Re: Documentation and Useability - a proposed solution
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:48:08PM -0600, Mac McCaskie wrote: > > Hopefully I didn't snip too much and get toasted because of it. Hmm... > > Here is my proposed solution: > > Only allow completely documented packages in stable. Other packages can > go to "non-free" or "Experts Only" or some other name that will warn the > users caution is warrented. > A full lifetime will not be enough to read "the whole documentation available", try it, and follow all references and links. You will see. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Documentation and Useability - a proposed solution
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:48:08PM -0600, Mac McCaskie wrote: > Pigeon wrote: > >It's the result of people providing facilities because they want to, and > > I think this may summarize my point(?). For those of you that have > expertise with Debian, it must be a no brainier to grab a package and > install it. Right? Meaning you probably could install something that > doesn't have the "Debian Stamp of Approval" simply because you have much > more experience that I or any other noobie (aka newbie). > > I agree that yes you should have the capability to install anything you > please (and you probably have). I don't think I ever intended to > proclaim you should be denighed the ability to install them. > > My argument is that as a noobie, I have access to packages that are not > well documented though the main distribution. Hi Mac McCaskie, Debian and other *nixes are not just made up of a few man pages. To learn things in this universe, the first thing is to learn where you can get help: man pages, doc packages, web sites, dead tree docs, interfaceing with people through various interfaces (email, p2p,LUGs). These all qualify to ME as documentation. If everthing was written in a man pages, I'd never get to discuss 'stonehenge' or 'pigeons' or 'installing package foo with kernel x.y.z on my amiga'. So, even if I know how to install foo, with the OTHER sources of documentation mentioned above, I might find n more ways to do the same thing in better or different ways. Just my 2 yens worth. -Kev signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Documentation and Useability - a proposed solution
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Mac McCaskie wrote: > My argument is that as a noobie, I have access to packages that are not > well documented though the main distribution. > STOP ME BEFORE I APT-GET AGAIN -- Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Documentation and Useability - a proposed solution
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 20:48:08 -0600
Mac McCaskie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pigeon wrote:
> > It's the result of people providing facilities because they want to,
> > and are free to do it in the way that they want to. Most
> > authors/maintainers of free software provide documentation. Some do
> > it better than others. One or two can't be bothered to provide any,
> > and users of their packages have to inspect the source code, ask
> > others, etc. - a situation which could certainly do with
> > improvement, but half a loaf is better than no bread, and it only
> > applies to a few cases. Most loaves are whole loaves, with a couple
> > of croissants thrown in for good measure.
>
> Hopefully I didn't snip too much and get toasted because of it.
>
> I think this may summarize my point(?). For those of you that have
> expertise with Debian, it must be a no brainier to grab a package and
> install it. Right? Meaning you probably could install something that
>
> doesn't have the "Debian Stamp of Approval" simply because you have
> much more experience that I or any other noobie (aka newbie).
>
> I agree that yes you should have the capability to install anything
> you please (and you probably have). I don't think I ever intended to
> proclaim you should be denighed the ability to install them.
>
> My argument is that as a noobie, I have access to packages that are
> not well documented though the main distribution.
>
> What I do, as a noobie, is go through the package distribution list
> and see what is available. Since I am a noobie, I choose the main
> stable version because everything I have read says this list contains
> software that is stable and works with the entire package and is the
> least likely to give me grief. (I don't want grief, if I wanted grief
> I would go to some BSD variant.)
>
> If something looks interesting or looks like what I want, I will
> install it and set down to use it.
>
> Had I installed something with incomplete documentation or presents
> words that mean nothing to me, I am left with the impression that the
> package is incomplete or indeciperable and I should look elsewhere for
>
> help in using foo. Since I am a noobie, I may not know where to look,
>
> or even be able to seperate the grain from the chaff of documentation
> I do find. Generally the result is a frustrated noobie that may pi$$
> off an email list.
