Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #174795 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-16 15:20 +0100 |
| Last post | 2016-11-22 13:30 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 117 — 32 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
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
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-16 15:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" |
| Message-ID | <sE9e9-42d-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
There exist SOC <Summer of Code> projects to encourage/mentor fledgling programmers. Considering the state of documentation, esp man pages, why no SOD <Summer of Documentation> projects for potential tech writers. In many areas, nerds are considered illiterate. I can see SOD projects as a vehicle to encourage technically oriented teens to hone their composition skills. Attempting to edit existing man pages might be a good starting point. It would obviously require mentors with an atypical mixture of skill sets. P.S. Apologies to J. Swift ;)
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-16 16:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sE9QR-4fj-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174795 |
On Wednesday 16 November 2016 14:13:49 Richard Owlett wrote: > There exist SOC <Summer of Code> projects to encourage/mentor > fledgling programmers. > Considering the state of documentation, esp man pages, why no SOD > <Summer of Documentation> projects for potential tech writers. There is no obvious pay-off for Google - or anyone else with money. And it isn't fun. You could always make a start. Have you? This is, after all, open source. And the Wiki is, well, a Wiki. ;-) Lisi > In many areas, nerds are considered illiterate. I can see SOD > projects as a vehicle to encourage technically oriented teens to > hone their composition skills. Attempting to edit existing man > pages might be a good starting point. It would obviously require > mentors with an atypical mixture of skill sets. > > P.S. Apologies to J. Swift ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-16 16:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sEaae-4Bb-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174796 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 02:52:37PM +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Wednesday 16 November 2016 14:13:49 Richard Owlett wrote: > > There exist SOC <Summer of Code> projects to encourage/mentor > > fledgling programmers. > > Considering the state of documentation, esp man pages, why no SOD > > <Summer of Documentation> projects for potential tech writers. > > There is no obvious pay-off for Google - or anyone else with money. And it > isn't fun. Your answer highlights the problem, although it's not quite what you said: the pay-off is, better docs! Which are very important. Perhaps not as much as the programs themselves; the question is, how important? Unfortunately, many people think nowhere near as important, hence nobody being prepared to pay for it. -- Jonathan Dowland Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-16 19:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sEdhM-6ys-29@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174797 |
On Wednesday 16 November 2016 15:18:14 Jonathan Dowland wrote: > Your answer highlights the problem, although it's not quite what you said: > the pay-off is, better docs! Which are very important. I said no **obvious** pay-off. That is not the same as no payoff. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 13:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sEtPz-Am-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174803 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 06:39:18PM +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Wednesday 16 November 2016 15:18:14 Jonathan Dowland wrote: > > Your answer highlights the problem, although it's not quite what you said: > > the pay-off is, better docs! Which are very important. > > I said no **obvious** pay-off. That is not the same as no payoff. Yes, but the implied importance of documentation in your reply was the key thing; you don't regard it as that important, which is common.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 15:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sEvRo-1Pv-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174812 |
On Thursday 17 November 2016 12:12:57 Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 06:39:18PM +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Wednesday 16 November 2016 15:18:14 Jonathan Dowland wrote: > > > Your answer highlights the problem, although it's not quite what you > > > said: the pay-off is, better docs! Which are very important. > > > > I said no **obvious** pay-off. That is not the same as no payoff. > > Yes, but the implied importance of documentation in your reply was the key > thing; you don't regard it as that important, which is common. That is quite simply untrue and totally unwarranted. I explained the problem. I did NOT say that I regarded documentation as unimportant, nor did I imply that documentation was unimportant. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 15:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sEwaJ-1Wf-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174813 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 02:30:16PM +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote: > That is quite simply untrue and totally unwarranted. I explained the problem. > I did NOT say that I regarded documentation as unimportant, nor did I imply > that documentation was unimportant. I'm sorry for putting words in your mouth. I did not mean to mis-represent what you think; but looking back at what you wrote, it very much *looks* like how I interpreted it. It seemed a perfect illustration of the problem, to me, at least. -- Jonathan Dowland Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 15:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sEwaJ-1Wf-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174796 |
On 11/16/2016 8:52 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 November 2016 14:13:49 Richard Owlett wrote:
>> There exist SOC <Summer of Code> projects to encourage/mentor
>> fledgling programmers.
>> Considering the state of documentation, esp man pages, why no SOD
>> <Summer of Documentation> projects for potential tech writers.
>
> There is no obvious pay-off for Google - or anyone else with money. And it
> isn't fun.
I don't know how Google internally justifies sponsoring SOC projects.
I can see their PR department seeing benefits to their corporate
image.
Their personnel department may see it as a pool of potential
recruits.
I know nothing of the quality of code produced by these projects,
nor of its monetary value. None of the SOC projects I've seen
mentioned in various fora have been of more than passing interest.
As to "fun", one man's purgatory may be another's nirvana {or
points between}.
The intended point of my second paragraph [which obviously wasn't
made as nobody commented on it ;] was a sketch of how to attract
technically oriented high school students to tech writing.
>
> You could always make a start. Have you? This is, after all, open source.
> And the Wiki is, well, a Wiki. ;-)
I don't see myself as having the technical competence to create
wiki content that would do more harm than good.
I do try to contribute by asking focused questions and when
relevant draw on 50+ years of troubleshooting to document how I
came to ask a question. Several here question whether I've
achieved either.
>
> Lisi
>
>> In many areas, nerds are considered illiterate. I can see SOD
>> projects as a vehicle to encourage technically oriented teens to
>> hone their composition skills. Attempting to edit existing man
>> pages might be a good starting point. It would obviously require
>> mentors with an atypical mixture of skill sets.
>>
>> P.S. Apologies to J. Swift ;)
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 17:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sExTb-36c-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174815 |
On Thursday 17 November 2016 14:41:23 Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 11/16/2016 8:52 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Wednesday 16 November 2016 14:13:49 Richard Owlett wrote:
> >> There exist SOC <Summer of Code> projects to encourage/mentor
> >> fledgling programmers.
> >> Considering the state of documentation, esp man pages, why no SOD
> >> <Summer of Documentation> projects for potential tech writers.
> >
> > There is no obvious pay-off for Google - or anyone else with money. And
> > it isn't fun.
>
> I don't know how Google internally justifies sponsoring SOC projects.
> I can see their PR department seeing benefits to their corporate
> image.
> Their personnel department may see it as a pool of potential
I would think that both these are valid.
> recruits.
> I know nothing of the quality of code produced by these projects,
> nor of its monetary value. None of the SOC projects I've seen
> mentioned in various fora have been of more than passing interest.
Debian and LibreOffice both find Google's SOC useful. I don't specifically
know about other projects.
> As to "fun", one man's purgatory may be another's nirvana {or
> points between}.
No. The problem here is that the overlap between highly competent technical
people (who find tech fun) and people who love writing, and find writing fun,
is so small. I personally know one, and he is not a developer. Developers
love developing. Writers love writing. Neither regards the other as
occupation as fun.
> The intended point of my second paragraph [which obviously wasn't
> made as nobody commented on it ;] was a sketch of how to attract
> technically oriented high school students to tech writing.
See my paragraph above. And then there is the educational system which here
anyway tends to separate the techy from the arty very young.
>
> > You could always make a start. Have you? This is, after all, open
> > source. And the Wiki is, well, a Wiki. ;-)
The point I was trying to make, and frequently try to make, is that in Open
Source you have to say "This needs doing, I must do it." It is no good
saying "Someone else must do it." Someone else invariably won't.
>
> I don't see myself as having the technical competence to create
> wiki content that would do more harm than good.
>
> I do try to contribute by asking focused questions and when
> relevant draw on 50+ years of troubleshooting to document how I
> came to ask a question. Several here question whether I've
> achieved either.
You could - some people do - gather all that together and put it in the Wiki.
That in itself doesn't contribute to the pool of documentation, at least not
directly. The pool of knowledge, yes, but the pool of "documentation", no.
I try to answer and help here, but could never actually write something
technical. But you (and others) are missing my point. In all voluntary
activities, you only get done what someone wants to do and enjoys doing.
Besides, many of those doing jobs are totally incompetent. The publicity
department (which I think is PAID) of the FSF thinks that Africa is a country
in Europe-Asia and that it is an evening's outing away from the ISLAND of
Great Britain. (She didn't suggest which mode(s) of transport she was
suggesting I should use. I don't think she knew that GB is an island. She
didn't know that Africa is a separate continent, after all.)
We need education first, Richard. Then - what - money? Is the Closed Source
documentation so good? I would have said that using ALL available material
Open Source is better.
Lisi
> > Lisi
> >
> >> In many areas, nerds are considered illiterate. I can see SOD
> >> projects as a vehicle to encourage technically oriented teens to
> >> hone their composition skills. Attempting to edit existing man
> >> pages might be a good starting point. It would obviously require
> >> mentors with an atypical mixture of skill sets.
> >>
> >> P.S. Apologies to J. Swift ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Curt <curty@free.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 18:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sEyme-3v8-71@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174815 |
On 2016-11-17, Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> wrote: > >> >> You could always make a start. Have you? This is, after all, open source. >> And the Wiki is, well, a Wiki. ;-) > > I don't see myself as having the technical competence to create > wiki content that would do more harm than good. > I think you said the opposite of what you meant (or I haven't fully awakened from my nap). -- “It is enough that the arrows fit exactly in the wounds that they have made.” Franz Kafka
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kamaraju kusumanchi <raju.mailinglists@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-22 06:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sGbYd-2YA-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174815 |
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> wrote: > I know nothing of the quality of code produced by these projects, nor of its > monetary value. None of the SOC projects I've seen mentioned in various fora > have been of more than passing interest. > It is interesting that you brought this up. Just today I came to know that scikit-learn [1], a very popular python library among people working on machine learning applications started out as a Google Summer of Code project. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scikit-learn hth raju -- Kamaraju S Kusumanchi | http://raju.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Blog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-16 16:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sEatA-4HA-41@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174795 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 08:13:49AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > There exist SOC <Summer of Code> projects to encourage/mentor > fledgling programmers. > Considering the state of documentation, esp man pages, why no SOD > <Summer of Documentation> projects for potential tech writers. > > In many areas, nerds are considered illiterate. I can see SOD > projects as a vehicle to encourage technically oriented teens to > hone their composition skills. Attempting to edit existing man pages > might be a good starting point. It would obviously require mentors > with an atypical mixture of skill sets. > > P.S. Apologies to J. Swift ;) There are quite a few initiatives underway which are changing the world -- too many to mention, from low to high. In the realm of man pages, there's Michael Kerrisk [1], working at it since time immemorial. In the realm of Linux kernel documentation, there's a new initiative, led by Mauricio Carvalho Chehab [2] and supported by LWN's inimitable Jonathan Corbet [3]. For those trying to climb the steep kernel ladder there's kernelnewbies.com [4]. For a very broad brush on Linux user space there's the excellent Arch wiki [5]. Debian itself has recognized that there are more roles than "just" maintainer, so there's room for documenters now. There's the venerable Linux Documentation Project, from which a sizeable part of your /usr/share/doc derives (on my box this is 2.3G of compressed stuff: just sayin'). I didn't mention Debian's huge resources, since I assume most are well-known here. There's Wikipedia, which in the technical realm is, overall, pretty good. And the other 53479 I didn't mention, because I don't even know about most of them. We're drowning in documentation. Even more: if we only kept the 10% "good" doc we'd be still drowning in it. Could it be better? You bet! But the main problem is... books is not all. Take Richard Feynman's "Lectures on Physics" or Knuth's "The Art of Computer Programming". Reading the one won't make a theoretical physicist of you (unless you're exceptional: yes, such folks exist!), reading the other won't make you a computer scientist. Books are one building block, there are others, as mentoring and experience. Same here: su's man page is imo excellent. It could be made better (you're in a good position to make proposals, since it seems that you just mounted an obstacle and might have a fresh memory of how this obstacle felt to you). But sometimes it just takes another person with a fresh perspective to get the right nudge at the right time. Then, all of a sudden, the darn thing becomes readable :) (Note that I'm not arguing against the point you made above. If we could attract more resources into making people better documenters, I'm all for it -- it is at the heart of free software after all). regards [1] http://man7.org/ [2] https://blogs.s-osg.org/author/mchehab/ [3] https://lwn.net [4] https://kernelnewbies.org/ [5] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ - -- t -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlgsfSYACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYHeQCfVCFO2Tv2BoZKOSuQUDQJuQ8o WscAn0EtNE9xuoxsVEbDTfzHKqkw/tw6 =gSIz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 16:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sEwkq-20L-33@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174799 |
On 11/16/2016 9:37 AM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 08:13:49AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: >> There exist SOC <Summer of Code> projects to encourage/mentor >> fledgling programmers. >> Considering the state of documentation, esp man pages, why no SOD >> <Summer of Documentation> projects for potential tech writers. >> >> In many areas, nerds are considered illiterate. I can see SOD >> projects as a vehicle to encourage technically oriented teens to >> hone their composition skills. Attempting to edit existing man pages >> might be a good starting point. It would obviously require mentors >> with an atypical mixture of skill sets. >> >> P.S. Apologies to J. Swift ;) > > There are quite a few initiatives underway which are changing the > world -- too many to mention, from low to high. > ... I've used the Arch wiki many times. I'm not familiar with the others. I think I have a long term reading assignment. > > We're drowning in documentation. Even more: if we only kept the > 10% "good" doc we'd be still drowning in it. Could it be better? > You bet! But the main problem is... books is not all. > ... My intention was to focus on two aspects of man pages in general: 1. they can use improvement 2. sketch a means of attracting young people to tech writing > > Same here: su's man page is imo excellent. It could be made > better (you're in a good position to make proposals, since > it seems that you just mounted an obstacle and might have a > fresh memory of how this obstacle felt to you). But sometimes > it just takes another person with a fresh perspective to > get the right nudge at the right time. Then, all of a sudden, > the darn thing becomes readable :) My only problem with the su man page was not having read it. I thought I understood su, sudo, etc. ERROR ;/ > > (Note that I'm not arguing against the point you made above. > If we could attract more resources into making people better > documenters, I'm all for it -- it is at the heart of free > software after all). > > regards > > [1] http://man7.org/ > [2] https://blogs.s-osg.org/author/mchehab/ > [3] https://lwn.net > [4] https://kernelnewbies.org/ > [5] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ > > - -- t
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "John L. Ries" <jries@salford-systems.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 19:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sEz8C-3Po-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174816 |
If we're drowing in documentation (and I always prefer to err on the side of too much data rather than too little), then it's in low quality, incomprehensible documentation, not the good stuff. One of the weaknesses of open source is the difficulty outsiders have understanding that freely available code (programmers would much rather program than document their work, which is why making one's code self-documenting is always a plus). Experimentation is good (if one has time), but easy to learn is better. --------------------------| John L. Ries | Salford Systems | Phone: (619)543-8880 x107 | or (435)867-8885 | --------------------------| On Thursday 2016-11-17 07:58, Richard Owlett wrote: >Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 07:58:55 >From: Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> >To: debian-user <debian-user@lists.debian.org> >Subject: Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" >Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 14:59:21 +0000 >Resent-From: <debian-user@lists.debian.org> > > On 11/16/2016 9:37 AM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 08:13:49AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: >>> There exist SOC <Summer of Code> projects to encourage/mentor >>> fledgling programmers. >>> Considering the state of documentation, esp man pages, why no SOD >>> <Summer of Documentation> projects for potential tech writers. >>> >>> In many areas, nerds are considered illiterate. I can see SOD >>> projects as a vehicle to encourage technically oriented teens to >>> hone their composition skills. Attempting to edit existing man pages >>> might be a good starting point. It would obviously require mentors >>> with an atypical mixture of skill sets. >>> >>> P.S. Apologies to J. Swift ;) >> >> There are quite a few initiatives underway which are changing the >> world -- too many to mention, from low to high. >> ... > > I've used the Arch wiki many times. I'm not familiar with the others. I think > I have a long term reading assignment. > >> >> We're drowning in documentation. Even more: if we only kept the >> 10% "good" doc we'd be still drowning in it. Could it be better? >> You bet! But the main problem is... books is not all. >> ... > > My intention was to focus on two aspects of man pages in general: > 1. they can use improvement > 2. sketch a means of attracting young people to tech writing > >> >> Same here: su's man page is imo excellent. It could be made >> better (you're in a good position to make proposals, since >> it seems that you just mounted an obstacle and might have a >> fresh memory of how this obstacle felt to you). But sometimes >> it just takes another person with a fresh perspective to >> get the right nudge at the right time. Then, all of a sudden, >> the darn thing becomes readable :) > > My only problem with the su man page was not having read it. > I thought I understood su, sudo, etc. ERROR ;/ > >> >> (Note that I'm not arguing against the point you made above. >> If we could attract more resources into making people better >> documenters, I'm all for it -- it is at the heart of free >> software after all). >> >> regards >> >> [1] http://man7.org/ >> [2] https://blogs.s-osg.org/author/mchehab/ >> [3] https://lwn.net >> [4] https://kernelnewbies.org/ >> [5] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ >> >> - -- t > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 22:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sECzw-6bD-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174827 |
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:28:06PM +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > Now you have cast upon yourself the duty of finding *one* example of > "low quality, incomprehensible documentation", so we can together try > to fix it. Otherwise nobody will believe you ;-P sudoers(5) But to be fair, the documentation is bad in part because the file format is impenetrably obtuse. Ridiculously over-engineered for a config that just needs to say who can run what command as whom.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 22:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sECzw-6bD-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174827 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:52:41AM -0700, John L. Ries wrote: > If we're drowing in documentation (and I always prefer to err on the > side of too much data rather than too little), then it's in low quality, > incomprehensible documentation, not the good stuff. Careful! (see below) > One of the > weaknesses of open source is the difficulty outsiders have understanding > that freely available code (programmers would much rather program than > document their work, which is why making one's code self-documenting is > always a plus). Experimentation is good (if one has time), but easy to > learn is better. Now you have cast upon yourself the duty of finding *one* example of "low quality, incomprehensible documentation", so we can together try to fix it. Otherwise nobody will believe you ;-P (Said, of course, with tongue-in-cheek. But, of course, if you accept the challenge, I'll try to be up to the task and who knows, perhaps we find other helping hands. Want to dance?) regards - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlguIOUACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZL9wCdGSuA7GsybKETBf5WeIBEWWIg 42gAnRicx7dACBDTWOUi0ltq5AM+b+xp =4Y7u -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rhkramer@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 00:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sEDYC-7hJ-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174827 |
On Thursday, November 17, 2016 12:52:41 PM John L. Ries wrote: > that freely available code (programmers would much rather program than > document their work, which is why making one's code self-documenting is > always a plus). Just out of curiosity, have you ever seen or written self-documenting code that was really self documenting? Anything I've ever seen of that ilk might have been self-documenting to another coder, but not to a normal person. But, if there is such a thing, I'd like to see it. (You don't have to mention Knuth's literate programming--I don't think that is what most people call self-documenting, but, it can do a pretty good job.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 22:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sECpQ-67V-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174816 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 08:58:55AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: [...] > My intention was to focus on two aspects of man pages in general: > 1. they can use improvement Always. Definitely. Sometimes a tall order: those coming from the Linux man-pages project or from Gnu are generally already quite good. > 2. sketch a means of attracting young people to tech writing Very much needed, yes. > My only problem with the su man page was not having read it. > I thought I understood su, sudo, etc. ERROR ;/ Happens to me all the time. Regards - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlguH84ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaBygCeKeU9i34oE8oTrA4AbpAnzrVK Z5IAnAqWPvCT7eOvXKVj953XVfWpn1Du =04iI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 22:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sECzw-6bD-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174832 |
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:23:26PM +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 08:58:55AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > > My intention was to focus on two aspects of man pages in general: > > 1. they can use improvement > > Always. Definitely. Sometimes a tall order: those coming from the > Linux man-pages project or from Gnu are generally already quite > good. The Linux man pages are good, usually. The GNU man pages are atrocious. They even admit it, right in their man pages. They (as a project, as a whole) *hate* man pages and only write a stub that doesn't even cover all of the basics. Then they tell you that the real documentation is their GNU-specific "info" page, and you have to go learn an entirely new program for reading GNU documentation vs. every other program's documentation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 22:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sECzx-6bD-43@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174834 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 04:27:54PM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:23:26PM +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 08:58:55AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > > > My intention was to focus on two aspects of man pages in general: > > > 1. they can use improvement > > > > Always. Definitely. Sometimes a tall order: those coming from the > > Linux man-pages project or from Gnu are generally already quite > > good. > > The Linux man pages are good, usually. The GNU man pages are atrocious. > They even admit it, right in their man pages. They (as a project, as a > whole) *hate* man pages and only write a stub that doesn't even cover > all of the basics. Then they tell you that the real documentation is > their GNU-specific "info" page, and you have to go learn an entirely > new program for reading GNU documentation vs. every other program's > documentation. While Gnu does prefer info format to man page format (and they have their reasons, e.g. info allows links), the man pages (usually derived from the texinfo source) are well-structured, complete and have a solid language. I can't agree with you in that they are "atrocious", barring some exceptions. De gustibus... obviously. regards - -- t -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlguIyUACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbqyACeMBFHWt1qK4CA5sGBWjm5kJyf 02IAnApQbeSjmrxB+oZab+jOh2c+CQxQ =qC8J -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web