Date: Sat, 1 Apr 1995 08:46:55 -0600 (CST) From: Peter da Silva <peter@bonkers.taronga.com> To: Marino.Ladavac@aut.alcatel.at (Marino Ladavac) Cc: hackers@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: httpd as part of the system. Message-ID: <199504011446.IAA01339@bonkers.taronga.com> In-Reply-To: <9503311601.AA02488@aut.alcatel.at> from "Marino Ladavac" at Mar 31, 95 06:00:05 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Not bad at all: > User and Reference Manual, for manpages; > User Guide, for the classic guide; and > Interactive User Guide and Tutorial, for the httpd stuff? One quibble: "User" and "Reference" are orthogonal concepts. I'd drop the "and". It's not a "User Manual" and a "Reference Manual" combined. It's really not just a "User Manual" either, but I don't want to see it split into "User Manual" (1, 6), "Programmer's Manual" (2, 3, 4), and "Administrator's Manual" (5, 7, 8) like System V did. Reference Manual might not be pretty, but it's accurate. (The System V manuals at their peak were the *worst*. They took 2 and 3 and combined them with a set of commands they considered programming commands and put them in one programmer's volume. They took f77(1), struct(1), and the 3F stuff and put it in another. They took the rest of 1 and some of 5 and called it the users reference manual. System administrator's got most of the rest so you had to have the system admin book to find out how termio worked. I think Awk was in the C manual. It was awful... no doubt it made lots of $$$ for Prentice Hall or whoever)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199504011446.IAA01339>