On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 06:38:18PM -0500, anoop aryal wrote: > On Thursday 08 September 2005 06:11 pm, Bruno Buys wrote: > > Paul E Condon wrote: > > >On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:27:01PM -0400, Carl Fink wrote: > > >>On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:52:50AM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote: > > >>>For some products, Stephen's position is simply silly. Consider, > > >>>for example, a Boeing 747. Another example is a C compiler. > > >>>There are many more. Too many to list, and more than I could > > >>>possible even know about. In general, the world is larger and > > >>>more complicated than any of us know. > > >> > > >>It's a fine goal, even if it isn't always practical. For an installer, > > >> it should be not just a goal but a requirement. (Docs should be > > >> required only for very unusual situations.) > > > > > >OP had successfully installed Debian when he complained about not knowing > > >what to do next. What he needed was some knowledge about what to do next, > > >not about the installation. Like someone who successfully takes off in a > > >747 and is annoyed that the thing doesn't land automatically. At least > > >for Debian, it is not a life-threatening error. And only in a very narrow > > >view of the world is documentation not required. Documentation, or > > > training is not required only for those human activities that are common > > > to all cultures. Sex, for example. > > > > Hey, sex does have its tricks... > > sex does have documentation: kamasutra. i pity da fool who doesn't RTFM.
So it is truly silly to expect that anything so unnatural as a computer program should have no documentation. -- Paul E Condon [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
