Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 10:51:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Beattie <beattie@aracnet.com> To: Nik Clayton <nik@nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk> Cc: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, Mark Newton <newton@internode.com.au>, hm@hcs.de, nick.hibma@jrc.it, dfr@nlsystems.com, peter@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Microsoft performance (was: All this and documentation too? (was: cvs commit: src/sys/isa sio.c)) Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9906241034140.3934-100000@shell2.aracnet.com> In-Reply-To: <19990623233357.A43818@catkin.nothing-going-on.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Nik Clayton wrote: > On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 04:39:28PM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote: > > > But Mark illustrates my point perfectly; developers don't write > > > documentation. That's what camp followers are for. So far, we have > > > the ones that whine about the loot and throw mud at us when we march > > > too slowly, but not enough of the ones that sew our banners, mend our > > > pots and pans, or teach our version of the gospel to the heathens we > > > subdue. > > > > You can never get enough of them. > > And you don't get them by calling them "camp followers" either. > > You get them by supporting them. Documentation doesn't spring out of > thin air. If (to pick an example) the new syscons stuff[1] is undocumented > then someone's got to document it. > Working on some particularly boring, and in my opinion usless documentation for work. It occured to me that in recalling the various flavors of UNIX, going back to version 6, that when the system is well documented, it is the the last version. Best example System Vr4. What this means? I don't know. If somebody would like to pay me the going rate for my services, for 6 months or so I might be willing to provide them with what ever documentation they wanted, for that six months anyway. Which is to say, that when you pay me, you get to tell me what to work on. When I work for free, I work on whatever I like. Functionality, is more important/interesting than documentation. > Right now, that can only be done by the original developers. In three > month's time we might have enough people who have written code with it > that they could do it. I see no evidence that the number of developers is increasing significantly, or that their focus id changing. > > And in a year's time we might have someone who's been diligently > following the mailing lists and has managed to piece something together > based on what they've soon. Or who has been forced to use this mass of > undocumented code[2], worked out how it works, *and* taken the time to > write the documentation. > We will get good documentation, when somebody decides there is a big enough market for the book, and pays somebody to write it. > So, when do you want useful documentation? > > N > > [1] Chosen at random. I haven't looked at it, so have no idea how clear > or easy to follow the syscons code is. > > [2] See footnote 1 again. > -- > [intentional self-reference] can be easily accommodated using a blessed, > non-self-referential dummy head-node whose own object destructor severs > the links. > -- Tom Christiansen in <375143b5@cs.colorado.edu> > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message > Brian Beattie | The only problem with beattie@aracnet.com | winning the rat race ... www.aracnet.com/~beattie | in the end you're still a rat To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.10.9906241034140.3934-100000>