Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 17:10:55 -0500 (CDT) From: Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A quality operating system Message-ID: <201108272210.p7RMAtq9035907@mail.r-bonomi.com> In-Reply-To: <CAC1X_0bXSXMW_AEPZMM_N5Lxi2F3J5hjR7m1gbyhBK1_W4eeWw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sat Aug 27 13:58:08 2011 > Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 13:56:16 -0500 > From: Evan Busch <antiequality@gmail.com> > To: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> > Subject: Re: A quality operating system > > 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 <freebsd@edvax.de> 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, FALSE TO FACT. He did =not= say that _only_ cricicisms of specific points were allowed. One can point to a specific instance, or possibly a small number of them, and _then_ >say something like ,'these are a few examples of this problem, it occurs _throughout_ the document. > ... which is also needed. If something shows up in more than one > place, it is a general critique. If you can't be botheed to identify _even_one_ specific instance of the 'general critique', you're part of the problem, not part of the solution. The latter types are _much_ more likely to get listened to than the former. Your choice. As one of the first-mentioned types, all you are doing it wasting the time of people who might have used that time to 'do something' about it. > > > 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. Feel free to demonstrate how you think it _should_ be done. <grin> > > Have you looked at any of the documentation coming out of Redmond right > now? Yup. That which comes with the O/S. > How do you think FreeBSD's documentation stands up to that? FAR more comprehensive. FAR more informative. FAR more _useful_. <grin>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201108272210.p7RMAtq9035907>