discuss: more thoughts on the Kernel-HOWTO removal issue
Subject:
more thoughts on the Kernel-HOWTO removal issue
From:
"Paul W. Morehead" ####@####.####
Date:
7 Dec 2003 20:14:07 -0000
Message-Id: <3FD389F7.7010703@sbcglobal.net>
I have several points to make here, so I'll just list them out. I
apologise in advance for tending to be wordy, but I hope it is
understood that being so is out of a desire to be fully understood...the
first time around. ;)
The personal stuff: thank you to Rahul and Machtelt for taking the time
to respond to me outside the listgroup. Your responses were quick and
informative, and I took it as an indication that this is a email list
worth subscribing to.
Next a little administrative stuff: there is a small error at
http://tldp.org/FAQ/LDP-FAQ/index.html#AEN109 where people are directed
to join this very listserv to participate in discussions about the LDP.
The email address listed there needs to be changed to
####@####.#### instead of ####@####.####
Now on to the meat. Rahul recommended I read the archived discussions
from November regarding the Al Dev documents. I had already done so,
but on his kind advise, I went back and re-read them. I am still left
with the following impression: the bulk of the thread was a discussion
about the mechanics of maintaining the LDP repository, which is quite
natural considering the mission of TLDP. I saw a few examples of
objectionable content of certain HOWTO documents, and I most certainly
have noticed such abberations on my own throughout the years of browsing
LDP files. While I am grateful that people are passionate about both
the structure and content of these documents, what really struck me was
a seeming lack of acknowledgement that no matter how outdated, sparse,
biased, or even occasionally dead wrong some of these documents are,
they still serve a purpose. My point on this was rather rudely made out
of the sheer frustration of searching high and low for an extant copy of
the Kernel-HOWTO when I sent email to ####@####.#### and if that
rant made it to this listserv, I hope you will all accept my apologies.
But I do feel very strongly about that point. Machtelt graciously
forwarded to me an expose by Wolfgang Pfeiffer on some very serious
shortcomings of the Kernel-HOWTO, and I won't deny that bad information
can indeed be dangerous. I would bet that the Kernel-HOWTO contains
disclaimers, but SINCE I CAN'T EVEN FIND A COPY, I am unable to verify
that. In my particular case, I *knew* the answer to my question was in
the HOWTO, because I had remembered seeing it in previous readings. I
simply didn't remember the answer itself. It was infuriating to find
that the document that I *knew* contained the answer had been withheld,
and even more infuriating to find that it was withheld for what quite
honestly came across as mostly bureaucratic reasons.
The concerns about these HOWTOs discussed by the LDP community are ALL
valid, be they of a technical, political, or even spiritual nature. (I
am a staunch believer in free speech--don't let my country's idiot
president give you a wrong impression here.) The crux of my point is
this, though: they do NOT merit the withholding of, for example, the
Kernel-HOWTO. Rahul included a URL to what will hopefully become a new
Kernel-HOWTO, Machtelt forwarded some very important warnings about the
validity of the existing Kernel-HOWTO...so rather than remove the
community's access to a document, how hard would it have been to have an
intermediary web page with the LDP's own disclaimer (if you feel there
needs to be one), suggested alternate readings, and a big fat "you've
been warned" notice, ALONG WITH a link to the old document? I haven't
written html for a decade, and stopped paying attention to HTML spec
before 2.0 came out, but what I am suggesting would have been a lot less
effort for the LDP maintainers than even the time you just spent reading
this message.
-paul
