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 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | rhkramer@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-30 15:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sU6Fj-5Cx-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176101 |
On Friday, December 30, 2016 09:24:28 AM Dan Purgert wrote: > rhkramer@gmail.com wrote: > > My suggestion is you spend less time discussing it, and get started on > > writing a few bman pages... > > Probably should be 'manng' (for 'next generation'), or perhaps mand (to > fit in with systemd) ;) Yes, the name should be "brainstormed" and then picked carefully from the alternatives...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rhkramer@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-30 15:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sU6Fj-5Cx-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176103 |
On Friday, December 30, 2016 09:46:01 AM rhkramer@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, December 30, 2016 09:24:28 AM Dan Purgert wrote: > > rhkramer@gmail.com wrote: > > > My suggestion is you spend less time discussing it, and get started on > > > writing a few bman pages... > > > > Probably should be 'manng' (for 'next generation'), or perhaps mand (to > > fit in with systemd) ;) > > Yes, the name should be "brainstormed" and then picked carefully from the > alternatives... But, I guess I should have mentioned, in case nobody else did (the long screeds became a tl;dr for me) that there are a fair number of other resources available--try googling for the name of the program you need information on and "howto" or "LDP" or just "documentation".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-30 16:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sU6OZ-5FM-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176103 |
On Friday 30 December 2016 14:46:01 rhkramer@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, December 30, 2016 09:24:28 AM Dan Purgert wrote: > > rhkramer@gmail.com wrote: > > > My suggestion is you spend less time discussing it, and get started on > > > writing a few bman pages... > > > > Probably should be 'manng' (for 'next generation'), or perhaps mand (to > > fit in with systemd) ;) > > Yes, the name should be "brainstormed" and then picked carefully from the > alternatives... ROTFLOL :-)) Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-30 17:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sU84p-6Gp-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176101 |
Dan Purger writes: > Probably should be 'manng' (for 'next generation'), or perhaps mand (to > fit in with systemd) ;) That's called "info". > Anyway, isn't this where the differences between say "man something" > and "man 5 something" come into play? Or rather, the implication that > section 1 (or whatever) may only hold a basic overview, and then > section 5 (or whatever) will hold the full documentation. No. man man -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-31 08:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sUmh3-8nR-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176087 |
rhkramer@gmail.com schreef op 30-12-2016 3:23: > My suggestion is you spend less time discussing it, and get started on > writing > a few bman pages... So your suggestion is to start using a system that doesn't exist and instead of having discussion about how this system should be designed, you are trying to cut off discussion on that too. I think your end goal sir is for nothing to happen at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-31 09:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sUnwt-BV-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176087 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-31 10:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sUoiS-18f-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176141 |
On Saturday 31 December 2016 08:48:09 Xen wrote: > Oh and yes, mentioning someone else's behaviour to another person is not > an ad hominem attack Catherine. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ad+homonem&oq=ad+homonem&aqs=chrome..69i57.3014j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 How can something which attacks a named person by name NOT be ad hominem?? Can we all agree to ignore this clown? Yes, I know, I am not good at it. His attacks on me and Catherine may or may not be justified (and I would like to think that we are both significantly better writers than he is), but they are certainly ad hominem and OT. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-31 17:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sUuxY-5bH-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176148 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 4:37 AM, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote: > > Can we all agree to ignore this clown > ? > I can. PLONK.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 13:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sUMXT-8jd-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176148 |
