Re: tlug: A message to the "Old Guard" - was "HTML again"

[Scott Perlman <perlman@example.com>]

I'm CCing Chris on this since He's quoted.

I'm not trimming excessivly, and if I'm flaming excessively sorry.

-Scott

> Well, yes, that is one way of putting it. But this to me points out not a
> failing of the people who seek the answers, but the people who write the
> documentation in question. Information should always be available without
> anyone having to make an effort to give it, at least in a theoretical,
> Utopian sense. If the man pages were written properly and presented in a
> useable fashion, then they would be the easier option compared with finding
> someone who knows the software and interrogating him for answers. I want
> the answers given to me, on a silver platter. I don't want to have to make
> a skill out of finding what i need to know, i simply want to know it so
> that i can get my job or task at hand done, and put all my mental resources
> into that.

I think thats a null assertion.  You want to know everything for have
the doc tell it to you, but you don't want there to be anything
involved in accessing the doc.

I've spent hours looking for Documentation on many differeent things.
>From every OS I've used to cars to dancing.  Know what?  In every case
I had to use a differnt way of interfacing with it, guess right on what
search terms were populated, and learn the vocabulary in use.

Ever tried to write foolproof documentation?  No such thing.  Who is
the documentation aimed at, and what assumptions can we make.

The assumption is that the User willk now the standard places to look
for information, and the standard way of accessing it.  (I'll rant on
AIX not providing decent man pages at length if you want)

And if you can't deal with using man, the man pages are all duplicated
on line at this point.  Or is HTML too tough??  What do you want?  

*NIX systems do what you tell them.  They do not by default ask you if
you are sure, and not let you do things that may be dangerous.  You 
want everything redesigned so someone who can't spell ls can help but
find all the docs, and understand them, than understand its a complete
redesign.

> I don't know whether or not TLUG is being dominated by such users or not.
> But i do think that your take on the "Make a big noise" approach is too
> negative. Of course, in the terms you describe it, it does sound bad. But
> feedback is a huge part of developing something. The way you go about
> generating that big noise is an issue (see my next point), but regardless
> of how it happens, that information flows from people who use software to
> those that develop it is a good thing, as all information flow is. If an
> opinion gets enough mention, and it seems like everyone is in agreement
> that something should be done about it, in this case some software that
> needs to be written, then odds are that the idea will eventually reach
> someone who has the method and means to take care of it, and will do so,
> and will win much praise. 

If its usefull to me.  Most of the people with the ability and time to 
write a WYSiWYG HTML editor, would rather build their SGML by hand, and
force it through nsgmls.  The people writing the software invariably
use it themselves.

I'm currently learning more C because I want a decent MUA on NT.  I don't 
like anything I've found.  MUTT is the closest, so I'm learning as I
try to port it.  (I am NOT a programmer, at all, I can hack perl/shell
and thats about it..)  I could just cry about it.  and maybe I could
persuade other people to cry about it.  But until someone who CAN do
it, needs to it won't get done, and many developers will just get sick
of listening to me.  If I get something that works at all.  Even if its
mostly crap.  I can then say: Heres a beginning, how do I make this
work better.  Hopefully someone will ilsten to me then.

> >Sure.  My standpoint is simple: if one can't do it, one shouldn't bitch
> >because it hasn't been done.
> 
> I think the key word here is bitch, and with this point i'll bet we can
> come to a concensus on this whole thing. Nobody likes negativity, and i can
> totally understand the frustration involved in having someone come to you
> with ideas that they are unwilling to put effort of their own into, and
> dumping it into your lap as if you were both necessarily responsible for
> the problems existence, and required to fix it. I can't really think of a
> really pithy way to express my point, so consider these examples of someone
> who finds that Linux lacks a really good particular app:
> The wrong way:
> "Why doesn't Linux have this app? Windows and Mac have it! I can't believe
> that no one has thought of making this thing, because it's obvious to me
> that it should be shipped with every copy.... blah blah blah"
> The right way:
> "I've looked around on the Net and I can't find this app i'm looking for. I
> would have thought that this idea would be more common, but i guess i was
> wrong. If anyone knows where i might find something like it, let me know.
> And if it definitely doesn't exist, let me know who i might put the idea
> to. I'm sure that out there somewhere is a programmer who would be willing
> to do this, and maybe even make a profit for himself."

