From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 25 04:39:57 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E1D5106564A for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 04:39:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Received: from mx02.qsc.de (mx02.qsc.de [213.148.130.14]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE93E8FC08 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 04:39:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from r56.edvax.de (port-92-195-72-156.dynamic.qsc.de [92.195.72.156]) by mx02.qsc.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE9121DCAB; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 06:39:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from r56.edvax.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by r56.edvax.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id p7P4dsUw089368; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 06:39:54 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 06:39:54 +0200 From: Polytropon To: Mario Lobo Message-Id: <20110825063954.ac5b6625.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <201108250124.51558.lobo@bsd.com.br> References: <16851_1313817220_4E4F4284_16851_6517_1_D9B37353831173459FDAA836D3B43499C521886E@WADPMBXV0.waddell.com> <201108250124.51558.lobo@bsd.com.br> Organization: EDVAX X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.1.1 (GTK+ 2.24.5; i386-portbld-freebsd8.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A quality operating system X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Polytropon List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 04:39:57 -0000 On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 01:24:51 -0300, Mario Lobo wrote: > Well, I think the handbook has got its name wrong. To me, it should have been > called handybook. What you're saying sounds more like you wanted the handbook > to be a usage tutorial, which it's NOT what it is supposed to be. That's a valid point of view. When you compare how other publications, named "Handbook" look like e. g. in the mainframe area, you'll be surprised what "quality" they are: They're aimed at a totally different audience, and they have different concepts of how to present information. > If you put > micro$oft's docs into this picture, prepare you wallet for tons of books. And > in microsoft's case, it has an obligation to take you by the hand, and IT > DOESN'T !. Additionally, keep in mind to buy the whole set _new_ with each version of "Windows" being sold. "Windows" knowledge has the habit of not being portable, so what you knew from, let's say, almost 10 years old "Windows XP" doesn't apply in newer versions anymore. You have to relearn many things. This shows: NO kind of documentation frees you from constant learning - if you want to keep using new technology. > The only time I resort straight to the handbook is to the hardware > compatibility list whenever I'm thinking of buying something new for the > server/desktop, but BEFORE I actually buy it. Shoudln't it be mandatory to _think_ BEFORE acting in any regards? Oh sorry, I forgot: PC on, brain off. :-) > I think Polytropon put it very well: > > "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." Thanks. I did have to learn this the hard way: In order to really profit from good documentation, you need to understand what it says. Even in "Windows" land, where you have to learn new and arbitrary vocabulary for established things (that everyone else can name correctly), and you have to get all the strange concepts in line, beginning with "drive letters" and ending in reboots after few changes. :-) The FreeBSD documentation even keeps that in mind: It mentions the "Windows" terms for things just in case some reader is already spoiled with those deviant terminology (e. g. when explaining what a slice is). > Second, throughout your post, it sounds like your thoughts sprung up, not from > your own quest and research, but from somebody (Ron) who "is completely pro- > Linux and pro-Windows, and against FreeBSD" (hummm...) and that is "the > biggest UNIX fanatic I know"(100x hummm...). And Ron's millage with FreeBSD is > never mentioned also, so that kinda drops the critique's "credibility" tag to > the floor. What's the word that may apply here? Prejudice? > Last, suppose you issue a general invitation for people to go over to your > house for a free dinner, with food that you know (because you helped in > preparing it!) in your heart and taste to be excellent, well prepared and > nutritious. And all of a sudden I storm at your door and yell for all the > guests that already know what you know about the food, without even tasting > anything, that a "very good and knowledgeable" friend of mine told me that the > kitchen is as dirty as hell, the food tastes terrible and that all the guests > will get diarrhea and probably die if they eat anything. > > What would you do? Wow, what a nice analogy! =^_^= -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...