discuss: GNU Linux Tools Summary
Subject:
Re: [discuss] GNU Linux Tools Summary
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
15 Jan 2007 07:54:35 -0000
Message-Id: <20070115075425.GA5552@davespc>
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 09:43:12PM +1100, Gareth Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For those who remember me, I'm back after probably one year or more of no
> contact on the list :P.
> I know many members disagreed and will continue to disagree with the way I
> have written the GNU Linux Tools Summary or the contents itself.
>
> I am simply writing to say that as far as I am concerned, I have completed
> my work on it. I'm considering a little bit of work (like cleaning up that
> new automatically generated index) but I'm unlikely to make further
> modifications unless someone points out an error or something.
I did a very quick look at a few items in this doc and found about one
or two things wrong per 45-line page. No so good! Now if there was
no alternative to this document, then it should be accepted with all
its faults. But we do have the man pages which cover these same
commands and often cover them better.
For example regarding vi:
"It requires learning a few key combinations, but is very powerful, and
it is also quite small."
It's clear that whoever wrote this didn't know what they were talking
about. vi used to be small but the modern vim is pretty big. You
don't really learn the combinations but learn say about 30 or so keys
and then combine them like c3w for Change 3 Words.
But I still think it needs a lot of work to make it worthwhile to
publish. Based on my sampling, there are likely hundreds of additional
errors.
> I have attempted to address previous criticisms as best I can, but like
> anyone who devotes some spare time to voluntary work, I am no longer
> motivated to continue work on this.
>
> The (hopefully) final version of the document is currently sitting on Chris
> Karakas's site (thanks Chris!):
> http://karakas-online.de/gnu-linux-tools-summary/
A lot of effort was put into this document so thanks for the effort.
Some of it is good but I think it'll have to wait for someone with a
lot of time and knowledge to redo it so as to make it "fit to print".
David Lawyer