Are you offering to pay for it, or lobbying for comemrcial software?
(You're certainly not onth making noise part, you've just offered to shell 
out cash with that approach)

> Of course, these two examples are a little cartoonish in their
> presentation, but i think they get across my idea that really it's about
> how a person presents thier complaint or observation than it is about the
> content itself. It may be a fact that Linux is lacking a good HTML editor,
> but that fact can be made to look like an accusation, or it can be made to
> look like a contribution.

Contribution:
"I've looked around can't find an app that does FOO.  If you know where
I can find it or who I could talk to about putting one together let me
know.  I'm not really a programmer but I'll do what I can to help and will
alpha/beta test with feedback"

Thats a contribution.  You're trying to be a part of it.  You start
talking to a few people about writing it and there are things you can
do to help.  Specs.  Keeping the documentation in good shape.
Writing/hosting the Web Page for the software.

If you want something, you can put it on the wishlist to.  

You can make a non bitching requets without offering to help.

> >> I'm not demanding you make it, but don't complain to me about what I
> >> can't do. Why don't you impress me with what you CAN do?
> >*laugh* We apparently already have.  You're using Linux, aren't you?
> 
> You got me there.
> 
> >Most
> >of us (yeah, first person plural -- I've done some work) don't feel that
> >we need to impress users.  We do this for fun.
> 
> It seemed to me that the culture of programmers who are into Linux are
> essentially a meritocracy. Things are made not for profit (as they are in
> some unmentionable software developing companies) but because they are
> cool, work better, and fun to make. I guess the question is where do you
> want to earn credit in the currency of merit? For the last few years, new
> software developments were judged by other programmers (who, i if i may be
> so bold to suggest, are usually more concerned with the elegance of input
> than output). But now it might be coming to that point where there's a call
> to impress the end user, who doesn't know good code from bad code, but does
> know that it sucks when a program gives unexpected results. Depending on
> your point of view, it's either the end or the beginning of a "golden age"
> or "the heyday" for Linux.
> Probably if you are a programmer, it's the end.
> Perhaps what needs to be done is to segregate things a bit, and the people
> who develop Linux and it's applications might want to create a smaller
> group within TLUG with it's own mailing list to discuss the totally
> technical. Perhaps getting on the technical mailing list would be a matter
> of proving credentials in terms of ability so that you would be ensured of
> not having to handle newbie questions. Whatever makes the techies happy. I
> just hope that the regular mailing list wouldn't be abandoned by those
> Linux Gurus who don't mind swinging a "where's my root directory?" question
> now and again, so that those of use who keep bumbling around the interface
> can eventually get up to a workable speed.
> 

The point of "fun to make"  Its not fun to work on something that you'll 
never use.  

The user who likes flashy, and doesn't care good code from bad code,
doesn't use Linux.

Think about this the code to put Unix like interface on NT is more
stable than the code to put Windows Interface on Unix.  Why?  because
more Unix/Programmer people have to use NT for miscellaneous reasons
and code for things they use.

Anyone destined to be a guru, will be reading man pages and RFCs, once
their existence is noted.  Not asking what the second field of an ls -l
listing is.

-Scott 
-- 
"Then I was inspired,			| Scott Perlman
 Now I'm sad and tired,			| perlman@example.com
 After all I've tried for three years,  
 Seems like ninety." JC-JCS-ALW 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Next Nomikai: 20 November, 19:30 Tengu TokyoEkiMae 03-3275-3691
Next Meeting: 12 December, 12:30 Tokyo Station Yaesu central gate
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsor: PHT, makers of TurboLinux http://www.pht.co.jp