Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 08:18:55 +0100 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: Michel Talon <talon@lpthe.jussieu.fr> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HAL must die! Message-ID: <20110319081855.bc497dda.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <20110318213641.GA37871@lpthe.jussieu.fr> References: <20110318213641.GA37871@lpthe.jussieu.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 22:36:41 +0100, Michel Talon <talon@lpthe.jussieu.fr> wrote: > How many new features of FreeBSD are > correctly documented presently? Features of the FreeBSD OS are typically well documented. This high quality affects all kind of documentation, be it the handbook & FAQ, as well as the manpages that are available for system binaries, kernel interfaces, library calls, configuration files and system operations. Also see the high quality of the source code which is, due to its style and content (and its comment) also a source of documentation, mainly designed for programmers instead of end users. HAL, on the other hand, is obsolete as well as not part of the FreeBSD operating system. It's a separate port. Many ports do follow the quality approach for documentation, see "man xmms", "man mplayer" or even "man opera" for examples. Many "modern" software does not provide documentation in the standard way, try "man firefox" or any KDE program. In some cases, documentation is left to the users and scattered across the Internet in web pages and Wikis. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110319081855.bc497dda.freebsd>