> > The poor quality of documentation, such as these "how tos" > is one of the > > reasons why I recommend when ever I am asked whether a site > should move > > to linux to recommend that they don't. > > Although I didn't agree with the tone of this message, I > definitely think something > needs to be done about Linux documentation, especially if it > is expected that > people switch to it from Windows/Mac (my personal opinion is > that they *should* > do that) where a lot of things are tucked away and done > behind their backs.
For me this is a dangerous road to go down. It may be that to "dumb down" Linux enough that it can be used by a larger group of less computer literate people might alienate the current users. I believe one flaw in the Microsoft Windows approach is that the inherent complexity in configuration can be hidden but never eliminated; the poor user is left wondering what the computer might be doing and why. In Linux this complexity is in your face; but in my opinion that's the safest place for it to be. But I agree, Linux needs better documentation and some more tools to manage the configuration in a canonical way; preferable across a network of similar machines. Andrew
