Baloney. Sure, nothing human is perfect, that includes the people behind FreeBSD and also the OS.
But compared to (gasp!,) windoz and linux, (not too bad, but it's as non-secure as windoz!,) FreeBSD and OpenBSD standout for one reason, their better. I would like to see negotiate a deal to give us pre-built java-enabled browsers. A few other things, too. On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Polytropon <free...@edvax.de> wrote: > On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 21:02:18 -0500, Evan Busch wrote: > > I didn't expect this much response. > > You always get what you deserve on this list. :-) > > No, seriously: There are participants of this list who > understand complains and other statements in a critical > tone as inspiration for improvement. But allow me to say > that _if_ you are interested in contributing in _that_ > way, you should always bring examples and name _concrete_ > points you're criticizing, instead of just mentioning > wide ranges of "this doesn't conform to my interpretation > of what 'professional' should look like". > > As long as you are professional and fair, you will get > a polite and substantial (!) response. > > > > > Every professional documentarian I've encountered agrees with you. > > It's inconsistent, wordy, and has no concept of the order of > > introduction of its concepts. No professional software package would > > ship with documentation this bad. > > Depends. > > Have a look at IBM's mainframe or midrange documentation. > For those who are working with this very special kind of > documentation, it may appear fully understandable, helpful > and direct. For hobbyists or newbies, it may look to be > the complete opposite: Not understandable, no structure, > way too verbose, and not helpful at all. > > You can also see how Sun publishes documentation for their > Solaris OS. Did publish. Past tense. :-) > > In most cases, documentation requires you to have a minimal > clue of what you're doing. There's terminology you simply > have to know, and concepts to understand in order to use > the documentation. > > Different kinds of users have different preferences. Some > like to use the web, like to use Wikis and discussion boards. > Others like to use structured web pages. Again, other like > web pages too, but want to have as much information in _one_ > (long) page. And there are those who do not want to depend > on the web - those like man pages. > > If you're used to some specific _way_ of documentation, you > will maybe value anything that's _different_ from that way > as being inferior, non-professional, or less helpful. > > Also keep in mind that especially for developers, the SOURCE > CODE also is an important piece of documentation. Here FreeBSD > is very good, compared to other systems. > > > > > The multiple grammatical errors only > > enhance the sense of its fundamentally confused nature as a document. > > Oh, then don't visit the non-english translations of the > documentation. :-) > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Polytropon <free...@edvax.de> wrote: > > > > > > Well, in _this_ area, I would also agree that work should be > > > done to concentrate documentation, e. g. make an "essence" from > > > knowledge and examples in mailing lists, web forums and so on. > > > But there are too many of them, and you simply cannot put all > > > the possible things into "the one documentation" project. > > > > This isn't as big of a project as you make it seem. In fact, it will > > reduce your workload and that of your users. > > I have worked on documentation projects (in the medical and > technical sector) before, and it was relatively easy because > you KNEW enough, e. g. who your clients are, how they read, > what they need to know, and what they already do know, so > you had a good basis for creating documentation that fits > there needs. > > Here the "one size fits all" problem arises. It's really hard > to make documentation "for everybody". What should be in there? > How much detail is needed? What can the reader conclude himself? > Which terminology is he already familiar with? > > > > > I think the comments above provide a good starting point for > > actual discussion. > > It would help if you could just bring some examples for what > is lacking in your opinion. > > > > > As far as people proving my point about the BSD community being > reactionary: > > [...] > > These angry non-sequiturs just reek of defensiveness. > > Note the presence of ":-)" and the abilities of english native > speakers who are much more able to express "between the lines" > than I am, for example. > > > > > I think I predicted these behaviors when I spoke of "cliques" and the > > nasty, elitist side of geek culture. > > You can "predict" that everywhere. Just go to any halfway > specialized setting and make claims about something not > meeting your requirements, telling the people they are > not professional and lack the most fundamental things. > Of course there will be some who thing you're just trolling > them, because to _them_, that's exactly what you do, even > if you have other intentions. Interpretation heavily depends > on specific discussion cultures. The way you communicate on > this list, for example, is very different from how you > write Twitter messages, SMS, or act in a different "online > community" (e. g. like WoW gamers with their terminology > and "cultural techniques"). > > > > > -- > Polytropon > Magdeburg, Germany > Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 > Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
