On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Qrux <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 >
@Qrux.Qed: You have said it nicely... you do have a very valid point on how to present the information... -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
