riot-os / riot-os.org Goto Github PK

This issue was raised on the forum during the initial discussion on the original demonstrator.

• https://forum.riot-os.org/t/demo-riot-os-org-website-relaunch/3118/6
• https://forum.riot-os.org/t/demo-riot-os-org-website-relaunch/3118/11

It is not crystal clear what paper to cite, should someone cite RIOT in an academic context.
How about adding in the landing page's FAQ a question like:" I want to cite RIOT, which reference should I use?"
and indicate in the answer the IEEE IoT Journal ref from 2018?

Emmanuel Baccelli, Cenk Gündogan, Oliver Hahm, Peter Kietzmann, Martine Lenders, Hauke Petersen, Kaspar Schleiser, Thomas C. Schmidt, Matthias Wählisch, RIOT: An Open Source Operating System for Low-End Embedded Devices in the IoT, IEEE Internet of Things Journal, Vol. 5, No. 6, pp. 4428-4440, December 2018.

Now that our vision page was moved from the RIOT wiki on GitHub to the in-repo documentation, we could just mirror it from the RIOT repo by including _RIOT/doc/doxygen/vision.md, as proposed by @waehlisch in #124. Currently, our vision is just linked in the RIOT History on the community page. One idea for including vision.md is to add a new section to community.html and just link that in our History section.

Over the launch weekend there were some change suggestions that came in via Twitter, the forum etc. To prevent some indirection via the readers of those sides, how about we add some very visible link to this repo (e.g. something in the direction of this banner with "Edit me on Github"). This way, people reading the website know immediately that the website can be changed via Git hook and report here or open a PR themselves.

The RIOT logo card is smaller in height compared to color and font cards. also, the width of the card does not always fit.

This issue was raised on the forum during the initial discussion on the original demonstrator.

• https://forum.riot-os.org/t/demo-riot-os-org-website-relaunch/3118/19

This issue was raised on the forum during the initial discussion on the original demonstrator.

• https://forum.riot-os.org/t/demo-riot-os-org-website-relaunch/3118/22

• when clicking btn-groups in the cards (e.g., https://relaunch.riot-os.org/community.html) the frame color is blue instead of light green.
• driver cards (https://relaunch.riot-os.org/drivers.html) are blue when open and do not implement the look&feel of CPUs and Boards.

This issue was raised on the forum during the initial discussion on the original demonstrator.

• https://forum.riot-os.org/t/demo-riot-os-org-website-relaunch/3118/22

on each user story page (e.g., https://relaunch.riot-os.org/use_cases/continental.html), it would be helpful to add links to other user stories, e.g., to navigate to the previous and next user story in the list

This issue was raised on the forum during the initial discussion on the original demonstrator.

• https://forum.riot-os.org/t/demo-riot-os-org-website-relaunch/3118/19

duckduckgo still has search results cached at locations like https://riot-os.org/api/native__cli__eui__provider_8h.html. I didn't actively check with the old website, but it appears those would earlier redirect to https://doc.riot-os.org/native__cli__eui__provider_8h.html, and now they 404.

Can this be fixed here (given we're building a static site), or does this need to be redirected at the server itself?

https://www.riot-os.org/cpus.html shows 32 items but the index page says 63 CPUs. This is confusing.

We exclude all models labeled common, which leads to exclusion of any ARM Cortex-M, for example, This might give the wrong impression. Can we fix this?

• remove the rounded border of company logos on the Use Case detail page (see https://relaunch.riot-os.org/use_cases/wolfssl.html). Logos should not be modified, except sizes while keeping the ratio of height and width.
• all quote cards (e.g., on the index page) should have the same height. if the quote is too long, it should be shortened automatically by "...".

Under "I have an issue with RIOT code I can't solve. How can I get help?" it still mentions the two mailing lists from before. I think it should be replaced with the forum at least, or removed if not relevant anymore.

This issue was raised on the forum during the initial discussion on the original demonstrator.

• https://forum.riot-os.org/t/demo-riot-os-org-website-relaunch/3118/22
• https://forum.riot-os.org/t/demo-riot-os-org-website-relaunch/3118/23
• https://forum.riot-os.org/t/demo-riot-os-org-website-relaunch/3118/25
• https://forum.riot-os.org/t/demo-riot-os-org-website-relaunch/3118/31
• ...

Apologies if this is not the right repository to report this, as I coudn't find something specific for the docs pages.

Essentially, going to https://doc.riot-os.org throws a 403 error:

This issue was raised on the forum during the initial discussion on the original demonstrator.

• https://forum.riot-os.org/t/demo-riot-os-org-website-relaunch/3118/7
• https://forum.riot-os.org/t/demo-riot-os-org-website-relaunch/3118/14
• https://forum.riot-os.org/t/demo-riot-os-org-website-relaunch/3118/18
• https://forum.riot-os.org/t/demo-riot-os-org-website-relaunch/3118/22

The current "Why LGPL?" text states:

LGPL will improve final user experience, security and privacy, by hindering device lock-down, favoring up-to-date, and field-upgradable code.

Unless we go for LGPL 3 (currently we use 2.1) that is not the case. (Frankly I'm not even sure it's the case with LGPL 3; it is with GPL 3).

GPL 3 added provisions for "Installation Information" to mitigate "tivoization", a term coined when TiVo brought Linux devices to the market that complied with the GPL by giving the relevant sources, but had their bootloader locked so that you could use the software on own devices (have fun building an unlocked TiVo from scratch -- but you could still port it), but never upgrade your own device.

LGPL 2.1 has no such provisions, and thus we don't get the effect from the license. (In a sense we do still get the effect that RIOT devices tend to better upgradable, but that's more because vendors don't know the license well enough and thus just go for other OSes, and not because LGPL enforces this).

(It may also be worth noting that the field of firmware lockdown has become more diverse. Back in the TiVo days, if you could sign your firmware you'd have been good to go. Nowadays, there may be multiple firmware upgrade ways, some destructive to keys on the device. On some that's clearly legitimate -- if you could upgrade your USB 2FA token and keep the keys on it, that'd be terrible security. With others, that renders the device practically unusable -- think of an Android system where you can unlock the bootloader and then all its DRM (anti-, but that's not the point here) features are gone. If that device's purpose was to stream encrypted video from the network and show it on TV, yes you have upgraded the firmware, but unlike the aforementioned TiVo it doesn't serve its purpose any more.)

So what to do here ... if this is just a localized misunderstanding, let's find better text. If not and there is a larger disagreement on what LGPL entails, this may warrant wider discussion through the mailing lists or other venues.

On https://riot-os.github.io/riot-os.org/community.html all the way to the bottom right, my browser links to https://riot-os.github.io/riot-os.org/[email protected] and https://riot-os.github.io/riot-os.org/[email protected]. Matthias is not linked at all.

Probably there's a mailto: missing.