From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Aug 27 22:09:39 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B2FF1065686 for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 22:09:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com) Received: from mail.r-bonomi.com (mx-out.r-bonomi.com [204.87.227.120]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED5198FC0C for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 22:09:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (from bonomi@localhost) by mail.r-bonomi.com (8.14.4/rdb1) id p7RMAtq9035907 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 17:10:55 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 17:10:55 -0500 (CDT) From: Robert Bonomi Message-Id: <201108272210.p7RMAtq9035907@mail.r-bonomi.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: A quality operating system X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 22:09:39 -0000 > 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 > To: "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 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. > > 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_.