| 1 |
On 05/09/2014 15:39, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
>> The notable difference is Arch has some of the best documataion of any |
| 3 |
>> > linux distro; Gentoo struggles to document many key components. |
| 4 |
> Interestingly enough people used to say the same thing about Gentoo - |
| 5 |
> when I look at the Arch documents they tend to look a lot like how the |
| 6 |
> Gentoo docs looked in the mid-2000s. People in my local user group |
| 7 |
> often commented that they ran Debian but usually referenced the Gentoo |
| 8 |
> docs. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I wonder why that is. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I recall gentoo docs from 2004 onwards for a few years, and the quality |
| 15 |
was magnificent. Nowadays, not so much. And I can probably count on one |
| 16 |
hand the number of times I've found a doc suitable for me on the |
| 17 |
gentoo-wiki. The unofficial wiki at gentoo-wiki.com was even worse - I |
| 18 |
can't recall ever finding good info there. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
For the past 3 years I'm finding Arch docs are like the Gentoo docs of |
| 21 |
old, just like you. But in my last 5 searches, I found the answer I |
| 22 |
needed 4 times on <gasp> Ubuntu's docs system! |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
What changed with our docs? Most likely a deep change in doc-team |
| 25 |
personnel, but I don;t know for sure. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 31 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives