[Geomoose-users] documentation ideas

[Dan Little]

Given Brent's observations, Introductory material should assume ms4w and
expect linux/UNIX users are advanced enough to adapt.

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) <
bob.basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:

> All,
>
> I agree it’s confusing on it’s own, but if there were more than one server
> package configuration to look at it wouldn’t seem as mysterious.  I was
> planning ahead somewhat, with the eventual idea that more of these simple
> diagrams might appear over time.
>
> Should a bare minimum approach to having a running GeoMOOSE be taken then
> in the diagram.  Also, what would the bare minimum look like?
>
> Need APACHE (or ISS) obviously, and . .
>
> I can put more detail in into the diagram related to MS4W specifically vs
> an option where Apache/PHP are installed separately.
>
> bobb
>
>
> > On Dec 23, 2015, at 7:15 AM, Dan Little <theduckylittle at gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > I think the wording about MS4W is out of place and maybe even
> confusing.  If you install MS4W then Apache and PHP aren't optional -- they
> come with the package -- and if someone /just/ installed GeoMOOSE they
> aren't necessarily going to understand that MS4w is optional in and of
> itself.  They either (a) had the wherewithal to install it on their
> platform of choice or (b) installed it from MS4W.  Either way putting the
> "optional framework" stuff on there could cloud the user's impressions.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geomoose-users/attachments/20151223/b8dcd978/attachment.html>