For the functionalities, bypassing the openwrt-specialities, I agree on you. As you bypassed the uci stuff. But for special functions like procd or ubus and its interactions, the coders are responsible for the docs. As an IT-dinosaur, I have to recite, in pre-historic times one of our rules was: Good software without docs simply does not exist ...
Wow, you think you need no training in networking, yet so say you don't know anything about it. Why would you want to install an advanced system like OpenWRT, if you don't want to make use of the advanced functionality? And if you do, how would you configure it, without any domain specific knowledge about it?
Clearly you have no clue of how to administer a Linux system, nor of how to architect or configure a network.From the discussion alone it becomes clear you lack basic knowledge of computer constructs. If you really think regularly rebooting your router makes it more stable.... If you want to be able to operate a complex system, you're going to have to put in the effort to understand it. No GUI or tutorial is going to get your network configured, without you knowing what you're doing.
Wouldn't you simply be much better off with a more simple system, that works out off the box? I think for example Google and Apple make such systems. Nearly no configuration needed, and no deep knowledge about Linux or networking needed.
That's exactly what I thought. I mean, you don't have to be wise in the Networking and Linux administration. But you don't have to search a project that requieres that knowledge if you are not willing to either help the community or help yourself.
Why would someone want to drive a car when they don't understand how to even turn it on? And worst, why would they try if they are not willing to learn? You can blame the 1996 Toyota for doing such complex cars and say that Tesla is way easier to drive (hint: they almost drive themselves).
Community was actually more helpful than they should, given the OP reclaiming something as he deserves it. What would happen if you have a problem with Windows? Go to Microsoft forums and ask for it. 99% of the time the solution is to reboot and if it doesn't work, reinstall Windows.
Still, I'm thinking that LuCI needs more work to be done. For example, users management for Samba an a simple GUI for cron. I would like to help, but I'm already helping with low level stuff, you know? Kernel configuration, advanced administration; and I'm not precisely good at web development.
P.S. not all of us are native speakers. Most of you native speakers don't understand a word in our language and you'll never will. Please be more respectful with people that do it's best despiste it's limitations; specially if you're not doing it better.
OpenWRT has very good logic and documentation. It is "Linux on Router", so it is user-friendly to extent it should be. It is very predictable in configuration. Consider Padavan, e.g. For me it is much difficult to configure, it has "hand-made" scripts with very badly described behavior. So OpenWRT is absolutely ideal system for router. Btw, I've written manual for OpenVPN with kill-switch, people use it regularly.
Most of the documentation is very outdated, lacking, or non existent. Folks always spew the b.s to use the search feature. Lines and lines of comments with a rare mark of solved or completed for an answer. My favorite question was "How to disable ipv6 completely on openwrt". There were many responses, many ways of doing this, many disagreements. How about we just place two lines in the /etc/sysctl.conf and reboot?
Nope! There was this massive pissing contest and lots of confusion. I dare any egomaniac to tell me this doesn't work for openwrt. I'm your Huckleberry.
This is not considered a supported OpenWrt configuration anymore.
@jow It's standard for Linux and works for openwrt as well. If at some point it doesn't work anymore for openwrt, then where is that documentation?
It is not supported in the sense that nobody actively test that all is working with it disabled.
If it can be disabled the same way as in standard Linux desktop distros why would we need OpenWrt specific documentation for it?
example: netstat openwrt < netstat linux. Missing or non existant commands, therefore NOT the same. is this documented? NO. a short tip explaining? NO. nada except for read the man page.
Do we need more donations to help ease the pain? More volunteers to write socially acceptable wiki pages? I'm on board 110% and I'm sure many others would contribute in some way as well.
It's not OpenWrt's "netstat", but Busybox's "netstat".
As far as I know, the wiki is open for contributions from anybody...
These threads come up regularly several times a year. The problem might be that there are two extremes: consumer routers & OpenWRT and until recently there was almost nothing in between (dd-wrt/Asus-Merlin and the likes do not count as they are very close to one of these extremes). It is very unreasonable to expect user friendly docs/UI from OpenWRT enthusiasts: it is just boring and time consuming with no monetary benefit.
I wonder if manufactures like GL-iNet would be open to some kind referral program if OpenWrt project starts officially referring inexperienced users their way? PFSence/OPNSense/etc do have their commercial offerings. Why not OpenWrt?
So you are advocating the "non-professional" (amateurish) attitude of the "OpenWRT enthusiasts", not to provide accurate, up-to-date docs. It is very convenient, too, to use your argumentation to justify "good enough software quality" ...
But: How good will be the docs, i.e. for usage of ubus and procd on openwrt, in case not provided by an author ?
Way to twist my words...
I am not an OpenWRT developer, but there is a limit to how much time/effort I would/can put towards a hobby. How much free effort would you commit to?
UPDATE: How much $$ have you contributed/paid for this software? Nothing is free, so you end up paying for it with something else than $$. Like your time and effort.
I appreciate this statement. As it confirms increasing "Risks to the Public" . Anyway, you had a good idea, too: Some type of commercial offerings. Like "to-be-payed-for" docs.
What exactly are you referring to with that?
I think this was a reference to the case when a free project becomes too popular and too much burden on the author for no monetary benefit.
I.e. if LuCI is super user friendly, then more people would be using it, more inexperienced users will get on board, more support for no monetary benefit.
That will not work as it is too easy to abuse: several people pitch in and then publish the docs.