Re: debiantutorials.org seeks input and new blood
Miles Fidelman wrote:
> H.S. wrote:
>> Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 11:27:24AM +0300, Dotan Cohen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Document it all you want. But don't expect Joe Toothbrush to read it
>>>> all. If one _wants_ go through pages upon pages of docs to create
>>>> something new, that's great and the more the merrier. But if one
>>>> _must_ go through the docs to use the product, then by virtue or
>>>> Occam's razor the OS with the least documentation is the easiest to
>>>> use.
>>>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>> I'm one to read the 1000 page book cover-to-cover. That way, I'll
>>> rememeber a significant amount and know exactly where to look when I
>>> need something I don't remember.
>>>
>>
>> Now a days google is a *huge* help in this.
>>
> There's still something awfully useful and compelling about a serious
> reference manual, all in one place, with a comprehensive
> table-of-contents, detailed index, and embedded references.
Sure there is, but one has to keep the audience in mind. A beginner or a
person just starting to find introductory information regarding current
linux distros and related applications and programs is best served by
google (the search is very fast and reasonably efficient) as an initial
step. If one did not have today's web search engines at his disposal, it
would take much longer to start getting comfortable with an OS.
Once a user is past the novice/beginner stage, a reference becomes more
useful. Wikis are a breed apart, no reference book can compete against
this live documentation. But an internet connection becomes an absolute
necessity then. Books are the best as stand alone refs, can be read
almost anywhere (in a canoe, for exampe, :) ), mostly without need of
any electrical power. However, it is much more faster to search for
information in an electronic text document.
--
Please reply to this list only. I read this list on its corresponding
newsgroup on gmane.org. Replies sent to my email address are just
filtered to a folder in my mailbox and get periodically deleted without
ever having been read.
Reply to: