Subject:
Re: Planning to publish new document
From:
Evgueni Tzvetanov ####@####.####
Date:
25 Feb 2003 21:53:54 -0000
Message-Id: <3E5BE59E.8030907@comcast.net>
Thanks Tabatha,
There is something that everybody lacks, called time. I have put a lot
of time preparing the document, now it seems that I have to slice and
dice a smaller or partial version of it, which I think will not be
enough after all and this efforts will be a lost time. Since the
document is already there (submitted to the provided email address), why
should one discover the hot water again?
I like one thing in UNIX philosophy, which not a lot of people follow.
KISS (keep it small and simple). Your proposals are to complicate the
heck out of the whole process. Why?
If I was to maintain a newly submitted document, I'd give a chance to
everybody to read it's draft in HTML format (easier to navigate and
address feedback) and send feedback to the author, which is as easy to
create as executing one line in a terminal and them just copy the html
files to the draft destination. If I have to, I'll write a HOWTO, which
explains how documents are published for discussions and approval. I
myself am a part tech writer. I can see that currently either there is
no such mechanism on tldp.org or it is hidden to all readers, except the
chosen ones.
My proposal is simple. Make a draft section, which will be used by
anyone who wants to submit a document for discussions and approval. This
way the document will be uploaded ones in it's original version without
the hassle of making minimized copies or shorter versions or
mini-HOWTOs, etc. Additionally there could be discussion group address
especially for whoever has an opinion on the draft. It sound simple and
it is simple. I can prove it.
Regards!
Evgueni
Tabatha Persad wrote:
>Well, how about this: since the document is very task-specific, right
>down to the versions, maybe a mini-HOWTO would be more appropriate?
>
>It would be nice to see a master document with some of this eventually
>incorporated, but a good point was brought up about not straining too
>hard to document Oracle earlier. When writing a HOWTO involving
>Windows, I think most authors would not bother to document anything more
>than what was required for their task, which makes sense. That's
>something to bear in mind when working with proprietary software.
>
>Consolidating everything into one main document would require one or all
>of the authors of the existing Oracle-related documentation to make some
>decisions. That also raises the question, when does a HOWTO become a
>Guide? The scope of the document should be considered.
>
>For example, how to set up, say, a specific network card on a Linux
>system was a mini-HOWTO, how to set up multiple types of cards on
>multiple Linux distributions would be a HOWTO, and Network
>Administration would be a Guide. Thus, the broader the subject, the
>broader the document.
>
>I would recommend an author sum up the scope of his/her document in a
>single sentence or two; it should often become clear at that point what
>category it seems to fit.
>
>I trust the discussion list most of all, and think this is the best way
>to figure things out, because every document is, after all, unique!
>
>Nothing here is meant to be taken as decision-making or preaching - I
>simply find this an easy way to understand how things work, and if I'm
>off, I hope someone'll tell me so! ;)
>
>Thanks,
>
>Tabatha
>
>
>
>
>On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 11:57, Evgueni Tzvetanov wrote:
>
>
>>Thanks Steve,
>>
>>It is true, that 8i and 9i have similar installation processes, but then
>>I have installed the following versions 8.1.5, 8.1.7 and 9.2.0.1.0 and
>>in all the cases there were things, which were different. I don't mean
>>the installer, but the "hacks" you have to do around it when you have to
>>investigate undocumented problem while the in process...
>>
>>I am open to suggestions on a single Oracle installation document, but
>>as I said I am not a DBA. I can contribute with whatever knowledge and
>>experience I have. I think that we can work together, instead of making
>>a fight out of it :) We all know how painful sometimes an Oracle
>>installation could be.
>>
>>Regards!
>>Evgueni
>>
>>Stephen Darlington wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>For each version of Oracle the installation is unique.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I don't think that's true, and that's why I'd argue against it (and
>>>the Oracle on RedHat 7 document if I'd had the chance!).
>>>
>>>The Oracle 7 HOWTO has a place as there was never an official version
>>>of Oracle so it's a bit of a hack. You could possibly argue that it's
>>>not necessary now.
>>>
>>>The 8i HOWTO has a place as installing it was a huge pain in the
>>>first place even though Oracle theoretically supported it. Following
>>>Oracle's documentation would get you a core dump (if you were lucky).
>>>Again, you could argue that it's not terribly contemporary now, but
>>>you couldn't bring all the versions up to date without losing a lot
>>>of information.
>>>
>>>The 9i installer is the same as the 8i one but with less bugs (I
>>>managed to install it without consulting any documentation).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I think that these HOWTOs are written to be much less complex than
>>>>Oracle Installation Guide and more like an example, not a guide to
>>>>easy installation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>As I suggest above, mine was written to make it possible to use
>>>Oracle on Linux without paying vast amounts of money to Oracle
>>>support. I think we should be furthering and advocating Linux not
>>>giving Oracle free documentation and marketing.
>>>
>>>Just my 2d worth...
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>--> Stephen
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>----
>>> Stephen Darlington (www.zx81.org.uk)
>>> "I long for a grapefruit"
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>----
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>______________________
>>http://lists.tldp.org/
>>
>>
