Folks, we're on a roll debating all things related to Pd documentation here and there and I'm now focusing on the Pd FLOSS Manuals issue.

Pd has this very famous and long lasting FLOSS Manual. It's old and it tells you how to instal Pd Extended 0.39! So, it's from the extended era and still references to 'extended objects'. For what I see, it was a Manual that came to be in the Extended era as a Manual to it. Back in the day we basically all used just Extended anyway and were mostly oblivious to Pd Vanilla and its manual.

And by Pd's manual, I mean http://msp.ucsd.edu/Pd_documentation/index.htm - I know that's called 'Pd Documentation', and that it is confusing, cause it actually is an 'html Manual' and it refers to itself as "this html manual". Anyway, this is also something I brought up on github and is not the issue here..  
The point is that there's a conflict and I guess this made sense then, but it's a problem nowadays. A documentation noise problem. Lots of people seem to get to it and consider it "the manual for Pd". We're still struggling with a post Pd Extended issue and what was consolidated in its era but now sits as ruins. Actually, Pd Vanilla's manual also refers to FLOSS Manuals. But these days we have something weird, which is simply the fact that Pure Data has these two manuals. One is the official one, included as part of Pd Vanilla and its documentation, and this other one, which is terribly outdated and actually refers to this unsupported and abandoned fork of Pd.

But the point is, one software cannot have two concurring Manuals, even if both are up to date - that'd be silly. The point of FLOSS is to provide the one and only official and single Manual for a piece of software. See the problem? Csound uses FLOSS Manuals as a place to provide its official manual. It's clearly linked in csound.com. Csound also has the 'Canonical Csound reference manual', which is actually something else and not to be confused with "The" manual they provide in FLOSS.

So, my point is we have to get rid of one of them and have a single official one.

Should we then remove the included and official manual from Pd and 'move it' to FLOSS and completely overhaul that online version?

Or just get rid of the FLOSS version? Well, that is there, and people know it. Burn it down, purge and disappear with it would be bad.

Well, I don't know, so I'm asking...

Another scenario is that FLOSS can still be around, of course, but as a museum piece, for those interested in web archeology, as extended is now an archeological piece of software. No one touches it, it stays there, but we try to make it clear how that is an old, outdated, unofficial and that Pd has its own 'real manual. This would help a lot. Or... also, treat it for what it is, a manual reference for Pd Extended, not Vanilla, and make it clear how Pd Extended is abandoned and so is this manual.

Other than these, the only option I see is we maintain and update these two manuals somehow. And I already said how I think that's pointless. I also don't know who'd do that... but maybe there'd be a way to manage them as two clearly distinct guides. One would be the 'Canonical Vanilla Manual' and the other could be 'The Pure Data Manual' (or some other name)? The question would be, why to do that? What is the advantage in keeping another FLOSS version around?

The thing I can think people like about the FLOSS version is:

• A: A friendlier look for beginners;
• B: A nice beginner level tutorial;
• C: Support for many externals, external libraries, how to use Arduino and stuff (more as a tutorial than a 'manual');

These can all be compensated. With 'A)', we can try and make the Pd manual look nicer maybe? As for the rest, what really seems to be the substance of this is the fact that it serves as a tutorial.

Well, a tutorial is not necessarily a "Manual".

We can add tutorials to Vanilla too... actually, even though it's based on Extended, many of the examples there are 'vanilla', so they can be easily ported and shipped as part of Vanilla!

As for tutorials that use externals. Well, they would really benefit from an update. But a tutorial is a tutorial, this could live somewhere else.

By the way, tutorials can easily be uploaded to deken and be available from there. You'd have a tutorial that relies on externals, but that's ok too (my live electronics tutorial comes as part of the ELSE download)... just give instructions in the tutorial on how to install the needed libraries from deken as well...

But if the case is made that we should really keep FLOSS and update it. Well, maybe we could manage and do that, taking care on how to not overlap even know I don't know who'd do it, but it'd mean completely rewrite from scratch and get rid of some of the stuff. That's bad too, as the old version would be lost (so have it sit as an 'old extended manual'?).

So, in short, possible scenarios include:

1. Forget about floss, tell it's outdated (rename it to pd extended manual maybe), focus on Vanilla's manual. Bring stuff we miss and like from FLOSS to current Pd in some new form.
2. 'Move' Pd's manual to a new FLOSS incarnation
3. Keep and manage two versions

My thoughts on these are here, and I think the best scenario is number "1)"

Any other thoughts?

Cheers

@Nicolas-Danet said:

The FLOSS manual was a great community documentation, and it should be updated, but that task is out of scope. Let people maintains their work, maintain yours first.

Prize question: do we still have FLOSS maintainers out there? If so? Where are they? One way or another, how to update it, if we're doing it? I'm still unaware. I did contribute a bit to the project back in the day, in 2009. My name is there, I worked with Derek, who's now off the ship. I wanna know what it takes and what to do about it

Anyway, I see what you mean, and it makes sense, for reasonable people. I guess I'm not I do byte on more than I can chew and I already have a lot on my plate. Call me crazy, but I've been managing some insane things well and have achieved them, and I'm now considering this ludicrous undertake to overhaul Pd's documentation, all at one shot. Including the Floss Manual. Let's see...

@Nicolas-Danet said:

Renovate the help / tutorials patches (it took me three monthes for Spaghettis).

where's this by the way?

@jyg said:

Yes. Indeed, I started unilateraly to edit french version of floss manual
https://fr.flossmanuals.net/puredata/quelles-sont-les-differentes-versions-de-pure-data/

Great! I might help when I'll have time!

@porres said:

They do not, by far, replace "all pd-extended", nope, sorry, not a fact. Where's ceammc's GEM replacement for instance?

True. That's another topic, but I am using ofelia abstractions to replace Gem in puredata vanilla and ceammc lib. I think efforts for video processing on pd should be focused on it in the future since Gem is always broken on OSX and openframeworks is stil an active project.

@porres said:

And what are you suggesting with "Purr Data + ceammc lib"? A Floss manuals for both?

I was just dreaming that one day the modern GUI of Purr Data could meet the good organization of ceammc-lib,

@porres said:

Folks, when I started this thread, I made no mention to Purr Data. Purr Data is something else. I get the confusion, I get the relation, it's not out of purpose to bring this up here, but I want to make things clear.

I just thought that the actual old extended could be re-usable (movable?) to a Purr data specific flossmanuals and not completly thrown away...

I agree with making flossmanuals a PureData (pd-vanilla) compatible manual. I just pointed out that flossmanuals PureData could be written in a more accessible way than pd-manuals itself, and could include some externals like else or ceammc later for exemple.
ceammc lib is handy and too few people know it for exemple. It allows me to make my last workshops less confusing by using a great and exhaustive set of objets grouped by their function and they really "simplify the learning process and makes the language itself more clear."

@porres So... and you seem up for it..... let's have a better Pure Data Vanilla manual...... start with that and leave the rest for later.

Terminology...?
Will you adopt "manual" in preference to "Documentation"?
Will you stress (emphasise) "VANILLA" so that it is recognised and understood by new users?...
...... "Pure Data Vanilla Manual"....?..... "Pure Data - The Core - Vanilla"..... "The beating heart of `Pure Data - Vanilla"........."Pure Data Vanilla - The Matrix" ......:

"Pure Data Vanilla is the core.... the "operating system" of Pure Data".
And then introduce externals and Deken at the very start of the manual (before the current Chapters 1 and 2) so that new users stay concentrated on Vanilla as they progress......knowing that the other stuff is "extra" and exactly what that means.
No details will be required at that point... just one sentence and a link to the workings of Deken in a later chapter.

Once that is achieved the same few sentences from the start of the new Vanilla manual need to be added to the start of every other manual and tutorial that exists on the web......... if that is possible.

Would "Core" or some other word actually be better than "Vanilla"?
It has a meaning that is slightly obscure in modern English.
Google is not enthusiastic...... and brown paper envelopes are a rarity nowadays.......
"Synonyms & Antonyms of vanilla · beige, · characterless, · faceless, · featureless, · indistinctive, · neutral, · noncommittal, · nondescript."
David.

@lacuna said:

(I would also recommend learning Vanilla first and start using other libs once you know basic vanilla-vocabulary.
...right click on the blank canvas > help , shows all vanilla objects...
Else you might be browsing huge lists of ojects of many libs for each problem to solve, instead of finding the solution by thinking in Vanilla, with it's limits in mind. )

I remember learning PD-Extended as beginner, and the crowded "extra" folder was overwhelming, as downsides:
There were libs for very specific tasks, that I never would have thought of (and get distracted by), different objects doing the same or almost the same, objects, that can be build with 3 Vanilla-objects, different authors with different terminology, design- and documentation-philosophies, ect.

