It was fun while it lasted!

[george.erhan]

@rlkoshak

My understanding this is the goal. It is taking an extended amount of time to get there though. And do not underestimate the fury of the old timers if you take away a feature like being able to define Things in a .things file.

I guess this shall never be the case. If an old timer shall want the option, he/she will get it in previous versions, or shall start coding based on the foundations. If someone who is so in to this project and wants updates, should accept the dictatorship of the majority that decides how this project is going to evolve, regardless the fury.

@rlkoshak

Quite a lot actually, but OH does a decent and always getting better job of hiding that fact from you. Much of what you are doing when you create Items and link Items to Channels and create Groups and most especially create Rules are all exercises in programming, whether you realize it or not. The fact that you missed it points to how successful the OH developers have been so far in reducing that complexity.

I have only two thumbs. Both are up! For your concise explanation.

@rlkoshak

Building docs is hard. Building beginner level docs is REALLY hard for experienced users and developers to write because it has been far too long since we’ve been beginners. So we are stuck in a catch-22. Beginners are usually unwilling to contribute and experienced users are no longer qualified to write them.

I must ask rhetorically: how are we ever going to end the lack of common sense? Reading docs is easy, and even though scarce sometimes, using logic gets you much faster and farther than waiting for an answer on the community forum.

You are battling with cohorts of people asking sometimes stupid questions, and this is definitely appreciated. I have to thank you sincerely for speaking out and advising people when I really could not, because of the lack of understanding people. Thank you, again!

@rlkoshak

At the end of this long thread, I think that indeed, OH may not be the right system for you. Your problem may be smaller than OH was built to solve and so the complexity is really beyond what is worth it for you.

Yes, openHAB needs to define what the target is. I see it as a framework inside a framework inside a framework, etc., but some of the community members (you and many others) are struggling with people asking for an end user solution, and I see this as being a lack of proper positioning of openHAB amongst the users that come to this forum. Of course, I might be wrong.