Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 27 Aug 2011 17:10:55 -0500 (CDT)
From:      Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com>
To:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: A quality operating system
Message-ID:  <201108272210.p7RMAtq9035907@mail.r-bonomi.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC1X_0bXSXMW_AEPZMM_N5Lxi2F3J5hjR7m1gbyhBK1_W4eeWw@mail.gmail.com>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
> From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org  Sat Aug 27 13:58:08 2011
> Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 13:56:16 -0500
> From: Evan Busch <antiequality@gmail.com>
> To: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
> Subject: Re: A quality operating system
>
> I can see this will be important here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
>
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> 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,

FALSE TO FACT.

He did =not= say that _only_ cricicisms of specific points were allowed.

One can point to a specific instance, or possibly a small number of them,
and _then_ >say something like ,'these are a few examples of this problem,
it occurs _throughout_ the document.

> ...       which is also needed. If something shows up in more than one 
> place, it is a general critique.

If you can't be botheed to identify _even_one_ specific instance of the
'general critique', you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.

The latter types are _much_  more likely to get listened to than the former.
Your choice.   

As one of the first-mentioned types, all you are doing it wasting the time 
of people who might have used that time to 'do something' about it.

>
> > 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.

Feel free to demonstrate how you think it _should_ be done.  <grin>
>
> Have you looked at any of the documentation coming out of Redmond right 
> now?

Yup.  That which comes with the O/S.

> How do you think FreeBSD's documentation stands up to that?

FAR more comprehensive.
FAR more informative.
FAR more _useful_.

<grin>




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201108272210.p7RMAtq9035907>