to it, a lot which less-power-users might like, if there were UI to configure it. > However, this often comes at the expense of making the interface more > difficult to use, and can turn off novice users. Indeed, there should be a simplified interface for the simple use-cases, but also a more advanced interface for power users. But there is nothing wrong with those both being available in the same UI. They are not mutually exclusive. Just my $0.02. b.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org http://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