Lisi Reisz schreef op 31-12-2016 10:37: > On Saturday 31 December 2016 08:48:09 Xen wrote: >> Oh and yes, mentioning someone else's behaviour to another person is >> not >> an ad hominem attack Catherine. > > https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ad+homonem&oq=ad+homonem&aqs=chrome..69i57.3014j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Being able to quote google searches does not make you a better person. > How can something which attacks a named person by name NOT be ad > hominem?? Because when you're upset about a person or his or her behaviour, you have to name that person and that is not an argument as to something philosophically correct or argumentatively wrong, that is about being angry with someone. The argument is not "You argument is flawed because you are a woman" (for instance) which would be an ad hominem: it is using irrelevant personal detail to not accept the validity of an otherwise valid argument. That is an ad hominem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 13:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sUNhf-eY-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176148 |
Lisi Reisz schreef op 31-12-2016 10:37: > Yes, I know, I am not good at it. That makes you insincere as well because you do not even agree with what you say, you do not even agree with your own wisdom. You do one thing and say another, which makes me feel you realize *deep down* that I am actually saying something valid here ? ;-). > > His attacks on me and Catherine may or may not be justified (and I > would like > to think that we are both significantly better writers than he is), but > they > are certainly ad hominem and OT. > > Lisi I will certainly agree my writing is much worse than what it was in the past. But someone's devious style in argumenting. Trying to derail the topic by talking about irrelvant things. That ARE completely off-topic such as the history of science. Trying to get away from the subject matter at hand because it is too uncomfortable or something, I don't know. If someone is not being respectful in their style of reasoning and argumenting you are allowed to call them out on it, that is not being disrespectful and that is not an ad hominem. Is what I just want to say. I wanted to say something else but I messed up my writing here. I just want to say that calling someone out on their behaviour is not an ad hominem, it is calling someone out on their behaviour. It is a different thing. I don't disagree with catherine based on her arguments, in that sense of not allowing anyone to have arguments of their own, or the right to make arguments as much as they like, or the right to stand behind it. But I grow a bit tired if people keep saying the same thing and or these insults such as: "and that you wanted your specific solution laid out for you in the man page instead of figuring it out yourself" and "should abandon the noob mindset". Those are just insults to begin with and they ARE ad hominems in actual fact. Thomas Schmitt goes out of his way to say that he is not a noob, but can rather be an outsider to some other program he is not yet familiar with. That is a defense to that accusation right there. If you can't win this argument except by calling people noobs, that's on you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 14:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sUNTX-rw-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176183 |
Xen schreef op 01-01-2017 13:18: > "and that you wanted your specific solution laid out for you in the > man page instead of figuring it out yourself" > > and "should abandon the noob mindset". > > Those are just insults to begin with and they ARE ad hominems in actual > fact. And I just want to explain, even though no one listens to me anymore of course ;-). When you are going to insinuate that I have a problem with man pages not because there is something wrong with the man pages, or some people's style in writing it (and I will repeat, certainly not all people, and you should be allowed to call peole out on their style of writing or to suggest or insist on improving it -- not in that order) -- If you are going to insinuate that I have a problem with man pages because I am a "noob". Or that I am "lazy". Which are my words to those sentences but I think they are accurate. Then that is greatly disrespectful to begin with. You call me clown, yes I am certain that I am one. But it is not all that bad either, anyway. What you are basically saying is that "Your arguments are flawed because you are a noob" and that IS an ad hominem. I never said Catherine's arguments were flawed /because/ she was a woman ;-), or more appropriately here, just hitting the sore spot there a bit lol, my apologies, I never said they were flawed because they were insincere or something of that nature, or because she was being petulant or something of that nature. But if you keep making the same arguments because of irritation. You disregard the arguments made by other people. Because they don't suit you. And if you also start to insult people based on their supposed "noobishness" which is all too common in these lands, I guess. Then that quickly reveals that you have no arguments left in fact and you have lost the argument in actual fact. The past is no reason to not change the present. The system is not designed in such a way as to not make tutorials better written, or to make man pages more tutorial like. It is not designed in such a way as to preclude man pages becoming more accessible if people choose to and want to. The only question that remains is not whether it would be possible to improve man pages, but whether