hewitt@usfvax2.UUCP (Ian Hewitt) (10/25/85)
I think creation of "net.doc" could be beneficial to a lot of users out
there, especially to those of us who have to use the Berkeley documentation
to do our jobs and keep our systems running. I don't know about anyone else,
but I do not have a real guru around to consult with when something goes
wrong (as suggested in the Berkely doc--see fsck sup). If there is any one area
which certainly needs attention, it is UNIX documentation. It has been suggested
that no "competant technical writers" could be persuaded to contribute, but
I disagree. There are a lot of people out there who are capable of writing
reaonably, especially if they are encouraged and given a forum for criticism.
I personally would like to see a more professional, complete, structured,
and informative documentation set for the UNIX systems and think it would help
alleviate one of UNIX's biggest disadvantages.
To anticipate the arguements forthcoming: ----- > I know
UNIX represents more freedom from too rigid a structure and I realize that
a lot of documentation out there tries to be so sophisticated that it also
becomes unreadable. I do not want that, but I'd like something better than
what we have now.
If we create net.doc, I'm sure there will be some discussions, but I
also think it might be able to generate some home-grown documention or doc.
aids which could be useful. I mean, if one really good rewrite take place,
it might save someone a lot of frustration and time.
Ian Hewitt
{attunix,mcnc,ihnp4}!akgua!usfvax2!hewitt
{decvax,peora}!ucf-cs!usfvax2!hewitt
CSNET: hewitt%usfvax2.uucp@ucf.CSNETron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (10/27/85)
If I understand this message and previous messages about the creation of net.doc, this is a group that is destined to become something like net.sources, but for documentation. Pretty much the way we handle unmoderated groups here is to expire them rapidly. However, groups of the source or documentation category we look like to expire infrequently, so I would suggest a moderated group to limit the distributed material to stuff that wouldn't need to be expired on a regular basis. -Ron
campbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell) (10/28/85)
> I think creation of "net.doc" could be beneficial to a lot of users out > there, especially to those of us who have to use the Berkeley documentation > to do our jobs and keep our systems running... net.doc is a bad idea and its name is even worse. The name is too generic; it should be net.unix.doc. And the need is unclear. I don't see net.unix getting clogged with postings of wonderfully readable manuals yearning for a home in net.unix.doc. Until that happens, why not just post this stuff in net.unix? -- Larry Campbell decvax!genrad The Boston Software Works, Inc. \ 120 Fulton St. seismo!harvard!wjh12!maynard!campbell Boston MA 02109 / / ihnp4 cbosgd ARPA: maynard.UUCP:campbell@harvard.ARPA
chabot@miles.DEC (10/29/85)
This is not a vote yea or nay, but a suggestion that it be net.unix.doc, since it is unix-specific.
radzy@calma.UUCP (Tim Radzykewycz) (10/30/85)
In article <176@maynard.UUCP> campbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell) writes: >net.doc is a bad idea and its name is even worse. The name >is too generic; it should be net.unix.doc. And the need is >unclear. I don't see net.unix getting clogged with postings >of wonderfully readable manuals yearning for a home in >net.unix.doc. Until that happens, why not just post this >stuff in net.unix? Agreed (vehemenantly)! If we find that lots of documents start rolling into net.unix, then we should consider creation of net.unix.doc. Until then, please feel free to post your documents to either/both of net.unix and net.sources. I would particularly welcome posting a VMesS-style help facility to net.sources. It would also be nice to have some kind of conversion program that goes through /usr/man/man?/* and finds the options for each program, and creates the initial level of help menus for everything not supplied with the program. -- Tim (radzy) Radzykewycz, The Incredible Radical Cabbage calma!radzy@ucbvax.ARPA {ucbvax,sun,csd-gould}!calma!radzy
lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (11/01/85)
> net.doc is a bad idea and its name is even worse. The name is too generic; > it should be net.unix.doc. And the need is unclear. I don't see net.unix > getting clogged with postings of wonderfully readable manuals yearning > for a home in net.unix.doc. Until that happens, why not just post this > stuff in net.unix? > -- > Larry Campbell EXCELLENT IDEA!!! The questions are about UN*X documentation. If they are not sufficiently involved to warrant net.unix-wizards, then net.unix is the forum SPECIFICALLY CREATED for such questions - and answers. # "'separate' is spelled like 'disparate' not 'desperate'." # # (useful mnemonic for spelling 'separate' correctly) # -- The Ice Floe of the Q-Bick {amd,decwrl,sun,idi,ittvax}!qubix!lab You can't settle the issue until you settle how to settle the issue.
ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (11/04/85)
> net.doc is a bad idea and its name is even worse. The name is too generic; > it should be net.unix.doc. And the need is unclear. I don't see net.unix > getting clogged with postings of wonderfully readable manuals yearning > for a home in net.unix.doc. Until that happens, why not just post this > stuff in net.unix? Actually, I think that the adding the "unix" is superfluous. If someone wants to post non-UNIX specific stuff, like a LISP tutorial, that would be useful to UNIX and non-UNIX people alike, I would love to see it. -Ron