[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Reducing redundancy

On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 11:23:35AM +1100, Adam Brown wrote:
> As an example of the existing redundancy in the installation
> documentation, from the documentation page I could potentially arrive at
> three different installation guides:
> http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/install
> http://www.newriders.com/debian/html/noframes/
> http://www.debian.org/releases/potato/installguide/

Ah, that's a different kind of redundancy than one I thought about :)
Basically, the first one is the official manual. The second one is a
semi-random book about Debian, and the third is oriented towards newbies,
with the screenshots, `loose' language and all.

I thought about redundancy within one document, a lot of cross-references,
stuff like that...

> - Confusion for users trying to determine an authoratative reference

The first document is. I thought it was obvious, since the second is a book
(it's available online at its publisher's page), and the third has a warning
at the top about it not being official.

> Another issue is in the development of Debian specific sysadmin and
> network manuals. It is a little disconcerting the way so much redundant
> Linux documentation is being developed in parallel. Which reference
> should a Debian user turn to: the Debian Network Admin guide, the Linux
> Network HOWTO, the Linux Network Admin Guide or the myriad of other
> contributed guides?
> It would seem to make sense to me that Debian joined forces with the
> developers of the Linux NAG and SAG and helped improve those and added
> clauses where Debian specific issues arose.

Our System and Network administration guides are hardly finished, and they
don't look like getting finished soon. I guess we need someone to actually
write the docs about that on Debian systems, then it can be decided whether
to make it a separate document or a part of the general Linux documents...

Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification

Reply to: