Rather than persists in the future thread...

Question

The point I was making would be for Archs documents to pick up where man pages leave off, but whatever.
If you think I stated Arch must fix man pages, not so. I was intending to show that docs as a whole, leave whole subjects unhandled, Arch could provide the answers in its own docs and come out as a hero.
Or maybe not.
And remember, users who cannot configure ppp cannot get on the internet to get the ppp configuration docs. Or any other docs, for that matter. One failed configuration needing web documents might leave the newbie stranded.
Or maybe not.
I personally think that a lot of configuration has to be made before Linux (Arch or others) will communicate over the internet to a remote website, so as to allow documentation to be visible..... but hey, maybe I missed something? Like the document to get a modem setup? So I could get web based documents? Chicken and egg?
Maybe not, eh?
As for the concept of needing to be an experienced admin - these folks usually do not need any docs. That compares to bad docs to a newbie - essentially no docs. Missing docs and no internet access are also useless. Thus, the newbie without documents needs the only thing which gets anyone else through the issue - the newbie needs experience, because the docs are weak or missing or erroneous. Try as you might, that is an issue I went through. Take, for example, when I needed network assistance. Archs forums were not the first place I went asking for help, believe me; I asked and am still asking. 2 years now, and I'm just getting told Samba. Need I say this is baloney? That issue is not Archs fault, but Arch could have a smashing success on its hands if it were to document a few critical areas as well as 0.2 was documented.
Installing and partitioning... What can I say... apeiro is not mentioning anything I've PM'd him about: secondary hard disks getting reformatted. My pm brought me the answer that most Archers never repartition, so the script was.... well, I guess you could say it was a shot in the dark. Fine, but the PM stated the alternative was something like 'I usually use the commandline stuff and simply reformat the existing partitions'.
Why the **** would an inexperienced newbie set up partitions outside of using the installer?? The Arch docs tells the newbie to use the installer to partition their hard disks! What, exactly, is the newbies idea of an installers purpose? Are you a newbie when you decide what a newbie has for skills? The installer obliterated gigabytes of data, I trusted that it was going to perform safely, and yet nobody ever used it to learn of the glitch? Ooookkaaaaayyyy.
Folks, the docs said to use the installer. Never mentioned possibly partitioning from the command line. Take your pick, the newbie was not at fault for following the docs.
I'll run along, because I cannot possibly be speaking truth. Neither am I telling you where I had problems. This is cannot be feedback, it must be dunbars rantings. Does Arch have a future when feedback is considered trolling or flaming the developers? Lighten up, folks, I had once been trying to offer help and sought to get help.
I know this is a labor of love for you all; in many ways, Linux is a labor of mine as well. Sadly, you are not hearing some issue that could help make Arch the distro that some folks want it to be.

Answer 1

dunbar wrote:Step by step: I mentioned a few weak areas that newbies would not know how to address.
I mentioned that newbie would not necessarily have the skills to get the correct docs from a myriad of websites.
Which appear (and frequently are) obsolete.
Well, then we include the docs and then non-newbies would complain that we are cluttering the filesytem and you would complain because those documents are obsolete. sound familiar? i have seen this argument before and there is not winning it. people bitch about the manpages, docs, etc ALL THE TIME. you must know that. so the best we can do is add your concerns to our own documents and add necessary documents to the files.
When their internet connection was what had failed, the internet doc is not available.
And when they had no Xwindows in which to read HTML documents,
and nothing tells the newbie about CLI browsers.
i would expect that no absolute green newbies would try arch so those newbies that do show up i would assume have some linux experience (one can be a newbie and have some experience) so i would assume that they would know about lynx or links browsers or at least know how to use cat and less.
another point about this is that if a newbie does not even know how to use cat, less, or a cli editor to view files then they would be very very f**ked with arch linux and having self contained documents would be pretty pointless. so again i would ask is it not wise to print out/write down any relevent install/configuration instructions? you do know how to write since you already say you don't have a printer?
okay so if we include install configuration data in the installer will you know how to access it? is it fair to tell the user that it is in such and such directory and you can access it through say vc1-4? should we scrap our online docs altogether and just have them self contained?
