On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote:

> > But printing manuals ain't cheap either -- especially when you
> > and your customers would like them to look/read better than, say, the
> > RedHat 5.2 books.
> 
> I actually think the RH 5.x manuals were some of the *best* technical
> documentation I've ever read. I didn't know squat about Linux, and barely
> enough UNIX to know 'ls' and 'man'; and the RH 5.1 manual explained quite
> clearly how the filesystem was laid out, what went where, roughly how big
> partitions should be, and a vague description of each of the major packages
> included in the distro. 

I agree big time that documentation is worth the price of admission.  My
point about the manual I mentioned is they were poorly indexed, and it was
rare to find two pages where one side of one of them didn't contain a
misspelling or grammatical error.

Doesn't mean they are bad *info*, but there's a difference between being
useful and well written.  It won't turn off the computer geeks (didn't
turn me off) but it will turn off the literate non-geek.  I believe they
have made improvements in this area, so don't think I'm bashing RH, even
though all your Linux base are belong to Debian. ;)


 -- 
"To misattribute a quote is unforgivable." --Anonymous