On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 05:02:59PM -0600, Mac McCaskie wrote: > > > Monique Y. Herman wrote: > > >On 2004-01-17, Mac McCaskie penned: > > > >>I think my point would be closer to not allowing a package on-board > >>without adaqate instruction on what it was and how to use it. > >> > >>Where is the value of providing a widget to a customer without giving > >>them a clue as to what the widget is or what to do with it. > >> > > > > > >That word "customer"; doesn't it imply that you paid for the product? > > > >Anyhoo, your definition of adequate might be quite different from > >another user's definition. > > > >If there's a package that will solve a problem for me, I would rather > >have it available without any documentation at all than have it > >completely unavailable due to lack of documentation. > > -No > -Very true, what is your target? Very experianced users with prior > knowledge or ? > -The third part puzzles me. How would you know how to use it without > some type of instructions. >
google et al, home page, man, info, <program> -h/--help, source code (hopefully commented), trial and error, mailing lists, help menu, /usr/share/doc/<package>, /usr/share/doc/HOWTO/ Just to name a few ways to find usage information, and there is usually more then one way to spear a fish. Sometimes a package comes as a dependency and you don't need to know how to use it for it to be useful. > Mac <causing consternation> McCaskie > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
