Re: Documentation Standards was Re: [ox-en] UserLinux
- From: "Paul Bowman" <helvetius ntlworld.com>
- Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 14:40:28 -0000
see inline...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Benni Baermann" <benni obda.de>
<SNIP>
Sorry, i dont get this. In my experience free software is the best
documented software available on this planet. </SNIP>
As an aging semi-english ex-punk, statements that I find incredible tend to
inspire a kneejerk reaction involving a single word made famous by a certain
Sex Pistols album cover. However, in the interests of good-humoured
exchange, my direct comment is that your experience in trying to learn how
to install Debian from the available documentation was clearly very
different from mine. Apologies to the Debian faithful on the list... would
be unmerited IMO - though I find no joy in saying it.
BTW, the term "Blueprint" is used in my corporate wage-slave environment to
designate a certain type of documentation (required for handover to 24/7
Operations support to bridge any gaps in the maximum use of "scripted and
burned" rebuild CDs). Is this in common use or idiosyncratic to my current
workplace? (NB my current workplace is by no means my first IT gig, but it
is the first big non-SME* corporate environment I've had to adapt to - c.f.
things like "Change Control" - talk about culture shock!)
By the way: the original thread focuses on _licenses_ for
documentation and not about the quality of it. But maybe i got it
completely wrong, my english is not the best.
Aha! _That_ sort of documentation. Funnily it seems to remind me of rms'
given reasons for the Emacs schism - I note, BTW, the Debian distribution
includes XEmacs rather than rms' version - surely the bad blood can't be
only down to that... can't it?...)
Benni
yours in solidarity,
Paul
* (= Small and/or Medium Enterprises, roughly defined as > 100 employees)
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/