Paul Morgan wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:18:50 -0600, Mac McCaskie wrote: So you would wish, for instance, to deprive me of a package which I can understand and use simply because the documentation is not adequate enough for you, or for somebody non-me, anyway?
Yes, because otherwise a value judgement is imposed on the potential users' level of competence. Wouldn't you like to have the opportunity to use something you just heard of? Under these qualifications, only those in possesion of the required knowledge would be able to use it.
Heck, if I need it, I'll use what I can figure out, even if I have to go to the source code to understand some of it. I think that the only criterion should be that a package doesn't break the system.
Then good for you being able to read the source code AND have the time to do it and too bad for those that can't.
Nearly every package is freely given by someone who has donated a great deal of time and skill to get it up and running.
yep, and I hope someday to do the same, IF I can get there. Do you want more help?
To complain about the documentation is what is known as "looking a gift horse in the mouth".
(I'll let you in on a secret, I'm raising the awareness of the need for documentation here.)
Oh, and you *aren't* a customer, any more than any of us are. A customer is someone who pays for goods and services.
OK, I give up on this one since is simply symantics here. Can I go back and change this to users or do I loose a point? However, I prefer to think of "my users" as my customers because it keeps my priorities lined up.
Mac <what's next?> McCaskie