On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 01:56:16PM -0500, Evan Busch wrote: > > I can see this will be important here: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Polytropon <[email protected]> wrote: > > But allow me to say > > that _if_ you are interested in contributing in _that_ > > way, you should always bring examples and name _concrete_ > > points you're criticizing, instead of just mentioning > > wide ranges of "this doesn't conform to my interpretation > > of what 'professional' should look like". > > The problem with your statement is that it does not allow for general > critique, which is also needed. If something shows up in more than one > place, it is a general critique.
You haven't shown *one* example of inadequate or confusing documentation. > > > In most cases, documentation requires you to have a minimal > > clue of what you're doing. There's terminology you simply > > have to know, and concepts to understand in order to use > > the documentation. > > See the Wikipedia page above -- the problem isn't one of user > competence, but of poorly-written documentation that is fundamentally > disorganized. > > Have you looked at any of the documentation coming out of Redmond right now? > > How do you think FreeBSD's documentation stands up to that? FreeBSD documentation blows away anything Redmond gives you. Where's the documentation for Windows Explorer for Vista on microsoft.com? A link will do. > > > > Different kinds of users have different preferences. Some > > like to use the web, like to use Wikis and discussion boards. > > Others like to use structured web pages. Again, other like > > web pages too, but want to have as much information in _one_ > > (long) page. And there are those who do not want to depend > > on the web - those like man pages. > > The question isn't form, but content. > > > If you're used to some specific _way_ of documentation, you > > will maybe value anything that's _different_ from that way > > as being inferior, non-professional, or less helpful. > > I think I'm talking about professional level documentation, not a > specific "style." By your own admission you don't even use FreeBSD so how on earth can you constructively criticise? Answer: you can't. > > > Also keep in mind that especially for developers, the SOURCE > > CODE also is an important piece of documentation. Here FreeBSD > > is very good, compared to other systems. > > We're talking end-user documentation here. In a lot of cases the source IS end-user documentation? BTW, how does that compare with Redmond? > > > Here the "one size fits all" problem arises. It's really hard > > to make documentation "for everybody". > > I disagree. It's very clear what must be done because multiple archetypes > exist. Well do it. Put up or shut up. > > > Note the presence of ":-)" and the abilities of english native > > speakers who are much more able to express "between the lines" > > than I am, for example. > > If so, it's just them trying to cover up the inherently defensive and > reactionary nature of their comments. They're inherently defensive and reactionary because you're trolling. > > Would they send such an email on a business list? Who cares? It's not a business list. > > > You can "predict" that everywhere. Just go to any halfway > > specialized setting and make claims about something not > > meeting your requirements > > I've never had this problem when the claims have been stated > professionally -- only here. OK, so you'll be able to provide links then? Thought not. -- Frank Contact info: http://www.shute.org.uk/misc/contact.html
pgpOyNBeZtNxw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
