Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 27 Aug 2011 20:58:06 +0100
From:      Frank Shute <>
To:        Evan Busch <>
Cc:        "" <>
Subject:   Re: A quality operating system
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References:  <> <> <> <> <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 01:56:16PM -0500, Evan Busch wrote:
> I can see this will be important here:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Polytropon <> wrote:
> > 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".
> The problem with your statement is that it does not allow for general
> critique, which is also needed. If something shows up in more than one
> place, it is a general critique.

You haven't shown *one* example of inadequate or confusing

> > 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.
> See the Wikipedia page above -- the problem isn't one of user
> competence, but of poorly-written documentation that is fundamentally
> disorganized.
> Have you looked at any of the documentation coming out of Redmond right n=
> How do you think FreeBSD's documentation stands up to that?

FreeBSD documentation blows away anything Redmond gives you.

Where's the documentation for Windows Explorer for Vista on

A link will do.

> > 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.
> The question isn't form, but content.
> > 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.
> I think I'm talking about professional level documentation, not a
> specific "style."

By your own admission you don't even use FreeBSD so how on earth can
you constructively criticise? Answer: you can't.

> > 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.
> We're talking end-user documentation here.

In a lot of cases the source IS end-user documentation? BTW, how does
that compare with Redmond?

> > Here the "one size fits all" problem arises. It's really hard
> > to make documentation "for everybody".
> I disagree. It's very clear what must be done because multiple archetypes=

Well do it. Put up or shut up.

> > 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.
> If so, it's just them trying to cover up the inherently defensive and
> reactionary nature of their comments.

They're inherently defensive and reactionary because you're trolling.

> Would they send such an email on a business list?

Who cares? It's not a business list.

> > You can "predict" that everywhere. Just go to any halfway
> > specialized setting and make claims about something not
> > meeting your requirements
> I've never had this problem when the claims have been stated
> professionally -- only here.

OK, so you'll be able to provide links then?

Thought not.



 Contact info:

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (FreeBSD)



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>