A quality operating system
bonomi at mail.r-bonomi.com
Sat Aug 27 22:09:39 UTC 2011
> From owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org Sat Aug 27 13:58:08 2011
> Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 13:56:16 -0500
> From: Evan Busch <antiequality at gmail.com>
> To: "freebsd-questions at freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions at freebsd.org>
> Subject: Re: A quality operating system
> I can see this will be important here:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Polytropon <freebsd at edvax.de> wrote:
> > But allow me to say that _if_ you are interested in contributing in
> > _that_ way, you should always bring examples and name _concrete_ points
> > you're criticizing, instead of just mentioning wide ranges of "this
> > doesn't conform to my interpretation of what 'professional' should look
> > like".
> The problem with your statement is that it does not allow for general
FALSE TO FACT.
He did =not= say that _only_ cricicisms of specific points were allowed.
One can point to a specific instance, or possibly a small number of them,
and _then_ >say something like ,'these are a few examples of this problem,
it occurs _throughout_ the document.
> ... which is also needed. If something shows up in more than one
> place, it is a general critique.
If you can't be botheed to identify _even_one_ specific instance of the
'general critique', you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.
The latter types are _much_ more likely to get listened to than the former.
As one of the first-mentioned types, all you are doing it wasting the time
of people who might have used that time to 'do something' about it.
> > In most cases, documentation requires you to have a minimal clue of
> > what you're doing. There's terminology you simply have to know, and
> > concepts to understand in order to use the documentation.
> See the Wikipedia page above -- the problem isn't one of user competence,
> but of poorly-written documentation that is fundamentally disorganized.
Feel free to demonstrate how you think it _should_ be done. <grin>
> Have you looked at any of the documentation coming out of Redmond right
Yup. That which comes with the O/S.
> How do you think FreeBSD's documentation stands up to that?
FAR more comprehensive.
FAR more informative.
FAR more _useful_.
More information about the freebsd-questions