Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #176141
| From | Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.debian.user |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Date | 2016-12-31 09:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sUnwt-BV-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <sEN1U-4K5-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <sTNW1-1Mm-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <sTUkO-66g-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <sTV7b-6Di-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
You know, at risk of contradicting myself here. rhkramer@gmail.com schreef op 30-12-2016 3:23: > There is noting magic about man pages--what I'm trying to say is that, > someone > could start writing something similar to man pages, with all the detail > or > introductory / explanatory material you (they) might want. Maybe call > them > bman (for beginner man) pages? There's no point to this. Adding this (short) introductory and tutorial-like text to existing man pages (for instance) does not destroy the terseness and effectiveness of the remaining and existing detail-oriented documentation that already exists. So people are arguing against something that would only be an addition, and not a detriment. There is no reason against it. There is no argument against it. It's like saying we shouldn't have a plant in the home because it would destroy the nice empty feeling the room has. Or we shouldn't have a a table because the curtains look so nice. Without one. There is no argument against it unless that were specific to what you wanted to add, because the thing that already exists is not reduced when you do add it. Like I said, Grep, one of the most iconic man pages probably, and there are more of them, does include that introductory text that Catherine says shouldn't be there. You really want to take that away from there? No you don't. Because Catherine does not really mean what she says, she just wants to prevent efforts at making man pages more accessible. Right. Every man page has a description that Catherine now says should not be there. Here, her literal words: Oh and yes, mentioning someone else's behaviour to another person is not an ad hominem attack Catherine. That would be if you directed that language at the person directly, in most cases. These words would be directed at other people about you. That is not an ad hominem, that is being descriptive about a person that does a certain thing because this certain thing is the subject matter being discussed. Deal with it. Catherine's literal words: "If you do not know what a command basically does, a man page is not the place to go." From the Grep man page: "grep searches the named input FILEs (or standard input if no files are named, or if a single hyphen-minus (-) is given as file name) for lines containing a match to the given PATTERN. By default, grep prints the matching lines." The "incumbent" design of the man page: NAME SYNOPSIS DESCRIPTION <-- see that there? OPTIONS Next Catherine uses the quoted introductory text to learn what a command basically does: "I am not familiar with aufs, but I learned from the example of "bad writing" you posted that it is a filesystem utility, that it loads things in a specific sequence that has to be kept in mind when using the command, and that you wanted your specific solution laid out for you in the man page instead of figuring it out yourself." She basically uses it for something she says it is not meant to be used for. Can you become more insincere than this? Can you contradict yourself more than this, I wanted to say? You _USE_ it for that purpose and then you say that it shouldn't be used for it. You do it yourself. But you basically say that that DESCRIPTION text that is PART of the incumbent design of the "man page" shouldn't be there, so you now also disagree with that design you try to use as an excuse for your position. The fact is simply that people do not want Linux to be easier for novice users. And then they use any excuse they can to keep it so. They will attack and destroy any attempt at improving the situation for those novice users. Because, as Catherine here puts it "If you are looking at a man page you are doing non-trivial non-noob things and should abandon the noob mindset." Or perhaps more directly: "Those users were never expected to look at a man page." which basically translates to "Those users should not be looking at a man page at all". I mean these attitudes are always voiced here, this is nothing peculiar or specific to miss Gramze, pardon me for that. It is not specific to Debian either, you will find the same on any forum almost (not like everywhere, but still) as well as lists for other distributions. But I guess I am making a fool of myself here, so I will keep this short. People have an elitist attitude and they don't want "ordinary" people to be able to do the same stuff they can do. So they keep documentation scarce and bad not because it is better this way, but because it will prevent those people learning to use Linux in an easy way. There are no arguments against improving documentation other than that it would threaten your position as one of the few who actually get this thing. It is a "should" thing, not a factual thing. Why do we keep man pages bad? Because novices "should" abandon the noob mindset. Well pardon me dear people, I have been Linux too since 1996 (brag brag) and I am greatly offended by the bad state of the documentation because it costs ME a lot of TIME. Attributing a noobish mindset to me is just an insult. I know more about Linux than most people know about flowers, plants, walls and ceilings. Yet the style much documentation is written in costs me more time. I see no reason to be spending more time because I "should" get to that information the hard way, or because I "should" expend blood, sweat and tears getting that knowledge. This "I don't want to explain anything to you" mindset and attitude, ..., "because I want you to work hard for it, like I did". And "it shouldn't be easy". "You should expect it to be rough". All that sort of crap right. It just costs endless seas of time to anyone, novice or not-novice alike. You could explain it a better way but you don't. Why? There is no why. The why is that you don't want people to get easy information. And then Lisi here pretends that derailing the dicussion will land her much favour and good points with other people who are uncomfortable with this. I just see people working against improvements, I see people working against easy know-how because it is _supposed_ to be hard, this Linux thing. And then they wonder why no one "likes" to write documentation. No sirs, they actively work against it and don't believe in good documentation. No matter if your name is Catherine Gramze and you have a PhD in technical writing. If you are going to insist that Linux should be hard and that novices should have no place in it, certainly not in the command line, but rather only in this weak distraction of a system we call KDE or Gnome, or Unity, or whatever, ... which is not Linux and you know that. Especially this has no bearing on Debian. _Especially_ so I might add. Then no small wonder that the documention is and remains bad, or rather, inaccessible to ordinary people or to people who haven't yet spent decades on this thing.
Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-16 15:20 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 16:00 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2016-11-16 16:20 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 19:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2016-11-17 13:20 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 15:30 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2016-11-17 15:50 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-17 15:50 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 17:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2016-11-17 18:10 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" kamaraju kusumanchi <raju.mailinglists@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 06:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-11-16 16:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-17 16:00 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" "John L. Ries" <jries@salford-systems.com> - 2016-11-17 19:00 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2016-11-17 22:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-11-17 22:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 00:10 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-11-17 22:30 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2016-11-17 22:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-11-17 22:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2016-11-17 23:00 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 09:20 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 00:10 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" emetib <chadbrabec@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 09:50 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-11-18 10:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2016-11-18 11:10 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" emetib <chadbrabec@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 20:30 +0100
Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") cbannister@slingshot.co.nz - 2016-12-29 15:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-29 19:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-29 19:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 19:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-29 19:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-29 19:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 19:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-30 02:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-12-30 03:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 03:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2016-12-30 15:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2016-12-30 18:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2016-12-30 15:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-12-30 15:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-12-30 15:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 16:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-12-30 17:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-31 08:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-31 09:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 10:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 17:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 13:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 13:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 14:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Nemeth Gyorgy <friczy@freemail.hu> - 2016-12-31 10:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2016-12-31 12:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 12:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2017-01-01 14:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 19:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2017-01-01 20:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-01-01 15:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2017-01-01 20:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-01-02 02:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 02:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-01-02 16:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-01-02 17:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-01-02 18:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-01-02 18:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? Eike Lantzsch <zp6cge@gmx.net> - 2017-01-01 18:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 19:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-12-31 15:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 12:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-01-02 15:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-01-02 17:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-01-02 18:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-01-02 18:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> - 2017-01-02 19:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-30 02:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 03:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 18:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2017-01-01 12:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2017-01-01 12:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-01-01 14:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2017-01-01 15:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-01-01 16:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2017-01-01 17:20 +0100
[OT] on education [was]: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-01-01 20:40 +0100
Re: [OT] on education [was]: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2017-01-01 23:50 +0100
Re: [OT] on education [was]: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 01:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Rob van der Putten <rob@sput.nl> - 2017-03-12 17:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-31 08:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 10:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 13:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-01-01 13:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 13:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-01-01 14:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 18:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <xen@dds.nl> - 2017-01-01 20:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Bob Holtzman <holtzm@cox.net> - 2017-01-02 20:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") cbannister@slingshot.co.nz - 2017-03-11 10:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2017-03-11 12:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-03-11 14:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2017-03-11 19:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2017-03-13 13:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 04:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-31 08:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 12:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-12-30 13:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2016-12-30 15:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-12-30 15:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 20:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 00:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 01:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 01:50 +0100
[OT] Antikythera mechanism [was Re: Do have programs have poor documentation?] Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2016-12-31 03:20 +0100
Re: [OT] Antikythera mechanism [was Re: Do have programs have poor documentation?] deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 10:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Rob van der Putten <rob@sput.nl> - 2017-03-11 22:50 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" kamaraju kusumanchi <raju.mailinglists@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 07:10 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2016-11-22 13:00 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-22 13:30 +0100
csiph-web