On 05/04/15 22:21, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Apr 2015 22:00:49 +0200
> Anto <aryanto@???> wrote:
>
>
>> I agree that we need to have good documentations to minimise
>> mistakes. But without a good base for the documentations, I don't
>> think it is worth to start writing them now. It will make sense to
>> write Devuan documentations after it is being released and stabilised.
> I'd say concurrently with the distro release. So many perceived
> technical problems are really documentation problems or lack of
> documentation. If we'd always had good documentation, silly "intuitive"
> user interfaces that really simply mimic human ambiguity (Gnome, Unity)
> would not have happened.
>
> See this Debian-User thread, where a new user was rudely RTFMed because
> he didn't check Google after not finding the info in Debian docs:
>
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2015/04/msg00131.html
>
> After being given a snarky remark with a "Let Me Google That For You",
> the OP asked the most pertinent question: "So is Google manditory for
> use of Debian now?"
>
> Long before the Linux kernel existed, there was this cultural belief
> that if you can't use a sparse and ambiguous man page, you're just not
> a man. In my opinion, this is wrong, documentation should not be an
> afterthought, and if you're going to write software and hope for folks
> ot use it, you'd better make sure there's adequate, readable, and
> unambiguous documentation.
>
> SteveT
>
> Steve Litt
> Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
> http://www.troubleshooters.com/28

Are we are talking about Devuan or a new generic Linux distro?

If it would be Devuan, I think there is no reason to spend a lot of
efforts in re-writing the existing Debian documentations. The initial
release of Devuan will be mostly the same as Debian jessie, except the
systemd related parts. So most of the Debian jessie documentations can
be re-used for Devuan. Perhaps, some notes need to be added, especially
on anything related to systemd. But I don't think it would be problems
to refer to Debian documentations on other generic parts. This is what I
meant that the Devuan documentations will make sense to be written after
it is being released and stabilised, so it will be for version 2.0 of
Devuan (if version 1.0 would be the initial one).

But this entirely up to the ones who are responsible for the
documentations of Devuan. I just thought that more efforts are better to
be spent on crystallising Devuan.

Cheers,

Anto