you want them to. And it is also not a question of whether I am capable of reading reference material or not, or something of the kind -- forgot my words there. I am cold and hungry yes, sorry. The only question is whether Catherine and the like would WANT man pages to be improved and she has said she doesn't want them to because they are fine, and that is fine. It is what one person wants or doesn't want. That is fine right. And maybe I am beliggerent too because I keep annoying you with a certain something. Catherine here and others like her think man pages are fine the way they are. I disagree. We can disagree on that. But if the reason they are fine is that it precludes access to noobs, then I have a problem with that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nemeth Gyorgy <friczy@freemail.hu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-31 10:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sUoiR-18f-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176087 |
2016-12-30 03:23 keltezéssel, rhkramer@gmail.com írta: > 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? It is better if you call them 'info'. This is already exists, though less used but I think this is that you wish for.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-31 12:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? |
| Message-ID | <sUpyh-1Ov-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176145 |
Hi, Nemeth Gyorgy wrote: > It is better if you call them 'info'. This is already exists, Well, "info" is the pet of GNU and thus often better documentation for GNU tools than their "man" pages. The goal and viewpoint is nevertheless the same: Technical documentation of programs, not tutorial. The reason why many large man pages or info documents are so hard to grasp is really in the difference of viewpoints. Too much background knowledge and too exotic programmer's motivations, i assume. I maintain about 8000 lines of man pages for own programs. (Fattest: https://www.gnu.org/software/xorriso/man_1_xorriso.html ) Nevertheless i suffer like most other people when i have to study foreign technical docs for the first time. So it is not dumb user versus smart programmer but rather insider versus newcommer. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ If the contest for the name of a new documentation system is still open: How about "Mandie" ? Goals would be to be appealing: http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/fairlyoddparents/images/f/f3/NewSquidInTown014.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110908204439&path-prefix=en as well as authoritative: http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/fairlyoddparents/images/7/72/NewSquidInTown214.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110908212027&path-prefix=en (Pronounciation is: "Man-Die") Have a nice day :) Thomas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 12:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? |
| Message-ID | <sUMEy-8cm-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176150 |
Thomas Schmitt schreef op 31-12-2016 11:59: > Well, "info" is the pet of GNU and thus often better documentation for > GNU tools than their "man" pages. > The goal and viewpoint is nevertheless the same: Technical > documentation > of programs, not tutorial. I personally also cannot use "info". I have tried many times in the past. Always gave up pretty quickly. Just unusable to me. I would need to study a tutorial on how to use info and I don't even want to. > The reason why many large man pages or info documents are so hard to > grasp is really in the difference of viewpoints. Too much background > knowledge and too exotic programmer's motivations, i assume. Yes exactly. You are assumed to already know the program when you start reading the man page. You are assumed to know everything the programmer knows. This is the "Linux is easy" fallacy that originates from people forgetting how long it took them to acquire some knowledge, and now they think it was easy all this time for them, but they had to become familiar with it at first as well. For example, if you are new to LVM, and you are in some rescue mode that doesn't automatically activate your volume groups, doing "vgchange -ay" is not that intuitive. "man lvm" is also not helpful. You will first need to find the required command (vgchange) before you can get any help, but you don't know that you need that one because you don't feel you want to change the vg, you only want to activate it. This can quickly elude you for some time and especially if you are in a pinch and suffering already, you may not have the time and mental capacity for it. You are trying to rescue your system and cannot find the tool to do it with, but you don't have internet so you can't look it up and..... Then some fool will later day: "Why don't you just do vgchange -ay?" And if you then say "Well that is not that easy to know" they will say "man vgchange" "easy". > Nevertheless i suffer like most other people when i have to study > foreign > technical docs for the first time. > So it is not dumb user versus smart programmer but rather insider > versus > newcommer. Yes, exactly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 14:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? |
| Message-ID | <sUO3D-JY-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176174 |
Hi, Xen wrote: > I personally also cannot use "info". I have tried many times in the past. That's why i fulfill the requirement of GNU to have an info documentation by writing a single .texi document for both, info and man. (This needs a specialized postprocessor to derive .1 from .texi .) The text content of xorriso.1 and xorriso.info is the same. Only the presentation differs. Reading a man page and searching in it just needs the ability to operate the "less" text viewer. The same job in "info" needs the will to navigate by a non-graphical text browser. If you want to learn background, the hierachical format seems somwhat better. But if you want to know what a certain xorriso command does, then you are better off with the man page and "/" for searching. > I would need to study a tutorial on how to use info and I don't even want > to. This is a general example why it is so hard to satisfy the users' documentation needs. >From the viewpoint of "info" programmers it is obvious that you first have to learn how to use it before you can draw benefit from it. But the particular user has a particular need to get information about a particular complex of problems. No interest in learning anything else before the current task is completed. Now how shall the provider of software documentation handle this conflict ? There are various approaches from books over wikis to community discussions. As much as they serve additional groups of users, that much they diversify the landscape of available information sources. They begin to contradict, spread half-knowledge, or even engage in advertising wars. (The classic "use original cdrecord" which you can read with many problem discussions about optical media.) I decided for massive man pages and using Google to find public discussions about my software and related topics. If i find such discussions, i try to determine impartially the cause of the problem and to propose a remedy. If that remedy means "use original cdrecord" then be it so. But in most cases it's "get other media or a new burner drive". > You are assumed to already know the program when you start > reading the man page. > You are assumed to know everything the programmer knows. > [...] "vgchange -ay" [...] I dare to contradict. Not your assessment that man vgchange is hard to digest, but your impression that the programmers or documenters don't care for your initial lack of knowledge. They try to teach us. With limited success. But nevertheless: "vgchange allows you to change the attributes of one or more volume groups. Its main purpose is to activate and deactivate VolumeGroupName, " Duh ? "See lvm(8) for common options." Oh. It has family. "lvm provides the command-line tools for LVM2." Now it would be time for me to learn some basics about a thing named "LVM2". A few days later i would possibly be able to roughly understand what the LVM developers invented during the last two decades and how my current problem is related to this invention. But: > you are in some rescue mode that doesn't automatically activate your > volume groups, Here we see why old programmers try to avoid using fancy infrastructure. The answer in an ideal world would be: Learn how to rescue yourself before the ship begins to sink. This does not necessarily mean to master LVM and all other probable points of failure. It means to have a fallback strategy that reduces your personal stress level in case of emergency. In my case it's a pile of backups and the presence of readily configured reserve hardware. (I should do emergency exercises more often.) Be aware of what you depend on and prepare for temporarily losing it. Last year our government renewed its advise to store food and water for two weeks. I immediately re-assigned my surplus body weight to civil defense preparations. Fressen fuers Vaterland ! (= Gorging for the Country !) In the real world of emergencies, your mileage may vary, of course. > Then some fool will later day: "Why don't you just do vgchange -ay?" And if > you then say "Well that is not that easy to know" they will say "man > vgchange" "easy". That's more a problem with the fellow humans than with technical docs. Nothing is easy if you only dig deep enough into its details. > > So it is not dumb user versus smart programmer but rather insider versus > > newcommer. > Yes, exactly. And thus the "emergency mode" problem turns out to be about the need for becomming an insider at an inappropriate moment of time. When you need a skilled friend, then technical documentation will hardly be able to serve as a substitute. Have a nice day :) Thomas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 19:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? |
| Message-ID | <sUSJY-3Hr-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176190 |
Thomas Schmitt schreef op 01-01-2017 14:10: >> From the viewpoint of "info" programmers it is obvious that you first > have to learn how to use it before you can draw benefit from it. > > But the particular user has a particular need to get information about > a particular complex of problems. No interest in learning anything else > before the current task is completed. > > Now how shall the provider of software documentation handle this > conflict ? Thank you for being honest about everything. This is the first time I have seen someone actually go into detail about what is so, instead of people just -- pardon me for saying this thing again -- vehemently denying everything you say. As a documentation writer yourself you must run into this yes. I am sorry it has been such a rough ride. Lol, just kidding :p. I have never written man pages but your reasoning seems exactly to the point. Something I would recognise myself. Something you run into, right. > There are various approaches from books over wikis to community > discussions. > As much as they serve additional groups of users, that much they > diversify > the landscape of available information sources. They begin to > contradict, > spread half-knowledge, or even engage in advertising wars. (The classic > "use original cdrecord" which you can read with many problem > discussions > about optical media.) I must say here that though the info system is hard to navigate, the MS-DOS help system was not. This problem was already solved ages ago (in the 80s). The MS-DOS help system was very easy to use and provided what Info should or could provide. Borland Pascal did the same (and equivalents) and although it used slightly different keys, it too was very easy to use. I always had great fun and joy reading those entries and I must have read all the entries in the Borland Pascal documentation just by heart. I mean just for fun. I would read stuff for fun and I read everything. I have never used Info with one ounce of joy, and not because I didn't try several times. It is just unusable to me. The Vi help system is also unusable until you learn a few hard-to-learn shortcut keys for navigation. It just doens't make sense. You need to learn the Vi help before you can get help on Vi. Really talking of Vim though. But anyway, beside the point. Yes of course I recognise choosing to use the web as the next alternative. It's not about me, but what seems to me to be common sense. I already said earlier that there are only two system: man and the web. Again, not about me, but it is hard to get out of this line of reasoning now. > I decided for massive man pages and using Google to find public > discussions > about my software and related topics. If i find such discussions, i try > to > determine impartially the cause of the problem and to propose a remedy. > If that remedy means "use original cdrecord" then be it so. > But in most cases it's "get other media or a new burner drive". Okay, so you did not host them yourself. That's a very active job. > I dare to contradict. Not your assessment that man vgchange is hard to > digest, but your impression that the programmers or documenters don't > care > for your initial lack of knowledge. No no, I don't mean to give a broad sweep to everyone. The only encounter I've had with a man-page writer was a good one, and who was interested to hear what could be improved. I also offered my help and did write some improvement (in something) but couldn't find the time and health to continue on with it; but he recognised the problem and initiated some improvements himself or by himself. I think we will always find that the actual people doing the job understand better what you are trying to say and are also interested in improving. It is often the people on the side who are not those people, who just ... interfere with you reaching the ones who are interested. It's just the same as customer support representatives not passing information onto real developers. In these lands; call it the Linux Support Arena, or the Linux Support Agenda even, people on the side take on the customer support role of filtering. They act like they try to get the complainer off of the back of the developer of writer, much like front-desk personnel often does. The real writer or developer however is often much nicer to you and your complaints or observations, of course, true. And thank you for being that person too. I'm not saying writers don't care, but more that the people who do not do the writing (like some of the 2 girls responding in this thread) and so do not experience the difficulties and desire to make the program easily understood themselves, may not understand. I feel the further you get from the actual job, the less people will understand and claim perfection on behalf of whomever they think they represent, or represent in actual fact. Not to give any information here but I once experienced the impossibility in that sense of getting through to some research group at university because front desk personnel (student advisers and the like) kept pushing me further to the front and to more official channels. Whereas the actual people I would have had to work with, would have been interested in my words. I know this for a fact. I just couldn't reach them because their assistent(s) kept pushing me away. The same happens in a hospital: the front-desk receptionist will tell you you are late and nothing is possible anymore. The actual departmental receptionists however who do the actual job will tell you that all is fine. Same day, same moment, same instance. Front-desk = getting you away or telling you it's impossible. The actual people: no problem sir, sit down, we'll help you right away. Front desk personnel just doesn't understand the personnel actually doing the job, and I feel the same is true of Linux, where "workers" give support in channels such as these, but may not really be familiar with the job they are advising about. And then they say there is no need for improvement, when