On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 10:21 -0500, hendrik@topoi.pooq.com wrote: > On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 10:10:34AM -0500, Kamaraju Kusumanchi wrote: > > On Monday 06 November 2006 10:02, Greg Folkert wrote: > > > > > > > > Couple of lists I am on, the matter of factly answers are all RTFM with > > > exact locations and nothing else. > > > > If that is the case, the developers need to rewrite the manual in a way which > > is understood by others. The content is probably OK but may need > > reorganization. Getting RTFM questions does not always mean that the reader > > is/was lazy to search for answers... > > There's something that's always bothered me -- how many developers write > usable documentation? And how many technical writers are capable of > digging through code and descussions on -devel mailing lists to extract > the information that needs to be written? I suspect the answer is > "few". If so, how cen we ever hope to get the documentation both > up-to-date and useful? I specifically point to "spec.txt" for Exim the MTA. http://www.exim.org/docs.html -- greg, greg@gregfolkert.net The technology that is Stronger, better, faster: Linux
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part