We’ve been making a few changes to LinuxLinks recently. If you’re a regular visitor, you may have noticed the cleaner header, changes to the spacing and a few adjustments to the article layout. We’ve also been spending a lot of time going back through our software coverage.
We thought it was worth explaining what we’re doing and asking how you’re finding it.
Tidying up the design
The design changes are intended to make LinuxLinks easier to read and navigate. People come here for the software and hardware coverage, so the layout should help them get to it without getting in the way.
We’ve made article update dates more prominent too. You shouldn’t have to hunt around to find out when we last reviewed a page.
There are still things we’d like to improve, and we’d appreciate your thoughts on what’s changed so far. Something that looks fine on our screens might be awkward on yours.
Revisiting our software roundups
A large part of the work involves going through our software roundups. There are new applications worth covering, older recommendations that need another look and descriptions that could do a better job of explaining why you’d choose one tool over another.
We’re checking project activity, features and licensing as we go. We’re also looking for gaps. Even with the amount of software we cover, there are worthwhile applications we haven’t discovered yet.
Some lists will grow; others may get shorter. There’s no point keeping an application in a roundup just to preserve the number in the title. Equally, an older program doesn’t become a poor choice simply because something newer has appeared.
LinuxLinks is run by a small group of open source enthusiasts. We enjoy discovering good software and sharing it with you. There are thousands of articles to look after, though, and checking them properly involves more than seeing whether a project’s website still loads. If you spot outdated information or think we’ve overlooked a worthwhile application, please let us know.
Updating individual software pages
We’re also refreshing the individual articles linked from those roundups. Some need small corrections, while others need more substantial changes because the software has moved on.
We’re checking upstream websites and repositories, removing outdated information and making the descriptions more useful. If you’ve clicked through to learn about an application, the page should give you a clear idea of what it offers.
That doesn’t mean every old article needs a rewrite. If the information is still accurate, changing the wording just to put a new date on it helps nobody.
What do you think?
We’d like your help deciding what deserves the most attention. Should we spend more time on the design and navigation, concentrate on refreshing software coverage, or tackle something else?
Please vote in the poll and tell us more in the comments. We’d especially like to know how you’re finding the new layout, which roundups need attention and whether we’ve missed any open source software you use and recommend.
One question we’re interested in: do you prefer a short list of our strongest recommendations, or a longer roundup with more alternatives to explore?
And if there’s something you particularly like about LinuxLinks, tell us that too. We’d like to know what we should leave alone.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.