the actual workers do feel the limitations imposed by the system. And are welcoming any efforts, perhaps, by people genuinely interested in suggesting improvements. > They try to teach us. With limited success. But nevertheless: > "vgchange allows you to change the attributes of one or more > volume > groups. Its main purpose is to activate and deactivate > VolumeGroupName, > " > Duh ? > "See lvm(8) for common options." > Oh. It has family. > "lvm provides the command-line tools for LVM2." > Now it would be time for me to learn some basics about a thing named > "LVM2". > > A few days later i would possibly be able to roughly understand what > the LVM > developers invented during the last two decades and how my current > problem > is related to this invention. Yes I like how you are following the chain of an uninformed reader or traversing the chain of what someone needs to do and encounters, you could also say. I am not trying to sound as if my perceptions are so important, I have difficulty expressing myself here now. I mean you are actually looking at what an actual user would see, which is very nice and thankful for me, I suppose. So thank you for that, in any case. > But: >> you are in some rescue mode that doesn't automatically activate your >> volume groups, > > Here we see why old programmers try to avoid using fancy > infrastructure. > > The answer in an ideal world would be: Learn how to rescue yourself > before > the ship begins to sink. > This does not necessarily mean to master LVM and all other probable > points > of failure. It means to have a fallback strategy that reduces your > personal > stress level in case of emergency. That is true but it is a very convenient thing to say. I know dependability is important but the level of dependability you require from external sources is directly dependent on the fallability of the software you are using. This simply means that using Linux, in general, means requiring more fallback measures than for any other system you would use. If you are locked up somewhere and it is your only computer, Linux becomes a great liability to you and your functioning. You probably can't imagine the personal stress levels I've had in my life ;-). And most of it, in a certain sense, came from Linux :p. I just watched some Eddie Izzard show on how computers fail (https://youtu.be/k6C_HjWr3Nk?t=3m35s, direct hit) and he was not even talking about Linux ;-). Personally I don't just have the time or the ability to prepare everything or to have all my bases covered all the time. Just doesn't work because I'm already in a "depletion zone" and I am really trying to get out of that to the best I can. So every little thing helps. My day, no my entire week, can be ruined by yet another thing going wrong in the Linux landscape. What was the last thing? The billion small things going wrong put me off enough already. > In my case it's a pile of backups and the presence of readily > configured > reserve hardware. (I should do emergency exercises more often.) I'm in an emergency ;-). I don't have time for emercy exercises, they are already here :p. > Be aware of what you depend on and prepare for temporarily losing it. In general that just means building up your life. It doesn't really require anything specific most of the time, just more stuff or more people in a general sense, I guess. > Last year our government renewed its advise to store food and water for > two weeks. I immediately re-assigned my surplus body weight to civil > defense > preparations. Fressen fuers Vaterland ! (= Gorging for the Country !) I have the water covered ;-). My food storages are in the negative :p. > In the real world of emergencies, your mileage may vary, of course. Dealing with emergencies like that requires surplus when it is not an emergency. If you are going to make software (not speaking to anyone here) that is meant to save people yet itself is as fallible as can be... Well to me those are just broken promises I guess. I am very upset with myself very regularly for trusting the promises of Linux. I often question why I even started on this path. And I berate myself for ever doing so, I guess. > That's more a problem with the fellow humans than with technical docs. > Nothing is easy if you only dig deep enough into its details. You mean everything is easy, right. I had a friend who played chess. ELO rating of about 1900. He would say "It's easy." 1900 is not much. My other friend had a rating of about 22-2300. He would say "Yeah, chess is a nice game, but it gets a little boring". So they started playing bridge and then his sister became world champion. Everything is easy yes. Except that this statement has never been helpful to anyone. No it is perfectly possible to design a system that is fail-safe or that gets the required information to you at the required time. It's just not being done. Not enough time for it, I guesss. Not enough time being spent on it, or not enough dedication and attention. > And thus the "emergency mode" problem turns out to be about the need > for > becomming an insider at an inappropriate moment of time. Yes exactly. And this is always the case with whatever problem. You want to focus on solving your problem and not on spending 26 hours on filing a bug report and discussing it with developers first who want your aid into solving theirs. > When you need a skilled friend, then technical