>
> Here is my proposed solution:
>
> Only allow completely documented packages in stable. Other packages
> can go to "non-free" or "Experts Only" or some other name that will
> warn the users caution is warrented.
>
> This solution WILL NOT prevent anyone from getting their favorite
> packages but WILL reduce frustration for un-awares noobies. It will
> also reduce the steep learning curve us Recovering-Windows-Users face.
>
> And it may reduce some of these "debates" over who can walk the halls
> of Debian-Land.
>
> Mac < ... > McCaskie
And what do you propose we do when new people start jumping on the list
to berate the Debian developers for having so many packages in the
section "without documentation - for 'experienced' users only"? ("Why
not just write some documentation instead of shoving it in the corner
marked 'no newbies allowed'"?... I can already hear them saying it.)
I'd rather continue doing what I've been doing the last 3 - 4 years...
Help other people and show them the answer/how to find the answer as
often as I can and when I have a problem, google/search list
archives/read documenation for answers and then e-mail the list when all
else fails.
Jacob
-
GnuPG Key: 1024D/16377135
Windows 98 hasn't crashed for me once in over a year, either. Oh, wait,
I haven't booted it in over a year.
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Documentation and Useability - a proposed solution
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:48:08PM -0600, Mac McCaskie wrote: > Here is my proposed solution: > > Only allow completely documented packages in stable. Other packages can > go to "non-free" or "Experts Only" or some other name that will warn the > users caution is warrented. > > This solution WILL NOT prevent anyone from getting their favorite > packages but WILL reduce frustration for un-awares noobies. It will > also reduce the steep learning curve us Recovering-Windows-Users face. > And it may reduce some of these "debates" over who can walk the halls of > Debian-Land. You're just rambling. Be quiet and get to work. It takes about a month of non-stop hard-core work to get up to speed on Debian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Documentation and Useability - a proposed solution
Pigeon wrote: It's the result of people providing facilities because they want to, and are free to do it in the way that they want to. Most authors/maintainers of free software provide documentation. Some do it better than others. One or two can't be bothered to provide any, and users of their packages have to inspect the source code, ask others, etc. - a situation which could certainly do with improvement, but half a loaf is better than no bread, and it only applies to a few cases. Most loaves are whole loaves, with a couple of croissants thrown in for good measure. Hopefully I didn't snip too much and get toasted because of it. I think this may summarize my point(?). For those of you that have expertise with Debian, it must be a no brainier to grab a package and install it. Right? Meaning you probably could install something that doesn't have the "Debian Stamp of Approval" simply because you have much more experience that I or any other noobie (aka newbie). I agree that yes you should have the capability to install anything you please (and you probably have). I don't think I ever intended to proclaim you should be denighed the ability to install them. My argument is that as a noobie, I have access to packages that are not well documented though the main distribution. What I do, as a noobie, is go through the package distribution list and see what is available. Since I am a noobie, I choose the main stable version because everything I have read says this list contains software that is stable and works with the entire package and is the least likely to give me grief. (I don't want grief, if I wanted grief I would go to some BSD variant.) If something looks interesting or looks like what I want, I will install it and set down to use it. Had I installed something with incomplete documentation or presents words that mean nothing to me, I am left with the impression that the package is incomplete or indeciperable and I should look elsewhere for help in using foo. Since I am a noobie, I may not know where to look, or even be able to seperate the grain from the chaff of documentation I do find. Generally the result is a frustrated noobie that may pi$$ off an email list. Here is my proposed solution: Only allow completely documented packages in stable. Other packages can go to "non-free" or "Experts Only" or some other name that will warn the users caution is warrented. This solution WILL NOT prevent anyone from getting their favorite packages but WILL reduce frustration for un-awares noobies. It will also reduce the steep learning curve us Recovering-Windows-Users face. And it may reduce some of these "debates" over who can walk the halls of Debian-Land. Mac < ... > McCaskie -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