The learning curve was steep, but in that time I thought Vanilla would be lame and only being used for embedded projects or by purists.

The death of Extended was a great loss, but later a revelation to me:
You can do "everything" (ok, not really) with Vanilla while the vocabulary is small.
And Vanilla is small enough to last, to get bug fixes, and run stable.

@whale-av said:

and brown paper envelopes are a rarity nowadays.......

You are confusing "manila" and "vanilla." Manila is a fiber like hemp which is used to make various things and they all end up that sort of brown color. Vanilla in this use just means plain and unadorned, like plain old vanilla ice cream with no toppings. Fairly common usage, at least in the US.

Edit; That was somewhat pointless and pedantic. Seemed very relevant and on topic while I was waiting for my coffee to brew.

If we talking about naming conventions, it should clearly be named "External Manager", not "Deken"

Anyone knows who 'mickfuzz' is? => https://en.flossmanuals.net/pure-data/_info/

just emailed him

and why do we have an archived version of the manua that is just the same here => http://archive.flossmanuals.net/pure-data/ ?

And why is the manual in different languages different? https://fr.flossmanuals.net/puredata/introduction/

Is it cause we just have total chaos, mess, and independent unofficial takes on what a Pd manual is and should be? and depending on what language you speak you get a different idea and information?

@porres From what I understand when the manual reaches a state where the authors feel it is done it is published as a pdf on www.flossmanuals.net and can be downloaded or bought as print on demand, the web version is then archived at the archive.flossmanual.net address. The version at write.flossmanuals.net is a new version which was opened to continue developing the next edition, but it was never worked on after the first version was published. To sign up for working on it you fill out the form at https://www.flossmanuals.org/get-involved-0, I applied for access on Saturday but have yet to hear back.

So I think new Pure Data Floss requires:

1. a new intro
   1.1 Pd creation history
   1.2 Pd forks and Vanilla externals
2. Update Tutorials keeping externals

something more?

@porres

where's this by the way?

There: < https://github.com/Spaghettis/Tools >.

But as it is just for my fork, that's not compatible anymore with Pd.

Note that it was a very painfull experience to "clean" the Puckette patches.
For me the official manual of Pd is the Puckette book.
That's why all the tutorials can not be changed easily (i.e. without changing the book also).

@Nicolas-Danet said:

But as it is just for my fork, that's not compatible anymore with Pd.

so how can I see what you did?

Note that it was a very painfull experience to "clean" the Puckette patches.

I don't know what you did and when, but recently I also "cleaned" them up and the result is already there in the latest version. I guess my OCD makes me a good candidate for this kind of work... it took me a week, but it wasn't painful

cheers

@oid said:

To sign up for working on it you fill out the form at https://www.flossmanuals.org/get-involved-0, I applied for access on Saturday but have yet to hear back.

I applied on monday, nothing yet here, what about there?

@porres Same, no response yet.

@porres

so how can I see what you did?

Build Spaghettis!

Notice that since i'm currently working on a new version with JUCE the current version can be considered absolutely WIP.

@emviveros said:

a new intro
1.1 Pd creation history
1.2 Pd forks and Vanilla externals
Update Tutorials keeping externals
something more?

Maybe useful plugins like drag&drop, completion, patcherize...
Some of them are so useful that they should be inside vanilla pure-data.

@Nicolas-Danet said:

Build Spaghettis!

c'mon, no download anywhere? no release? No step by step instructions on how to build?

Notice that since i'm currently working on a new version with JUCE the current version can be considered absolutely WIP.

what's 'WIP'?

@oid said:

@porres Same, no response yet.

I'm suspecting there's something wrong and funny here!!!

@porres

https://github.com/Spaghettis/Spaghettis#run
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/work_in_progress#English

@Nicolas-Danet said:

https://github.com/Spaghettis/Spaghettis#run

ok, that was actually easy so this?

I'm actually curious now about this project, I haven't heard about it yet and would like to know what it offers. But sorry about me asking this, cause I see you have different help files, but they are much more minimal and lack information we have in Pd vanilla. Is this still going on? Am I missing something?

cheers