Resources Section Re-Organization

[NickF]

Hi Guys,

Looking to start posting some resources here on the forum, but I really think the resources section as a whole needs better categorization.

FreeNAS 9.10 is its own category, while TrueNAS CORE or TrueNAS Scale are absent. A virtualization section would be nice, or perhaps should be included in Apps and Jails.

Mod note: See also https://www.truenas.com/community/threads/flag-prefix-for-outdated-resources.109590/

 

[Arwen]

If we do have TrueNAS CORE or TrueNAS SCALE categories, it probably should read like this;

TrueNAS CORE specific
TrueNAS SCALE specific

Some aspects apply to both, and thus the hint that those 2 categories apply only to them.

I thought about suggesting an "Idiot's Guide to TrueNAS", but that was a bit too rude .


Oh, and we need to change the default forum / sub-forum for the discussion thread of a Resource. It appears that the default for most Resource categories is still this very old one:
FreeNAS (Legacy Software Releases)

 

[NickF]

If we do have TrueNAS CORE or TrueNAS SCALE categories, it probably should read like this;

TrueNAS CORE specific
TrueNAS SCALE specific

Some aspects apply to both, and thus the hint that those 2 categories apply only to them.

I thought about suggesting an "Idiot's Guide to TrueNAS", but that was a bit too rude .


Oh, and we need to change the default forum / sub-forum for the discussion thread of a Resource. It appears that the default for most Resource categories is still this very old one:
FreeNAS (Legacy Software Releases)

I Agree

 

[Ericloewe]

Yeah, this is on my to-do list for this week. I haven't really thought much about it yet, but I was thinking of the following categories:

• Fundamentals
• Advanced
• TrueNAS Core: Bhyve, Jails & Plugins
• TrueNAS Scale: KVM, Containery stuff
• Hardware
• Legacy TrueNAS and FreeNAS Resources

Suggestions more than welcome.

 

[Dice]

Suggestions more than welcome.

I'll offer another route as food for thought.

A few guides/primers are more of informational kind, for example the hardware guide is purely of informational kind, same as quite a few of jgrecos primers. There ought to be more.

From a brief browse through the current Fundamentals/advanced/hardware I think the lines blur quite a bit. The users who engage in resources beyond "reading exercises" should be considered advanced. Or, to me, the topics that are "advanced" are not <THAT> advanced to require "particular treatment" in the resource section. The user would read, and "find their own limits" anyhow. The resource section division should not be keeping that line, I think.
Furthermore, I think at least grouping fundamentals & advanced would be fine. Some of the advanced topics touch a lot on hardware for example.

This boils down to a guiding principle, making the divide between "Good to know"(informational) and ...practical guides.

I don't think it is a good idea to limit the 'topic' of SCALE/CORE to particular technologies such as Byhve or KVM (just to grab any). I think it is more important signal value to present <for what OS was the guide written>. That's what a user will look for, IMO.

There should be guides that are somewhat relevant for both SCALE/CORE, particularly the in the "recent legacy times". This motivates a Scale/Core agnostic section in complement.

Freestyling the ideas above into context, what could it look like?

• TrueNAS (Core/Scale agnostic)
  • Informational reads
  • Practical guides (~ Fundamentals/Advanced grouped that does not "provide hands on" instructions)
• TrueNAS Core specific
  • Informational reads
  • Practical guides
• TrueNAS Scale specific
  • Informational reads
  • Practical guides
• Legacy Resources

If there aren't enough informational reads to merit Core/SCALE specific subsections, here's another view:

• Informational readings
  • CORE/SCALE agnostic
  • CORE
  • SCALE
• TrueNAS (Core/Scale agnostic)
  • Practical guides
• TrueNAS Core specific
  • Practical guides
• TrueNAS Scale specific
  • Practical guides
• Legacy Resources

Cheers,

 

[Ericloewe]

@wsoteros, any thoughts on this?