discuss: more thoughts on the Kernel-HOWTO removal issue
Subject:
Re: more thoughts on the Kernel-HOWTO removal issue
From:
rahul ####@####.####
Date:
8 Dec 2003 05:18:39 -0000
Message-Id: <3FD4099E.2030804@yahoo.co.in>
Paul W. Morehead wrote:
> 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 ####@####.####
I expected people to click the mailing list link if they wanted to
subscribe. Guess I need to add more information in that faq now.
> 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 acknowledgement that no matter how outdated, sparse, biased, or even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.
If you are unable to find the kernel howto that means the LDP doesnt
have stale mirrors which is a very good thing. Have you read people
complain loudly about how outdated and bad the LDP docs are?. I find it
personally offending. Disclaimers are not a excuse for bad documents.
> The crux of my point is this, though: they do NOT merit the
> withholding of, for example, the Kernel-HOWTO.
It is with merit precisely because the kernel howto is a very important
document. It shouldnt be taken lightly. Wrong information on that howto
reflects very badly on LDP. It was not a naive decision.
> 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
Putting up a notice and a alternative document was discussed. It is not
about changing a link in html. It is choosing between putting up a
complete alternative howto or a links to relevant documents
regards
Rahul Sundaram
