[SGVLUG] Linux Documentation (was Lug-hub)

[David Lawyer]

> 
> From: Charles N Wyble <charles at thewybles.com>
> > I would like to comment on the subject of this e-mail. [...]
> 
On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 02:55:39PM -0700, Tom Emerson wrote:
> heh heh heh -- don't sweat it, I was just trying to pre-emptively
> deflect things before the "discussion" passed the "I'm right and
> your wrong" argumentative stage, but perhaps it wasn't as funny as I
> thought it would be after all.

It's pretty difficult to start a flame war on the subject of the
quality of Linux documentation.  That's because it's pretty subjective
and it doesn't have much impact on policy implications.  For example,
I don't think that anyone would advocate that since the documentation
is OK, volunteers should not try to improve on it.  But it's more
productive to spend that time trying to improve documentation than to
debate whether the existing documentation is good, bad, or so-so.  So
I'm glad I didn't need to respond again.  One possible positive
outcome (had the rampant flame war ?? developed)  would have been that
if some people on the list were convinced that the state of Linux
documentation is not so good, someone besides myself might volunteer
to help improve it.

			David Lawyer