From owner-cvs-all Wed Nov 6 1:13:40 2002 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7E3437B401; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 01:13:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8485843E75; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 01:13:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id 5A92FAE2D6; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 01:13:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 01:13:38 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Mike Silbersack Cc: Kris Kennaway , Tom Rhodes , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/man/man4 rl.4 Message-ID: <20021106091338.GD24139@elvis.mu.org> References: <20021106082857.GB14415@rot13.obsecurity.org> <20021106030005.O90236-100000@patrocles.silby.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021106030005.O90236-100000@patrocles.silby.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Mike Silbersack [021106 01:04] wrote: > > I think it might be in our best interests to move the sections to comments > in source code in cases where the bug in question has been worked around > and is not an issue for the user. No. So the user can blame freebsd for shoddy performance? That makes little sense. Missing documentation on bugs in the hardware is a bad enough, in the pages that are missing it. Would you be more apt to go out and buy a card that lists a lot of bugs or one that doesn't? Who are we actually aiming to serve here? I appreciate the honesty especially when some Luser says "oh my performance with foo(4) is bad" and I can say, "didn't you read the manpage where it says how it drops every other packet? Go back to Frys and get a better card." I also think even workarounds might need some documenting just to show a vendor with a possible history of hardware bugs. This would allow users to make a decision if they want to buy vendor's newest card based on past bugs. (will the new card require a yet unfound workaround?) I do advocate removing any hostile commentary out of the manpages though. Not the currently removed commentary, but I do think it wouldn't be appropriate to have the comments from the actual source driver in the manpage, that is unless they were stripped down to just say something like "this is a low performance part". -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message