discuss: possible to build an extensible documentation ?
Subject:
Re: [discuss] possible to build an extensible documentation ?
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
18 May 2006 21:32:19 -0000
Message-Id: <20060518212306.GD768@lafn.org>
> On 5/10/06, Rohit Patil ####@####.#### wrote:
> >Alexey, Sounds like a good idea so far. Can you describe it some more?
> >-Rohit.
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 03:31:25PM -0200, Alexey Eremenko wrote:
[snip]
> One possible solution to the problem of writing Linux documentation -
> is to write it in a modular way, with GPL license applied. Modular
> design of documentation will allow me to write the core book -
> "generic" Linux commands, that are supported by virtually all Linuxes,
> and depend heavily on distro-specific modules. GPL license is required
> to ensure that *all* future users & authors will always have it
> open-source, free of charge. Also modular design will allow more
> authors to write simultaneously.
>
> The current available books are from Slackware, TLDP, SUSE/Novell,
> Mandriva, Debian and other camps.... The goal is to create a single
> book to fit all... possible ?
> Is it desirable ? Is it the right way of doing things?
What is needed more than just another book on Linux, is to get the
HOWTOs to cover the distributions better. But it's not so simple.
The various distributions themselves should contain info (similar to
"modules") as to the characteristics of the distribution. Modules
might work if the modules were written by the people creating the
distribution to which the module pertains. Then the distribution
would come with documentation which only used it's own modules.
Some modules will be very short. For example, some distributions (and
versions of distributions) have configuration files located at
different locations. The only thing a certain module might contain is
a file name. In other situations, method-A will be used by list-A of
distributions, method B by list-B of distributions, etc. So in some
cases the same module will be for several distributions.
It's not only the differences in the distributions, it's also the
differences in various versions of these distributions.
Another problem is, how does one find out how a certain distribution
is organized without installing the distribution on ones PC. What
about putting the system files of all distributions on the Internet in
html? Except there would be no need for binary code if persons
browsing couldn't execute that code.
There are hundreds of distributions so it isn't feasible to cover most
of them, but Linux documentation needs to be of use to every Linux
user: all the 100+ distributions plus the few who don't use any
distribution. So the current system without modules is not too bad.
As an alternative to the module system, one could try to get the
various distributions to standardize, as is being done by Linux
Standards Base. Perhaps application programs shouldn't provide
alternatives for configuration etc. unless certain alternatives are
marked as preferred ones that distributions should set up by default
unless the user selects other alternatives (possibly during install).
So if standards are successful, there might not be as much need for a
module system. Well, there might be still be a need for modules based
on computer architecture.
David Lawyer
