Re: Linux is not for consumers!
Incoming from Richard Kimber:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:15:24 -0700
> "s. keeling" <keeling@spots.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> > > This sounds like an excuse for programmers not to document their
> > > programs.
> >
> > Programmers need no excuse for this. They know how it works. If you
> > think it needs documentation, go ahead and write it.
>
> Aren't you missing the point that you need to understand it before you can
> document it, and that in many cases understanding does not come without
> documentation.
If you need to understand it to use it, you've got the source. What
more could you need? That's not good enough? Don't use it. You
think it would be better with good documentation? Great. Go write
some. Oh, you want me to write some? Why? I don't think it needs
it since I have no trouble using it.
> Obligation? What about a sense of pride in having done something well?
He did do it well! It works! Oh, "well" for you means fully
documented so Aunt Tilley can use it? I disagree. If you disagree
with me, you're free to change that. LDP.
> envisaged consumers can cope with. And I'm not convinced that that really
> is the underlying philosophy of Linux, which seems to be implicit in what
> you say.
Why should I give a rat's ass if you use it? Presumably, I have my
own reasons why I wrote it. What's that got to do with anything?
> If you're a developer, your attitude perhaps goes some way to explain why
> Linux is not for consumers.
I'm beginning to question whether you know what Linux is at all.
People write code for reasons of their own, the most basic of which
is, they wanted "something" that did "that", and to get that, they had
to build something. Or, they had to sit on their hands until someone
else built something, and that option was unacceptable to them.
Incidental to all of that, there's lots of consumers out there who
love Linux (and friends).
The LDP is always looking for volunteers. Hint, hint. The common
sense answer to this whole thread is, "Don't look a gift horse in the
mouth."
--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*) http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling
- -
Reply to: