Re: [info] grub2
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:05:30 -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Camaleón wrote:
>> Besides, GRUB (legacy and 2) if the default bootloader in many linux
>> distriburions, as well as BSD and OpenSolaris. It manages well with
>> many different environments, is very flexible and powefull so it tends
>> to be the preferred bootloader choice in many places.
>
> But I wasn't asking why you used grub. I like grub very much. I was
> asking what made grub unique in needing to keep all of the documentation
> for all versions in its history online. That is the part that I don't
> understand.
In fact, I was stating some facts:
1/ The nature of the program
A bootloader is one of the key programs for any operating system, and so
it shold be handled with special care (it has to be very stable, mature
and well documented).
2/ The percentage of use
GRUB is one of the most used/installed bootloaders. Just look around and
you'll see it's the default choice for the vast mayority of the
distributions. So it's quite possible a high percentage of the current
installed systems have GRUB on it and users need accessing the docs when
something goes wrong. And "when something goes wrong" can be they cannot
access to their computer at all, so they cannot read the docs "off-line"
and they need another external source (online) to gather data.
Just think about it... what do you think if Apache Foundation decides to
remove the documentation for Apache older relases from their website? Do
you think that should be fine? Because it's the same.
>> Any project should care their history. In fact, their history is what
>> they are. And every release has to have documentation, relase notes,
>> faq, etc... Sure, they can keep it off-line and hide it from anyone but
>> having that information and make it publicly available is a "plus" that
>> many user value more that even other things.
>
> Uhm... Not publishing it is definitely not the same as hiding it from
> their users.
It is hidden for me if I cannot access it.
But the point here is that I see no good reason to remove the online docs
and very good points to keep it accessible to all.
How could a new linux user know the singularities about each bootloader
if he cannot reach the online docs? A newcommer has to first read about
what GRUB legacy, GRUB 2 or Lilo can provide, what are their features or
how configurable are they before taking the decission of installing one
or another. Having no online docs, he cannot make a fair choice.
> The documentation is provided with the software. Just
> because documentation isn't online as html on a web server doesn't make
> the project a bad project. Anyone could take that documenation and put
> it on a web server.
Not a "bad project", but a "bad decision" which is sightly different.
> Since we have circled around this topic so much I think it is time to
> agree to disagree and then move on. I remain unconvinced that
> documentation must be put in html format or that all historical versions
> of the documentation for every project must be online in html format.
> No. That is too much. Sorry. You can always read the documentation
> /with/ the software you are using.
And I remain am unconvinced that putting a link is "too much" for a
project like GRUB. No, there can be situations that impedes people to
read the docs with the provided software.
>> Did you hear recently about Debian's snapshot archive?
>> http://snapshot.debian.org
>> That kind of initiatives makes me think why Debian is starting to like
>> me so much :-)
>
> Yes. But I have been using http://snapshot.debian.net/ for many years
> before it.
So we both agreee that having access to "older files" at "any time" and
"from anywhere" is a very useful service.
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
Reply to: