Kitwn wrote: For those readers (like me) who are not totaly fluent in LinuxSpeak
That would be me

rather frustrating that the people who seem to know all this stuff sometimes get tired of answering questions. I can not blame them if I think about it. But a better documentation would be nice. And then I mean documentation that can be used by people who are better at wood or metal then computers. LinuxCNC is a tool to make a machine work, not a project on itself for people like me. (remarks as saying why don't you write the documentation yourself then miss the point. If I could I would. I started exposing my current config files on an open git server for everyone to see and make adjustments (
git.cnckloon.nl/CNCZone/Mesa_2019
), that is as far as I can help others at the moment.)
All the ingredients are there to make LinuxCNC the tool of choice for loads of people.
I am sure that if the documentation was easier to understand, more relevant examples for example, LinuxCNC would be much more used and the makers would get a lot more satisfaction of participating in the development. Technically the documentation is perfect, everything one needs to know is there. But that is not the purpose of software, I do not want to study or be an expert at understanding LinuxCNC setup. I want to use gmoccapy with a touchscreen and make nice things for other people in wood and metal. I honestly do not think I need to spend hours and hours exploring the documentation for things I do not even know they exist.
For my cheap Chinese BOB's I could start with stepconf, that worked quite well. Now I switched over to a Mesa card, a 7i96 that is supported but pncconf does not support my card. Kinda confusing at first, disappointing later.
The few examples that are around are mostly outdated, functionality that is great and a must have is hidden in pre-release versions and the documentation although very concise does not connect to the real world of the tired and frustrated woodworker who has invested a lot of money just to be able to use part of the OS movement.
Sometimes I wonder why I do not use Mach 3, but then I look at the specs and I know I am better of with LinuxCNC (if I get it working again).
I am happy and grateful that LinuxCNC exists and is being developed. But, as I said, it would be nice if it could be used by 'normal' people too.
This is by no means a flame towards all the knowledgeable people who donate their time and effort towards this great project. English is not my first language, I apologize if I offended anyone.