discuss: GNU/Linux Command-Line Tools Summary needs either reviewing or acceptance
Subject:
Re: GNU/Linux Command-Line Tools Summary needs either reviewing or acceptance
From:
"Guru -" ####@####.####
Date:
13 Dec 2003 07:49:15 -0000
Message-Id: <Sea2-F25WdCJkgNtnvj0004b68f@hotmail.com>
(quoting David Lawyer)
">I took a quick look at it and would reject it due to it's scope. The
>language seems good and it seems to be technically correct. But it
>needs many more references and links, and needs to remove some tools
>while adding many others"
Remove which ones? Add what? Its useless making comments like that, its the
same as me looking at a HOWTO and saying, language could be better oh and
remove stuff/add stuff, useless comments.
">One especially egregious error was only mentioning tar as the only
>backup tool. Today tar is one of the worst backup tools and a number of
>better ones are available. So to do it right, one needs to study and
>compare all the numerous backup and mirroring programs and compare them
>-- a considerable task. The result could be a HOWTO on backup."
I was hoping that people would write these parts, I don't need a full-guide
to backing stuff up only a mention of the tool and very rough syntax,
usually within less than ten lines.
I could *rename* that section. If there looking for a backup howto then they
will look for one, they are not going to look only at my HOWTO. My howto is
not supposed to superseed all other documentation only point the user in a
direction.
>There are many thousands of command line tools (especially since the
>author has classified editors as tools which is likely correct). To
>cover tools adequately would take thousands of pages. But a more brief
>overview would select only the most important tools. But this hasn't
>been done. Space is devoted to module tools, but handling modules is
>supposed to be automatic and this isn't explained.
Yes I've been considering removing that section for a long time, I'll get
around to it next release.
I have only chosen tools which would have a purpose, I'm not trying to
document every existent tool as stated in the abstract and introduction.
>Thus I think that about 10 times more work is needed to create a good
>command line tools howto.
Well feel free to create one if you think you can do that kind of job.
I'll just stick with my own work.
Oh and if your talking about references, why not suggest some? Try to avoid
anything controversial though.
Gareth
_________________________________________________________________
Get less junk mail with ninemsn Premium. Click here
http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp
