On May 4, 2012, at 8:42 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Scott Robertson wrote:
>
>>> What part of:
>> ...
>>> do you not understand?
>>
>> Wow, again with the hostility.
>
> The reason it sounds hostile is because we spend a lot of time trying to
> explain
> and users regularly skip the explanations. Whether you skipped reading them
> or
> not, your questions indicate that you did not understand them.
>
> If you follow the instructions literally, they work. Making inferences and
> adding things not in the book is where users run into problems.
Easy. :)
* * *
Scott, please try to understand that LFS is put together by a volunteer corp of
programmers and admins, not professional writers. So, there will be parts of
the book that are INCREDIBLY important to read, and parts of the book that are
more "optional" in nature. So, try to understand that the point of feedback
that sounds like: "What part of XYZ don't you understand?" is a reminder
(though not a particularly nice one) that the problem is likely some assumption
you are making, and that much closer attention needs to be paid
somewhere--though, in general, that where is not well-marked.
That having been said, LFS is a deeply technical project. It's a bit like
instructions to build your own particle accelerator, not an Ikea cabinet. Yes,
you'll need to read--then reread--every word, and assume that everything is
important.
* * *
LFS devs, writers, and editors, please try to understand that the LFS can read
like a list of GPS coordinates given at 1mm spacings without altitude and
annotations. If I follow it *exactly*, and assume no errors in the readings or
the map, and I make the same set of assumptions as you, then I'll get there.
But, if I miss by just a tiny bit, instead of walking along a ridge, I fall off
the cliff. Having been around a bit to see users struggle and struggle and
struggle with the "implied" directions in Chapter 5 about unpacking stuff,
(esp. when the rest of time you're repeating to people to follow the book
VERBATIM), it seems that there could be more warning there.
Having said that, I recognize that the editors are professional techies--not
professional writers. At least, I hope not. :) If 1 out of every 10
map-users falls off the cliff, is it worth thinking about how to annotate the
map instead of insisting that people just stop falling over the cliff? Most of
the people who fall over don't seem to be saying the book is wrong (some do,
but just have Ken gently accost at those people with obscure classical
references...by the time he's done, they'll just think they've been given a
Swedish massage in a part of their brain they never knew they had).
Does anyone know a technical writer that might be able to offer some time to
address that one glaring issue?
The message that gets repeated over and over is that LFS is not a distro, but a
book. Well, then it's in an interesting category of being both a tech project
but also a book. When a written metaphor is weak, we don't usually tell
readers to change their mental models (unless you're Joyce); we just get a red
pen and write "constipated thinking" in the margins. Surely there's some room
to say that the book needs better writing, even if the instructions are
technically correct.
Q
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