The network thing was changed along the way - IPX/SPX was part of the issue, my 5 port switch is another part. I am not berating you, sarah31, nor am I asking anyone to re-write man pages, etc. as several posts seemed to attribute to me. The man pages are the weak spot, Arch docs need to go from there. Never wanted to say more than that.
and all i wanted to know is what apps do we extend our documentation to? all of them? are you saying that all our apps need extended docs? can you point me to one distro that has extended documents of all their applications? besides ppp what would YOU extend? it is fair to ask this of arch developers/users but they really need to know just what manpages are defunct and have no bearing on arch.
i would not expect a request like this would get fulfilled too quickly there are lots of applications' man pages and docs to go through then the developers would have to determine what is needed and what is not.
as for manpages......i used to find them unreliable but to be honest most manpages i have viewed lately have been very clear and concise about how to operate/configure apps. i am not saying this to contradict you but i say it honestly. when i have been unable to find someone to ask on this forum or irc manpages normally do the trick for me. (and don't say it is because i am some expert with linux because i a definitely not)
I'm trying to point out that A] with a presumed goal of gaining Linux users,
B] Arch, being small, uncluttered and likely attractive to newbies (small draws newbies because it is so small (dialup accessible but only one big download at a time) and older systems where XP won't fit on their disks, etc) and also
C] since Arch had very tight documents covering what needed to be done (but might need more topics covered), I felt that was likely going to lead to newbies arriving here in some situations that
D] Arch clearly tries to assume will not need the attentions of forum members (which have the skills) and
E] the newbie does not have the skills.
That would lead to the assumption that Arch was not interested in the users needs.
with respect to this.....well what can i say but you are a complete ***hole. for one thing small does not always attract newbies in fact i know ALOT ALOT ALOT of people that will not even try arch or similar distros because they are small. most people want the choice to kludge up their system if they like but arch is not in this realm yet because we do not offer alot of packages.
i agree we need more stuff covered in our documents and you would not find a single user or developer that would disagree with you. So i guess this point you make throws out your idea of extending the manpages because that is not a concise project (for example manpages for transcode are good but to get into all the basics a newbie would need to know would require one to be alot more verbose similarily with networking documents)?
to say that we here do not pay attention to users is ABSOLUTELY THE WRONG ANSWER. there are only two pages of unanswered post and considering there are always post that are merely statements that do not need to be answered that is very good. in fact if you even bothered to check there are only 79 unanswered posts out of 4512. that's 1.75% of the posts on the forum are unanswered. besides that there are always questions that no one has an answer to. obscure problems do exist i know i have hit many in my ventures in any OS.
besides this forums are a free service. no one is under obligation to use it user AND developers alike. no one is paid here so don't diss anyone and don't feel that anyone is obligated to answer you.
i can also say that you are a complete arrogant ass for saying arch does not care about its users. we don't care about you that is for certain. but i can guarantee that everything i did every package i made, upgraded, donated, fixed, etc was for the user. people wanted openoffice i spent a week building it then it got broken with the upgrade to gcc 3.3 i spent another week trying to fix it without luck then judd spent 3 days compiling and patching 1.1. so do you EVER say we don't fucking care you little ingrate.
The perceived 'lack of clarity' on my part is because I am still a newbie. I might have a few things working under Slackware, but I'm not certain, today, where I even made the changes. I'm not asking for hints on how to keep a notebook, I have one, it is 40 miles away, I cannot discuss Linux by reading my notes or grepping my config files, they are 40 miles away. I cannot log into my Linux PC, I only have dial up, the only telephone line in my house is for voice communications. DSL is too far away, Cable is too expensive.... have I never said any of this before? No, not in this thread, but I've always been a hardliner on those points sarah31. I do not match up with what is assumed of me. But here I am, posting, despite my ineptitude.
"Waaagh i'm a newbie. waggh i don't have highspeed pity me pity meee!"
there are lots of users on dialup here including developers so we don't give a flying f**k.
I believe the deepest undercurrent I see here is diverging viewpoints of what Arch is and diverging goals for Arch. My views are different from a few who assume the Archer has the skills, hApy seems to have a third viewpoint, and yet a third viewpoint exists.
yeah and you are saying we have to conform to your view. typical. funny we seem to be getting more and more users all the time both newbie and non newbie and this despite having a completely uncaring development team and a horrendous set of docs. one of the funny things is that many of the newbies recently are all dialup like you and they still take time to make irc interesting or contribute packages.
If my posts reflect an atmosphere of bewildering viewpoiints, I'm not surprised - I've tried to reply to differing posts which take differing opinions; I suppose it is frustrating to anyone to reply to 3 posts at once. I'm replying in order to offer my view of when I was a frustrated newbie (this morning, I think ;-) ). Remember, I was told by a certain forum member that, most certainly, dunbar was a slackware user and the assumption was that he must be nearly expert - yet, I declared, no, I'm not an expert and I freely admit a lack of skills. I was not the one who estimated dunbars skills, Sarah31.
oh you are soooo subtle in your insults. come on you tell me after hundreds of installs and two years of using linux you don't know anything? find me five green newbies that know how to grep or know to look online for information. personally i and many others here and elsewhere have little time for someone who cries about being a newbie when they obviously aren't.
what is it some sort of ploy to make people feel sorry for you or shorten your look online for info that you likely could find in two minutes? spare me. up to one year you are a n00b after that you are not.
I'm definitely not interested in dissing anyone, not you, nor Gyroplast, nor Apeiro, nor hApy .....
hmmm you care to stand by that or should i pull out several quotes to the contrary?
I have pointed out that early on, Arch was interested in being Judds perfect distro... did anyone ask him if he ever said that? As I said, I can offer to cut and paste, if you wish.
so your point is? is this a bad thing? is it not possible for many of us to believe it is the perfect distro for us as well? why not diss yoper for claiming to be THE distro.
Yet, I'm clearly getting 2 viewpoints in response to me repeating that fact. Thus, in order to push the reader away from their position, so as to get them to walk in my shoes, I post from different directions aiming toward one central condition. Is the issue me, and me alone? Or did the issue exist, and I'm guilty of responding to all viewpoints and thus I'm guilty of pointing it out?
i have been in your shoes and i often get put back in your shoes when i start to use or investigate applications or areas of linux i have never explored before. so whats your point? if it was to fix up the documentation? that was a goal for some time now in fact a few users have made it an ongoing thing.
you are not the only one that is a newbie here nor are you the only one here. there are many things that developers must balance when they do their duties. there will never be a distro that will satisfy all a user's needs but i can tell you that the arch team does try to please as many people as possible. so yeah i think you are the issue to some extent. you could have come in here and politely explained what it is that you felt needed improvement but instead you came in and whine and cried that you were so abused and that we had to change to please you. it was all about you anyone can easily extract that from the way you keep flipping between i'm a newbie, i'm not a newbie but i speak for newbies. if you cannot find the offesive comments you have made along the way or see how some people came to the conclusions they did then it is your fault.
Anyway, you mentioned the ethernet thread.... thydian is evidently new here. Lets explain that issue out loud (since you already raised the matter). I offered to write a document regarding Ethernet setup, I was not shown what to do (frozdsolid posted that they were "pretty sure that's necessary"). I do not assume that every member here reads every posted message; thus, I believe I had read the opinion of someone who was as newbie to Arch as I myself was a newbie (frozdsolids title still shows only 4 posts even today). Nobody here 'handed me an answer' as some might conclude from your post.
well YOU may not have gotten answer but people DID try to answer your question and, in fact, the answer is there. but you could not extract it or did not know how to ask the question properly to get the result you desired.
but of course we are the bad guys here because we took the time to try and give you an answer. man you are such a wanker....
I posted everywhere else on the internet about my situation using IPX/SPX, I heard that it was a dead protocol. I finally found information about IPX/SPX, it was not herein, so the forum was of no use in that instance - that is a fact, sarah31. Now that I have concluded that IPX/SPX was not the best choice and changed the rest of the household over to TCP/IP...... the IPX/SPX issue is no longer the focus, so I dropped the subject; until I was  6 months later, I came back here, saw BluPhoenixs post and was a bit confused. That lead to him suggesting DOSemu, I stated no, that was not preferred, etc. etc. I ultimately thanked BluPhoenix, stated why I was going to drop the issue, and I left the thread cold.
so why insist on blaming us for something that we tried to answer but was obviously beyond our knowledge? you did it at the end of that thread and you constantly do it here. how many other people did you verbally assault along the way?
The whole thing got misdirected, away from what I was asking for, as if the topic was no longer my decision alone.
what a pile of BS. it was YOUR thread so get in there and assert yourself. threads get out of hand sometimes but the original poster can easily get control again if they have a pair.
i know for a fact that the people he chose to insult would and have tried to help him but he blows them off. i know too that the head developer is VERY open to user contributions yet dunbar chose not to contribute.
The reasons should be evident by now - when I offered to contribute, I had the time; 6 months of time transpired, I was not able to write because I had no answers with which to generate such a document. I had to revoke the offer. I am taken by surprise that anyone would say I was given the necessary information!
BS again you just stated that you got your answer (outside of our forum) so you could have easily posted back with what you had found out and then provided documentation later. and you mean to tell me that you have not had time in the last six months to wing something together. shit you have practically written a novel here.
it is obvious to me that you just want to guard that knowledge and us it to flame and troll here. once you had the answers you were sure to come back and flame that thread and continue flaming on a regular basis. what an ass.
I've known you to be patient, sarah31 (and you are yet teaching me as I write), but when you say I'm taking great pains to insult someone - while I'm waiting months for forum responses and I'm reading internet documents that are obsolete and these are docs which talk about a different distro, refer to a different kernel, puts files in a different location????
yeah so you waited for an answer and didn't get one...it happens. you stated that barely anyone knew the answer. fianlly you got one and then came back and rudely blamed us for poor documentation and a barrel of other things. nice guy.
all i saw was orelein answer you in a nice and proper fashion and you called him eliteist. you also were rather rude about judd in your first post in the future thread. so yes i see all throughout attempts to belittle and brate and not one instance of sober commentary from you.
and here you are again balming us for online docs that are not ours.
That is not appropriate, ever, to assume that the newbie will not find older docs and will know enought to discard the incorrect ones.
this is not limited to newbies.....it can definitely be difficult finding what you need online.
And since most internet docs are coasting along since, for example, 1999 (re: the IPX/SPX how-to)
well if you are checking out and obscure problem that is actually now obsolete then sure the fucking doc will be old but you make is sound like ALL docs are old. so i have to assume that you are very much an idiot because i have found most documentation for most current issues to have current docs. most applications will upgrade their docs as they upgrade or do you even notice that? are you to self absorbed to go around and find out if your wild accusations actually have any merit?
once again, and I'll ask this, and directly of you, sarah31, why would any newbie assume that 4 year old document applied to their situation??
well knowing how many newbies are i would expect them to ask if docs are relevant. or they could possibly look into some of the information. if it was not producing answers...wow i think they would ask for help again. shit do you even pay attention to how newbies act on justlinux?
:oops: I'd ask that people remove useless web documents, but I fear that I'd get only 4 responses. That is reality, not sarcasm.
hmmm remove docs, add docs which is it? fyi arch removes most docs except in rare circumstances. if those docs are html they are html. if a n00b doesn't know how to view them i expect they would ask( that is if they are outside x).
dunbar...stick with slack because arch will never please you. slack is a very nice distro that should have the balance arch does not afford you. that is the great thing about a linux .... if you don't like one flavour then try another. just don't go back to the ice cream dealer and berate him for selling you your choice...get the point (if you don't then fine i expected that)