Linux Expert The Manual

[Doug]

On 12/12/2010 12:09 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2010, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 15:12:32 -0500
>> Ric Moore<wayward4now at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> I wouldn't waste my time on a wiki hosted by a top-poster, either.
>>>   :) Ric
>> Ding, ding, ding!
>>
>> Give that man a cigar.
>> You are right, sir!
>>
>> OP:  Write in the words you know and don't try to usurp what is
>> rightfully the provenance of someone else.  To do otherwise is
>> tantamount to... being a bad fellow.
>    the world doesn't need more linux documentation.  what it needs is
> the ongoing effort of people to *** keep existing documentation up to
> date ***.  there's a mountain of linux docs out there, almost all of
> it useless because it's fallen into neglect.
>
>    at the risk of sounding self-serving, once upon a time, i decided to
> write an online course on linux kernel programming for total
> beginners.  just that topic.  nothing more.  and i'm already falling
> behind keeping it current.
>
>    with all due respect, i suspect that a lot of people who want to
> write more linux documentation have the best intentions, but they
> seem to think that writing documentation is a one-time, intense
> investment in time, after which they can sit back, admire their
> handiwork and let the huzzahs and plaudits roll in.
>
>    good luck with that.
>
>    if you want to be useful, pick a topic.  a very specific topic.  and
> write it up.  and make sure it's absolutely current.  and constantly
> keep it up to date.  and respond to reader feedback.  and explain it
> with working and tested examples.  and point out corner cases, and all
> the things that might go wrong, and how to debug it when it
> mysteriously doesn't work.  and, most of all, really and truly
> appreciate that, once you finish and post your documentation, you're
> not done.  you're just beginning, as it's now your permanent job to
> care for that documentation from now on.  and doing that for a single,
> specific topic should be enough to keep you plenty busy.
>
> rday
>
I agree with the above  completely. One thing I think needs to
be addressed, however, is that a lot of what is written in
various places assumes too much of the reader.  My
specific point:  I am trying to learn bash programming, at
least the basics of same.  (I don't expect to become an
expert at it, but I need a better handle on it for school.)
Much of what's available starts with a humongous script,
and then tries to dissect some small part of it, leaving the
rest in limbo.  My "official" textbook is not wonderful,
either, having an extremely defective index, to the extent
that it might as well not have any!
Years ago I took a course  in Pascal.  The total class hours
were about 60.  I got to where I could actually write useful
code, if not on an expert level.  (I pulled an A.) The school
course in Unix/Linux has devoted a total of 6 class hours to
this obscure language, which to me seems syntactically far
more difficult than Pascal.  The concepts are not problem,
the realization is. I will be lucky to pull a C because of the
bash programming.
Well, enough crying, but I think the point is valid.

--doug

-- 
Blessed are the peacemakers...for they shall be shot at from both sides. --A. M. Greeley