documentation will > hardly > be able to serve as a substitute. You would be hoping that Linux itself would be that friend, or that rescue system. And then it turns out to be your enemy instead. Who wants you to do more work for them before they will help you. I am sorry I am being so ghastly and negative about this. My mood instantly goes up when I use Windows, because normally (although it has become worse in recent years) Windows just always works. Windows is less than 50% of what it was a few years ago. I mean its dependability. It is going down the road of Linux and has acquired its developer mindset as well. The technical documentation of LVM could have solved my issue, but it didn't. It could have given an overview of the most important tasks to perform, but it didn't. The Debian (Ubuntu) rescue system is even worse (for Ubuntu 16.04) because it gives a dysfunctional menu that keeps popping up as you're trying to execute commands and gets in your way. And does weird stuff without you knowing why. Just a failing system, just a programming error somewhere. But it means your little rescue attempt fails. Which can mean you need to boot some full Live DVD and this can cost you much time. I do very little social things in Linux because my Linux is not dependable enough to make "me" available to other people in some predictable way. There is so much stuff that can go wrong that interacting with people is not really possible. Dependability is the basis of all creation. You can't create when your tools don't work half of the time. You'll spend all of your time fixing your tools instead of doing useful stuff. This is why I often regret I was born or got to use Linux in the first place. Emergency rescue or emergency backup reduces your stress level to a great extent. But if you use Linux, all of it may be unavailble. I sometimes think I should have emigrated to Italy and drowned in the sea where it was warm. That would have been a better life than this. Well, anyway, none of your business I suppose...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 20:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? |
| Message-ID | <sUUiK-4wW-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176211 |
Hi, Xen wrote: > [...]; call it the Linux Support Arena, or the Linux Support Agenda > even, people on the side take on the customer support role of filtering. > They act like they try to get the complainer off of the back of the > developer of writer, much like front-desk personnel often does. The real > writer or developer however is often much nicer to you and your complaints > or observations, of course, true. Your mileage may vary. :)) What you perceive as front desk support people are often the distro packagers who often concentrate on packaging rather than serving as broker between user and upstream. I, for example, regret that Debian has no means to help me getting attention for some miserable regressions around /dev/sr since kernel 2.6. It would be great to have a comittee to which i could present my cases and which orders the linux-scsi department to seriously consider my fix proposals. On the other hand this committee could order me to implement UDF 2.6 so i would have to read OSTA specs or get fired from my programmer's seat. (Not clear what's worse. OSTA or eternal boredom.) In the sum i prefer our current shall-do-who-can system. > [...] using Linux, in general, means requiring more > fallback measures than for any other system you would use. We just love our systems more and take more offense when they fail. > You probably can't imagine the personal stress levels I've had in my life > ;-). I lost power supplies, displays, a southbridge radiator, and several burners. Never a hard disk, strangely. But interesting parts of their content. It is time for the 20:00 backup. See man xorriso, EXAMPLES, "Incremental backup of a few directory trees". ... 3 minutes which can save a future day ... > I am very upset with > myself very regularly for trusting the promises of Linux. Linux does not promise anything. GPL version 2: "Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free software." It raises expectations and hope, though. > No it is perfectly possible to design a system that is fail-safe or that > gets the required information to you at the required time. It's just not > being done. Not enough time for it, I guesss. Not enough time being spent on > it, or not enough dedication and attention. Many of us try hard ... > > And thus the "emergency mode" problem turns out to be about the need for > > becomming an insider at an inappropriate moment of time. > Yes exactly. And this is always the case with whatever problem. You want to > focus on solving your problem and not on spending 26 hours on filing a bug > report and discussing it with developers first who want your aid into > solving theirs. ... but how shall we improve if the users are too much in a hurry to explore what really causes the problems they perceive ? Not to forget that this is the deal between makers and users of free software. Maker plans and programs, user tests and reports. > > When you need a skilled friend, > You would be hoping that Linux itself would be that friend, GNU/Linux is just a contraption of software. It can be your pet but not your friend. > Windows Not that word !!! No wonder you have problems with Linux. It can smell the enemy and growls. > I sometimes think I should have emigrated to Italy and drowned in the sea > where it was warm. Here i can only wish you that 2017 gets lighter for you than the previous years were. Have a nice day :) Thomas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 15:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? |
| Message-ID | <sUOZH-1ka-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176174 |
On Sunday 01 January 2017 06:36:51 Xen wrote: > Thomas Schmitt schreef op 31-12-2016 11:59: > > Well, "info" is the pet of GNU and thus often better documentation > > for GNU tools than their "man" pages. > > The goal and viewpoint is nevertheless the same: Technical > > documentation > > of programs, not tutorial. > > I personally also cannot use "info". I have tried many times in the > past. Always gave up pretty quickly. Just unusable to me. > > I would need to study a tutorial on how to use info and I don't even > want to. > > > The reason why many large man pages or info documents are so hard to > > grasp is really in the difference of viewpoints. Too much background > > knowledge and too exotic programmer's motivations, i assume. > > Yes exactly. You are assumed to already know the program when you > start reading the man page. > > You are assumed to know everything the programmer knows. This is the > "Linux is easy" fallacy that originates from people forgetting how > long it took them to acquire some knowledge, and now they think it was > easy all this time for them, but they had to become familiar with it > at first as well. > > For example, if you are new to LVM, and you are in some rescue mode > that doesn't automatically activate your volume groups, doing > "vgchange -ay" is not that intuitive. "man lvm" is also not helpful. > You will first need to find the required command (vgchange) before you > can get any help, but you don't know that you need that one because > you don't feel you want to change the vg, you only want to activate > it. This can quickly elude you for some time and especially if you are > in a pinch and suffering already, you may not have the time and mental > capacity for it. You are trying to rescue your system and cannot find > the tool to do it with, but you don't have internet so you can't look > it up and..... > > Then some fool will later day: "Why don't you just do vgchange -ay?" > And if you then say "Well that is not that easy to know" they will say > "man vgchange" "easy". > > > Nevertheless i suffer like most other people when i have to study > > foreign > > technical docs for the first time. > > So it is not dumb user versus smart programmer but rather insider > > versus > > newcommer. > > Yes, exactly. As far as "info" goes, its pretty opaque and unusable. A much better info file reader is pinfo. At least it has a consistent navigation response to the key presses given it. But my pet peeve is the man page that refers you to the info pages, and the info page is an exact copy/paste of the man page. So I find NO plausible reason for the existence of the whole duplicate info pages. If it was going to be an expanded format, it might be worth its disk space. But I cannot recall ever seeing a more complete information about anything I ever looked up, telling me something that wasn't in the man page. Cheers, Gene Heskett -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 20:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? |
| Message-ID | <sUUiK-4wW-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176197 |
Hi, Gene Heskett wrote: > I cannot recall ever seeing a more complete information about > anything I ever looked up, telling me something that wasn't in the man > page. Compare man ls and info ls The chapter of ls in coreutils.info is much longer than the man page. It gives some background information for the options which are grouped by * Which files are listed:: * What information is listed:: * Sorting the output:: * Details about version sort:: * General output formatting:: * Formatting file timestamps:: * Formatting the file names:: That's central GNU homeland, of course. The situation in other regions of GNU/Linux varies heavily. Have a nice day :) Thomas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-02 02:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? |
| Message-ID | <sUZiq-7Py-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176221 |
On Sunday 01 January 2017 14:46:30 Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > Gene Heskett wrote: > > I cannot recall ever seeing a more complete information about > > anything I ever looked up, telling me something that wasn't in the > > man page. > > Compare > man ls > and > info ls > > The chapter of ls in coreutils.info is much longer than the man page. > It gives some background information for the options which are grouped > by * Which files are listed:: > * What information is listed:: > * Sorting the output:: > * Details about version sort:: > * General output formatting:: > * Formatting file timestamps:: > * Formatting the file names:: I believe that is all in my man page on ls, its quite lengthy here on this wheezy system. If not, then its the exception that proves the rule. > That's central GNU homeland, of course. The situation in other regions > of GNU/Linux varies heavily. > > > Have a nice day :) > > Thomas Cheers, Gene Heskett -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web