discuss: GNU Linux Command Line Tools Summary Ready for inclusion
Subject:
Re: GNU Linux Command Line Tools Summary Ready for inclusion
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
26 Feb 2005 21:11:15 -0000
Message-Id: <20050226211148.GB843@lafn.org>
[snip]
On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 03:48:01PM +1100, Gareth Anderson wrote:
> Many of the commands were taken from man pages.
>
> So its possible that I've used a bad source or got lucky when testing
> the commands as somone pointed out (David?) with the tr command.
>
> " It's already been reviewed by a
> > sampling review by 2 persons and it failed. "
>
> 1 reviewer helped correct grammatical and found a couple technical
> errors (probably one or two). This reviewer did run out of time to get
> through the entire document, it is very large.
>
> The second reviewer found style mistakes in the way I write. I
> attempted to correct those errors throughout the document.
>
> If you are referring to brief glances over the document, yes 3 or 4
> errors have being found.
> There are ~100 commands listed there, so a 3-4% error rate so far.
> No I'm not trying to say its acceptable, I will try to fix it.
But my sampling of it found about a 100% error rate. Some commands were
OK but others had a couple of errors. I only sampled about 1% of the
doc and found a few errors, but the xargs errors were really bad ones.
I just now took another sample of a couple of commands and found a
few errors. So I still think that the error rate is approximately 100%
That's far too large to be acceptable.
> But I have re-worked this document many times and I can't seem to find
> my own errors....(I can likely find the technical ones eventually but
> not style errors in my own writing).
It isn't just "style" errors. It's errors in clarity, grammar, and
organization.
[snip]
David Lawyer
