Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 16:52:39 -0400 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-chat-local@be-well.ilk.org> To: Jorge Luis Carvalho Santos <jorgeassembler1@outlook.com> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: To that create a FAQ that says no be unreliable? Message-ID: <44pplhc3mw.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> In-Reply-To: <COL127-W5DF5F825DDBDDA7556623E87F0@phx.gbl> (Jorge Luis Carvalho Santos's message of "Wed, 19 Mar 2014 22:31:33 %2B0300") References: <COL127-W4961547B486570D01FA0EBE87F0@phx.gbl> <COL127-W5DF5F825DDBDDA7556623E87F0@phx.gbl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jorge Luis Carvalho Santos <jorgeassembler1@outlook.com> writes: >> From: jorgeassembler1@outlook.com >> To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org >> Subject: To that create a FAQ that says no be unreliable? >> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 18:27:03 +0300 >> >> Is written in OpenBSD FAQ:"One important difference between OpenBSD >> and many other operating systems is the documentation. OpenBSD >> developers take great pride in the system man pages. The man pages >> are the authoritative source of OpenBSD documentation -- not this >> FAQ, not third-party independently maintained pages, not "HOWTO"s, >> etc. " >> To that create a FAQ that says no be unreliable? > > because no one responds? I see no reason to disagree with OpenBSD's FAQ answer. I would give the same answer for FreeBSD, although maybe not quite as strongly.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44pplhc3mw.fsf>