Mailing List ArchiveSupport open source code!
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]Re: tlug: RTFM and advice
- To: tlug@example.com
- Subject: Re: tlug: RTFM and advice
- From: Matt Gushee <matt@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 16:44:20 +0900
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
- In-Reply-To: <19981022153332.D15490@example.com>
- References: <3.0.6.32.19981022130929.00599490@example.com><001801bdfd63$fb20c3a0$82ab91d2@example.com><Pine.LNX.4.05.9810221153410.1485-100000@example.com <3.0.6.32.19981022130929.00599490@example.com><13870.47132.208805.149026@example.com><3.0.6.32.19981022143555.00973640@example.com><19981022153332.D15490@example.com>
- Reply-To: tlug@example.com
- Sender: owner-tlug@example.com
Scott Perlman writes: > Umm, if you're installing the package, you should have read the install notes. > > All of them. Okay, I'll take that on. Read all of them? Okay, let's say the original author writes a BSD program called 'griffle'. He writes a documentation file called README in which he explains what the program does and how to install it (but neglects to mention what platform he's talking about). Not a big problem because the program is in a BSD archive anyway. But then some Linux developer hears about 'griffle,' thinks it's really cool, and ports it to Linux. He includes a file called README.linux, with new instructions. Then another guy patches it for libspew, which adds a whole lot of new wrinkles. So to get your attention he writes a file called README.1ST. Finally, developer #4 sets the package up with GNU autoconf and writes new installation instructions called INSTALL. So now we have a package with four different documentation files written by different people, all containing contradictory instructions, and none of them giving any clear indication as to the history of the package, or what has superseded what. Okay, you don't get that in well-maintained software packages like XEmacs or XFree86 or Apache. But I've seen cases very much like this. More than once. Quite a few times. And the poor user, who really just wants to try out the application, is supposed to sift through this mess of documents and try to puzzle out how they all fit together. In theory, I agree with you. People should read the documents. But too often, the documentation is a damn mess. I'm not saying that developers need to be brilliant writers; but there are some who really don't seem to think about what message the user is getting. If, just for a few moments, they were to take off their developer hats and try to look at the READMEs, etc., from a user's point of view, we'd be in much better shape. Most of all, though, I think we need to be a little patient with people who have tried to read up and not been able to figure things out. Matt Gushee Oshamanbe, Hokkaido --------------------------------------------------------------- Next Nomikai: 20 November, 19:30 Tengu TokyoEkiMae 03-3275-3691 Next Meeting: 12 December, 12:30 Tokyo Station Yaesu central gate --------------------------------------------------------------- Sponsor: PHT, makers of TurboLinux http://www.pht.co.jp
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: tlug: RTFM and advice
- From: Scott Perlman <perlman@example.com>
- Re: tlug: RTFM and advice
- From: Darren Cook <darren@example.com>
- References:
- tlug: A message to the "Old Guard" - was "HTML again"
- From: Dave Gutteridge <dave@example.com>
- RE: tlug: HTML again
- From: "John De Hoog" <dehoog@example.com>
- tlug: A message to the "Old Guard" - was "HTML again"
- From: Marcus Metzler <mocm@example.com>
- tlug: RTFM and advice
- From: Darren Cook <darren@example.com>
- Re: tlug: RTFM and advice
- From: Scott Perlman <perlman@example.com>
Home | Main Index | Thread Index
- Prev by Date: tlug: Split the list?
- Next by Date: RE: tlug: HTML again
- Prev by thread: Re: tlug: RTFM and advice
- Next by thread: Re: tlug: RTFM and advice
- Index(es):
Home Page Mailing List Linux and Japan TLUG Members Links