discuss: Modernization/Re-Design of Website
Subject:
Re: [discuss] Modernization/Re-Design of Website
From:
"." ####@####.####
Date:
25 Apr 2011 08:50:36 +0100
Message-Id: <9203918685897769407@unknownmsgid>
Understood. But, it's all rustic. We must have seen the LDP from two
very different views. I know that the LDP was very useful to the
average Joe user. Roger, the original manpages, misc software
documents, and the like were the original sources for help.
Acknowledged, the LDP is not gospel but that doesn't mean it doesn't
need help. Just like Welsh said all the key point need to be taken
care of. They clearly have not. I proposing we do just that.
-Paul
On Apr 25, 2011, at 1:32, David Lawyer ####@####.#### wrote:
> Myth: LDP once was the main source of Linux Documentation.
>
> Reality: The main source of Linux Documentation was the man pages plus
> software documentation, plus kernel documentation, plus documentation
> by the distributions.
>
> But at one time, say 1998, maybe half of LDP's docs were perhaps
> up-to-date while today it's much worse. But please don't imagine a
> glorious history of LDP that never was.
>
> Here's a piece of our history. Note that after this LDP docs became
> increasingly outdated (percentage-wise) in future years but the total
> number of doc grew.
>
> Changes at the Linux Documentation Project
> Matt Welsh, ####@####.####
> 28 August 1999
>
> The last few months have seen a number of important changes in the
> structure of the Linux Documentation Project's leadership. Along
> with these changes, we have seen some important projects slip
> through the cracks, and a certain amount of infighting and
> disagreements between the various parties involved in maintaining
> the LDP materials. The result has been that several key members of
> the project (including Greg Hankins, former LDP maintainer) have
> resigned, and the bulk of the LDP materials have not been kept
> up-to-date on the website. As the original founder and maintainer
> of the LDP, I'm trying to set this situation straight by giving the
> current LDP maintainers the ability to move forward with new plans,
> but also by overseeing the maintenance of the website to ensure
> that the materials will be updated in case the LDP leadership fails
> to execute.
>
> WHY LDP IS NEEDED:
> 1. To help avoid the duplication of effort where each distribution
> writes it's own documentation
> 2. To carry out the effort of organization of all Linux documentation
> so it's easy to find up-to-date information, etc. This effort was
> once started at LDP with it's own website but never came up with a
> plan, or even a summary of the discussions (which in my opinion were
> not all that great). Nothing further happened.
> 3. To point to the latest info on a topic. A search engine will often
> find docs that seem up to date perhaps a recent date on them, but much of
> the info. may be stale. Thus people who follow certain topics need to
> either write about them or at least keep an annotated list of
> documentation on the topic (at LDP ?).
> 4. To get around the Wikipedia rule that doesn't allow any "original
> research" by the author and requires references for every substantial
> statement. An LDP document may be based (at least in part) on the
> author's personal experience in using the hardware or software in
> question.
>
> I was opposed to the "Author's Guide" from the beginning as it was far
> too long and emphasized DocBook instead of Linux-Doc. I wrote an
> "Author-HOWTO" as a 2-page alternative, and although the majority on
> the discuss list seemed to think it was OK, it for some reason never
> got put on the site. Well, it's out of date now as it doesn't mention
> the wiki. So I hope to revise it and try again.
>
> ______________________
> http://lists.tldp.org/
>
