Re: [tale: Re: Notes for DDP writers]
On Sun, Feb 14, 1999 at 12:39:16PM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
(I hope these atributions are still correct.)
> On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 09:52:45 +0200, Tapio Lehtonen <tale@iki.fi> said:
> > On Sun, Feb 14, 1999 at 12:30:46AM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
>
> >> I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to *strenuously object* to the
> >> mere existance of these manuals.
>
> > I think I misunderstand the above statement. It seems to say, that
> > you would like to remove the Debian Documentation Project manuals?
>
> No, not at all. I object to their current scope.
>
> >> For one, 90% of the contents of these manuals are Linux-specific
> >> and not Debian specific. As such, to undertake these manuals as
> >> *Debian* manuals is contrary to the ideals of the Free Software
> >> Movement -- sharing and the greatest benefit to all. I happen to
> >> know a *number* of quality Linux documentation folks who have taken
> >> issue (quietly) with the existance of these manuals.
> >>
> >> I really think this is important. Debian manuals should be about
> >> Debian. Linux manuals should be worked on by groups which are not
> >> just restricted to the Debian group.
>
> > Well, at least the Debian Documentation Project manuals are supposed
> > to be Debian manuals. I agree that most of the things in them would
> > apply to other Unix systems also, but I do not see any problem in
> > this (and if it is a problem, the only way for us to solve it would
> > be to start developing Debian on a tangent to the other Unixes, to
> > eventually reach a point where anything that works in Debian is sure
> > not to work anywhere else. But I digress).
>
> My argument is that the fundamental principle of the Free Software
> Movement is to maximize the benefit of software and documentation; to
> help eliminate the segmentation and balkanization of software and
> documentation which is created by the proprietary software world.
>
Definitely. I'd like to see discussion with the LDP so that their documents
are set up more distribution independent. This does not mean that they
should remove all distribution dependent sections, but allow distributions
to add sections. Our efforts would directly complement theirs. Last time
I read any generic Linux documentation, which may predate the LDP, there
was much that was geared towards RH (this may have changed in the intervening
time).
[snip]
Only one general comment on this section.
> 3.4. Command history and editing the command line
>
> GNU/Linux (well, bash) oriented
>
Won't the hurd also have bash? I see no problem, for simplicities sake, in
gearing the documentation towards the most common setup.
[snip]
> Perhaps. If I make polemic statements at times, it is only because I
> care so much. I think my commitments to this group, the the
> Developer's Reference, and most recently, to the Install Manual (yes,
> I'm in communication with the LDP Install Manual maintainer) show that
> my committment is real.
>
Many people agree with Adam that we were heading down the wrong road.
Sometimes being direct forces the discussion to get right to the point
so we can make some decisions without wasting a lot of time.
You will find that he is quite willing to compromise (where appropriate)
and even admit if he is wrong <gasp>.
Let's put egos aside and be willing to reorganize. It is rare that this
sort of documentation needs to be started from scratch.
Jay Treacy
Reply to: