<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_03_1449211</id>
	<title>Is Linux Documentation Lacking?</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1259853480000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"A number of blog posts are surfacing that are <a href="http://www.technewsworld.com/story/68798.html">calling out the helpful open source community</a> on their documentation.  No, not the documentation for the highly skilled technical people, but the documentation from <a href="http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/6914/1/">beginner to apprentice</a>.  A two-part series by Carla Schroeder lists <a href="http://blog.linuxtoday.com/blog/2009/11/linux-bug-1-bad.html">bad documentation</a> <a href="http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/6904/1/">as 'Linux Bug #1'</a> and advises users to use Google as the documentation.  We've discussed before some of <a href="//ask.slashdot.org/story/07/04/18/2312218/Fragmentation-in-Linux-Documentation">open source's documentation being out of date</a>.  Is it really as bad as these blogs paint it?  Has it come down to using Google before a man page?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " A number of blog posts are surfacing that are calling out the helpful open source community on their documentation .
No , not the documentation for the highly skilled technical people , but the documentation from beginner to apprentice .
A two-part series by Carla Schroeder lists bad documentation as 'Linux Bug # 1 ' and advises users to use Google as the documentation .
We 've discussed before some of open source 's documentation being out of date .
Is it really as bad as these blogs paint it ?
Has it come down to using Google before a man page ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "A number of blog posts are surfacing that are calling out the helpful open source community on their documentation.
No, not the documentation for the highly skilled technical people, but the documentation from beginner to apprentice.
A two-part series by Carla Schroeder lists bad documentation as 'Linux Bug #1' and advises users to use Google as the documentation.
We've discussed before some of open source's documentation being out of date.
Is it really as bad as these blogs paint it?
Has it come down to using Google before a man page?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313068</id>
	<title>Bugs are a bigger problem.</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1259865840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my experience, bugs are a bigger problem than documentation. All the computers in my household (mine, wife's, two young kids') run Linux. I'm the only one who's a Linux power user. My wife has only started using Linux this year. My kids have basically had no big problems with lack of documentation. E.g., my older daughter, who is really into art, was highly motivated to learn gimp. I handed her <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Grokking-GIMP-Carey-Bunks/dp/0735709246/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1259861928&amp;sr=8-1" title="amazon.com">a book</a> [amazon.com] on gimp, but she never opened it. She just preferred to google for tutorials.</p><p>
I'm not saying the documentation situation is heavenly, but the bigger problem is bugs. For instance, my wife is not able to get the Line In sound input to work with Audacity so that she can digitize her old Who and Dylan LPs. It's not a documentation problem. It used to work, but it just seems to be broken on the current version of Ubuntu. On my own linux box, the sound output level always goes to zero every time I log in. I raise it, and then 15 minutes later it lowers itself again. Yes, I've reported the bug. When I hit a web page with a java applet, firefox crashes. Again, it's a bug, not a documentation issue. All of my family's current usability problems have to do with bugs, not lack of documentation.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my experience , bugs are a bigger problem than documentation .
All the computers in my household ( mine , wife 's , two young kids ' ) run Linux .
I 'm the only one who 's a Linux power user .
My wife has only started using Linux this year .
My kids have basically had no big problems with lack of documentation .
E.g. , my older daughter , who is really into art , was highly motivated to learn gimp .
I handed her a book [ amazon.com ] on gimp , but she never opened it .
She just preferred to google for tutorials .
I 'm not saying the documentation situation is heavenly , but the bigger problem is bugs .
For instance , my wife is not able to get the Line In sound input to work with Audacity so that she can digitize her old Who and Dylan LPs .
It 's not a documentation problem .
It used to work , but it just seems to be broken on the current version of Ubuntu .
On my own linux box , the sound output level always goes to zero every time I log in .
I raise it , and then 15 minutes later it lowers itself again .
Yes , I 've reported the bug .
When I hit a web page with a java applet , firefox crashes .
Again , it 's a bug , not a documentation issue .
All of my family 's current usability problems have to do with bugs , not lack of documentation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my experience, bugs are a bigger problem than documentation.
All the computers in my household (mine, wife's, two young kids') run Linux.
I'm the only one who's a Linux power user.
My wife has only started using Linux this year.
My kids have basically had no big problems with lack of documentation.
E.g., my older daughter, who is really into art, was highly motivated to learn gimp.
I handed her a book [amazon.com] on gimp, but she never opened it.
She just preferred to google for tutorials.
I'm not saying the documentation situation is heavenly, but the bigger problem is bugs.
For instance, my wife is not able to get the Line In sound input to work with Audacity so that she can digitize her old Who and Dylan LPs.
It's not a documentation problem.
It used to work, but it just seems to be broken on the current version of Ubuntu.
On my own linux box, the sound output level always goes to zero every time I log in.
I raise it, and then 15 minutes later it lowers itself again.
Yes, I've reported the bug.
When I hit a web page with a java applet, firefox crashes.
Again, it's a bug, not a documentation issue.
All of my family's current usability problems have to do with bugs, not lack of documentation.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312338</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>vxice</author>
	<datestamp>1259863380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We could create dvds with video instructions given by a linux professor to send out to people wanting to use linux...
but really the documentation does exist it is just not all in one place but yes it could be better, it doesn't help that every distro has different programs or at least versions and their own documentation I have found that google is the best way to find anything out about linux.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We could create dvds with video instructions given by a linux professor to send out to people wanting to use linux.. . but really the documentation does exist it is just not all in one place but yes it could be better , it does n't help that every distro has different programs or at least versions and their own documentation I have found that google is the best way to find anything out about linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We could create dvds with video instructions given by a linux professor to send out to people wanting to use linux...
but really the documentation does exist it is just not all in one place but yes it could be better, it doesn't help that every distro has different programs or at least versions and their own documentation I have found that google is the best way to find anything out about linux.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30315490</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1259832120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try apropos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try apropos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try apropos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310604</id>
	<title>Yes</title>
	<author>DontBlameCanada</author>
	<datestamp>1259857740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a word, yes, many/most linux docs suck.</p><p>Man is useful once you understand the basics of how a command works. However, if you're sufficiently green, decoding the language in many of the man pages is difficult. When executing certain system management tasks as root, a mistake can be catastrophic. Google will pull up the man page for you, but also the infinitely more educational blog and faq pages that decribe what a command does, when you use it and how to trouble shoot problems encountered with it.</p><p>The problem with Google, is the non-official blogs and faqs frequently reference older version of the command line tools bundled in the latest distros. Occasionally, the tool author radically alters the tools between releases rendering the non-official docs inaccurate... Then the neophyte/newbie hobbyist is up the creek with a paddle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a word , yes , many/most linux docs suck.Man is useful once you understand the basics of how a command works .
However , if you 're sufficiently green , decoding the language in many of the man pages is difficult .
When executing certain system management tasks as root , a mistake can be catastrophic .
Google will pull up the man page for you , but also the infinitely more educational blog and faq pages that decribe what a command does , when you use it and how to trouble shoot problems encountered with it.The problem with Google , is the non-official blogs and faqs frequently reference older version of the command line tools bundled in the latest distros .
Occasionally , the tool author radically alters the tools between releases rendering the non-official docs inaccurate... Then the neophyte/newbie hobbyist is up the creek with a paddle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a word, yes, many/most linux docs suck.Man is useful once you understand the basics of how a command works.
However, if you're sufficiently green, decoding the language in many of the man pages is difficult.
When executing certain system management tasks as root, a mistake can be catastrophic.
Google will pull up the man page for you, but also the infinitely more educational blog and faq pages that decribe what a command does, when you use it and how to trouble shoot problems encountered with it.The problem with Google, is the non-official blogs and faqs frequently reference older version of the command line tools bundled in the latest distros.
Occasionally, the tool author radically alters the tools between releases rendering the non-official docs inaccurate... Then the neophyte/newbie hobbyist is up the creek with a paddle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311800</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1259861820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you were to use KDE4, all you need to do is search the "k menu" for CD or DVD and you will find k3b right away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you were to use KDE4 , all you need to do is search the " k menu " for CD or DVD and you will find k3b right away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you were to use KDE4, all you need to do is search the "k menu" for CD or DVD and you will find k3b right away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312780</id>
	<title>Re:Not just beginner to apprentice.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259864820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like you need a distro that doesn't try to abstract everything from you. Try Arch (for binary packages) or Gentoo (source based).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like you need a distro that does n't try to abstract everything from you .
Try Arch ( for binary packages ) or Gentoo ( source based ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like you need a distro that doesn't try to abstract everything from you.
Try Arch (for binary packages) or Gentoo (source based).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312854</id>
	<title>Re:Yes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259865180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is X not documented? For users, xorg.conf and all of the X servers have man pages, as well as pages for each in-tree server module. GLX is the only one where documentation doesn't really correlate to what the module's actually used for, and we normally refer people to the Red Book for that.</p><p>For programmers, a fair amount of Xlib is documented, and XCB is fully documented.</p><p>Also, patches welcome, if you actually have things you can point to in X that you'd like fixed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is X not documented ?
For users , xorg.conf and all of the X servers have man pages , as well as pages for each in-tree server module .
GLX is the only one where documentation does n't really correlate to what the module 's actually used for , and we normally refer people to the Red Book for that.For programmers , a fair amount of Xlib is documented , and XCB is fully documented.Also , patches welcome , if you actually have things you can point to in X that you 'd like fixed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is X not documented?
For users, xorg.conf and all of the X servers have man pages, as well as pages for each in-tree server module.
GLX is the only one where documentation doesn't really correlate to what the module's actually used for, and we normally refer people to the Red Book for that.For programmers, a fair amount of Xlib is documented, and XCB is fully documented.Also, patches welcome, if you actually have things you can point to in X that you'd like fixed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311182</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259859900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>man man<br>man -k (search term)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>man manman -k ( search term )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>man manman -k (search term)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30317554</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>rantingkitten</author>
	<datestamp>1259839260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree.  Windows is much easier.  To fix a problem you just need to open regedit and find HKEY\_LOCAL\_MACHINES\Software\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\, find a key like AUOptions, and change the value from 0x86244 to (obviously) 0x73352.

<br> <br>
Ready for the desktop!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
Windows is much easier .
To fix a problem you just need to open regedit and find HKEY \ _LOCAL \ _MACHINES \ Software \ Policies \ Microsoft \ Windows \ , find a key like AUOptions , and change the value from 0x86244 to ( obviously ) 0x73352 .
Ready for the desktop !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
Windows is much easier.
To fix a problem you just need to open regedit and find HKEY\_LOCAL\_MACHINES\Software\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\, find a key like AUOptions, and change the value from 0x86244 to (obviously) 0x73352.
Ready for the desktop!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30319990</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259853120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been a Linux user since 1998, and I've found that with mass adoption of distros like Ubuntu, diagnosing problems has become a lot harder.  If I have a problem, Google results are overrun with people asking similar but not identical questions.  What's more, the average intelligence of the people on these forums is not very high.  In particular, they think that all issues that are vaguely similar must be the same, so they omit a high number of details and dismiss questions that are really distinct issues.  And most of the suggestions people give on the forums are kind of dumb, like saying "Foo doesn't work?  Well, make sure to look at Bar", where Bar is completely orthogonal to Foo, and it doesn't exactly take a genius to see that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been a Linux user since 1998 , and I 've found that with mass adoption of distros like Ubuntu , diagnosing problems has become a lot harder .
If I have a problem , Google results are overrun with people asking similar but not identical questions .
What 's more , the average intelligence of the people on these forums is not very high .
In particular , they think that all issues that are vaguely similar must be the same , so they omit a high number of details and dismiss questions that are really distinct issues .
And most of the suggestions people give on the forums are kind of dumb , like saying " Foo does n't work ?
Well , make sure to look at Bar " , where Bar is completely orthogonal to Foo , and it does n't exactly take a genius to see that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been a Linux user since 1998, and I've found that with mass adoption of distros like Ubuntu, diagnosing problems has become a lot harder.
If I have a problem, Google results are overrun with people asking similar but not identical questions.
What's more, the average intelligence of the people on these forums is not very high.
In particular, they think that all issues that are vaguely similar must be the same, so they omit a high number of details and dismiss questions that are really distinct issues.
And most of the suggestions people give on the forums are kind of dumb, like saying "Foo doesn't work?
Well, make sure to look at Bar", where Bar is completely orthogonal to Foo, and it doesn't exactly take a genius to see that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310582</id>
	<title>Is this really such a sin?</title>
	<author>Zarrot</author>
	<datestamp>1259857680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All documentation sucks now a days.  I default to Google for documentation on everything.  Microsoft doesn't even really ship docs anymore they just link through to their web documentation. It's just the way of things now.  You'll get more and better info from thousands of bloggers and forum posters than you can expect from any doc team.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All documentation sucks now a days .
I default to Google for documentation on everything .
Microsoft does n't even really ship docs anymore they just link through to their web documentation .
It 's just the way of things now .
You 'll get more and better info from thousands of bloggers and forum posters than you can expect from any doc team .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All documentation sucks now a days.
I default to Google for documentation on everything.
Microsoft doesn't even really ship docs anymore they just link through to their web documentation.
It's just the way of things now.
You'll get more and better info from thousands of bloggers and forum posters than you can expect from any doc team.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314330</id>
	<title>floss manuals?</title>
	<author>SpoonyB</author>
	<datestamp>1259870640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I looked but could not see any reference to FLOSS Manuals in the replies to this post.

It's early days but they have an interesting approach to the problems mentioned in the post.

<a href="http://en.flossmanuals.net/" title="flossmanuals.net" rel="nofollow">http://en.flossmanuals.net/</a> [flossmanuals.net]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I looked but could not see any reference to FLOSS Manuals in the replies to this post .
It 's early days but they have an interesting approach to the problems mentioned in the post .
http : //en.flossmanuals.net/ [ flossmanuals.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I looked but could not see any reference to FLOSS Manuals in the replies to this post.
It's early days but they have an interesting approach to the problems mentioned in the post.
http://en.flossmanuals.net/ [flossmanuals.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30318414</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>IrquiM</author>
	<datestamp>1259842980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or just not use ubuntu</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or just not use ubuntu</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or just not use ubuntu</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30316096</id>
	<title>Re:It's called engineering</title>
	<author>korpique</author>
	<datestamp>1259834580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh yes.</p><p>Throw in "automate the acceptance tests" between the usage agreement and coding, just for good measure. Well, actually to free the developers from ever worrying whether they met the goals or broke any planned functionality again.</p><p>Really. It's not that hard:<br>- <a href="http://expect.nist.gov/" title="nist.gov" rel="nofollow">Expect</a> [nist.gov] for the commandline,<br>- <a href="http://netcat.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net" rel="nofollow">Netcat</a> [sourceforge.net] for network,<br>- <a href="http://seleniumhq.org/" title="seleniumhq.org" rel="nofollow">Selenium</a> [seleniumhq.org] for web,<br>- <a href="http://robotframework.org/" title="robotframework.org" rel="nofollow">Robot framework</a> [robotframework.org] for graphical user interfaces.</p><p>Googleable, deadwooden and professional help are available on all of above.</p><p>It's a world I'd love to live and work in where programmers were engineers providing precise solutions to actual problems!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yes.Throw in " automate the acceptance tests " between the usage agreement and coding , just for good measure .
Well , actually to free the developers from ever worrying whether they met the goals or broke any planned functionality again.Really .
It 's not that hard : - Expect [ nist.gov ] for the commandline,- Netcat [ sourceforge.net ] for network,- Selenium [ seleniumhq.org ] for web,- Robot framework [ robotframework.org ] for graphical user interfaces.Googleable , deadwooden and professional help are available on all of above.It 's a world I 'd love to live and work in where programmers were engineers providing precise solutions to actual problems !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yes.Throw in "automate the acceptance tests" between the usage agreement and coding, just for good measure.
Well, actually to free the developers from ever worrying whether they met the goals or broke any planned functionality again.Really.
It's not that hard:- Expect [nist.gov] for the commandline,- Netcat [sourceforge.net] for network,- Selenium [seleniumhq.org] for web,- Robot framework [robotframework.org] for graphical user interfaces.Googleable, deadwooden and professional help are available on all of above.It's a world I'd love to live and work in where programmers were engineers providing precise solutions to actual problems!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310518</id>
	<title>using Google before a man page?</title>
	<author>wiredog</author>
	<datestamp>1259857440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes.  Why not?  Most commercial software ships without documentation too.  If I want to figure out how to do something on Mac I google for it first. Similarly for Windows.  When I was first starting out, Back In The Day (well, mid-90's) I bought "Running Linux" and "Linux in a Nutshell" (which, IIRC, was compiled from man pages) from O'Reilly, and read those rather than using man pages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
Why not ?
Most commercial software ships without documentation too .
If I want to figure out how to do something on Mac I google for it first .
Similarly for Windows .
When I was first starting out , Back In The Day ( well , mid-90 's ) I bought " Running Linux " and " Linux in a Nutshell " ( which , IIRC , was compiled from man pages ) from O'Reilly , and read those rather than using man pages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
Why not?
Most commercial software ships without documentation too.
If I want to figure out how to do something on Mac I google for it first.
Similarly for Windows.
When I was first starting out, Back In The Day (well, mid-90's) I bought "Running Linux" and "Linux in a Nutshell" (which, IIRC, was compiled from man pages) from O'Reilly, and read those rather than using man pages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310474</id>
	<title>Of course it is.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259857260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But on the flipside, I tend to use Google as the documentation for Windows/MacOS and most assorted non-free software that runs on them, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But on the flipside , I tend to use Google as the documentation for Windows/MacOS and most assorted non-free software that runs on them , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But on the flipside, I tend to use Google as the documentation for Windows/MacOS and most assorted non-free software that runs on them, too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310816</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259858640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd say that Linux documentation is bad/lacking even for advanced users and &#252;bergeeks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say that Linux documentation is bad/lacking even for advanced users and   bergeeks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say that Linux documentation is bad/lacking even for advanced users and übergeeks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310540</id>
	<title>Does Linus poop in the woods?</title>
	<author>drdanny\_orig</author>
	<datestamp>1259857500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Huh?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30381372</id>
	<title>A general problem about community education</title>
	<author>andyo</author>
	<datestamp>1259577600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is not enough to recruit experts (with or without pay) to write,
because they can't keep up with changes--I found that out working on
books about Linux at O'Reilly. But it is not enough to ask the
community to contribute micro-documents--that causes everything comes
out disorganized and of wildly varying quality.
<p>
My most comprehensive article on the issues is:
</p><p>

<a href="http://praxagora.com/andyo/professional/community\_author\_collaboration.html" title="praxagora.com">http://praxagora.com/andyo/professional/community\_author\_collaboration.html</a> [praxagora.com]
</p><p>
Much more for the curious at:
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.praxagora.com/community\_documentation/" title="praxagora.com">http://www.praxagora.com/community\_documentation/</a> [praxagora.com]
</p><p>
At FLOSS Manuals (http://flossmanuals.net/), where I volunteer, we're
filling the gap with well-organized writing projects combining peer
review from the public with experts from various free software
packages. There's a very active mailing list and a lot of highly
praised output on the web site.
</p><p>
(I may go back to one of the articles cited in the posting and add
this comment to it.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not enough to recruit experts ( with or without pay ) to write , because they ca n't keep up with changes--I found that out working on books about Linux at O'Reilly .
But it is not enough to ask the community to contribute micro-documents--that causes everything comes out disorganized and of wildly varying quality .
My most comprehensive article on the issues is : http : //praxagora.com/andyo/professional/community \ _author \ _collaboration.html [ praxagora.com ] Much more for the curious at : http : //www.praxagora.com/community \ _documentation/ [ praxagora.com ] At FLOSS Manuals ( http : //flossmanuals.net/ ) , where I volunteer , we 're filling the gap with well-organized writing projects combining peer review from the public with experts from various free software packages .
There 's a very active mailing list and a lot of highly praised output on the web site .
( I may go back to one of the articles cited in the posting and add this comment to it .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not enough to recruit experts (with or without pay) to write,
because they can't keep up with changes--I found that out working on
books about Linux at O'Reilly.
But it is not enough to ask the
community to contribute micro-documents--that causes everything comes
out disorganized and of wildly varying quality.
My most comprehensive article on the issues is:


http://praxagora.com/andyo/professional/community\_author\_collaboration.html [praxagora.com]

Much more for the curious at:

http://www.praxagora.com/community\_documentation/ [praxagora.com]

At FLOSS Manuals (http://flossmanuals.net/), where I volunteer, we're
filling the gap with well-organized writing projects combining peer
review from the public with experts from various free software
packages.
There's a very active mailing list and a lot of highly
praised output on the web site.
(I may go back to one of the articles cited in the posting and add
this comment to it.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30324772</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1259947140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well I've been using Linux since 1979, and the documentation has never been that great.  I remember asking Linus and some of the other developers about it when I ran into them at Studio 54, but they were too stoned to answer.  Man, it was crazy back then, you'd get high and write a program and you wouldn't even care about the documentation.  You'd just copy over someone else's man pages, or paste in Beegees lyrics, or whatever you're drug-addled brain came up with at the time.</p></div><p>And that, kids, is how Emacs came about &lt;ducks&gt;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I 've been using Linux since 1979 , and the documentation has never been that great .
I remember asking Linus and some of the other developers about it when I ran into them at Studio 54 , but they were too stoned to answer .
Man , it was crazy back then , you 'd get high and write a program and you would n't even care about the documentation .
You 'd just copy over someone else 's man pages , or paste in Beegees lyrics , or whatever you 're drug-addled brain came up with at the time.And that , kids , is how Emacs came about</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I've been using Linux since 1979, and the documentation has never been that great.
I remember asking Linus and some of the other developers about it when I ran into them at Studio 54, but they were too stoned to answer.
Man, it was crazy back then, you'd get high and write a program and you wouldn't even care about the documentation.
You'd just copy over someone else's man pages, or paste in Beegees lyrics, or whatever you're drug-addled brain came up with at the time.And that, kids, is how Emacs came about 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310800</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>blincoln</author>
	<datestamp>1259858580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Not only that, the man page rarely has useful examples, one of the biggest problems.</i></p><p>Exactly. If you ask me, there are two layers of problem with the "man page model". The first is that it expects the user to know which command they want to use (so they can call up the man page for it), and the second is that (as genkael wrote) the man pages generally describe the syntax of the command, not how to accomplish various real-world tasks with it.</p><p>There are certainly times when I already know what command I want to use and what parameters I want to pass to it, but usually if I'm reading documentation it's because I know what <i>task</i> I want to accomplish, not necessarily how to map that task to a command and its associated parameters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that , the man page rarely has useful examples , one of the biggest problems.Exactly .
If you ask me , there are two layers of problem with the " man page model " .
The first is that it expects the user to know which command they want to use ( so they can call up the man page for it ) , and the second is that ( as genkael wrote ) the man pages generally describe the syntax of the command , not how to accomplish various real-world tasks with it.There are certainly times when I already know what command I want to use and what parameters I want to pass to it , but usually if I 'm reading documentation it 's because I know what task I want to accomplish , not necessarily how to map that task to a command and its associated parameters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that, the man page rarely has useful examples, one of the biggest problems.Exactly.
If you ask me, there are two layers of problem with the "man page model".
The first is that it expects the user to know which command they want to use (so they can call up the man page for it), and the second is that (as genkael wrote) the man pages generally describe the syntax of the command, not how to accomplish various real-world tasks with it.There are certainly times when I already know what command I want to use and what parameters I want to pass to it, but usually if I'm reading documentation it's because I know what task I want to accomplish, not necessarily how to map that task to a command and its associated parameters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313488</id>
	<title>"Has it come down to..."</title>
	<author>rnturn</author>
	<datestamp>1259867400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"<i>... using Google before a man page?</i>"</p></div></blockquote><p>Rare is the Linux software that even supplies a man page any more. And when they do there, typically, is no "examples" section as one finds in most of the commercial UNIX OSes you encounter.

</p><p>I especially love the packages that <i>do</i> supply a man page that consists of one line that informs you that the <i>real</i> documentation is found via "info".  Then there are the info pages that seems to be nothing but the old man page.  This doesn't need to turn into a Gnome Vs. KDE war but I can't think of anyone who'd argue that we can't freakin' pick a single documentation model.  I'd, humbly, suggest the old man page style. It's fairly portable so anyone writing software that can be run on UNIX or Linux can write the documentation <i>once</i> and be done with it. (Jeez, is nroff markup really harder than creating an info page or setting up a wiki. And let's not get started on how you even read the support wiki when you're working on a system that doesn't have the network up and running.)  And please add an "EXAMPLES" section if some of the command options are arcane enough that a simple memory jog isn't enough to let one know why you'd want to use the "-xyz" switch.

</p><p>Apart from the man/info page vs. Google problem is the problem of <i>really</i> crappy installation instructions.  I've run into too many that leave out significant steps. I'm sure they were obvious to the developers but, since Linux software developers often change the way they develop their code and the installation options often change at the same time, it's really important to make sure the lowly INSTALL file actually contains <i>all</i> of the steps needed to install the package. (Hey, not everything comes in a handy RPM or whatever your package manager of choice uses.)  And you developers that write fancy web-based installers that ask all sort sorts of detailed questions:  Make sure you are actually <i>using</i> that information. For example, if you ask for the database administration password, your installer has the means of checking for and, if necessary, creating the database, users, etc. your software uses.  If you ask that sort of question of the user, s/he's far more often than not going to assume that you needed that information in order to do a bunch of tasks <i>as that administrator</i>.  Asking for that information and then leaving it up to the user to perform all those tasks and then not even mentioning that in the INSTALL file is one reason why Open Source software has a bad reputation.  (I won't give commercial software a pass on this either. I know of one package that made a big deal about their software running on a particular flavor of UNIX. <i>Technically</i> that was true but not until you editted a half dozen scripts and configuration files to correct the errors that prevented Java from running. While their support critters were insisting that it ran "out of the box", I had already started modifying the company's SOP for installing that package to include the list of files that had to be fixed before turning the system over to end users.)

</p><p>BTW, Carla's blog entries on this were spot on in several areas. Suggested reading if one hasn't done it yet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... using Google before a man page ?
" Rare is the Linux software that even supplies a man page any more .
And when they do there , typically , is no " examples " section as one finds in most of the commercial UNIX OSes you encounter .
I especially love the packages that do supply a man page that consists of one line that informs you that the real documentation is found via " info " .
Then there are the info pages that seems to be nothing but the old man page .
This does n't need to turn into a Gnome Vs. KDE war but I ca n't think of anyone who 'd argue that we ca n't freakin ' pick a single documentation model .
I 'd , humbly , suggest the old man page style .
It 's fairly portable so anyone writing software that can be run on UNIX or Linux can write the documentation once and be done with it .
( Jeez , is nroff markup really harder than creating an info page or setting up a wiki .
And let 's not get started on how you even read the support wiki when you 're working on a system that does n't have the network up and running .
) And please add an " EXAMPLES " section if some of the command options are arcane enough that a simple memory jog is n't enough to let one know why you 'd want to use the " -xyz " switch .
Apart from the man/info page vs. Google problem is the problem of really crappy installation instructions .
I 've run into too many that leave out significant steps .
I 'm sure they were obvious to the developers but , since Linux software developers often change the way they develop their code and the installation options often change at the same time , it 's really important to make sure the lowly INSTALL file actually contains all of the steps needed to install the package .
( Hey , not everything comes in a handy RPM or whatever your package manager of choice uses .
) And you developers that write fancy web-based installers that ask all sort sorts of detailed questions : Make sure you are actually using that information .
For example , if you ask for the database administration password , your installer has the means of checking for and , if necessary , creating the database , users , etc .
your software uses .
If you ask that sort of question of the user , s/he 's far more often than not going to assume that you needed that information in order to do a bunch of tasks as that administrator .
Asking for that information and then leaving it up to the user to perform all those tasks and then not even mentioning that in the INSTALL file is one reason why Open Source software has a bad reputation .
( I wo n't give commercial software a pass on this either .
I know of one package that made a big deal about their software running on a particular flavor of UNIX .
Technically that was true but not until you editted a half dozen scripts and configuration files to correct the errors that prevented Java from running .
While their support critters were insisting that it ran " out of the box " , I had already started modifying the company 's SOP for installing that package to include the list of files that had to be fixed before turning the system over to end users .
) BTW , Carla 's blog entries on this were spot on in several areas .
Suggested reading if one has n't done it yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"... using Google before a man page?
"Rare is the Linux software that even supplies a man page any more.
And when they do there, typically, is no "examples" section as one finds in most of the commercial UNIX OSes you encounter.
I especially love the packages that do supply a man page that consists of one line that informs you that the real documentation is found via "info".
Then there are the info pages that seems to be nothing but the old man page.
This doesn't need to turn into a Gnome Vs. KDE war but I can't think of anyone who'd argue that we can't freakin' pick a single documentation model.
I'd, humbly, suggest the old man page style.
It's fairly portable so anyone writing software that can be run on UNIX or Linux can write the documentation once and be done with it.
(Jeez, is nroff markup really harder than creating an info page or setting up a wiki.
And let's not get started on how you even read the support wiki when you're working on a system that doesn't have the network up and running.
)  And please add an "EXAMPLES" section if some of the command options are arcane enough that a simple memory jog isn't enough to let one know why you'd want to use the "-xyz" switch.
Apart from the man/info page vs. Google problem is the problem of really crappy installation instructions.
I've run into too many that leave out significant steps.
I'm sure they were obvious to the developers but, since Linux software developers often change the way they develop their code and the installation options often change at the same time, it's really important to make sure the lowly INSTALL file actually contains all of the steps needed to install the package.
(Hey, not everything comes in a handy RPM or whatever your package manager of choice uses.
)  And you developers that write fancy web-based installers that ask all sort sorts of detailed questions:  Make sure you are actually using that information.
For example, if you ask for the database administration password, your installer has the means of checking for and, if necessary, creating the database, users, etc.
your software uses.
If you ask that sort of question of the user, s/he's far more often than not going to assume that you needed that information in order to do a bunch of tasks as that administrator.
Asking for that information and then leaving it up to the user to perform all those tasks and then not even mentioning that in the INSTALL file is one reason why Open Source software has a bad reputation.
(I won't give commercial software a pass on this either.
I know of one package that made a big deal about their software running on a particular flavor of UNIX.
Technically that was true but not until you editted a half dozen scripts and configuration files to correct the errors that prevented Java from running.
While their support critters were insisting that it ran "out of the box", I had already started modifying the company's SOP for installing that package to include the list of files that had to be fixed before turning the system over to end users.
)

BTW, Carla's blog entries on this were spot on in several areas.
Suggested reading if one hasn't done it yet.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311092</id>
	<title>Linux documentation = the house in Beetlejuice</title>
	<author>Jazwiecki</author>
	<datestamp>1259859600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...for the intermediate user, or weeks-past-beginner user, anyway.  Getting the basic commands down wasn't a problem when I first started using Linux, but I stumbled into an enormous gap between the easiest stuff and the more advanced stuff, where it seemed like some key knowledge was presumed but never, ever spoken of.  man pages without examples were one regular frustration, and having to search for thirty minutes just to figure out how to track down a simple, crucial piece of information.

It was a little like the house in Beetlejuice: sometimes I'd search for help and find a perfect little model village, obviously tended with care, and sometimes I'd open a door onto a vast, yawning desert filled with vicious candy-striped worms.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...for the intermediate user , or weeks-past-beginner user , anyway .
Getting the basic commands down was n't a problem when I first started using Linux , but I stumbled into an enormous gap between the easiest stuff and the more advanced stuff , where it seemed like some key knowledge was presumed but never , ever spoken of .
man pages without examples were one regular frustration , and having to search for thirty minutes just to figure out how to track down a simple , crucial piece of information .
It was a little like the house in Beetlejuice : sometimes I 'd search for help and find a perfect little model village , obviously tended with care , and sometimes I 'd open a door onto a vast , yawning desert filled with vicious candy-striped worms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...for the intermediate user, or weeks-past-beginner user, anyway.
Getting the basic commands down wasn't a problem when I first started using Linux, but I stumbled into an enormous gap between the easiest stuff and the more advanced stuff, where it seemed like some key knowledge was presumed but never, ever spoken of.
man pages without examples were one regular frustration, and having to search for thirty minutes just to figure out how to track down a simple, crucial piece of information.
It was a little like the house in Beetlejuice: sometimes I'd search for help and find a perfect little model village, obviously tended with care, and sometimes I'd open a door onto a vast, yawning desert filled with vicious candy-striped worms.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314978</id>
	<title>Go to the library</title>
	<author>fotoguzzi</author>
	<datestamp>1259873340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and find a book called Ubuntu Linux for Dummies</htmltext>
<tokenext>and find a book called Ubuntu Linux for Dummies</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and find a book called Ubuntu Linux for Dummies</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312534</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259864040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ubuntu might have great beginner friendliness, but, when something breaks, all hell breaks loose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ubuntu might have great beginner friendliness , but , when something breaks , all hell breaks loose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ubuntu might have great beginner friendliness, but, when something breaks, all hell breaks loose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30332744</id>
	<title>The problem isn't docs, the problem is lusers</title>
	<author>n0tquitesane</author>
	<datestamp>1259949540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps those lusers just need to learn how to properly as a question.  Here is an example:</p><p>Abbott calling Costello</p><p>Costello calls Abbott with some questions about UNIX.</p><p>Costello: What is the command that will tell me the revision code of a program?</p><p>Abbott: Yes, that's correct.</p><p>Costello: No, what is it?</p><p>Abbott: Yes.</p><p>Costello: So, which is the one?</p><p>Abbott: No. 'which' is used to find the program.</p><p>Costello: Stop this. Who are you?</p><p>Abbott: Use 'who am i' not 'who r yoo'. You can also 'finger yoo' to get information about 'yoo'.</p><p>Costello: All I want to know is what finds the revision code?</p><p>Abbott: Use 'what'.</p><p>Costello: That's what I am trying to find out. Isn't that true?</p><p>Abbott: No. 'true' gives you 0.</p><p>Costello: Which one?</p><p>Abbott: 'true' gives you 0. 'which programname'</p><p>Costello: Let's get back to my problem. What program? How do I find it?</p><p>Abbott: Type 'find / -name it -print' to find 'it'. Type 'what program' to get the revision code.</p><p>Costello: I want to find the revision code.</p><p>Abbott: You can't 'find revisioncode', you must use 'what program'.</p><p>Costello: Which command will do what I need?</p><p>Abbott: No. 'which command' will find 'command'.</p><p>Costello: I think I understand. Let me write that.</p><p>Abbott: You can 'write that' only if 'that' is a user on your system.</p><p>Costello: Write what?</p><p>Abbott: No. 'write that'. 'what program'.</p><p>Costello: Cut that out!</p><p>Abbott: Yes. those are valid files for 'cut'. Don't forget the options.</p><p>Costello: Do you always do this?</p><p>Abbott: 'du' will give you disk usage.</p><p>Costello: HELP!</p><p>Abbott: 'help' is only used for Source Code Control System (SCCS).</p><p>Costello: You make me angry.</p><p>Abbott: No, I don't 'make me' angry but I did 'make programname' when I was upset once.</p><p>Costello: I don't want to make trouble, so no more.</p><p>Abbott: No 'more'? 'which' will help you find 'more'. Every system has 'more'.</p><p>Costello: Nice help! I'm confused more now!</p><p>Abbott: Understand that since 'help' is such a small program, it is better not to 'nice help'. and 'more now' is not allowed but 'at now' is. Unless of course 'now' is a file name.</p><p>Costello: This is almost as confusing as my PC.</p><p>Abbott: I didn't know you needed help with 'pc'. Let me get you to the Pascal compiler team. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps those lusers just need to learn how to properly as a question .
Here is an example : Abbott calling CostelloCostello calls Abbott with some questions about UNIX.Costello : What is the command that will tell me the revision code of a program ? Abbott : Yes , that 's correct.Costello : No , what is it ? Abbott : Yes.Costello : So , which is the one ? Abbott : No .
'which ' is used to find the program.Costello : Stop this .
Who are you ? Abbott : Use 'who am i ' not 'who r yoo' .
You can also 'finger yoo ' to get information about 'yoo'.Costello : All I want to know is what finds the revision code ? Abbott : Use 'what'.Costello : That 's what I am trying to find out .
Is n't that true ? Abbott : No .
'true ' gives you 0.Costello : Which one ? Abbott : 'true ' gives you 0 .
'which programname'Costello : Let 's get back to my problem .
What program ?
How do I find it ? Abbott : Type 'find / -name it -print ' to find 'it' .
Type 'what program ' to get the revision code.Costello : I want to find the revision code.Abbott : You ca n't 'find revisioncode ' , you must use 'what program'.Costello : Which command will do what I need ? Abbott : No .
'which command ' will find 'command'.Costello : I think I understand .
Let me write that.Abbott : You can 'write that ' only if 'that ' is a user on your system.Costello : Write what ? Abbott : No .
'write that' .
'what program'.Costello : Cut that out ! Abbott : Yes .
those are valid files for 'cut' .
Do n't forget the options.Costello : Do you always do this ? Abbott : 'du ' will give you disk usage.Costello : HELP ! Abbott : 'help ' is only used for Source Code Control System ( SCCS ) .Costello : You make me angry.Abbott : No , I do n't 'make me ' angry but I did 'make programname ' when I was upset once.Costello : I do n't want to make trouble , so no more.Abbott : No 'more ' ?
'which ' will help you find 'more' .
Every system has 'more'.Costello : Nice help !
I 'm confused more now ! Abbott : Understand that since 'help ' is such a small program , it is better not to 'nice help' .
and 'more now ' is not allowed but 'at now ' is .
Unless of course 'now ' is a file name.Costello : This is almost as confusing as my PC.Abbott : I did n't know you needed help with 'pc' .
Let me get you to the Pascal compiler team .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps those lusers just need to learn how to properly as a question.
Here is an example:Abbott calling CostelloCostello calls Abbott with some questions about UNIX.Costello: What is the command that will tell me the revision code of a program?Abbott: Yes, that's correct.Costello: No, what is it?Abbott: Yes.Costello: So, which is the one?Abbott: No.
'which' is used to find the program.Costello: Stop this.
Who are you?Abbott: Use 'who am i' not 'who r yoo'.
You can also 'finger yoo' to get information about 'yoo'.Costello: All I want to know is what finds the revision code?Abbott: Use 'what'.Costello: That's what I am trying to find out.
Isn't that true?Abbott: No.
'true' gives you 0.Costello: Which one?Abbott: 'true' gives you 0.
'which programname'Costello: Let's get back to my problem.
What program?
How do I find it?Abbott: Type 'find / -name it -print' to find 'it'.
Type 'what program' to get the revision code.Costello: I want to find the revision code.Abbott: You can't 'find revisioncode', you must use 'what program'.Costello: Which command will do what I need?Abbott: No.
'which command' will find 'command'.Costello: I think I understand.
Let me write that.Abbott: You can 'write that' only if 'that' is a user on your system.Costello: Write what?Abbott: No.
'write that'.
'what program'.Costello: Cut that out!Abbott: Yes.
those are valid files for 'cut'.
Don't forget the options.Costello: Do you always do this?Abbott: 'du' will give you disk usage.Costello: HELP!Abbott: 'help' is only used for Source Code Control System (SCCS).Costello: You make me angry.Abbott: No, I don't 'make me' angry but I did 'make programname' when I was upset once.Costello: I don't want to make trouble, so no more.Abbott: No 'more'?
'which' will help you find 'more'.
Every system has 'more'.Costello: Nice help!
I'm confused more now!Abbott: Understand that since 'help' is such a small program, it is better not to 'nice help'.
and 'more now' is not allowed but 'at now' is.
Unless of course 'now' is a file name.Costello: This is almost as confusing as my PC.Abbott: I didn't know you needed help with 'pc'.
Let me get you to the Pascal compiler team. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310762</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>FTWinston</author>
	<datestamp>1259858400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had several issues and tasks that I wished to perform on an ubuntu install on my now-deceased old machine.
<br> <br>
Some were easy to find, but some involved wading through page after page of contradictory forum advice, or advice that seemed to completely disable my network adaptor. Things that I had expected to be possible through a GUI required pasting invalid forum syntax into system-critical files, sometimes with unpleasant results.
<br> <br>
I was using linux only because I had to (producing dedicated server binaries for a source mod server), and my task was pretty non-trivial for a first-time user. I really did try to enjoy the experience... but I found it largely cumbersome, and haven't been back. Which is a shame, tbh, cos I'd <i>like</i> to like it.
<br> <br>
The main problem, for me, was that it felt like for every task I wanted to perform, I had to find an expert person on a forum who already knew precisely how to achieve said task. There was usually little possibility of the self-discovery that is generally possible with an intuitive GUI, in the areas where a GUI was lacking.
<br> <br>
With hindsight, it would have been more efficient to have just paid an expert to produce the binary for me. Or better yet, to set up my environment the way I wanted it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had several issues and tasks that I wished to perform on an ubuntu install on my now-deceased old machine .
Some were easy to find , but some involved wading through page after page of contradictory forum advice , or advice that seemed to completely disable my network adaptor .
Things that I had expected to be possible through a GUI required pasting invalid forum syntax into system-critical files , sometimes with unpleasant results .
I was using linux only because I had to ( producing dedicated server binaries for a source mod server ) , and my task was pretty non-trivial for a first-time user .
I really did try to enjoy the experience... but I found it largely cumbersome , and have n't been back .
Which is a shame , tbh , cos I 'd like to like it .
The main problem , for me , was that it felt like for every task I wanted to perform , I had to find an expert person on a forum who already knew precisely how to achieve said task .
There was usually little possibility of the self-discovery that is generally possible with an intuitive GUI , in the areas where a GUI was lacking .
With hindsight , it would have been more efficient to have just paid an expert to produce the binary for me .
Or better yet , to set up my environment the way I wanted it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had several issues and tasks that I wished to perform on an ubuntu install on my now-deceased old machine.
Some were easy to find, but some involved wading through page after page of contradictory forum advice, or advice that seemed to completely disable my network adaptor.
Things that I had expected to be possible through a GUI required pasting invalid forum syntax into system-critical files, sometimes with unpleasant results.
I was using linux only because I had to (producing dedicated server binaries for a source mod server), and my task was pretty non-trivial for a first-time user.
I really did try to enjoy the experience... but I found it largely cumbersome, and haven't been back.
Which is a shame, tbh, cos I'd like to like it.
The main problem, for me, was that it felt like for every task I wanted to perform, I had to find an expert person on a forum who already knew precisely how to achieve said task.
There was usually little possibility of the self-discovery that is generally possible with an intuitive GUI, in the areas where a GUI was lacking.
With hindsight, it would have been more efficient to have just paid an expert to produce the binary for me.
Or better yet, to set up my environment the way I wanted it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311028</id>
	<title>CMD.exe /? vs Linux Man pages</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259859420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All one need to do is compare Microsoft's CMD.exe documentation to Linux Man Pages.<br>
<br>
Drop into a command prompt; every single Batch command is fully detailed in both:<br>
1) What flags do<br>
2) Robust examples of usage. <br>
<br>
While this may not be Windows-proper if you are going to compare Man pages to Windows documentation, at least compare it to the most similiar instance. CMD.exe help and help on command-line commands (/?) blows man-pages away.<br>
<br>
And as other posters have noted there is so much duplication/mirroring of man-pages online that often it is difficult to find anything except that repeated information ad nauseum.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All one need to do is compare Microsoft 's CMD.exe documentation to Linux Man Pages .
Drop into a command prompt ; every single Batch command is fully detailed in both : 1 ) What flags do 2 ) Robust examples of usage .
While this may not be Windows-proper if you are going to compare Man pages to Windows documentation , at least compare it to the most similiar instance .
CMD.exe help and help on command-line commands ( / ?
) blows man-pages away .
And as other posters have noted there is so much duplication/mirroring of man-pages online that often it is difficult to find anything except that repeated information ad nauseum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All one need to do is compare Microsoft's CMD.exe documentation to Linux Man Pages.
Drop into a command prompt; every single Batch command is fully detailed in both:
1) What flags do
2) Robust examples of usage.
While this may not be Windows-proper if you are going to compare Man pages to Windows documentation, at least compare it to the most similiar instance.
CMD.exe help and help on command-line commands (/?
) blows man-pages away.
And as other posters have noted there is so much duplication/mirroring of man-pages online that often it is difficult to find anything except that repeated information ad nauseum.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314758</id>
	<title>MAN pages should be reorged</title>
	<author>Daemon Duck</author>
	<datestamp>1259872380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I always thought the worst aspect of the manpage system was that the examples for usage were at the bottom in most. How many times have you pulled up a command for a quick refresher only to scroll through 20 screens of details to get what you wanted?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always thought the worst aspect of the manpage system was that the examples for usage were at the bottom in most .
How many times have you pulled up a command for a quick refresher only to scroll through 20 screens of details to get what you wanted ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always thought the worst aspect of the manpage system was that the examples for usage were at the bottom in most.
How many times have you pulled up a command for a quick refresher only to scroll through 20 screens of details to get what you wanted?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310850</id>
	<title>Re:And good luck with Google, too</title>
	<author>godrik</author>
	<datestamp>1259858760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And you are exposed to none compatible solutions. The number of doc out there that still use insmod/rmmod instead of modprobe is high. The number of solutions that tell to install software manually instead of using the one from your distro repository is high. Google is good to get a basic understanding of the concept and problem. Then read the manual (not only talking about man pages)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you are exposed to none compatible solutions .
The number of doc out there that still use insmod/rmmod instead of modprobe is high .
The number of solutions that tell to install software manually instead of using the one from your distro repository is high .
Google is good to get a basic understanding of the concept and problem .
Then read the manual ( not only talking about man pages )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you are exposed to none compatible solutions.
The number of doc out there that still use insmod/rmmod instead of modprobe is high.
The number of solutions that tell to install software manually instead of using the one from your distro repository is high.
Google is good to get a basic understanding of the concept and problem.
Then read the manual (not only talking about man pages)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310654</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1259857980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not to mention you need to know which man page to invoke which is *REAL* great for beginners.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention you need to know which man page to invoke which is * REAL * great for beginners .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention you need to know which man page to invoke which is *REAL* great for beginners.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311358</id>
	<title>Linux Documentation.</title>
	<author>mirky</author>
	<datestamp>1259860560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If computers were for smart people only, the Mac would never have been invented.

Documentation... Documentation... We don't need no stinking documentation.

Man pages are great if you need to do something at that level but emailers and surfers don't require man pages most people don't even know they exist. Non technical people have some difficulty with man pages because they "look to technical".
I have to admit that I use google for looking up almost everything I use Windows/Mac/Linux/UNIX systems on a regular basis. Having a single point (browser) to search for stuff reduces the time switching between systems to find something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If computers were for smart people only , the Mac would never have been invented .
Documentation... Documentation... We do n't need no stinking documentation .
Man pages are great if you need to do something at that level but emailers and surfers do n't require man pages most people do n't even know they exist .
Non technical people have some difficulty with man pages because they " look to technical " .
I have to admit that I use google for looking up almost everything I use Windows/Mac/Linux/UNIX systems on a regular basis .
Having a single point ( browser ) to search for stuff reduces the time switching between systems to find something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If computers were for smart people only, the Mac would never have been invented.
Documentation... Documentation... We don't need no stinking documentation.
Man pages are great if you need to do something at that level but emailers and surfers don't require man pages most people don't even know they exist.
Non technical people have some difficulty with man pages because they "look to technical".
I have to admit that I use google for looking up almost everything I use Windows/Mac/Linux/UNIX systems on a regular basis.
Having a single point (browser) to search for stuff reduces the time switching between systems to find something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30319430</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1259848740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Creating documentation for mainstream users is completely pointless. I personally think Ubuntuforums has great docs.</p></div><p>Unless the help you need involves getting <em>to</em> Ubuntuforums, such as a broken X, broken web browser, broken network card, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Creating documentation for mainstream users is completely pointless .
I personally think Ubuntuforums has great docs.Unless the help you need involves getting to Ubuntuforums , such as a broken X , broken web browser , broken network card , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Creating documentation for mainstream users is completely pointless.
I personally think Ubuntuforums has great docs.Unless the help you need involves getting to Ubuntuforums, such as a broken X, broken web browser, broken network card, etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310884</id>
	<title>Re:Don't like man pages.</title>
	<author>supremebob</author>
	<datestamp>1259858820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not a fan of man pages... they seem to be written by programmers FOR programmers. When I'm reading one, I usually don't want to learn the 50 command line switches that the command has. I just want an example of how to use the command for my particular purpose, which is much easier to find with a Google search.</p><p>Seriously, guys... If you added a one page "Examples" section at the bottom of the man page, it would be infinitely more helpful for end users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a fan of man pages... they seem to be written by programmers FOR programmers .
When I 'm reading one , I usually do n't want to learn the 50 command line switches that the command has .
I just want an example of how to use the command for my particular purpose , which is much easier to find with a Google search.Seriously , guys... If you added a one page " Examples " section at the bottom of the man page , it would be infinitely more helpful for end users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a fan of man pages... they seem to be written by programmers FOR programmers.
When I'm reading one, I usually don't want to learn the 50 command line switches that the command has.
I just want an example of how to use the command for my particular purpose, which is much easier to find with a Google search.Seriously, guys... If you added a one page "Examples" section at the bottom of the man page, it would be infinitely more helpful for end users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310978</id>
	<title>Re:Don't like man pages.</title>
	<author>MpVpRb</author>
	<datestamp>1259859240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man pages are great to remind you of the details, if you already know how something works.

</p><p>Man pages are terrible for learning something new for the first time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man pages are great to remind you of the details , if you already know how something works .
Man pages are terrible for learning something new for the first time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man pages are great to remind you of the details, if you already know how something works.
Man pages are terrible for learning something new for the first time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30318932</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation Doesn't Matter..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259845800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, the microwave we have at work can make you a desperate starving wreck of nerves. Instead of the classic two dials (temperature and time) it has a dozen of buttons none in the office understand at all. Only think we know for sure is that if you push one of them repeatedly, it heats your food, and it you push another one it stops and you can take back your meal. The other ones make funny things like burn the top of whatever you tossed in, let the food cold and the dish burning, or disable the first button. Using it is an everyday adventure; we discover a new magic behavior every week.</p><p>Being all of us coders, I think most of us understand better our computers than this stupid oven thing.</p><p>Um... Maybe I should take a look at the man pages. God knows this CPU box thing gives enough heat to boil water; there must be some command so I can have some CLI-managed coffee.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the microwave we have at work can make you a desperate starving wreck of nerves .
Instead of the classic two dials ( temperature and time ) it has a dozen of buttons none in the office understand at all .
Only think we know for sure is that if you push one of them repeatedly , it heats your food , and it you push another one it stops and you can take back your meal .
The other ones make funny things like burn the top of whatever you tossed in , let the food cold and the dish burning , or disable the first button .
Using it is an everyday adventure ; we discover a new magic behavior every week.Being all of us coders , I think most of us understand better our computers than this stupid oven thing.Um... Maybe I should take a look at the man pages .
God knows this CPU box thing gives enough heat to boil water ; there must be some command so I can have some CLI-managed coffee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the microwave we have at work can make you a desperate starving wreck of nerves.
Instead of the classic two dials (temperature and time) it has a dozen of buttons none in the office understand at all.
Only think we know for sure is that if you push one of them repeatedly, it heats your food, and it you push another one it stops and you can take back your meal.
The other ones make funny things like burn the top of whatever you tossed in, let the food cold and the dish burning, or disable the first button.
Using it is an everyday adventure; we discover a new magic behavior every week.Being all of us coders, I think most of us understand better our computers than this stupid oven thing.Um... Maybe I should take a look at the man pages.
God knows this CPU box thing gives enough heat to boil water; there must be some command so I can have some CLI-managed coffee.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311044</id>
	<title>sun-managers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259859480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>one of the best sources of documentation I've found (for solaris) is sun managers.</p><p>It's not a wiki, it's just a mailing list. But there's no back and forth. You post your problem, people reply to it directly to the poster and the poster posts the answer back to the list after having tried it out.</p><p>I've not come across anything this brilliant in the linux (or bsd) world and it would bear repeating.</p><p>I'm not sure that is documentation in the larger sense, but in the smaller 'solving a particular problem' sense it works fairly well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>one of the best sources of documentation I 've found ( for solaris ) is sun managers.It 's not a wiki , it 's just a mailing list .
But there 's no back and forth .
You post your problem , people reply to it directly to the poster and the poster posts the answer back to the list after having tried it out.I 've not come across anything this brilliant in the linux ( or bsd ) world and it would bear repeating.I 'm not sure that is documentation in the larger sense , but in the smaller 'solving a particular problem ' sense it works fairly well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>one of the best sources of documentation I've found (for solaris) is sun managers.It's not a wiki, it's just a mailing list.
But there's no back and forth.
You post your problem, people reply to it directly to the poster and the poster posts the answer back to the list after having tried it out.I've not come across anything this brilliant in the linux (or bsd) world and it would bear repeating.I'm not sure that is documentation in the larger sense, but in the smaller 'solving a particular problem' sense it works fairly well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314308</id>
	<title>Re:If you write it will they come?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259870520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>How many people actually study the manual that come with any product?</i></p><p>*raises hand*<br>I do. Even on dirt-simple tech I read the manual before I put the battery in or plug the device in. I learned to do that the hard way; fiddling with some device for hours, only to discover that five minutes of reading solved everything, or using it for months and perusing the manual found a feature I sorely wanted but thought the device lacked.</p><p><i>Does Windows come with such a document? </i></p><p>Yes, but it's useless (at least XP's was useless).</p><p><i>Do they even read it?</i></p><p>Never more than once, which is all it tales fo find that it's useless.</p><p>Linux: Our documantation is almost as bad as Microsoft's!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many people actually study the manual that come with any product ?
* raises hand * I do .
Even on dirt-simple tech I read the manual before I put the battery in or plug the device in .
I learned to do that the hard way ; fiddling with some device for hours , only to discover that five minutes of reading solved everything , or using it for months and perusing the manual found a feature I sorely wanted but thought the device lacked.Does Windows come with such a document ?
Yes , but it 's useless ( at least XP 's was useless ) .Do they even read it ? Never more than once , which is all it tales fo find that it 's useless.Linux : Our documantation is almost as bad as Microsoft 's !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many people actually study the manual that come with any product?
*raises hand*I do.
Even on dirt-simple tech I read the manual before I put the battery in or plug the device in.
I learned to do that the hard way; fiddling with some device for hours, only to discover that five minutes of reading solved everything, or using it for months and perusing the manual found a feature I sorely wanted but thought the device lacked.Does Windows come with such a document?
Yes, but it's useless (at least XP's was useless).Do they even read it?Never more than once, which is all it tales fo find that it's useless.Linux: Our documantation is almost as bad as Microsoft's!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313534</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>Bat Country</author>
	<datestamp>1259867520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of the man pages are either lacking, don't install properly, or are completely out of date for anything other than core *sh commands as well.</p><p>I'll use "apropos" and gamely read a man page, but it's useless if the information is wrong or incomplete, which it often is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the man pages are either lacking , do n't install properly , or are completely out of date for anything other than core * sh commands as well.I 'll use " apropos " and gamely read a man page , but it 's useless if the information is wrong or incomplete , which it often is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the man pages are either lacking, don't install properly, or are completely out of date for anything other than core *sh commands as well.I'll use "apropos" and gamely read a man page, but it's useless if the information is wrong or incomplete, which it often is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314552</id>
	<title>unfortunetly yes</title>
	<author>mjwalshe</author>
	<datestamp>1259871480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>look at the poor documentation of the security model of MYSQL</htmltext>
<tokenext>look at the poor documentation of the security model of MYSQL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>look at the poor documentation of the security model of MYSQL</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310646</id>
	<title>How is this different from Windows or Mac?</title>
	<author>Jace Harker</author>
	<datestamp>1259857920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True, the built-in Linux documentation is often lacking.  But in spite of that, it's much, much better than the built-in help files for Windows or Mac.</p><p>No matter which OS I use, Google is always my first stop for technical help.  The difference between them is that with Linux, I usually find a helpful site almost immediately (usually on the Ubuntu Forums).  With Windows, the best help I can find is usually some obscure, confusing entry at the Microsoft Support website.  Ick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True , the built-in Linux documentation is often lacking .
But in spite of that , it 's much , much better than the built-in help files for Windows or Mac.No matter which OS I use , Google is always my first stop for technical help .
The difference between them is that with Linux , I usually find a helpful site almost immediately ( usually on the Ubuntu Forums ) .
With Windows , the best help I can find is usually some obscure , confusing entry at the Microsoft Support website .
Ick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, the built-in Linux documentation is often lacking.
But in spite of that, it's much, much better than the built-in help files for Windows or Mac.No matter which OS I use, Google is always my first stop for technical help.
The difference between them is that with Linux, I usually find a helpful site almost immediately (usually on the Ubuntu Forums).
With Windows, the best help I can find is usually some obscure, confusing entry at the Microsoft Support website.
Ick.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311842</id>
	<title>Re:It's called engineering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259861940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's called filing a bug report or feature request.</p><p>This is what I am doing, this is what is happening, this is what I expect to happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called filing a bug report or feature request.This is what I am doing , this is what is happening , this is what I expect to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called filing a bug report or feature request.This is what I am doing, this is what is happening, this is what I expect to happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311514</id>
	<title>Documentation Doesn't Matter..</title>
	<author>Jahava</author>
	<datestamp>1259861040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>One thing the tech crowd needs to understand: A non-technically-minded person will <b>never</b> want to learn how to use a computer. It's not a matter of ignorance or stupidity. It's simply that a computer is, for them, just another appliance, and while (to you and I) it is a fascinating appliance with limitless potential, it is (for non-technical folks) a tool to get something done.
<p>
Except it's a really horrible appliance.
</p><p>
Compare it to a Microwave. A Microwave is obvious - it heats up things. There are sometimes lots of buttons, but they're not scary, and if something happens that you don't like, there's a big read "Cancel" button sitting right there. So you're not afraid to play around with it. You'll hit some buttons until it does what you want, and then you'll always hit those same buttons because you know they work. Every time you hit those buttons, your food gets warm in exactly the same manner.
</p><p>
Compare this to a computer. They take time to boot (that's not useful!) and crash. Moreso, when they crash, it's usually not fixed by just unplugging. If you push the wrong buttons on a computer, stuff breaks, and more often than not when stuff on a computer breaks, you can't solve it quickly. Best case you have to wait for it to boot again (it's not doing anything!) and worst-case you have to take it into a repair guy.
</p><p>
Even assuming things don't break, <em>per se</em>, look at all that can go wrong. A Microwave will never try to attack you, but if I <a href="http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/12/03/0121206/Cameroon-the-New-Hotbed-of-Malware" title="slashdot.org">miss one button</a> [slashdot.org] my computer becomes hostile! On a computer I have so many options<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... where to save a file? Who knows? I just want to put it somewhere and open it later. Organize? That's hard! What's a directory? Did I put it in "Pictures" or "Documents"? Or is it a Program File? I don't get it.
</p><p>
Now, my Microwave could have a dial on it that lets me control the fan speed. Another dial lets me control the microwave emitter's intensity. I could flip a switch and tune these dials just right, and cook my food just right. Cool! Or I could irradiate things lethally (or not, but it's a metaphor; suspend your imagination a little!) In fact, it's the very lack of options  that makes the Microwave useful. I wouldn't judge a person for being too scared to change those dials, nor would I expect everyone to learn how.
</p><p>
To non-technical people, computers must be appliances, and they will prefer the OS and Software Suite that accomplishes this best. Right now that's Windows and Mac. Linux has too many dials. Things can go wrong. The end user cannot have anything go wrong ever. If you want Linux to reach the end-user, Linux has to be a better appliance than Windows or Mac. Some distros are better than others, but there are still <em>way</em> too many degrees of freedom. Software update sites, administrator accounts, audio not working, suspend issues, complex filesystems....
</p><p>
There are answers online for all of these questions. There is documentation for some, forums for others, and wikis for most. However, they all ignore the fact that these are problems that <em> <b>can not exist</b> </em> in a compelling appliance. Adding more documentation will make my job easier, but it will do nothing for a non-technical user.
</p><p>
Personally, the best appliance of all is looking like Chrome OS. And it's Linux!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing the tech crowd needs to understand : A non-technically-minded person will never want to learn how to use a computer .
It 's not a matter of ignorance or stupidity .
It 's simply that a computer is , for them , just another appliance , and while ( to you and I ) it is a fascinating appliance with limitless potential , it is ( for non-technical folks ) a tool to get something done .
Except it 's a really horrible appliance .
Compare it to a Microwave .
A Microwave is obvious - it heats up things .
There are sometimes lots of buttons , but they 're not scary , and if something happens that you do n't like , there 's a big read " Cancel " button sitting right there .
So you 're not afraid to play around with it .
You 'll hit some buttons until it does what you want , and then you 'll always hit those same buttons because you know they work .
Every time you hit those buttons , your food gets warm in exactly the same manner .
Compare this to a computer .
They take time to boot ( that 's not useful !
) and crash .
Moreso , when they crash , it 's usually not fixed by just unplugging .
If you push the wrong buttons on a computer , stuff breaks , and more often than not when stuff on a computer breaks , you ca n't solve it quickly .
Best case you have to wait for it to boot again ( it 's not doing anything !
) and worst-case you have to take it into a repair guy .
Even assuming things do n't break , per se , look at all that can go wrong .
A Microwave will never try to attack you , but if I miss one button [ slashdot.org ] my computer becomes hostile !
On a computer I have so many options ... where to save a file ?
Who knows ?
I just want to put it somewhere and open it later .
Organize ? That 's hard !
What 's a directory ?
Did I put it in " Pictures " or " Documents " ?
Or is it a Program File ?
I do n't get it .
Now , my Microwave could have a dial on it that lets me control the fan speed .
Another dial lets me control the microwave emitter 's intensity .
I could flip a switch and tune these dials just right , and cook my food just right .
Cool ! Or I could irradiate things lethally ( or not , but it 's a metaphor ; suspend your imagination a little !
) In fact , it 's the very lack of options that makes the Microwave useful .
I would n't judge a person for being too scared to change those dials , nor would I expect everyone to learn how .
To non-technical people , computers must be appliances , and they will prefer the OS and Software Suite that accomplishes this best .
Right now that 's Windows and Mac .
Linux has too many dials .
Things can go wrong .
The end user can not have anything go wrong ever .
If you want Linux to reach the end-user , Linux has to be a better appliance than Windows or Mac .
Some distros are better than others , but there are still way too many degrees of freedom .
Software update sites , administrator accounts , audio not working , suspend issues , complex filesystems... . There are answers online for all of these questions .
There is documentation for some , forums for others , and wikis for most .
However , they all ignore the fact that these are problems that can not exist in a compelling appliance .
Adding more documentation will make my job easier , but it will do nothing for a non-technical user .
Personally , the best appliance of all is looking like Chrome OS .
And it 's Linux !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing the tech crowd needs to understand: A non-technically-minded person will never want to learn how to use a computer.
It's not a matter of ignorance or stupidity.
It's simply that a computer is, for them, just another appliance, and while (to you and I) it is a fascinating appliance with limitless potential, it is (for non-technical folks) a tool to get something done.
Except it's a really horrible appliance.
Compare it to a Microwave.
A Microwave is obvious - it heats up things.
There are sometimes lots of buttons, but they're not scary, and if something happens that you don't like, there's a big read "Cancel" button sitting right there.
So you're not afraid to play around with it.
You'll hit some buttons until it does what you want, and then you'll always hit those same buttons because you know they work.
Every time you hit those buttons, your food gets warm in exactly the same manner.
Compare this to a computer.
They take time to boot (that's not useful!
) and crash.
Moreso, when they crash, it's usually not fixed by just unplugging.
If you push the wrong buttons on a computer, stuff breaks, and more often than not when stuff on a computer breaks, you can't solve it quickly.
Best case you have to wait for it to boot again (it's not doing anything!
) and worst-case you have to take it into a repair guy.
Even assuming things don't break, per se, look at all that can go wrong.
A Microwave will never try to attack you, but if I miss one button [slashdot.org] my computer becomes hostile!
On a computer I have so many options ... where to save a file?
Who knows?
I just want to put it somewhere and open it later.
Organize? That's hard!
What's a directory?
Did I put it in "Pictures" or "Documents"?
Or is it a Program File?
I don't get it.
Now, my Microwave could have a dial on it that lets me control the fan speed.
Another dial lets me control the microwave emitter's intensity.
I could flip a switch and tune these dials just right, and cook my food just right.
Cool! Or I could irradiate things lethally (or not, but it's a metaphor; suspend your imagination a little!
) In fact, it's the very lack of options  that makes the Microwave useful.
I wouldn't judge a person for being too scared to change those dials, nor would I expect everyone to learn how.
To non-technical people, computers must be appliances, and they will prefer the OS and Software Suite that accomplishes this best.
Right now that's Windows and Mac.
Linux has too many dials.
Things can go wrong.
The end user cannot have anything go wrong ever.
If you want Linux to reach the end-user, Linux has to be a better appliance than Windows or Mac.
Some distros are better than others, but there are still way too many degrees of freedom.
Software update sites, administrator accounts, audio not working, suspend issues, complex filesystems....

There are answers online for all of these questions.
There is documentation for some, forums for others, and wikis for most.
However, they all ignore the fact that these are problems that  can not exist  in a compelling appliance.
Adding more documentation will make my job easier, but it will do nothing for a non-technical user.
Personally, the best appliance of all is looking like Chrome OS.
And it's Linux!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313496</id>
	<title>Re:CMD.exe /? vs Linux Man pages</title>
	<author>TemporalBeing</author>
	<datestamp>1259867460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>man pages and info documentation typically give you a lot more information about any single command. (Though I have yet to figure out exactly how 'info' is suppose to work or how to find something in it like I can with man pages.)
Further, the -h and --help parameters are pretty standard (with a few exceptions) on the Linux platform and especially the GNU toolset; and they typically at least rival if not surpass the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/? help for the command-line tools provided by Microsoft.
<br> <br>
Furthermore, the -h, --help, man pages, info, and others are pretty well supported by most projects in the Linux platform. On Windows, you have no central source for documentation. Windows Help will give you only documentation on Windows help - you can' t drill even into other MS products let alone 3rd party products. Also, 3rd party programs don't typically support<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/? any more; and most Windows programs may or may not - some do; many don't - even when they take command-line parameters.
<br> <br>
Comparatively, the vast majority of software under Linux/Unix/BSD/etc supports command-line options even when they are typically used on as a graphical program.
<br> <br>
That's not to say that Documentation for Windows programs is typically better and more up-to-date - but it also is typically written by companies employing technical documentation writers to write it and keep it up to date. F/OSS software under Windows tends to run in the same state as it does under Linux/Unix/BSD/etc - only, man and info no longer work unless you have Cygwin installed with the software under Cygwin; but there are a lot of F/OSS programs that don't need Cygwin any more (e.g. GNUWin32) or never did (e.g. TortoiseCVS, TortoiseSVN).</htmltext>
<tokenext>man pages and info documentation typically give you a lot more information about any single command .
( Though I have yet to figure out exactly how 'info ' is suppose to work or how to find something in it like I can with man pages .
) Further , the -h and --help parameters are pretty standard ( with a few exceptions ) on the Linux platform and especially the GNU toolset ; and they typically at least rival if not surpass the / ?
help for the command-line tools provided by Microsoft .
Furthermore , the -h , --help , man pages , info , and others are pretty well supported by most projects in the Linux platform .
On Windows , you have no central source for documentation .
Windows Help will give you only documentation on Windows help - you can ' t drill even into other MS products let alone 3rd party products .
Also , 3rd party programs do n't typically support / ?
any more ; and most Windows programs may or may not - some do ; many do n't - even when they take command-line parameters .
Comparatively , the vast majority of software under Linux/Unix/BSD/etc supports command-line options even when they are typically used on as a graphical program .
That 's not to say that Documentation for Windows programs is typically better and more up-to-date - but it also is typically written by companies employing technical documentation writers to write it and keep it up to date .
F/OSS software under Windows tends to run in the same state as it does under Linux/Unix/BSD/etc - only , man and info no longer work unless you have Cygwin installed with the software under Cygwin ; but there are a lot of F/OSS programs that do n't need Cygwin any more ( e.g .
GNUWin32 ) or never did ( e.g .
TortoiseCVS , TortoiseSVN ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>man pages and info documentation typically give you a lot more information about any single command.
(Though I have yet to figure out exactly how 'info' is suppose to work or how to find something in it like I can with man pages.
)
Further, the -h and --help parameters are pretty standard (with a few exceptions) on the Linux platform and especially the GNU toolset; and they typically at least rival if not surpass the /?
help for the command-line tools provided by Microsoft.
Furthermore, the -h, --help, man pages, info, and others are pretty well supported by most projects in the Linux platform.
On Windows, you have no central source for documentation.
Windows Help will give you only documentation on Windows help - you can' t drill even into other MS products let alone 3rd party products.
Also, 3rd party programs don't typically support /?
any more; and most Windows programs may or may not - some do; many don't - even when they take command-line parameters.
Comparatively, the vast majority of software under Linux/Unix/BSD/etc supports command-line options even when they are typically used on as a graphical program.
That's not to say that Documentation for Windows programs is typically better and more up-to-date - but it also is typically written by companies employing technical documentation writers to write it and keep it up to date.
F/OSS software under Windows tends to run in the same state as it does under Linux/Unix/BSD/etc - only, man and info no longer work unless you have Cygwin installed with the software under Cygwin; but there are a lot of F/OSS programs that don't need Cygwin any more (e.g.
GNUWin32) or never did (e.g.
TortoiseCVS, TortoiseSVN).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30316904</id>
	<title>Why Linux Documentation Is Bad, You Idiot.</title>
	<author>hduff</author>
	<datestamp>1259837100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The appalling state of Linux documentation is what got me involved as a writer in the first place, leading me to co-author RedHat/Fedora Unleashed for a while and edit English-language docs for Mandriva.</p><p>I ran into two kinds of editors: those who knew nothing about Linux and those who knew "lots". The latter group is what frustrated me the most and are probably very much like the software authors themselves: pedantic and arrogant when it comes to documentation. Poor documentation and "making you work for it" is part of the right of passage for the Linux elite.</p><p>You can see this in ESR's characterization of people who ask questions as "idiots" in his 'How To Ask Questions The Smart Way'. Not to pick on ESR, but that shitty attitude about those that feel the need to ask questions permeates the GNU/Linux/FOSS culture. 'Knowing' is what separates "us" from "them".</p><p>And that's why Linux documentation is so bad: because it's meant to be, you idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The appalling state of Linux documentation is what got me involved as a writer in the first place , leading me to co-author RedHat/Fedora Unleashed for a while and edit English-language docs for Mandriva.I ran into two kinds of editors : those who knew nothing about Linux and those who knew " lots " .
The latter group is what frustrated me the most and are probably very much like the software authors themselves : pedantic and arrogant when it comes to documentation .
Poor documentation and " making you work for it " is part of the right of passage for the Linux elite.You can see this in ESR 's characterization of people who ask questions as " idiots " in his 'How To Ask Questions The Smart Way' .
Not to pick on ESR , but that shitty attitude about those that feel the need to ask questions permeates the GNU/Linux/FOSS culture .
'Knowing ' is what separates " us " from " them " .And that 's why Linux documentation is so bad : because it 's meant to be , you idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The appalling state of Linux documentation is what got me involved as a writer in the first place, leading me to co-author RedHat/Fedora Unleashed for a while and edit English-language docs for Mandriva.I ran into two kinds of editors: those who knew nothing about Linux and those who knew "lots".
The latter group is what frustrated me the most and are probably very much like the software authors themselves: pedantic and arrogant when it comes to documentation.
Poor documentation and "making you work for it" is part of the right of passage for the Linux elite.You can see this in ESR's characterization of people who ask questions as "idiots" in his 'How To Ask Questions The Smart Way'.
Not to pick on ESR, but that shitty attitude about those that feel the need to ask questions permeates the GNU/Linux/FOSS culture.
'Knowing' is what separates "us" from "them".And that's why Linux documentation is so bad: because it's meant to be, you idiot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311796</id>
	<title>Clippy!</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1259861820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about a Linux version of Clippy? Instead of a paper-clip, a penguin with an AK 47. The bullet holes guide you to mouse stroke movements. It'll be a hit (no pun intended) with the younger gen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about a Linux version of Clippy ?
Instead of a paper-clip , a penguin with an AK 47 .
The bullet holes guide you to mouse stroke movements .
It 'll be a hit ( no pun intended ) with the younger gen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about a Linux version of Clippy?
Instead of a paper-clip, a penguin with an AK 47.
The bullet holes guide you to mouse stroke movements.
It'll be a hit (no pun intended) with the younger gen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30320006</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259853240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ls<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/bin</p><p>Now if only the commands were more than 3 letters long and told you what the command did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ls /binNow if only the commands were more than 3 letters long and told you what the command did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ls /binNow if only the commands were more than 3 letters long and told you what the command did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311834</id>
	<title>Yes it has...</title>
	<author>CFBMoo1</author>
	<datestamp>1259861880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Has it come down to using Google before a man page?"<br><br>Yes because more people know how to click on a web browser and look up something on their search engine of choice then go to a command prompt and type man &lt;program&gt;. Also not all programs have man pages so the web search has more information. Also my last experience with man pages showed references but I couldn't really click on those references to see other information like a web page lets you do.<br><br>Good documentation including screen shots of various steps to show people what they should experience can make a world of difference then some basic text on a screen in a command prompt window for new users. Going the extra mile to highlight various screen shots for each step in the process of performing tasks with your program can really be helpful when married with clear meaningful text.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Has it come down to using Google before a man page ?
" Yes because more people know how to click on a web browser and look up something on their search engine of choice then go to a command prompt and type man .
Also not all programs have man pages so the web search has more information .
Also my last experience with man pages showed references but I could n't really click on those references to see other information like a web page lets you do.Good documentation including screen shots of various steps to show people what they should experience can make a world of difference then some basic text on a screen in a command prompt window for new users .
Going the extra mile to highlight various screen shots for each step in the process of performing tasks with your program can really be helpful when married with clear meaningful text .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Has it come down to using Google before a man page?
"Yes because more people know how to click on a web browser and look up something on their search engine of choice then go to a command prompt and type man .
Also not all programs have man pages so the web search has more information.
Also my last experience with man pages showed references but I couldn't really click on those references to see other information like a web page lets you do.Good documentation including screen shots of various steps to show people what they should experience can make a world of difference then some basic text on a screen in a command prompt window for new users.
Going the extra mile to highlight various screen shots for each step in the process of performing tasks with your program can really be helpful when married with clear meaningful text.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311224</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>hodet</author>
	<datestamp>1259860020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Completely pointless from a geek perspective.  Totally mind numbing, "rather have root canal then write that" kind of work.  From a user perspective it is not pointless and the preferred way.  And so it goes, round and round.  Allthough I do think a double standard exists.  Totally acceptable to send someone to Microsoft Technet KB for info.  They are totally tickled if they can find an answer there but send them to Ubuntu forums and "pffft....I don't have time for that"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Completely pointless from a geek perspective .
Totally mind numbing , " rather have root canal then write that " kind of work .
From a user perspective it is not pointless and the preferred way .
And so it goes , round and round .
Allthough I do think a double standard exists .
Totally acceptable to send someone to Microsoft Technet KB for info .
They are totally tickled if they can find an answer there but send them to Ubuntu forums and " pffft....I do n't have time for that "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Completely pointless from a geek perspective.
Totally mind numbing, "rather have root canal then write that" kind of work.
From a user perspective it is not pointless and the preferred way.
And so it goes, round and round.
Allthough I do think a double standard exists.
Totally acceptable to send someone to Microsoft Technet KB for info.
They are totally tickled if they can find an answer there but send them to Ubuntu forums and "pffft....I don't have time for that"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311688</id>
	<title>I'll say something else that's needed</title>
	<author>jimicus</author>
	<datestamp>1259861520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Coming at this from the perspective of a professional Linux sysadmin with quite a few years experience,  I find a lot of forums downright painful.</p><p>Not because they're difficult to use or search - Google does a perfectly good job of indexing them - but because they are frequently a case of the blind leading the blind.  I really have lost count of the number of times I've looked on Google to solve a problem, found a few forums and discovered two things:</p><p>1.  I'm at a much more advanced point in the process than the OP.  (Not really a problem, more an annoyance)<br>2.  The answers given are downright <b>wrong</b>, and demonstrate clearly that the person writing the answers has no understanding of what it is they're talking about.  Which I wouldn't know were it not for (1), above.  The forum software itself needs some way to mark replies as "helpful" or "unhelpful", much like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.'s moderation system.  In an ideal world Google could pick up on this and show helpful replies above unhelpful ones.</p><p>Mailing lists for the specific thing you're having trouble with tend to be better - largely because the barrier to entry for posting on a mailing list is rather higher.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Coming at this from the perspective of a professional Linux sysadmin with quite a few years experience , I find a lot of forums downright painful.Not because they 're difficult to use or search - Google does a perfectly good job of indexing them - but because they are frequently a case of the blind leading the blind .
I really have lost count of the number of times I 've looked on Google to solve a problem , found a few forums and discovered two things : 1 .
I 'm at a much more advanced point in the process than the OP .
( Not really a problem , more an annoyance ) 2 .
The answers given are downright wrong , and demonstrate clearly that the person writing the answers has no understanding of what it is they 're talking about .
Which I would n't know were it not for ( 1 ) , above .
The forum software itself needs some way to mark replies as " helpful " or " unhelpful " , much like / .
's moderation system .
In an ideal world Google could pick up on this and show helpful replies above unhelpful ones.Mailing lists for the specific thing you 're having trouble with tend to be better - largely because the barrier to entry for posting on a mailing list is rather higher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coming at this from the perspective of a professional Linux sysadmin with quite a few years experience,  I find a lot of forums downright painful.Not because they're difficult to use or search - Google does a perfectly good job of indexing them - but because they are frequently a case of the blind leading the blind.
I really have lost count of the number of times I've looked on Google to solve a problem, found a few forums and discovered two things:1.
I'm at a much more advanced point in the process than the OP.
(Not really a problem, more an annoyance)2.
The answers given are downright wrong, and demonstrate clearly that the person writing the answers has no understanding of what it is they're talking about.
Which I wouldn't know were it not for (1), above.
The forum software itself needs some way to mark replies as "helpful" or "unhelpful", much like /.
's moderation system.
In an ideal world Google could pick up on this and show helpful replies above unhelpful ones.Mailing lists for the specific thing you're having trouble with tend to be better - largely because the barrier to entry for posting on a mailing list is rather higher.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311530</id>
	<title>Re:If you write it will they come?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259861040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe many users will, as soon as the system runs and they feel they should be able to change something, but fail to see how.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe many users will , as soon as the system runs and they feel they should be able to change something , but fail to see how .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe many users will, as soon as the system runs and they feel they should be able to change something, but fail to see how.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30321016</id>
	<title>Re:Random Online Linux Doc Complaints</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259863260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And how many times have you had a problem, found no help online, eventually devised a solution yourself, and then <em>not posted your solution online either</em>?</p><p>If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And how many times have you had a problem , found no help online , eventually devised a solution yourself , and then not posted your solution online either ? If you 're not part of the solution , you 're part of the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how many times have you had a problem, found no help online, eventually devised a solution yourself, and then not posted your solution online either?If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310620</id>
	<title>Google is a step up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259857800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come down to? Man pages are a standard from 30-some years ago, intended for expert users (the only kind there were back then).</p><p>Of course, if we could all agree on a standard that meets today's needs, that would be another step up. A place with natural tools for a help forum and links to publisher documentation to get user-tagged and wiki-edited into user-friendly, version-referenced documentation over time, and more importantly, one which was the consensus one-stop-shopping place for this kind of stuff. To get the user base, it couldn't be restricted to Linux tools - it would have to be universal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come down to ?
Man pages are a standard from 30-some years ago , intended for expert users ( the only kind there were back then ) .Of course , if we could all agree on a standard that meets today 's needs , that would be another step up .
A place with natural tools for a help forum and links to publisher documentation to get user-tagged and wiki-edited into user-friendly , version-referenced documentation over time , and more importantly , one which was the consensus one-stop-shopping place for this kind of stuff .
To get the user base , it could n't be restricted to Linux tools - it would have to be universal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come down to?
Man pages are a standard from 30-some years ago, intended for expert users (the only kind there were back then).Of course, if we could all agree on a standard that meets today's needs, that would be another step up.
A place with natural tools for a help forum and links to publisher documentation to get user-tagged and wiki-edited into user-friendly, version-referenced documentation over time, and more importantly, one which was the consensus one-stop-shopping place for this kind of stuff.
To get the user base, it couldn't be restricted to Linux tools - it would have to be universal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310568</id>
	<title>Search Engine De-optimization</title>
	<author>Ukab the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1259857560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Contributing to the problem of finding good documentation is the fact that LUGs, distro companies, etc all mirror same crappy outdated collection of HOWTO's and man pages on their websites, and thus the newbie desperate to find out how to do something ends up with Google page after Google page of the same useless stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Contributing to the problem of finding good documentation is the fact that LUGs , distro companies , etc all mirror same crappy outdated collection of HOWTO 's and man pages on their websites , and thus the newbie desperate to find out how to do something ends up with Google page after Google page of the same useless stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Contributing to the problem of finding good documentation is the fact that LUGs, distro companies, etc all mirror same crappy outdated collection of HOWTO's and man pages on their websites, and thus the newbie desperate to find out how to do something ends up with Google page after Google page of the same useless stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311646</id>
	<title>We don't document because ...</title>
	<author>helicologic</author>
	<datestamp>1259861400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Static documentation is idiotic for dynamic systems. To the extent that GNU/Linux is dynamic, it *should not* be documented staticly.  As a coder I never duplicate code (cut-and-paste) because that creates a non-obvious dependency -- if I changed the code in one place I'd have to change it in the other. <p> Same applies to documentation: if something can change, and lots of code does, I do not want to have to change both code and documentation in the same, dependent, way.  There are two ways out: 1) automatically generated documentation, which admittedly is pretty ugly and schematic; and 2) archived searchable forums and discussions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Static documentation is idiotic for dynamic systems .
To the extent that GNU/Linux is dynamic , it * should not * be documented staticly .
As a coder I never duplicate code ( cut-and-paste ) because that creates a non-obvious dependency -- if I changed the code in one place I 'd have to change it in the other .
Same applies to documentation : if something can change , and lots of code does , I do not want to have to change both code and documentation in the same , dependent , way .
There are two ways out : 1 ) automatically generated documentation , which admittedly is pretty ugly and schematic ; and 2 ) archived searchable forums and discussions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Static documentation is idiotic for dynamic systems.
To the extent that GNU/Linux is dynamic, it *should not* be documented staticly.
As a coder I never duplicate code (cut-and-paste) because that creates a non-obvious dependency -- if I changed the code in one place I'd have to change it in the other.
Same applies to documentation: if something can change, and lots of code does, I do not want to have to change both code and documentation in the same, dependent, way.
There are two ways out: 1) automatically generated documentation, which admittedly is pretty ugly and schematic; and 2) archived searchable forums and discussions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310936</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>Moryath</author>
	<datestamp>1259859060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My experiences (plural) with Ubuntu, MythTV, and MythBuntu (which was supposed to "streamline" the whole process) were similar in trying to set up a DVR.</p><p>Consumer-level HDTV card (ATi HDTV Wonder, PCI). ATi video board. ATi Remote Wonder II for my remote control.</p><p>Every time a new version of Ubuntu/MythTV/Mythbuntu would come out, I'd try to load it up and get it to work correctly. Multiple people insisting it would work fine, others insisting "no support" for the stuff. Back and forth. Most of the problem stems from the fact that in every stinking version, something gets changed, then it takes them a year or more to document the crap.</p><p>In the Ubuntu Hardy Heron attempt, every bit of documentation was either Gutsy Gibbon or Feisty Fawn. No help there. Tried again at Jaunty Jackalope's release WITH Hardy Heron, and still 90\% of the damn documentation hadn't been updated. I'm stuck chasing around tidbits and forum posts with "well here's how you do it, LINK" only to find out that the link is either (A) for a version I'm not running, (B) assumes information I don't have, or (C) no longer available.</p><p>Tracking down how to set up a remote control reliably with Lirc is a pain beyond torture as well. I spend 99\% of my time on Windows (hey, I have better things to do with my time than fight a damn OS. Windows does what I need it to do and runs what I want to run.) <a href="http://www.mythtv.org/wiki/ATI\_Remote\_Wonder\_II" title="mythtv.org">This is the "tutorial" for setting my remote control up under MythTV</a> [mythtv.org]. And let me tell you right now, this thing is a shambles.</p><p>Linux people don't write clear-cut instructions for anything. This is true and I agree, it is Linux Bug #1.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My experiences ( plural ) with Ubuntu , MythTV , and MythBuntu ( which was supposed to " streamline " the whole process ) were similar in trying to set up a DVR.Consumer-level HDTV card ( ATi HDTV Wonder , PCI ) .
ATi video board .
ATi Remote Wonder II for my remote control.Every time a new version of Ubuntu/MythTV/Mythbuntu would come out , I 'd try to load it up and get it to work correctly .
Multiple people insisting it would work fine , others insisting " no support " for the stuff .
Back and forth .
Most of the problem stems from the fact that in every stinking version , something gets changed , then it takes them a year or more to document the crap.In the Ubuntu Hardy Heron attempt , every bit of documentation was either Gutsy Gibbon or Feisty Fawn .
No help there .
Tried again at Jaunty Jackalope 's release WITH Hardy Heron , and still 90 \ % of the damn documentation had n't been updated .
I 'm stuck chasing around tidbits and forum posts with " well here 's how you do it , LINK " only to find out that the link is either ( A ) for a version I 'm not running , ( B ) assumes information I do n't have , or ( C ) no longer available.Tracking down how to set up a remote control reliably with Lirc is a pain beyond torture as well .
I spend 99 \ % of my time on Windows ( hey , I have better things to do with my time than fight a damn OS .
Windows does what I need it to do and runs what I want to run .
) This is the " tutorial " for setting my remote control up under MythTV [ mythtv.org ] .
And let me tell you right now , this thing is a shambles.Linux people do n't write clear-cut instructions for anything .
This is true and I agree , it is Linux Bug # 1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My experiences (plural) with Ubuntu, MythTV, and MythBuntu (which was supposed to "streamline" the whole process) were similar in trying to set up a DVR.Consumer-level HDTV card (ATi HDTV Wonder, PCI).
ATi video board.
ATi Remote Wonder II for my remote control.Every time a new version of Ubuntu/MythTV/Mythbuntu would come out, I'd try to load it up and get it to work correctly.
Multiple people insisting it would work fine, others insisting "no support" for the stuff.
Back and forth.
Most of the problem stems from the fact that in every stinking version, something gets changed, then it takes them a year or more to document the crap.In the Ubuntu Hardy Heron attempt, every bit of documentation was either Gutsy Gibbon or Feisty Fawn.
No help there.
Tried again at Jaunty Jackalope's release WITH Hardy Heron, and still 90\% of the damn documentation hadn't been updated.
I'm stuck chasing around tidbits and forum posts with "well here's how you do it, LINK" only to find out that the link is either (A) for a version I'm not running, (B) assumes information I don't have, or (C) no longer available.Tracking down how to set up a remote control reliably with Lirc is a pain beyond torture as well.
I spend 99\% of my time on Windows (hey, I have better things to do with my time than fight a damn OS.
Windows does what I need it to do and runs what I want to run.
) This is the "tutorial" for setting my remote control up under MythTV [mythtv.org].
And let me tell you right now, this thing is a shambles.Linux people don't write clear-cut instructions for anything.
This is true and I agree, it is Linux Bug #1.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312176</id>
	<title>I'm confused</title>
	<author>Thud457</author>
	<datestamp>1259862900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure I follow, can you rephrase in the form of a car analogy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure I follow , can you rephrase in the form of a car analogy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure I follow, can you rephrase in the form of a car analogy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311052</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259859480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>maybe, but for that reason there SHOULDN'T be documentation for real users.  if it's not user friendly enough for them to just pick it up as they go along, then the gui needs to be re-thought.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>maybe , but for that reason there SHOULD N'T be documentation for real users .
if it 's not user friendly enough for them to just pick it up as they go along , then the gui needs to be re-thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maybe, but for that reason there SHOULDN'T be documentation for real users.
if it's not user friendly enough for them to just pick it up as they go along, then the gui needs to be re-thought.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314142</id>
	<title>Lacking Documentation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259869860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No it's not.  It saves newbies from crashing their system and wondering "What did I do wrong?"  It also saves us from having more blackhat hackers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No it 's not .
It saves newbies from crashing their system and wondering " What did I do wrong ?
" It also saves us from having more blackhat hackers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it's not.
It saves newbies from crashing their system and wondering "What did I do wrong?
"  It also saves us from having more blackhat hackers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310606</id>
	<title>Tutorials</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259857740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tutorials are a fucking problem. That and pointless screencasts. Nobody can refer to documentation to get the facts needed to solve a problem anymore. They all need the problem *directly solved for them*.</p><p>Coupled with people's insistence on using "new media" like videos to "teach" information that should be written clearly as a reference (rather than a "how to do it" guide) and the amount of totally unqualified/unskilled people who insist on *TEACHING* (usually to gain attention, or worse; AdSense revenue) we're creating a generation of terrible IT workers with no problem-solving or research skills whatsoever.</p><p>Tutorial-based development is practically the leading paradigm for new graduates doing monkey-level coding work nowadays.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tutorials are a fucking problem .
That and pointless screencasts .
Nobody can refer to documentation to get the facts needed to solve a problem anymore .
They all need the problem * directly solved for them * .Coupled with people 's insistence on using " new media " like videos to " teach " information that should be written clearly as a reference ( rather than a " how to do it " guide ) and the amount of totally unqualified/unskilled people who insist on * TEACHING * ( usually to gain attention , or worse ; AdSense revenue ) we 're creating a generation of terrible IT workers with no problem-solving or research skills whatsoever.Tutorial-based development is practically the leading paradigm for new graduates doing monkey-level coding work nowadays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tutorials are a fucking problem.
That and pointless screencasts.
Nobody can refer to documentation to get the facts needed to solve a problem anymore.
They all need the problem *directly solved for them*.Coupled with people's insistence on using "new media" like videos to "teach" information that should be written clearly as a reference (rather than a "how to do it" guide) and the amount of totally unqualified/unskilled people who insist on *TEACHING* (usually to gain attention, or worse; AdSense revenue) we're creating a generation of terrible IT workers with no problem-solving or research skills whatsoever.Tutorial-based development is practically the leading paradigm for new graduates doing monkey-level coding work nowadays.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310528</id>
	<title>And good luck with Google, too</title>
	<author>edraven</author>
	<datestamp>1259857440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As often as not, the only hits you get are posts in forums where someone is asking the exact same question you need answered... and getting no replies. Since 2005.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As often as not , the only hits you get are posts in forums where someone is asking the exact same question you need answered... and getting no replies .
Since 2005 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As often as not, the only hits you get are posts in forums where someone is asking the exact same question you need answered... and getting no replies.
Since 2005.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310500</id>
	<title>Don't like man pages.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259857380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find man pages to be poorly written, and difficult to understand most of the time.  I tend to use google to find people who are discussing it in plain english...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find man pages to be poorly written , and difficult to understand most of the time .
I tend to use google to find people who are discussing it in plain english.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find man pages to be poorly written, and difficult to understand most of the time.
I tend to use google to find people who are discussing it in plain english...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312924</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>Xoltri</author>
	<datestamp>1259865420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've tried Ubuntu a few times and I've found the opposite.  Sure it is nice to have someone just provide you with some command to paste that does what you want, but it never actually taught me where I could go in the GUI to do what I was trying to do.  It made it harder to learn the OS.  I became just a copy and paste monkey.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've tried Ubuntu a few times and I 've found the opposite .
Sure it is nice to have someone just provide you with some command to paste that does what you want , but it never actually taught me where I could go in the GUI to do what I was trying to do .
It made it harder to learn the OS .
I became just a copy and paste monkey .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've tried Ubuntu a few times and I've found the opposite.
Sure it is nice to have someone just provide you with some command to paste that does what you want, but it never actually taught me where I could go in the GUI to do what I was trying to do.
It made it harder to learn the OS.
I became just a copy and paste monkey.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312856</id>
	<title>Women have great difficulties using Linux too.</title>
	<author>master\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1259865180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...Because it never comes to their mind to type "man page" at the command line!!!</p><p>(seriously now: what the heck is with you Unix guys? typing "manual" was too long for you? or using "help"?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...Because it never comes to their mind to type " man page " at the command line ! ! !
( seriously now : what the heck is with you Unix guys ?
typing " manual " was too long for you ?
or using " help " ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Because it never comes to their mind to type "man page" at the command line!!!
(seriously now: what the heck is with you Unix guys?
typing "manual" was too long for you?
or using "help"?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313758</id>
	<title>Re:And good luck with Google, too</title>
	<author>hey</author>
	<datestamp>1259868360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes that's a minor problem.  Maybe forums should automatically delete (or somehow demote) questions with no answers after, say, a year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes that 's a minor problem .
Maybe forums should automatically delete ( or somehow demote ) questions with no answers after , say , a year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes that's a minor problem.
Maybe forums should automatically delete (or somehow demote) questions with no answers after, say, a year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310534</id>
	<title>Come down to using Google?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259857500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a Linux neophyte, google has *always* been my choice.  It's been my experience that man pages don't provide the context and examples I need to use tools completely foriegn to me.  Of course...I've never relied on MS help files either.  Prior to Google searching, my path to success involved knowledgeable folks around me and actual written documentation.  I think every OS and application author or publisher should consider reworking contextual help so new users have quality help that's easily found.  Like a link to Google in every app.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a Linux neophyte , google has * always * been my choice .
It 's been my experience that man pages do n't provide the context and examples I need to use tools completely foriegn to me .
Of course...I 've never relied on MS help files either .
Prior to Google searching , my path to success involved knowledgeable folks around me and actual written documentation .
I think every OS and application author or publisher should consider reworking contextual help so new users have quality help that 's easily found .
Like a link to Google in every app .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a Linux neophyte, google has *always* been my choice.
It's been my experience that man pages don't provide the context and examples I need to use tools completely foriegn to me.
Of course...I've never relied on MS help files either.
Prior to Google searching, my path to success involved knowledgeable folks around me and actual written documentation.
I think every OS and application author or publisher should consider reworking contextual help so new users have quality help that's easily found.
Like a link to Google in every app.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313846</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation Doesn't Matter..</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1259868600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>To non-technical people, computers must be appliances, and they will prefer the OS and Software Suite that accomplishes this best. Right now that's Windows and Mac. Linux has too many dials. Things can go wrong. The end user cannot have anything go wrong ever. If you want Linux to reach the end-user</i></p><p>Why would we want that? If you have to sacrifice the power and flexibility of Linux to reach the end user, let them have their Microsoft and Apple toys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To non-technical people , computers must be appliances , and they will prefer the OS and Software Suite that accomplishes this best .
Right now that 's Windows and Mac .
Linux has too many dials .
Things can go wrong .
The end user can not have anything go wrong ever .
If you want Linux to reach the end-userWhy would we want that ?
If you have to sacrifice the power and flexibility of Linux to reach the end user , let them have their Microsoft and Apple toys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To non-technical people, computers must be appliances, and they will prefer the OS and Software Suite that accomplishes this best.
Right now that's Windows and Mac.
Linux has too many dials.
Things can go wrong.
The end user cannot have anything go wrong ever.
If you want Linux to reach the end-userWhy would we want that?
If you have to sacrifice the power and flexibility of Linux to reach the end user, let them have their Microsoft and Apple toys.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30319424</id>
	<title>Re:I have 3 real issues with manpages</title>
	<author>El\_Oscuro</author>
	<datestamp>1259848620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about a new format for man pages:
<ol>
<li>Most common options</li>
<li>Examples</li>
<li>All options</li>
<li>????</li>
<li>Profit!</li>
</ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about a new format for man pages : Most common options Examples All options ? ? ? ?
Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about a new format for man pages:

Most common options
Examples
All options
????
Profit!
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312118</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>gobbo</author>
	<datestamp>1259862720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> The user does not want to learn how to do anything more on his computer than get is work done or enjoy the entertainment.</p> </div><p>Now now, no need to be a douche to those of us who do want to learn, but want to learn as we go.</p><p>The 'user' you're talking about is common, but there are a significant minority of people who have a life and other interests, yet wish to improve their understanding of things like using a shell... without taking a course, or giving up a significant portion of our life.</p><p>All we want is tiered documentation that includes a few pointers for those new to the command to be included in man pages etc.; things like examples, and related concepts, and scenarios. A simple paragraph would suffice, usually.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The user does not want to learn how to do anything more on his computer than get is work done or enjoy the entertainment .
Now now , no need to be a douche to those of us who do want to learn , but want to learn as we go.The 'user ' you 're talking about is common , but there are a significant minority of people who have a life and other interests , yet wish to improve their understanding of things like using a shell... without taking a course , or giving up a significant portion of our life.All we want is tiered documentation that includes a few pointers for those new to the command to be included in man pages etc .
; things like examples , and related concepts , and scenarios .
A simple paragraph would suffice , usually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The user does not want to learn how to do anything more on his computer than get is work done or enjoy the entertainment.
Now now, no need to be a douche to those of us who do want to learn, but want to learn as we go.The 'user' you're talking about is common, but there are a significant minority of people who have a life and other interests, yet wish to improve their understanding of things like using a shell... without taking a course, or giving up a significant portion of our life.All we want is tiered documentation that includes a few pointers for those new to the command to be included in man pages etc.
; things like examples, and related concepts, and scenarios.
A simple paragraph would suffice, usually.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314190</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>Tubal-Cain</author>
	<datestamp>1259870040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fortunately, forum posts are timestamped.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fortunately , forum posts are timestamped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fortunately, forum posts are timestamped.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30322450</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>marafa</author>
	<datestamp>1259930220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>honestly speaking, how many people are going to read the manual?<br>i bought a hifi system and ditn read the manual.<br>i bought a microwave and dint read the manual.<br>i bought a television and dint read the manual</p><p>hell, way back when i was using windows, i dint read the manual.</p><p>i only use the documentation to solve problems i have with the software that is running or that i am installing. i dont read to learn, i read to implement a function. if the documentation is not sufficient i turn to google and the millions of linux users on the net. someone, somewhere out there has succesfully solved my problem previously</p><p>so whats the matter with the documentation?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>honestly speaking , how many people are going to read the manual ? i bought a hifi system and ditn read the manual.i bought a microwave and dint read the manual.i bought a television and dint read the manualhell , way back when i was using windows , i dint read the manual.i only use the documentation to solve problems i have with the software that is running or that i am installing .
i dont read to learn , i read to implement a function .
if the documentation is not sufficient i turn to google and the millions of linux users on the net .
someone , somewhere out there has succesfully solved my problem previouslyso whats the matter with the documentation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>honestly speaking, how many people are going to read the manual?i bought a hifi system and ditn read the manual.i bought a microwave and dint read the manual.i bought a television and dint read the manualhell, way back when i was using windows, i dint read the manual.i only use the documentation to solve problems i have with the software that is running or that i am installing.
i dont read to learn, i read to implement a function.
if the documentation is not sufficient i turn to google and the millions of linux users on the net.
someone, somewhere out there has succesfully solved my problem previouslyso whats the matter with the documentation?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311088</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1259859600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As opposed to Windows where there is plenty of user documentation?</p><p>The difference is that people need to install Linux and Windows is already installed. Give a user a pre-installed system and he will have the same amount of questions as with a Windows pre-installed system.</p><p>However many people are not just users. They are system administrators as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As opposed to Windows where there is plenty of user documentation ? The difference is that people need to install Linux and Windows is already installed .
Give a user a pre-installed system and he will have the same amount of questions as with a Windows pre-installed system.However many people are not just users .
They are system administrators as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As opposed to Windows where there is plenty of user documentation?The difference is that people need to install Linux and Windows is already installed.
Give a user a pre-installed system and he will have the same amount of questions as with a Windows pre-installed system.However many people are not just users.
They are system administrators as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311102</id>
	<title>Paid vs free</title>
	<author>dazedNconfuzed</author>
	<datestamp>1259859600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lack of updated, relevant &amp; accurate documentation is another example of the [potential] benefit of paid-development software vs. free: documentation is one of those software development tasks which really should be done but nobody wants to do it badly enough to do it thoroughly without compensation.</p><p>Oh sure there are isolated counterexamples all around. Paid software all too often has lousy documentation; some labor-of-love FOSS projects are marvelously documented. Overall, however, it's money that makes a lot of good things happen that wouldn't otherwise - like making sure all levels of documentation are correct for a given package.</p><p>And now I return to reconciling a foot-high pile of printed documentation, motivated only by tomorrow being payday...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lack of updated , relevant &amp; accurate documentation is another example of the [ potential ] benefit of paid-development software vs. free : documentation is one of those software development tasks which really should be done but nobody wants to do it badly enough to do it thoroughly without compensation.Oh sure there are isolated counterexamples all around .
Paid software all too often has lousy documentation ; some labor-of-love FOSS projects are marvelously documented .
Overall , however , it 's money that makes a lot of good things happen that would n't otherwise - like making sure all levels of documentation are correct for a given package.And now I return to reconciling a foot-high pile of printed documentation , motivated only by tomorrow being payday.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lack of updated, relevant &amp; accurate documentation is another example of the [potential] benefit of paid-development software vs. free: documentation is one of those software development tasks which really should be done but nobody wants to do it badly enough to do it thoroughly without compensation.Oh sure there are isolated counterexamples all around.
Paid software all too often has lousy documentation; some labor-of-love FOSS projects are marvelously documented.
Overall, however, it's money that makes a lot of good things happen that wouldn't otherwise - like making sure all levels of documentation are correct for a given package.And now I return to reconciling a foot-high pile of printed documentation, motivated only by tomorrow being payday...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312230</id>
	<title>Re:The Culture needs a slight change.</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1259863080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It really is the whole programming culture that needs to have a mindset change.<br>They need to care about Documentation more so other people can pickup where they left off<br>It also saves programmers the time of having to answer needless questions.</p></div><p>Unless we're talking about development tools and such, this has nothing to do with "programming culture". It's not the job of a software developer to write user documentation for the product - he's simply not trained for it. It's a job of a good technical writer.</p><p>Furthermore, when software is created properly (i.e. you've got a design spec, UI spec as part of that, and so on), the documentation is written from that spec, and tweaked to match the reality once builds start coming out.</p><p>Of course, for that, you need a design spec to begin with...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It really is the whole programming culture that needs to have a mindset change.They need to care about Documentation more so other people can pickup where they left offIt also saves programmers the time of having to answer needless questions.Unless we 're talking about development tools and such , this has nothing to do with " programming culture " .
It 's not the job of a software developer to write user documentation for the product - he 's simply not trained for it .
It 's a job of a good technical writer.Furthermore , when software is created properly ( i.e .
you 've got a design spec , UI spec as part of that , and so on ) , the documentation is written from that spec , and tweaked to match the reality once builds start coming out.Of course , for that , you need a design spec to begin with.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It really is the whole programming culture that needs to have a mindset change.They need to care about Documentation more so other people can pickup where they left offIt also saves programmers the time of having to answer needless questions.Unless we're talking about development tools and such, this has nothing to do with "programming culture".
It's not the job of a software developer to write user documentation for the product - he's simply not trained for it.
It's a job of a good technical writer.Furthermore, when software is created properly (i.e.
you've got a design spec, UI spec as part of that, and so on), the documentation is written from that spec, and tweaked to match the reality once builds start coming out.Of course, for that, you need a design spec to begin with...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314420</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>GlassHeart</author>
	<datestamp>1259870940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We need to understand when people seek documentation. Right after they install a new application, I expect most users to just go try it out to see if they can figure it out, and so as you say the "welcome" documentation are often unread. However, when they are faced with a specific task that isn't obvious (unavoidable, no matter how user-friendly the application tries to be), they would search for it.</p><p>Thus, a straightforward UI plus comprehensive task-oriented documentation is probably enough for most users. The rest of them need step-by-step tutorials that are a magnitude more work to produce.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We need to understand when people seek documentation .
Right after they install a new application , I expect most users to just go try it out to see if they can figure it out , and so as you say the " welcome " documentation are often unread .
However , when they are faced with a specific task that is n't obvious ( unavoidable , no matter how user-friendly the application tries to be ) , they would search for it.Thus , a straightforward UI plus comprehensive task-oriented documentation is probably enough for most users .
The rest of them need step-by-step tutorials that are a magnitude more work to produce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need to understand when people seek documentation.
Right after they install a new application, I expect most users to just go try it out to see if they can figure it out, and so as you say the "welcome" documentation are often unread.
However, when they are faced with a specific task that isn't obvious (unavoidable, no matter how user-friendly the application tries to be), they would search for it.Thus, a straightforward UI plus comprehensive task-oriented documentation is probably enough for most users.
The rest of them need step-by-step tutorials that are a magnitude more work to produce.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30316698</id>
	<title>And Arch linux...and FreeBSD...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259836500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As does Arch Linux and FreeBSD.  In fact, I think the FreeBSD handbook should be held up as a model for effective documentation of an entire operating system.  It's generally well written, extensive, and covers instructions from basic day-to-day system use and set-up to complex networking and system administration tasks that can be solved with solutions provided by the base operating system and associated ports.  Arch Linux's wiki is also quite good, though it has its flaws.  One major problem in searching for linux documentation is that much of it is distribution specific.  A lot of newbs go out, get themselves a random linux distribution, then in looking for answers are redirected to a different distribution's way of doing things that inevitably doesn't work on their system.  This is one reason I funnel a lot of first time *nix users who want to get into it, and are generally technically proficient, towards FreeBSD.  The documentation is there for them to self-teach.  They've reported decent success with it, as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As does Arch Linux and FreeBSD .
In fact , I think the FreeBSD handbook should be held up as a model for effective documentation of an entire operating system .
It 's generally well written , extensive , and covers instructions from basic day-to-day system use and set-up to complex networking and system administration tasks that can be solved with solutions provided by the base operating system and associated ports .
Arch Linux 's wiki is also quite good , though it has its flaws .
One major problem in searching for linux documentation is that much of it is distribution specific .
A lot of newbs go out , get themselves a random linux distribution , then in looking for answers are redirected to a different distribution 's way of doing things that inevitably does n't work on their system .
This is one reason I funnel a lot of first time * nix users who want to get into it , and are generally technically proficient , towards FreeBSD .
The documentation is there for them to self-teach .
They 've reported decent success with it , as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As does Arch Linux and FreeBSD.
In fact, I think the FreeBSD handbook should be held up as a model for effective documentation of an entire operating system.
It's generally well written, extensive, and covers instructions from basic day-to-day system use and set-up to complex networking and system administration tasks that can be solved with solutions provided by the base operating system and associated ports.
Arch Linux's wiki is also quite good, though it has its flaws.
One major problem in searching for linux documentation is that much of it is distribution specific.
A lot of newbs go out, get themselves a random linux distribution, then in looking for answers are redirected to a different distribution's way of doing things that inevitably doesn't work on their system.
This is one reason I funnel a lot of first time *nix users who want to get into it, and are generally technically proficient, towards FreeBSD.
The documentation is there for them to self-teach.
They've reported decent success with it, as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30316056</id>
	<title>That is the power of Arch Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259834400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have been using Linux for years, mostly because of working on a Unix box for years also. It taught me a lot. I have been through most of the distros but landed squarley on Arch Linux. Why you ask? Becuase of it's powerful wiki with it's power to answer almost any question you have, it makes it the best Linux distro I have used yet...http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Main\_Page</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been using Linux for years , mostly because of working on a Unix box for years also .
It taught me a lot .
I have been through most of the distros but landed squarley on Arch Linux .
Why you ask ?
Becuase of it 's powerful wiki with it 's power to answer almost any question you have , it makes it the best Linux distro I have used yet...http : //wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Main \ _Page</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been using Linux for years, mostly because of working on a Unix box for years also.
It taught me a lot.
I have been through most of the distros but landed squarley on Arch Linux.
Why you ask?
Becuase of it's powerful wiki with it's power to answer almost any question you have, it makes it the best Linux distro I have used yet...http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Main\_Page</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310906</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1259858940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You make it sound like a bad thing...</p><p>Yes people don't want to tweak config files to give it an extra 10\% speed improvement.  Or fuss around searching for "Pure" GNU drivers that work.   They just want a system that boots up, allows them to go to their apps get their work done.  When they are done with work they may want some entertainment out of the device.</p><p>Do you feel you have to know how every component in your car works.<br>All the technology and people who go is to  flushing your toilet making sure that nasty stuff leaving your body doesn't come back to haunt you again.<br>Do you need to know what materials your desk is made out of, how they cut the wood etc...</p><p>There is a lot of stuff going on outside of our areas of interests.  We use a lot of such products and services but don't even think about all the details that goes on, for the most part we don't care, even if it vitally important to us, but as long as it works we are happy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You make it sound like a bad thing...Yes people do n't want to tweak config files to give it an extra 10 \ % speed improvement .
Or fuss around searching for " Pure " GNU drivers that work .
They just want a system that boots up , allows them to go to their apps get their work done .
When they are done with work they may want some entertainment out of the device.Do you feel you have to know how every component in your car works.All the technology and people who go is to flushing your toilet making sure that nasty stuff leaving your body does n't come back to haunt you again.Do you need to know what materials your desk is made out of , how they cut the wood etc...There is a lot of stuff going on outside of our areas of interests .
We use a lot of such products and services but do n't even think about all the details that goes on , for the most part we do n't care , even if it vitally important to us , but as long as it works we are happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You make it sound like a bad thing...Yes people don't want to tweak config files to give it an extra 10\% speed improvement.
Or fuss around searching for "Pure" GNU drivers that work.
They just want a system that boots up, allows them to go to their apps get their work done.
When they are done with work they may want some entertainment out of the device.Do you feel you have to know how every component in your car works.All the technology and people who go is to  flushing your toilet making sure that nasty stuff leaving your body doesn't come back to haunt you again.Do you need to know what materials your desk is made out of, how they cut the wood etc...There is a lot of stuff going on outside of our areas of interests.
We use a lot of such products and services but don't even think about all the details that goes on, for the most part we don't care, even if it vitally important to us, but as long as it works we are happy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310490</id>
	<title>It's better than Mac OS X documentation</title>
	<author>mario\_grgic</author>
	<datestamp>1259857320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or help files for that matter. But I don't think this is really the problem. It's how often does the user feel compelled to consult the documentation or help files in their normal daily work that matters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or help files for that matter .
But I do n't think this is really the problem .
It 's how often does the user feel compelled to consult the documentation or help files in their normal daily work that matters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or help files for that matter.
But I don't think this is really the problem.
It's how often does the user feel compelled to consult the documentation or help files in their normal daily work that matters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310802</id>
	<title>Do you even have to ask?</title>
	<author>BenEnglishAtHome</author>
	<datestamp>1259858580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To answer the question in the summary - You're kidding, right?</p><p>Linux docs are pretty much terrible.  I didn't RTFAs but I'm pretty sure I can imagine what they say.</p><p>The web forums are disorganized.  The plethora of "just different enough that this trick won't work on that one" distros dooms to failure even serious attempts to bring order to this world.  The traditional man pages don't have useful examples or appear to have been written as condensed cheat notes formatted for scrawling on the palm of your hand before going into an exam.  Yes, you go to google first if you want to have a ghost of a chance of figuring out your problems.</p><p>Now, don't get me wrong.  There are some stunningly nice examples of Linux docs out there.  There's just far too few and they're hidden in the giant haystack of crap, stuff that doesn't apply to your distro, and just plain wrong advice apparently written by griefers.</p><p>Interesting timing on this story, though.  I ran across a good example last week.  I'm having trouble with trying to get video to work in Ubuntu Hardy LTS on a machine with a poorly supported ATI integrated video setup.  After much reading, I finally find a few pearls that talk about bypassing X and using framebuffer output.  Supposedly VLC and mplayer can both do this.</p><p>I'll spare you the gory details.  But if you want to test this, I challenge anyone to locate online a reasonable set of command-line examples that show how to start those programs in this mode, examples that can be understood by a reasonably competent user who simply hasn't dealt with this stuff before.  The couple (and there were *just* a couple) of command-line examples I was able to locate after hours of searching made all sorts of assumptions about the command-line competence of the reader.</p><p>Ultimately, the docs just weren't good enough to do the job.  That is way, way too common in Linux-land.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To answer the question in the summary - You 're kidding , right ? Linux docs are pretty much terrible .
I did n't RTFAs but I 'm pretty sure I can imagine what they say.The web forums are disorganized .
The plethora of " just different enough that this trick wo n't work on that one " distros dooms to failure even serious attempts to bring order to this world .
The traditional man pages do n't have useful examples or appear to have been written as condensed cheat notes formatted for scrawling on the palm of your hand before going into an exam .
Yes , you go to google first if you want to have a ghost of a chance of figuring out your problems.Now , do n't get me wrong .
There are some stunningly nice examples of Linux docs out there .
There 's just far too few and they 're hidden in the giant haystack of crap , stuff that does n't apply to your distro , and just plain wrong advice apparently written by griefers.Interesting timing on this story , though .
I ran across a good example last week .
I 'm having trouble with trying to get video to work in Ubuntu Hardy LTS on a machine with a poorly supported ATI integrated video setup .
After much reading , I finally find a few pearls that talk about bypassing X and using framebuffer output .
Supposedly VLC and mplayer can both do this.I 'll spare you the gory details .
But if you want to test this , I challenge anyone to locate online a reasonable set of command-line examples that show how to start those programs in this mode , examples that can be understood by a reasonably competent user who simply has n't dealt with this stuff before .
The couple ( and there were * just * a couple ) of command-line examples I was able to locate after hours of searching made all sorts of assumptions about the command-line competence of the reader.Ultimately , the docs just were n't good enough to do the job .
That is way , way too common in Linux-land .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To answer the question in the summary - You're kidding, right?Linux docs are pretty much terrible.
I didn't RTFAs but I'm pretty sure I can imagine what they say.The web forums are disorganized.
The plethora of "just different enough that this trick won't work on that one" distros dooms to failure even serious attempts to bring order to this world.
The traditional man pages don't have useful examples or appear to have been written as condensed cheat notes formatted for scrawling on the palm of your hand before going into an exam.
Yes, you go to google first if you want to have a ghost of a chance of figuring out your problems.Now, don't get me wrong.
There are some stunningly nice examples of Linux docs out there.
There's just far too few and they're hidden in the giant haystack of crap, stuff that doesn't apply to your distro, and just plain wrong advice apparently written by griefers.Interesting timing on this story, though.
I ran across a good example last week.
I'm having trouble with trying to get video to work in Ubuntu Hardy LTS on a machine with a poorly supported ATI integrated video setup.
After much reading, I finally find a few pearls that talk about bypassing X and using framebuffer output.
Supposedly VLC and mplayer can both do this.I'll spare you the gory details.
But if you want to test this, I challenge anyone to locate online a reasonable set of command-line examples that show how to start those programs in this mode, examples that can be understood by a reasonably competent user who simply hasn't dealt with this stuff before.
The couple (and there were *just* a couple) of command-line examples I was able to locate after hours of searching made all sorts of assumptions about the command-line competence of the reader.Ultimately, the docs just weren't good enough to do the job.
That is way, way too common in Linux-land.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312734</id>
	<title>Most certainly</title>
	<author>angevin</author>
	<datestamp>1259864700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, compared to the *BSDs for instance Linux documentation is definitely lacking. I am a BSD user now but I used to use Linux too before I wisened up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , compared to the * BSDs for instance Linux documentation is definitely lacking .
I am a BSD user now but I used to use Linux too before I wisened up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, compared to the *BSDs for instance Linux documentation is definitely lacking.
I am a BSD user now but I used to use Linux too before I wisened up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310798</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>godrik</author>
	<datestamp>1259858520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, the man pages are only supposed to give the formal parameters of the command. The actual use of the command in a given context are given by HOW TOs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the man pages are only supposed to give the formal parameters of the command .
The actual use of the command in a given context are given by HOW TOs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the man pages are only supposed to give the formal parameters of the command.
The actual use of the command in a given context are given by HOW TOs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310994</id>
	<title>In The Words of a Project Manager I had once . . .</title>
	<author>Prototerm</author>
	<datestamp>1259859300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you need documentation for when you've got the source code? Just read *that* if you want to know how the program is supposed to work.</p><p>And how many FOSS developers are nodding their heads in agreement right now? Sad, sad, sad!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you need documentation for when you 've got the source code ?
Just read * that * if you want to know how the program is supposed to work.And how many FOSS developers are nodding their heads in agreement right now ?
Sad , sad , sad !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you need documentation for when you've got the source code?
Just read *that* if you want to know how the program is supposed to work.And how many FOSS developers are nodding their heads in agreement right now?
Sad, sad, sad!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311818</id>
	<title>Re:It's better than Mac OS X documentation</title>
	<author>cheftw</author>
	<datestamp>1259861820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then why does OSX \_have\_ documentation?</p><p>Debian didn't come with configs specific to my hardware either. It still worked though.</p><p>OSX, however, did not work.</p><p>Perhaps something that does not work needs no documentation?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then why does OSX \ _have \ _ documentation ? Debian did n't come with configs specific to my hardware either .
It still worked though.OSX , however , did not work.Perhaps something that does not work needs no documentation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then why does OSX \_have\_ documentation?Debian didn't come with configs specific to my hardware either.
It still worked though.OSX, however, did not work.Perhaps something that does not work needs no documentation?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310592</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259857680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Compare the Linux documentation to the FreeBSD Handbook and you will see that Linux has no documentation to speak of. Perhaps that's the price you pay for having no central management, I don't know.</p><p>Oh, and can we please get rid of that awful Gnu Info crap?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Compare the Linux documentation to the FreeBSD Handbook and you will see that Linux has no documentation to speak of .
Perhaps that 's the price you pay for having no central management , I do n't know.Oh , and can we please get rid of that awful Gnu Info crap ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Compare the Linux documentation to the FreeBSD Handbook and you will see that Linux has no documentation to speak of.
Perhaps that's the price you pay for having no central management, I don't know.Oh, and can we please get rid of that awful Gnu Info crap?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30318064</id>
	<title>Re:And good luck with Google, too</title>
	<author>WuphonsReach</author>
	<datestamp>1259841480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>As often as not, the only hits you get are posts in forums where someone is asking the exact same question you need answered... and getting no replies. Since 2005. And that person is me.</i> <br>
<br>
Some days the google-fu is simply not very strong...<br>
<br>
It's also one of the reasons that I started posting all of my technical problems and solutions to a public blog.  Mostly so that I can refer back if I run across the problem again, but also because it frustrates me to find no information on a particular error.<br>
<br>
When I can, I try to write to the middle of the class.  It's not just do XY&amp;Z, but I'll try to explain the rationale behind commands XY&amp;Z without bogging the post down in trivial details.<br>
<br>
And forums are the bane of searches.  Locked up content in a proprietary format that may vanish without notice.  Yes, they're easy to use, but their interface sucks if you want your messages presented in some other fashion.  I much prefer mailing lists...</htmltext>
<tokenext>As often as not , the only hits you get are posts in forums where someone is asking the exact same question you need answered... and getting no replies .
Since 2005 .
And that person is me .
Some days the google-fu is simply not very strong.. . It 's also one of the reasons that I started posting all of my technical problems and solutions to a public blog .
Mostly so that I can refer back if I run across the problem again , but also because it frustrates me to find no information on a particular error .
When I can , I try to write to the middle of the class .
It 's not just do XY&amp;Z , but I 'll try to explain the rationale behind commands XY&amp;Z without bogging the post down in trivial details .
And forums are the bane of searches .
Locked up content in a proprietary format that may vanish without notice .
Yes , they 're easy to use , but their interface sucks if you want your messages presented in some other fashion .
I much prefer mailing lists.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As often as not, the only hits you get are posts in forums where someone is asking the exact same question you need answered... and getting no replies.
Since 2005.
And that person is me.
Some days the google-fu is simply not very strong...

It's also one of the reasons that I started posting all of my technical problems and solutions to a public blog.
Mostly so that I can refer back if I run across the problem again, but also because it frustrates me to find no information on a particular error.
When I can, I try to write to the middle of the class.
It's not just do XY&amp;Z, but I'll try to explain the rationale behind commands XY&amp;Z without bogging the post down in trivial details.
And forums are the bane of searches.
Locked up content in a proprietary format that may vanish without notice.
Yes, they're easy to use, but their interface sucks if you want your messages presented in some other fashion.
I much prefer mailing lists...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312184</id>
	<title>Re:And good luck with Google, too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259862960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh yeah, well, I can top even that:</p><p>As often as not, the only hits you get are posts in forums where someone is asking the exact same question you need answered... and then they post saying they fixed it but not explaining how.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yeah , well , I can top even that : As often as not , the only hits you get are posts in forums where someone is asking the exact same question you need answered... and then they post saying they fixed it but not explaining how .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yeah, well, I can top even that:As often as not, the only hits you get are posts in forums where someone is asking the exact same question you need answered... and then they post saying they fixed it but not explaining how.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310780</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>mark-t</author>
	<datestamp>1259858460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nope.  Most users don't bother to even *READ* documentation, so the lack of it would not be a factor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope .
Most users do n't bother to even * READ * documentation , so the lack of it would not be a factor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope.
Most users don't bother to even *READ* documentation, so the lack of it would not be a factor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310550</id>
	<title>Depends</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259857560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>do new users even know Man pages exist? also another issue with man pages, I think, is for new users is that they are written for other technical users on the whole and not your aunt vera.<br>Anon Coward.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>do new users even know Man pages exist ?
also another issue with man pages , I think , is for new users is that they are written for other technical users on the whole and not your aunt vera.Anon Coward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>do new users even know Man pages exist?
also another issue with man pages, I think, is for new users is that they are written for other technical users on the whole and not your aunt vera.Anon Coward.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30316998</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>hduff</author>
	<datestamp>1259837460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some man pages do offer examples of common usage; those are great. The worst are GNU apps that use info; their man pages are worse than useless and their info pages are overwhelming and confusing.</p><p>It would be great if software authors would accept patches to their man pages that would illustrate common uses of their applications.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some man pages do offer examples of common usage ; those are great .
The worst are GNU apps that use info ; their man pages are worse than useless and their info pages are overwhelming and confusing.It would be great if software authors would accept patches to their man pages that would illustrate common uses of their applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some man pages do offer examples of common usage; those are great.
The worst are GNU apps that use info; their man pages are worse than useless and their info pages are overwhelming and confusing.It would be great if software authors would accept patches to their man pages that would illustrate common uses of their applications.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313922</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259868900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Type <tt>apropos</tt>.  It will show you what commands do a specified task.</p><p><tt>apropos burn<br>gnomebaker (1)       - an easy to use CD/DVD burner for GNOME</tt></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Type apropos .
It will show you what commands do a specified task.apropos burngnomebaker ( 1 ) - an easy to use CD/DVD burner for GNOME</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Type apropos.
It will show you what commands do a specified task.apropos burngnomebaker (1)       - an easy to use CD/DVD burner for GNOME</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30316388</id>
	<title>Uh, the 'skilled peoples' documentation is crap.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259835720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>". .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.not the documentation for the highly skilled technical people. .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>."</p><p>Is this because you're assuming that type of documentation is good? Well it's not, it's terrible. I love the linux, but the documentation is poor on a technical level for many things.</p><p>Working with solaris for example can be very annoying, but sh*t is actually well documented. Even their beta stuff has reasonably good documentation for gory technical details.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" .
. .not the documentation for the highly skilled technical people .
. .
" Is this because you 're assuming that type of documentation is good ?
Well it 's not , it 's terrible .
I love the linux , but the documentation is poor on a technical level for many things.Working with solaris for example can be very annoying , but sh * t is actually well documented .
Even their beta stuff has reasonably good documentation for gory technical details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>".
. .not the documentation for the highly skilled technical people.
. .
"Is this because you're assuming that type of documentation is good?
Well it's not, it's terrible.
I love the linux, but the documentation is poor on a technical level for many things.Working with solaris for example can be very annoying, but sh*t is actually well documented.
Even their beta stuff has reasonably good documentation for gory technical details.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310648</id>
	<title>man page != end user documentation</title>
	<author>theonlyholle</author>
	<datestamp>1259857980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The question in the summary shows the extent of the problem. No, a man page is not proper end-user documentation. It's great for a trained IT professional who quickly needs to look up the syntax for a command. But for my mom or my wife's dad, even getting to the man page is a challenge - and to get there, they need to know that man pages exist. Are there even man page viewers for the desktop? Ones that are readily accessible and preinstalled with the default system?
But I must come to Linux's defense, too. The documentation on my latest Windows system is not much better, except that a help system is built right into the desktop. It's the availability of third party printed documentation that makes the difference.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The question in the summary shows the extent of the problem .
No , a man page is not proper end-user documentation .
It 's great for a trained IT professional who quickly needs to look up the syntax for a command .
But for my mom or my wife 's dad , even getting to the man page is a challenge - and to get there , they need to know that man pages exist .
Are there even man page viewers for the desktop ?
Ones that are readily accessible and preinstalled with the default system ?
But I must come to Linux 's defense , too .
The documentation on my latest Windows system is not much better , except that a help system is built right into the desktop .
It 's the availability of third party printed documentation that makes the difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question in the summary shows the extent of the problem.
No, a man page is not proper end-user documentation.
It's great for a trained IT professional who quickly needs to look up the syntax for a command.
But for my mom or my wife's dad, even getting to the man page is a challenge - and to get there, they need to know that man pages exist.
Are there even man page viewers for the desktop?
Ones that are readily accessible and preinstalled with the default system?
But I must come to Linux's defense, too.
The documentation on my latest Windows system is not much better, except that a help system is built right into the desktop.
It's the availability of third party printed documentation that makes the difference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30322302</id>
	<title>Inline doc help via wiki? Usability &amp; design u</title>
	<author>HongPong</author>
	<datestamp>1259927340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>K I skimmed this whole thread, the core problem &amp; solution are elusive. Part of it is a decline in the 'harmony' of Linux app/desktop design integration, part is the information 'rot' of obsolete threads found on Google. The Gentoo wikis are pretty much the only bright spot here, no one can even cite a good GUI linux app documentation.</p><p>I'm not a Linux expert but I spend a lot of time dealing with Drupal which is also GPLed and regarded as a tough learning curve. They have dedicated a ton of effort into not just the documentation and forums but also U of M usability research. I met Dries at the U of M before they went in and looked at how peoples eyeballs scattered in panic because a RED ALERT BOX was worried their user creation password was not secure enough. They got a draft usability plan out of the research:<br> <a href="http://groups.drupal.org/node/9252" title="drupal.org">http://groups.drupal.org/node/9252</a> [drupal.org] - and even video of eyes mapped around the screen.<br>In this case the information, inline documentation really, came in perceived as too hot by being RED so they changed it in Drupal 7 to light orange bkgnd. You structure the information to direct attention appropriately and then deliver snippets when the environment changes.</p><p>Think about it: we have totally divorced 'documentation' from even considering how important little snippets of text are, delivered correctly *with the correct level of detail* AND *the ability to seek up down and laterally in the conceptual environment*, instead thinking of man vs info vs annoying old threads. Probably the most important documentation, definitely for non-GUI Linux, are the small, less-than-ten-line, instructions and advisories that come before prompts. And usually these have HTTP links included for big deals. If everyone tripled their effort here it would work a lot better than just cleaning up the disastrously wrong (or certainly obsolete) design of man and info pages. Could familiar man pages spit out more examples and not exhaustive list of flags? (well it has to if you believe man must only be one page of stuff with all the programmer hooks, signals &amp;etc. Where's the non-programmer material to be found then?)</p><p>Good wiki pages for software documentation usually break text into similar less-than-ten line sections, and do so in an up-down-lateral hierarchy of headers. Fortunately this can get exported and stashed into the app. If you had wiki paragraphs XML tagged to land in certain dialog boxes and other points, you could pipe wikified micro-documentation into the apps, even desktop apps. Hell if you just put a "WIKI??" button right there in the modal dialog box or prompt at least half the users would get it immediately. If a clever crew was handling this 'help string wiki' it would work out fine probably.But you'd have to control yr wiki or yr enemies would put in bad Windows YES/NO dialog boxes' help ("Do you want to print or save? YES/NO") just to mess w you.</p><p>Anything you present an end user should be structured in the newspaper article style - a pyramid structure leading with 'what does this do? how can i do the 3-5 basic things? why does this matter? what is this related to?' Beyond that you should be able to reach an overview of that part of the system architecture. Like apache2ctl would get you to rc and rc.conf and note what the runlevel is and why / which daemons are at runlevels.</p><p>There should be a clear ontology between nodes and levels of information. There is usually no explicit way to back out from a command to where the command fits in the system, or something you can run to lookup what a weird file does. maybe also the Apple 'receipt' type file that is a breadcrumb for packages could be used as a way to pull out documentation from different versions, another big gripe/snag here. There is not a lot of unity between Linux packaging systems and documentation and window managers. Obviously packaging info is already quite helpful but once things are installed it doesn't 'appear' anywhere useful, to other apps (imagine special warnings fo</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>K I skimmed this whole thread , the core problem &amp; solution are elusive .
Part of it is a decline in the 'harmony ' of Linux app/desktop design integration , part is the information 'rot ' of obsolete threads found on Google .
The Gentoo wikis are pretty much the only bright spot here , no one can even cite a good GUI linux app documentation.I 'm not a Linux expert but I spend a lot of time dealing with Drupal which is also GPLed and regarded as a tough learning curve .
They have dedicated a ton of effort into not just the documentation and forums but also U of M usability research .
I met Dries at the U of M before they went in and looked at how peoples eyeballs scattered in panic because a RED ALERT BOX was worried their user creation password was not secure enough .
They got a draft usability plan out of the research : http : //groups.drupal.org/node/9252 [ drupal.org ] - and even video of eyes mapped around the screen.In this case the information , inline documentation really , came in perceived as too hot by being RED so they changed it in Drupal 7 to light orange bkgnd .
You structure the information to direct attention appropriately and then deliver snippets when the environment changes.Think about it : we have totally divorced 'documentation ' from even considering how important little snippets of text are , delivered correctly * with the correct level of detail * AND * the ability to seek up down and laterally in the conceptual environment * , instead thinking of man vs info vs annoying old threads .
Probably the most important documentation , definitely for non-GUI Linux , are the small , less-than-ten-line , instructions and advisories that come before prompts .
And usually these have HTTP links included for big deals .
If everyone tripled their effort here it would work a lot better than just cleaning up the disastrously wrong ( or certainly obsolete ) design of man and info pages .
Could familiar man pages spit out more examples and not exhaustive list of flags ?
( well it has to if you believe man must only be one page of stuff with all the programmer hooks , signals &amp;etc .
Where 's the non-programmer material to be found then ?
) Good wiki pages for software documentation usually break text into similar less-than-ten line sections , and do so in an up-down-lateral hierarchy of headers .
Fortunately this can get exported and stashed into the app .
If you had wiki paragraphs XML tagged to land in certain dialog boxes and other points , you could pipe wikified micro-documentation into the apps , even desktop apps .
Hell if you just put a " WIKI ? ?
" button right there in the modal dialog box or prompt at least half the users would get it immediately .
If a clever crew was handling this 'help string wiki ' it would work out fine probably.But you 'd have to control yr wiki or yr enemies would put in bad Windows YES/NO dialog boxes ' help ( " Do you want to print or save ?
YES/NO " ) just to mess w you.Anything you present an end user should be structured in the newspaper article style - a pyramid structure leading with 'what does this do ?
how can i do the 3-5 basic things ?
why does this matter ?
what is this related to ?
' Beyond that you should be able to reach an overview of that part of the system architecture .
Like apache2ctl would get you to rc and rc.conf and note what the runlevel is and why / which daemons are at runlevels.There should be a clear ontology between nodes and levels of information .
There is usually no explicit way to back out from a command to where the command fits in the system , or something you can run to lookup what a weird file does .
maybe also the Apple 'receipt ' type file that is a breadcrumb for packages could be used as a way to pull out documentation from different versions , another big gripe/snag here .
There is not a lot of unity between Linux packaging systems and documentation and window managers .
Obviously packaging info is already quite helpful but once things are installed it does n't 'appear ' anywhere useful , to other apps ( imagine special warnings fo</tokentext>
<sentencetext>K I skimmed this whole thread, the core problem &amp; solution are elusive.
Part of it is a decline in the 'harmony' of Linux app/desktop design integration, part is the information 'rot' of obsolete threads found on Google.
The Gentoo wikis are pretty much the only bright spot here, no one can even cite a good GUI linux app documentation.I'm not a Linux expert but I spend a lot of time dealing with Drupal which is also GPLed and regarded as a tough learning curve.
They have dedicated a ton of effort into not just the documentation and forums but also U of M usability research.
I met Dries at the U of M before they went in and looked at how peoples eyeballs scattered in panic because a RED ALERT BOX was worried their user creation password was not secure enough.
They got a draft usability plan out of the research: http://groups.drupal.org/node/9252 [drupal.org] - and even video of eyes mapped around the screen.In this case the information, inline documentation really, came in perceived as too hot by being RED so they changed it in Drupal 7 to light orange bkgnd.
You structure the information to direct attention appropriately and then deliver snippets when the environment changes.Think about it: we have totally divorced 'documentation' from even considering how important little snippets of text are, delivered correctly *with the correct level of detail* AND *the ability to seek up down and laterally in the conceptual environment*, instead thinking of man vs info vs annoying old threads.
Probably the most important documentation, definitely for non-GUI Linux, are the small, less-than-ten-line, instructions and advisories that come before prompts.
And usually these have HTTP links included for big deals.
If everyone tripled their effort here it would work a lot better than just cleaning up the disastrously wrong (or certainly obsolete) design of man and info pages.
Could familiar man pages spit out more examples and not exhaustive list of flags?
(well it has to if you believe man must only be one page of stuff with all the programmer hooks, signals &amp;etc.
Where's the non-programmer material to be found then?
)Good wiki pages for software documentation usually break text into similar less-than-ten line sections, and do so in an up-down-lateral hierarchy of headers.
Fortunately this can get exported and stashed into the app.
If you had wiki paragraphs XML tagged to land in certain dialog boxes and other points, you could pipe wikified micro-documentation into the apps, even desktop apps.
Hell if you just put a "WIKI??
" button right there in the modal dialog box or prompt at least half the users would get it immediately.
If a clever crew was handling this 'help string wiki' it would work out fine probably.But you'd have to control yr wiki or yr enemies would put in bad Windows YES/NO dialog boxes' help ("Do you want to print or save?
YES/NO") just to mess w you.Anything you present an end user should be structured in the newspaper article style - a pyramid structure leading with 'what does this do?
how can i do the 3-5 basic things?
why does this matter?
what is this related to?
' Beyond that you should be able to reach an overview of that part of the system architecture.
Like apache2ctl would get you to rc and rc.conf and note what the runlevel is and why / which daemons are at runlevels.There should be a clear ontology between nodes and levels of information.
There is usually no explicit way to back out from a command to where the command fits in the system, or something you can run to lookup what a weird file does.
maybe also the Apple 'receipt' type file that is a breadcrumb for packages could be used as a way to pull out documentation from different versions, another big gripe/snag here.
There is not a lot of unity between Linux packaging systems and documentation and window managers.
Obviously packaging info is already quite helpful but once things are installed it doesn't 'appear' anywhere useful, to other apps (imagine special warnings fo</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310698</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>CasaDelGato</author>
	<datestamp>1259858160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The whole Linux Mindset to documentation can be summed up in the phrase "use the man page".
Yeah, right.  Man pages are only semi-useful if you ALREADY KNOW WHAT COMMAND YOU NEED.
Trying to FIND the command to do something is nearly impossible.
Almost as bad as trying to find out how to configure something. (just edit the twiddly.da config file in the googly.plex directory, note that the syntax is completely different from every other config file on the system.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole Linux Mindset to documentation can be summed up in the phrase " use the man page " .
Yeah , right .
Man pages are only semi-useful if you ALREADY KNOW WHAT COMMAND YOU NEED .
Trying to FIND the command to do something is nearly impossible .
Almost as bad as trying to find out how to configure something .
( just edit the twiddly.da config file in the googly.plex directory , note that the syntax is completely different from every other config file on the system .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole Linux Mindset to documentation can be summed up in the phrase "use the man page".
Yeah, right.
Man pages are only semi-useful if you ALREADY KNOW WHAT COMMAND YOU NEED.
Trying to FIND the command to do something is nearly impossible.
Almost as bad as trying to find out how to configure something.
(just edit the twiddly.da config file in the googly.plex directory, note that the syntax is completely different from every other config file on the system.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30322376</id>
	<title>Re:GIMP Problem All Over Again</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1259928780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Photoshops docs sux...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Photoshops docs sux... ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Photoshops docs sux... ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311334</id>
	<title>Commercial products can be worse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259860440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have worked with programs created by commercial vendors, closed source, and the documentation is horrifying. Not worth the paper it is printed on. All for the purpose of selling support.</p><p>I find Linux documentation to be far better than many commercial products.</p><p>Of course I think Google is the best source of documentation for most programs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have worked with programs created by commercial vendors , closed source , and the documentation is horrifying .
Not worth the paper it is printed on .
All for the purpose of selling support.I find Linux documentation to be far better than many commercial products.Of course I think Google is the best source of documentation for most programs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have worked with programs created by commercial vendors, closed source, and the documentation is horrifying.
Not worth the paper it is printed on.
All for the purpose of selling support.I find Linux documentation to be far better than many commercial products.Of course I think Google is the best source of documentation for most programs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314996</id>
	<title>Re:Random Online Linux Doc Complaints</title>
	<author>codegen</author>
	<datestamp>1259873400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I second this.. My most recent foray (yesterday) into Open source documentation involved a problem with Policy Kit. We have a headless ubuntu system in the lab which people use via "ssh -X" and Xnest. A recent update changed policies so that the administrator can no longer add users or change any permissions from Xnest (all of the gnome tools have the unlock icon greyed out!!). All of the manuals for PolicyKit and for PolicyKit gnome are virtually useless as they give the syntax for setting or modifying permissions, but there is no list of what the policy names for setting the permissions are. Searches on the web find results that say to go to the console and use Administration-&gt;Authorizations&gt; freedesktop<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..... But since there is no console, this is less than useful advice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I second this.. My most recent foray ( yesterday ) into Open source documentation involved a problem with Policy Kit .
We have a headless ubuntu system in the lab which people use via " ssh -X " and Xnest .
A recent update changed policies so that the administrator can no longer add users or change any permissions from Xnest ( all of the gnome tools have the unlock icon greyed out ! ! ) .
All of the manuals for PolicyKit and for PolicyKit gnome are virtually useless as they give the syntax for setting or modifying permissions , but there is no list of what the policy names for setting the permissions are .
Searches on the web find results that say to go to the console and use Administration- &gt; Authorizations &gt; freedesktop ..... But since there is no console , this is less than useful advice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I second this.. My most recent foray (yesterday) into Open source documentation involved a problem with Policy Kit.
We have a headless ubuntu system in the lab which people use via "ssh -X" and Xnest.
A recent update changed policies so that the administrator can no longer add users or change any permissions from Xnest (all of the gnome tools have the unlock icon greyed out!!).
All of the manuals for PolicyKit and for PolicyKit gnome are virtually useless as they give the syntax for setting or modifying permissions, but there is no list of what the policy names for setting the permissions are.
Searches on the web find results that say to go to the console and use Administration-&gt;Authorizations&gt; freedesktop ..... But since there is no console, this is less than useful advice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310664</id>
	<title>Let's see...</title>
	<author>al3</author>
	<datestamp>1259858040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p># man linux<br>
No manual entry for linux
</p><p>Yup. It's lacking</p></htmltext>
<tokenext># man linux No manual entry for linux Yup .
It 's lacking</tokentext>
<sentencetext># man linux
No manual entry for linux
Yup.
It's lacking</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310730</id>
	<title>Re:It's better than Mac OS X documentation</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1259858280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mac OS X doesn't need documentation. It is written with specific hardware in mind, and comes pre-configured for it.<br> <br>Debian doesn't come with the appropriate drivers and conf files edited for my Gigabyte motherboard (and on-board sound, LAN, and chipset), my nVidia graphics card, and my PCI USB2 card. OS X doesn't <i>need</i> them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mac OS X does n't need documentation .
It is written with specific hardware in mind , and comes pre-configured for it .
Debian does n't come with the appropriate drivers and conf files edited for my Gigabyte motherboard ( and on-board sound , LAN , and chipset ) , my nVidia graphics card , and my PCI USB2 card .
OS X does n't need them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mac OS X doesn't need documentation.
It is written with specific hardware in mind, and comes pre-configured for it.
Debian doesn't come with the appropriate drivers and conf files edited for my Gigabyte motherboard (and on-board sound, LAN, and chipset), my nVidia graphics card, and my PCI USB2 card.
OS X doesn't need them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312144</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1259862840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like Windows. Every time I need to set up a system it requires searching forums for registry hacks, third-party utilities, and info on "advanced" settings hidden by the gui to make even basic changes. Windows just has the advantage of annoying and frustrating a larger user-base who take to the internet to complain and find solutions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like Windows .
Every time I need to set up a system it requires searching forums for registry hacks , third-party utilities , and info on " advanced " settings hidden by the gui to make even basic changes .
Windows just has the advantage of annoying and frustrating a larger user-base who take to the internet to complain and find solutions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like Windows.
Every time I need to set up a system it requires searching forums for registry hacks, third-party utilities, and info on "advanced" settings hidden by the gui to make even basic changes.
Windows just has the advantage of annoying and frustrating a larger user-base who take to the internet to complain and find solutions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314076</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>scamper\_22</author>
	<datestamp>1259869620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linux is not for mainstream users because people want it to be free.</p><p>You will always find programmers and people willing to write open source code out of sheer interest or as part of a company for a technical aspect.</p><p>However, who gets to pay for the grunt work that is of little interest to anyone and of no use to corporations who just want to use the linux ecosystem?  The answer... no one.</p><p>Such in the case with documentation.  No body has a passion to document all the little details of a system.  Corporations that might sponsor certain projects, don't really have an interest in that either as they just tend to use the components and are likely staffed by technical people.  As a matter of fact, it might (only in certain cases) be in their interest not to make the components too user friendly, so they can sell support.</p><p>Until people get used to the idea of selling a linux distribution to the end user, these problems will not be fixed.<br>This is not a case where you can expect a huge party to make a one time payment to fix all these issues.<br>Perhaps netbooks or the like will start this process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux is not for mainstream users because people want it to be free.You will always find programmers and people willing to write open source code out of sheer interest or as part of a company for a technical aspect.However , who gets to pay for the grunt work that is of little interest to anyone and of no use to corporations who just want to use the linux ecosystem ?
The answer... no one.Such in the case with documentation .
No body has a passion to document all the little details of a system .
Corporations that might sponsor certain projects , do n't really have an interest in that either as they just tend to use the components and are likely staffed by technical people .
As a matter of fact , it might ( only in certain cases ) be in their interest not to make the components too user friendly , so they can sell support.Until people get used to the idea of selling a linux distribution to the end user , these problems will not be fixed.This is not a case where you can expect a huge party to make a one time payment to fix all these issues.Perhaps netbooks or the like will start this process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux is not for mainstream users because people want it to be free.You will always find programmers and people willing to write open source code out of sheer interest or as part of a company for a technical aspect.However, who gets to pay for the grunt work that is of little interest to anyone and of no use to corporations who just want to use the linux ecosystem?
The answer... no one.Such in the case with documentation.
No body has a passion to document all the little details of a system.
Corporations that might sponsor certain projects, don't really have an interest in that either as they just tend to use the components and are likely staffed by technical people.
As a matter of fact, it might (only in certain cases) be in their interest not to make the components too user friendly, so they can sell support.Until people get used to the idea of selling a linux distribution to the end user, these problems will not be fixed.This is not a case where you can expect a huge party to make a one time payment to fix all these issues.Perhaps netbooks or the like will start this process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311020</id>
	<title>You have to ask? Very well, here a the rundown.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259859360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Assuming a linux distribution consists of 1) the kernel, 2) gnu utilities, 3) secret distro sauce, 4) other stuff, then we have:</p><p>1) The kernel has a directory "documentation" with some half-assed READMEs that haven't been updated in ages. If you want help, well, ever tried getting help on lkml? Ok, I wasn't entirely fair. There is tldp and some of the material on it is actually quite good, but it is a website, and not manpages. Ensure it properly formats in plain text and make it easily installable locally and you have improved the situation quite a bit.</p><p>2) Most of the gnu utilities come with texinfo documentation, with a captive reader that requires you to love emacs for it to be usable (altough an also-insufficient alternative exists, it does roughly the same stupid things, so it can be ignored for this argument), and that half the time will show a manpage stating that for the REAL documentation you'll need to look at the texinfo documentation, silently insulting you with its captiveness (because it ignored $PAGER even for the manpage and couldn't just bail out because it couldn't do its job, which is showing info pages and not manpages--the existing solution for reading manpages is vastly superior to info) and the implication that you now have to write that documentation yourself. In short, high-proof top-notch GNU workflow fail.</p><p>3) Some distributions actually "do" some "documentation", but usually html on some site elsewhere, or html on your hard drive, tops. There is an exception that started a whole project to "create man pages", but most resulting manpages are "tickmark tickers" and as such completely useless. Some are copy-pastes of standards documents, telling you how the system OUGHT TO work, but not how it actually works, or where the latter differs from the former, or how to practically and portably use it, which is what you want to know.</p><p>4) For the rest, the best you can expect is shoddy html or a README in an obscure location. You might very well find that the documentation is automatically generated (say, by doxygen) which means you now need five different toolchains to extract the information from the source into all supported formats, only to find that it again is tickmark ticking snippets that aren't actually useful because they are written from the perspective of someone who already knows the source, and who only writes documentation because that's supposedly good karma. If you want to write something against the software, you now have five different formats that tell you the same: Some, but not all, low-level details, and no overview, giving no idea how to use the interface as opposed to this single function. Often the descriptions are mind numbingly dull, like "This function has a parameter. The parameter is named myintparameter and this parameter is ment to convey a value of myintparameter's type." Useful. If you actually want to use the software, you're SOL. Just like that.</p><p>So yes, yes indeed. The state of linux documentation is poor to very poor. Now, before anybody exclaims that other (commercial) software does worse, yes, there are others that do worse. But there are others, including free ones, that do better. It is usually the BSD family that comes with very usable manpages and at least FreeBSD has had a documentation project that tries very hard and more often than not succeeds in providing suitable overview material, tutorials, FAQs, and so on and so forth. To meet or exceed that standard would be a worthy goal. Achieving that is also very clearly a long way off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming a linux distribution consists of 1 ) the kernel , 2 ) gnu utilities , 3 ) secret distro sauce , 4 ) other stuff , then we have : 1 ) The kernel has a directory " documentation " with some half-assed READMEs that have n't been updated in ages .
If you want help , well , ever tried getting help on lkml ?
Ok , I was n't entirely fair .
There is tldp and some of the material on it is actually quite good , but it is a website , and not manpages .
Ensure it properly formats in plain text and make it easily installable locally and you have improved the situation quite a bit.2 ) Most of the gnu utilities come with texinfo documentation , with a captive reader that requires you to love emacs for it to be usable ( altough an also-insufficient alternative exists , it does roughly the same stupid things , so it can be ignored for this argument ) , and that half the time will show a manpage stating that for the REAL documentation you 'll need to look at the texinfo documentation , silently insulting you with its captiveness ( because it ignored $ PAGER even for the manpage and could n't just bail out because it could n't do its job , which is showing info pages and not manpages--the existing solution for reading manpages is vastly superior to info ) and the implication that you now have to write that documentation yourself .
In short , high-proof top-notch GNU workflow fail.3 ) Some distributions actually " do " some " documentation " , but usually html on some site elsewhere , or html on your hard drive , tops .
There is an exception that started a whole project to " create man pages " , but most resulting manpages are " tickmark tickers " and as such completely useless .
Some are copy-pastes of standards documents , telling you how the system OUGHT TO work , but not how it actually works , or where the latter differs from the former , or how to practically and portably use it , which is what you want to know.4 ) For the rest , the best you can expect is shoddy html or a README in an obscure location .
You might very well find that the documentation is automatically generated ( say , by doxygen ) which means you now need five different toolchains to extract the information from the source into all supported formats , only to find that it again is tickmark ticking snippets that are n't actually useful because they are written from the perspective of someone who already knows the source , and who only writes documentation because that 's supposedly good karma .
If you want to write something against the software , you now have five different formats that tell you the same : Some , but not all , low-level details , and no overview , giving no idea how to use the interface as opposed to this single function .
Often the descriptions are mind numbingly dull , like " This function has a parameter .
The parameter is named myintparameter and this parameter is ment to convey a value of myintparameter 's type .
" Useful .
If you actually want to use the software , you 're SOL .
Just like that.So yes , yes indeed .
The state of linux documentation is poor to very poor .
Now , before anybody exclaims that other ( commercial ) software does worse , yes , there are others that do worse .
But there are others , including free ones , that do better .
It is usually the BSD family that comes with very usable manpages and at least FreeBSD has had a documentation project that tries very hard and more often than not succeeds in providing suitable overview material , tutorials , FAQs , and so on and so forth .
To meet or exceed that standard would be a worthy goal .
Achieving that is also very clearly a long way off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming a linux distribution consists of 1) the kernel, 2) gnu utilities, 3) secret distro sauce, 4) other stuff, then we have:1) The kernel has a directory "documentation" with some half-assed READMEs that haven't been updated in ages.
If you want help, well, ever tried getting help on lkml?
Ok, I wasn't entirely fair.
There is tldp and some of the material on it is actually quite good, but it is a website, and not manpages.
Ensure it properly formats in plain text and make it easily installable locally and you have improved the situation quite a bit.2) Most of the gnu utilities come with texinfo documentation, with a captive reader that requires you to love emacs for it to be usable (altough an also-insufficient alternative exists, it does roughly the same stupid things, so it can be ignored for this argument), and that half the time will show a manpage stating that for the REAL documentation you'll need to look at the texinfo documentation, silently insulting you with its captiveness (because it ignored $PAGER even for the manpage and couldn't just bail out because it couldn't do its job, which is showing info pages and not manpages--the existing solution for reading manpages is vastly superior to info) and the implication that you now have to write that documentation yourself.
In short, high-proof top-notch GNU workflow fail.3) Some distributions actually "do" some "documentation", but usually html on some site elsewhere, or html on your hard drive, tops.
There is an exception that started a whole project to "create man pages", but most resulting manpages are "tickmark tickers" and as such completely useless.
Some are copy-pastes of standards documents, telling you how the system OUGHT TO work, but not how it actually works, or where the latter differs from the former, or how to practically and portably use it, which is what you want to know.4) For the rest, the best you can expect is shoddy html or a README in an obscure location.
You might very well find that the documentation is automatically generated (say, by doxygen) which means you now need five different toolchains to extract the information from the source into all supported formats, only to find that it again is tickmark ticking snippets that aren't actually useful because they are written from the perspective of someone who already knows the source, and who only writes documentation because that's supposedly good karma.
If you want to write something against the software, you now have five different formats that tell you the same: Some, but not all, low-level details, and no overview, giving no idea how to use the interface as opposed to this single function.
Often the descriptions are mind numbingly dull, like "This function has a parameter.
The parameter is named myintparameter and this parameter is ment to convey a value of myintparameter's type.
" Useful.
If you actually want to use the software, you're SOL.
Just like that.So yes, yes indeed.
The state of linux documentation is poor to very poor.
Now, before anybody exclaims that other (commercial) software does worse, yes, there are others that do worse.
But there are others, including free ones, that do better.
It is usually the BSD family that comes with very usable manpages and at least FreeBSD has had a documentation project that tries very hard and more often than not succeeds in providing suitable overview material, tutorials, FAQs, and so on and so forth.
To meet or exceed that standard would be a worthy goal.
Achieving that is also very clearly a long way off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30322368</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation Doesn't Matter..</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1259928660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A non-technically-minded person will never want to learn how to use a computer.</p></div><p>At which point any documentation is pointless. I am serious.  A desktop application has failed for basic users when the basic user needs documentation at all. And lets face facts, they won't read it anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A non-technically-minded person will never want to learn how to use a computer.At which point any documentation is pointless .
I am serious .
A desktop application has failed for basic users when the basic user needs documentation at all .
And lets face facts , they wo n't read it anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A non-technically-minded person will never want to learn how to use a computer.At which point any documentation is pointless.
I am serious.
A desktop application has failed for basic users when the basic user needs documentation at all.
And lets face facts, they won't read it anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30316362</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259835600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>fakeraid? Thats easy! Just type in the command for a raid-type mount with the -raid (stupid, I know) and -fake options and tell it to put it in the root directory:</p><p># rm -rf /</p><p>simple!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fakeraid ?
Thats easy !
Just type in the command for a raid-type mount with the -raid ( stupid , I know ) and -fake options and tell it to put it in the root directory : # rm -rf /simple !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fakeraid?
Thats easy!
Just type in the command for a raid-type mount with the -raid (stupid, I know) and -fake options and tell it to put it in the root directory:# rm -rf /simple!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310622</id>
	<title>Oh man!</title>
	<author>random string of num</author>
	<datestamp>1259857800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...pages are impenetrable

I find the ubuntu community docs quite helpfull though it is hard to find the right page to your problem innitialy</htmltext>
<tokenext>...pages are impenetrable I find the ubuntu community docs quite helpfull though it is hard to find the right page to your problem innitialy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...pages are impenetrable

I find the ubuntu community docs quite helpfull though it is hard to find the right page to your problem innitialy</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311648</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>colsandurz45</author>
	<datestamp>1259861400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Man pages are only semi-useful if you ALREADY KNOW WHAT COMMAND YOU NEED.</p></div><p>Try man -k</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Man pages are only semi-useful if you ALREADY KNOW WHAT COMMAND YOU NEED.Try man -k</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Man pages are only semi-useful if you ALREADY KNOW WHAT COMMAND YOU NEED.Try man -k
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311456</id>
	<title>Re:If you write it will they come?</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1259860860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your question is irrelevant.</p><p>If you don't write it, they most will not come and those that do come will not stay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your question is irrelevant.If you do n't write it , they most will not come and those that do come will not stay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your question is irrelevant.If you don't write it, they most will not come and those that do come will not stay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310672</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>Americium</author>
	<datestamp>1259858040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly. Creating documentation for mainstream users is completely pointless. I personally think Ubuntuforums has great docs. I can just copy paste what they tell me, and voila, i have fakeraid setup, or whatever else is hard to install.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Creating documentation for mainstream users is completely pointless .
I personally think Ubuntuforums has great docs .
I can just copy paste what they tell me , and voila , i have fakeraid setup , or whatever else is hard to install .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Creating documentation for mainstream users is completely pointless.
I personally think Ubuntuforums has great docs.
I can just copy paste what they tell me, and voila, i have fakeraid setup, or whatever else is hard to install.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30315866</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation Doesn't Matter..</title>
	<author>erictheturtle</author>
	<datestamp>1259833680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's sad when the <a href="http://digg.com/odd\_stuff/What\_Is\_A\_Browser" title="digg.com" rel="nofollow">tech crowd mock folks who don't know what a web browser is</a> [digg.com]. Poor nerds have no concept that the majority of people treat computers like an appliance.</p><p>It's something to get stuff done. The amount of maintenance a computer needs is absurd (defragging, virus scanning, updates, firewalls, file management, etc, etc), yet the computer savvy are baffled when "lusers" don't do it. Maybe if maintenance was more like 6 (like a washer) people could do it. Currently though, if you try turning on a computer after 6 months you are bombarded with notifications requesting maintenance.</p><p>Apple really is ahead of the game on this one, and it's a huge reason why the iPhone is such a hit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's sad when the tech crowd mock folks who do n't know what a web browser is [ digg.com ] .
Poor nerds have no concept that the majority of people treat computers like an appliance.It 's something to get stuff done .
The amount of maintenance a computer needs is absurd ( defragging , virus scanning , updates , firewalls , file management , etc , etc ) , yet the computer savvy are baffled when " lusers " do n't do it .
Maybe if maintenance was more like 6 ( like a washer ) people could do it .
Currently though , if you try turning on a computer after 6 months you are bombarded with notifications requesting maintenance.Apple really is ahead of the game on this one , and it 's a huge reason why the iPhone is such a hit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's sad when the tech crowd mock folks who don't know what a web browser is [digg.com].
Poor nerds have no concept that the majority of people treat computers like an appliance.It's something to get stuff done.
The amount of maintenance a computer needs is absurd (defragging, virus scanning, updates, firewalls, file management, etc, etc), yet the computer savvy are baffled when "lusers" don't do it.
Maybe if maintenance was more like 6 (like a washer) people could do it.
Currently though, if you try turning on a computer after 6 months you are bombarded with notifications requesting maintenance.Apple really is ahead of the game on this one, and it's a huge reason why the iPhone is such a hit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30315420</id>
	<title>Re:And good luck with Google, too</title>
	<author>mauriceh</author>
	<datestamp>1259831760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30352744</id>
	<title>The Linux Community:  Best Of Times, Worst Of Time</title>
	<author>assertation</author>
	<datestamp>1260200100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't say anything about the (sucky) state of Linux documentation that hasn't already been said.</p><p>I think the Linux community makes it worse than it has to be with their attitudes.</p><p>There are a lot of helpful and knowledgeable people.</p><p>There are also a lot of knowledgeable people who are also cranky who RTFM people.   There are also people who don't know that much, but who are looking to RTFM people anyway.</p><p>It goes without saying that both groups of people don't help the retention of converts and they aren't getting the most joy out of their time that they could be.  Watch a fun movie, go on a date or slam some helpless geek.....hmmm what is more fun?</p><p>Interestingly, I've noticed that in the Mac and FreeBSD communities that if people don't know the answer to a question or don't want to answer it for whatever reason ( the person didn't provide good info with their question, read the docs, etc ) they will simply not respond.</p><p>Imagine that.</p><p>Both platforms have better documentation too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't say anything about the ( sucky ) state of Linux documentation that has n't already been said.I think the Linux community makes it worse than it has to be with their attitudes.There are a lot of helpful and knowledgeable people.There are also a lot of knowledgeable people who are also cranky who RTFM people .
There are also people who do n't know that much , but who are looking to RTFM people anyway.It goes without saying that both groups of people do n't help the retention of converts and they are n't getting the most joy out of their time that they could be .
Watch a fun movie , go on a date or slam some helpless geek.....hmmm what is more fun ? Interestingly , I 've noticed that in the Mac and FreeBSD communities that if people do n't know the answer to a question or do n't want to answer it for whatever reason ( the person did n't provide good info with their question , read the docs , etc ) they will simply not respond.Imagine that.Both platforms have better documentation too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't say anything about the (sucky) state of Linux documentation that hasn't already been said.I think the Linux community makes it worse than it has to be with their attitudes.There are a lot of helpful and knowledgeable people.There are also a lot of knowledgeable people who are also cranky who RTFM people.
There are also people who don't know that much, but who are looking to RTFM people anyway.It goes without saying that both groups of people don't help the retention of converts and they aren't getting the most joy out of their time that they could be.
Watch a fun movie, go on a date or slam some helpless geek.....hmmm what is more fun?Interestingly, I've noticed that in the Mac and FreeBSD communities that if people don't know the answer to a question or don't want to answer it for whatever reason ( the person didn't provide good info with their question, read the docs, etc ) they will simply not respond.Imagine that.Both platforms have better documentation too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310502</id>
	<title>Does Linux have poor documentation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259857380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does the pope shit in his hat?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the pope shit in his hat ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the pope shit in his hat?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311722</id>
	<title>But what if you don't even know the command?</title>
	<author>Wint3rhart</author>
	<datestamp>1259861580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The man pages had (and still have) the same problem that a dictionary does:  you have to know the command with which you need help before you can look up how to use it.

Example from a month or so ago:  I was having an issue with a binary telling me "no such file or directory" when I tried to run it.  It wasn't the binary itself that was the problem (obviously, IT existed!) but rather it turned out to be a missing dynamically linked library.  I didn't know that the "ldd" command even existed until google told me; man pages are sort of useless in a situation like that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The man pages had ( and still have ) the same problem that a dictionary does : you have to know the command with which you need help before you can look up how to use it .
Example from a month or so ago : I was having an issue with a binary telling me " no such file or directory " when I tried to run it .
It was n't the binary itself that was the problem ( obviously , IT existed !
) but rather it turned out to be a missing dynamically linked library .
I did n't know that the " ldd " command even existed until google told me ; man pages are sort of useless in a situation like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The man pages had (and still have) the same problem that a dictionary does:  you have to know the command with which you need help before you can look up how to use it.
Example from a month or so ago:  I was having an issue with a binary telling me "no such file or directory" when I tried to run it.
It wasn't the binary itself that was the problem (obviously, IT existed!
) but rather it turned out to be a missing dynamically linked library.
I didn't know that the "ldd" command even existed until google told me; man pages are sort of useless in a situation like that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30319292</id>
	<title>Re:I have 3 real issues with manpages</title>
	<author>xiong.chiamiov</author>
	<datestamp>1259847720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the parameters are sorted alphabetically - so you might have to scroll through 50 screenpages of obscure parameters that you most certainly never need until you find the one you're looking for (IF you are still reading at that point)</p></div><p>You can search by hitting<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/, just like in firefox.  'n' goes to the next instance.  Press 'h' if you want to know more.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the parameters are sorted alphabetically - so you might have to scroll through 50 screenpages of obscure parameters that you most certainly never need until you find the one you 're looking for ( IF you are still reading at that point ) You can search by hitting / , just like in firefox .
'n ' goes to the next instance .
Press 'h ' if you want to know more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the parameters are sorted alphabetically - so you might have to scroll through 50 screenpages of obscure parameters that you most certainly never need until you find the one you're looking for (IF you are still reading at that point)You can search by hitting /, just like in firefox.
'n' goes to the next instance.
Press 'h' if you want to know more.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30318440</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>IrquiM</author>
	<datestamp>1259843160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ls<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/doc/Linux-HOWTOs/</p><p>Do you know any other systems that comes with a Coffee howto?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ls /usr/doc/Linux-HOWTOs/Do you know any other systems that comes with a Coffee howto ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ls /usr/doc/Linux-HOWTOs/Do you know any other systems that comes with a Coffee howto?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311772</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259861760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How's that different in the very successful Windows world? Where's the Windows user level documentation that teaches Tom to burn a CD? I suspect that it's either open-every-single-menu-starting-with-Start or call-Bob, that is Tom's computer savvy friend. Both options are available with Linux even if there are less Bobs that know Linux than there are for Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How 's that different in the very successful Windows world ?
Where 's the Windows user level documentation that teaches Tom to burn a CD ?
I suspect that it 's either open-every-single-menu-starting-with-Start or call-Bob , that is Tom 's computer savvy friend .
Both options are available with Linux even if there are less Bobs that know Linux than there are for Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How's that different in the very successful Windows world?
Where's the Windows user level documentation that teaches Tom to burn a CD?
I suspect that it's either open-every-single-menu-starting-with-Start or call-Bob, that is Tom's computer savvy friend.
Both options are available with Linux even if there are less Bobs that know Linux than there are for Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312216</id>
	<title>Documentation - and needing it!</title>
	<author>ElecCham</author>
	<datestamp>1259863020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are two things, in my experience, that are holding Linux - and indeed, the majority of open-source projects - back.

Firstly (in no particular order) is that documentation is generally nonexistent, inadequate, outdated, or even actively misleading.  When this isn't the case, it's too frequently written from the viewpoint of someone who already knows exactly what they want to do, they have just forgotten where the button is.  I've been using computers for thirty years (running just about every common OS there's been over that time period), and programming for most of that - and I still come across too many cases where they're using a different term than I would have used, and thus it ends up being a steeplechase to try to figure out how to do what I'm after.  I also am frustrated at how often I need to try going to the documentation in the first place - if it's a simple, frequently-performed task, it should be fairly intuitive, which would indicate that after as long as I've been using computers, I should be able to figure it out!

The other downfall I've come across is a "complexity gap" - Linux is, in my experience, fine for a beginning user, and okay for a gearhead... but the people in between are kind of screwed.  The basic stuff "just works", and if you are willing to hack scripts or compile code, you can do just about anything - but all too often, if you need to do something even just a little past the basic stuff, you *have* to start hacking scripts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are two things , in my experience , that are holding Linux - and indeed , the majority of open-source projects - back .
Firstly ( in no particular order ) is that documentation is generally nonexistent , inadequate , outdated , or even actively misleading .
When this is n't the case , it 's too frequently written from the viewpoint of someone who already knows exactly what they want to do , they have just forgotten where the button is .
I 've been using computers for thirty years ( running just about every common OS there 's been over that time period ) , and programming for most of that - and I still come across too many cases where they 're using a different term than I would have used , and thus it ends up being a steeplechase to try to figure out how to do what I 'm after .
I also am frustrated at how often I need to try going to the documentation in the first place - if it 's a simple , frequently-performed task , it should be fairly intuitive , which would indicate that after as long as I 've been using computers , I should be able to figure it out !
The other downfall I 've come across is a " complexity gap " - Linux is , in my experience , fine for a beginning user , and okay for a gearhead... but the people in between are kind of screwed .
The basic stuff " just works " , and if you are willing to hack scripts or compile code , you can do just about anything - but all too often , if you need to do something even just a little past the basic stuff , you * have * to start hacking scripts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are two things, in my experience, that are holding Linux - and indeed, the majority of open-source projects - back.
Firstly (in no particular order) is that documentation is generally nonexistent, inadequate, outdated, or even actively misleading.
When this isn't the case, it's too frequently written from the viewpoint of someone who already knows exactly what they want to do, they have just forgotten where the button is.
I've been using computers for thirty years (running just about every common OS there's been over that time period), and programming for most of that - and I still come across too many cases where they're using a different term than I would have used, and thus it ends up being a steeplechase to try to figure out how to do what I'm after.
I also am frustrated at how often I need to try going to the documentation in the first place - if it's a simple, frequently-performed task, it should be fairly intuitive, which would indicate that after as long as I've been using computers, I should be able to figure it out!
The other downfall I've come across is a "complexity gap" - Linux is, in my experience, fine for a beginning user, and okay for a gearhead... but the people in between are kind of screwed.
The basic stuff "just works", and if you are willing to hack scripts or compile code, you can do just about anything - but all too often, if you need to do something even just a little past the basic stuff, you *have* to start hacking scripts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313326</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1259866860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Tracking down how to set up a remote control reliably with Lirc is a pain beyond torture as well.</p><p>What? "apt-get install lirc" is too hard for you?</p><p>REALLY. This is something that has gotten a LOT better in Ubuntu in the last few years.</p><p>Ok, so this FUD isn't from 1998 but it's still a bit outdated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Tracking down how to set up a remote control reliably with Lirc is a pain beyond torture as well.What ?
" apt-get install lirc " is too hard for you ? REALLY .
This is something that has gotten a LOT better in Ubuntu in the last few years.Ok , so this FUD is n't from 1998 but it 's still a bit outdated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Tracking down how to set up a remote control reliably with Lirc is a pain beyond torture as well.What?
"apt-get install lirc" is too hard for you?REALLY.
This is something that has gotten a LOT better in Ubuntu in the last few years.Ok, so this FUD isn't from 1998 but it's still a bit outdated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30318526</id>
	<title>What is this "good" documention you speak of?</title>
	<author>grikdog</author>
	<datestamp>1259843580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Caroline Rose edited Apple's <i>Inside Macintosh</i>, a set of books that let me support my family for several years.  Other than that, I can't recall seeing <i>any</i> documentation that wasn't a simple port of GUI menu structure into linear text.  The dearth of answers to the questions "why?" and "wherefore?" is stunning in its Bauhaus minimalisticalisation.
<br> <br>
On the other hand, having <i>written</i> code nobody fresh out of college could understand (the guys, i.e., who write versions greater than 2...), I can understand the desperate need to ship before documenting before plunging into the next vat of we-need-it-yesterday.
<br> <br>
You'd think, with all the time in the world, and no pressures but the self-imposed, Linux documentation could exceed the need to spew surface and delve never.
<br> <br>
On the OTHER other hand, why does a manual have to exist between the pages of a book?  Why can't it be Google?  It frequently is already.  But I would second the motion made elsewhere, to at least append dates and version numbers to your how-tos.  Knowledge has a half-life of less than 50 million seconds these days.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Caroline Rose edited Apple 's Inside Macintosh , a set of books that let me support my family for several years .
Other than that , I ca n't recall seeing any documentation that was n't a simple port of GUI menu structure into linear text .
The dearth of answers to the questions " why ?
" and " wherefore ?
" is stunning in its Bauhaus minimalisticalisation .
On the other hand , having written code nobody fresh out of college could understand ( the guys , i.e. , who write versions greater than 2... ) , I can understand the desperate need to ship before documenting before plunging into the next vat of we-need-it-yesterday .
You 'd think , with all the time in the world , and no pressures but the self-imposed , Linux documentation could exceed the need to spew surface and delve never .
On the OTHER other hand , why does a manual have to exist between the pages of a book ?
Why ca n't it be Google ?
It frequently is already .
But I would second the motion made elsewhere , to at least append dates and version numbers to your how-tos .
Knowledge has a half-life of less than 50 million seconds these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Caroline Rose edited Apple's Inside Macintosh, a set of books that let me support my family for several years.
Other than that, I can't recall seeing any documentation that wasn't a simple port of GUI menu structure into linear text.
The dearth of answers to the questions "why?
" and "wherefore?
" is stunning in its Bauhaus minimalisticalisation.
On the other hand, having written code nobody fresh out of college could understand (the guys, i.e., who write versions greater than 2...), I can understand the desperate need to ship before documenting before plunging into the next vat of we-need-it-yesterday.
You'd think, with all the time in the world, and no pressures but the self-imposed, Linux documentation could exceed the need to spew surface and delve never.
On the OTHER other hand, why does a manual have to exist between the pages of a book?
Why can't it be Google?
It frequently is already.
But I would second the motion made elsewhere, to at least append dates and version numbers to your how-tos.
Knowledge has a half-life of less than 50 million seconds these days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313848</id>
	<title>Re:And good luck with Google, too</title>
	<author>raddan</author>
	<datestamp>1259868600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This actually happened to me once.  I asked a question on a forum, and the person who responded posted a link to me posting the question many years before.  Worst part: someone answered it back then.  D'oh!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This actually happened to me once .
I asked a question on a forum , and the person who responded posted a link to me posting the question many years before .
Worst part : someone answered it back then .
D'oh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This actually happened to me once.
I asked a question on a forum, and the person who responded posted a link to me posting the question many years before.
Worst part: someone answered it back then.
D'oh!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310812</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>al3</author>
	<datestamp>1259858580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The intersection of OSS developers and good technical writers is a small part of the Venn diagram. Nothing would ever be released if a project wasn't considered done until documentation was complete and well written. The strength of OSS is that each person can contribute the part they're good at. If someone makes a good piece of software, it'd be great if someone else came along to document it, and everybody wins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The intersection of OSS developers and good technical writers is a small part of the Venn diagram .
Nothing would ever be released if a project was n't considered done until documentation was complete and well written .
The strength of OSS is that each person can contribute the part they 're good at .
If someone makes a good piece of software , it 'd be great if someone else came along to document it , and everybody wins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The intersection of OSS developers and good technical writers is a small part of the Venn diagram.
Nothing would ever be released if a project wasn't considered done until documentation was complete and well written.
The strength of OSS is that each person can contribute the part they're good at.
If someone makes a good piece of software, it'd be great if someone else came along to document it, and everybody wins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312072</id>
	<title>You try keeping up with documentation.</title>
	<author>bmearns</author>
	<datestamp>1259862600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Every developer knows that documentation is important. You know what else is important? Core functionality. Protecting against buffer overflows. Preventing seg faults.
It's a bit of a catch-37 (which is not quite as ironic as a catch-22): without proper functionality, the system is useless; without documentation the functionality is inaccessible and the system is therefore useless. So do you spend your time implementing or documenting?
</p><p>
Stale and missing documentation is a legitimate criticism of Linux, just as it is a legitimate criticism of Windows and the majority of both open source and proprietary software you're liable to encounter. The main difference is, you're not paying for anything with (most) Linux. Plus, open source developers are frequently accessible on mailing lists and IRC channels, so if you have a question, you can ask the horse himself, instead of his outsourced stable boy. Last but certainly not least, it's open source, so crack open the code and start figuring it out yourself. Or if you can't, you can always go back to those mailing lists and IRC channels and find someone who can (or more likely, already did).
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every developer knows that documentation is important .
You know what else is important ?
Core functionality .
Protecting against buffer overflows .
Preventing seg faults .
It 's a bit of a catch-37 ( which is not quite as ironic as a catch-22 ) : without proper functionality , the system is useless ; without documentation the functionality is inaccessible and the system is therefore useless .
So do you spend your time implementing or documenting ?
Stale and missing documentation is a legitimate criticism of Linux , just as it is a legitimate criticism of Windows and the majority of both open source and proprietary software you 're liable to encounter .
The main difference is , you 're not paying for anything with ( most ) Linux .
Plus , open source developers are frequently accessible on mailing lists and IRC channels , so if you have a question , you can ask the horse himself , instead of his outsourced stable boy .
Last but certainly not least , it 's open source , so crack open the code and start figuring it out yourself .
Or if you ca n't , you can always go back to those mailing lists and IRC channels and find someone who can ( or more likely , already did ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Every developer knows that documentation is important.
You know what else is important?
Core functionality.
Protecting against buffer overflows.
Preventing seg faults.
It's a bit of a catch-37 (which is not quite as ironic as a catch-22): without proper functionality, the system is useless; without documentation the functionality is inaccessible and the system is therefore useless.
So do you spend your time implementing or documenting?
Stale and missing documentation is a legitimate criticism of Linux, just as it is a legitimate criticism of Windows and the majority of both open source and proprietary software you're liable to encounter.
The main difference is, you're not paying for anything with (most) Linux.
Plus, open source developers are frequently accessible on mailing lists and IRC channels, so if you have a question, you can ask the horse himself, instead of his outsourced stable boy.
Last but certainly not least, it's open source, so crack open the code and start figuring it out yourself.
Or if you can't, you can always go back to those mailing lists and IRC channels and find someone who can (or more likely, already did).
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310954</id>
	<title>RTFM</title>
	<author>thijsh</author>
	<datestamp>1259859120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, but don't even try to ask for any help, you'll most likely get an RTFM response. XKCD said it best: <a href="http://xkcd.com/293/" title="xkcd.com">http://xkcd.com/293/</a> [xkcd.com]
<br> <br>
I think it's safe to say the documentation isn't really lacking, but the support is...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but do n't even try to ask for any help , you 'll most likely get an RTFM response .
XKCD said it best : http : //xkcd.com/293/ [ xkcd.com ] I think it 's safe to say the documentation is n't really lacking , but the support is... : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but don't even try to ask for any help, you'll most likely get an RTFM response.
XKCD said it best: http://xkcd.com/293/ [xkcd.com]
 
I think it's safe to say the documentation isn't really lacking, but the support is... :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311416</id>
	<title>Re:Well, No Shit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259860740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone at the coffee shop is using NetworkManager to connect their netbook running Ubuntu to the wireless network! <i>They might be watching a YouTube video now!</i> A WITCH! BURN THE WITCH!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone at the coffee shop is using NetworkManager to connect their netbook running Ubuntu to the wireless network !
They might be watching a YouTube video now !
A WITCH !
BURN THE WITCH !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone at the coffee shop is using NetworkManager to connect their netbook running Ubuntu to the wireless network!
They might be watching a YouTube video now!
A WITCH!
BURN THE WITCH!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312958</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1259865480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And it does for Windows?<br>Not that I have seen to be honest.</p><p>End user documentation for Windows == your buddy that knows windows or the rentageek. that will charge you $200 to run spybot.<br>End user documentation for MacOS/X == the Genius bar or you local turtle neck wearing zealot.<br>End user documentation for Linux == your local tee-shirt wearing zealot or RTFS the manual you newbe!<br>End user documentation for BSD == if you are smart enough to know that BSD is the best then you don't need help or go back to Linux you idiot!</p><p>All in all a universally bad state of affairs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it does for Windows ? Not that I have seen to be honest.End user documentation for Windows = = your buddy that knows windows or the rentageek .
that will charge you $ 200 to run spybot.End user documentation for MacOS/X = = the Genius bar or you local turtle neck wearing zealot.End user documentation for Linux = = your local tee-shirt wearing zealot or RTFS the manual you newbe ! End user documentation for BSD = = if you are smart enough to know that BSD is the best then you do n't need help or go back to Linux you idiot ! All in all a universally bad state of affairs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it does for Windows?Not that I have seen to be honest.End user documentation for Windows == your buddy that knows windows or the rentageek.
that will charge you $200 to run spybot.End user documentation for MacOS/X == the Genius bar or you local turtle neck wearing zealot.End user documentation for Linux == your local tee-shirt wearing zealot or RTFS the manual you newbe!End user documentation for BSD == if you are smart enough to know that BSD is the best then you don't need help or go back to Linux you idiot!All in all a universally bad state of affairs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30319148</id>
	<title>DHCPD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259846820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just have to say after recently setting up DHCPD, it's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.conf man page needs serious work. Maybe they should break down the classes &amp; subclasses a bit more &amp; provide some more examples that MOST PEOPLE WILL USE IT FOR e.g enforcing MAC restrictions.</p><p>I spent 30 minutes trying to setup a simple MAC whitelist because the manpage didn't provide proper examples of class &amp; subclass syntax. Eventually I worked it out...</p><p>After Googling, it seems most people give up, &amp; resort to adding host entries with hardware addresses.</p><p>Fantastic...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just have to say after recently setting up DHCPD , it 's .conf man page needs serious work .
Maybe they should break down the classes &amp; subclasses a bit more &amp; provide some more examples that MOST PEOPLE WILL USE IT FOR e.g enforcing MAC restrictions.I spent 30 minutes trying to setup a simple MAC whitelist because the manpage did n't provide proper examples of class &amp; subclass syntax .
Eventually I worked it out...After Googling , it seems most people give up , &amp; resort to adding host entries with hardware addresses.Fantastic.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just have to say after recently setting up DHCPD, it's .conf man page needs serious work.
Maybe they should break down the classes &amp; subclasses a bit more &amp; provide some more examples that MOST PEOPLE WILL USE IT FOR e.g enforcing MAC restrictions.I spent 30 minutes trying to setup a simple MAC whitelist because the manpage didn't provide proper examples of class &amp; subclass syntax.
Eventually I worked it out...After Googling, it seems most people give up, &amp; resort to adding host entries with hardware addresses.Fantastic...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311196</id>
	<title>Google?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259859960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I allways thought the linux documentation was Google.</p><p>I don't look in man pages, I google the name of the command and the action that I want to do. Google will point me to a web-accesible man page if it has those words on it, or to a blog or forum post otherwise.</p><p>Let's improve google, and the linux doc will improve, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I allways thought the linux documentation was Google.I do n't look in man pages , I google the name of the command and the action that I want to do .
Google will point me to a web-accesible man page if it has those words on it , or to a blog or forum post otherwise.Let 's improve google , and the linux doc will improve , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I allways thought the linux documentation was Google.I don't look in man pages, I google the name of the command and the action that I want to do.
Google will point me to a web-accesible man page if it has those words on it, or to a blog or forum post otherwise.Let's improve google, and the linux doc will improve, too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312470</id>
	<title>Active v. Passive</title>
	<author>abulafia</author>
	<datestamp>1259863740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think this illustrates the key point about Linux documentation.<p>

Facts: </p><p>

 - Yes, documentation sucks. This is because there are very few people who are both knowledgeable about what "the code" (meaning currently packaged distributions; bleeding edge stuff is a different kettle of monkeys) does and also like writing documentation. (Put aside being good at tech writing for the time being.)</p><p>

 - Things constantly change. As an example, Ubuntu's 6 month window leaves non-techy people breathless at the rapid rate of change, but at least it sets expectations. The tech publishing industry simply isn't capable, right now, of releasing books that fast, even if you assume the can opener of someone competent, willing, and able to write a book targeting the next release. I'm as quick to joke about M$ or Apple's release schedule, but the Missing Manual types at least have a target to hang a book release cycle on.</p><p>

 - Googlicous search is hit or miss, and humans have a cognitive bias emphasizing miss. The seven times you find exactly what you need to know (score!) are mentally outweighed by the one time you couldn't get your new video card to work.</p><p>

 Which all leads me to: the best way to run Linux is to be involved in the community. Folks in the know are much more willing to help you on a message board, IRC or whatever than to spend a week or six writing documentation. The payoff is much greater: someone happy at your interactive investment of two hours of partial attention. Contrast with the investment of a couple of weeks writing docs to see email from someone with weird hardware and poor attention to detail flaming you for "causing" them to lose their term paper.</p><p>

Not everyone who wishes to run Linux wants to engage geeks on IRC. There is a mismatch there. But I don't see that changing.</p><p>

There may well be an opportunity emerging for knowledgeable communicators  - a $10 service targeted at narrow niches for people like my grandmother's new boyfriend - a non-geek who runs Ubuntu and manages his own website, but is generally clueless about what to do in the face of a problem. The niche is narrow; it has to target the impedance between wanting a fix now and waiting for me to be able to provide family tech support, and it has to actually work for his particular problem. And I think it looks more like tech support than publishing. Anyone who's read Rainbow's End by Vernor Vinge might see the model of 411 service here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this illustrates the key point about Linux documentation .
Facts : - Yes , documentation sucks .
This is because there are very few people who are both knowledgeable about what " the code " ( meaning currently packaged distributions ; bleeding edge stuff is a different kettle of monkeys ) does and also like writing documentation .
( Put aside being good at tech writing for the time being .
) - Things constantly change .
As an example , Ubuntu 's 6 month window leaves non-techy people breathless at the rapid rate of change , but at least it sets expectations .
The tech publishing industry simply is n't capable , right now , of releasing books that fast , even if you assume the can opener of someone competent , willing , and able to write a book targeting the next release .
I 'm as quick to joke about M $ or Apple 's release schedule , but the Missing Manual types at least have a target to hang a book release cycle on .
- Googlicous search is hit or miss , and humans have a cognitive bias emphasizing miss .
The seven times you find exactly what you need to know ( score !
) are mentally outweighed by the one time you could n't get your new video card to work .
Which all leads me to : the best way to run Linux is to be involved in the community .
Folks in the know are much more willing to help you on a message board , IRC or whatever than to spend a week or six writing documentation .
The payoff is much greater : someone happy at your interactive investment of two hours of partial attention .
Contrast with the investment of a couple of weeks writing docs to see email from someone with weird hardware and poor attention to detail flaming you for " causing " them to lose their term paper .
Not everyone who wishes to run Linux wants to engage geeks on IRC .
There is a mismatch there .
But I do n't see that changing .
There may well be an opportunity emerging for knowledgeable communicators - a $ 10 service targeted at narrow niches for people like my grandmother 's new boyfriend - a non-geek who runs Ubuntu and manages his own website , but is generally clueless about what to do in the face of a problem .
The niche is narrow ; it has to target the impedance between wanting a fix now and waiting for me to be able to provide family tech support , and it has to actually work for his particular problem .
And I think it looks more like tech support than publishing .
Anyone who 's read Rainbow 's End by Vernor Vinge might see the model of 411 service here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this illustrates the key point about Linux documentation.
Facts: 

 - Yes, documentation sucks.
This is because there are very few people who are both knowledgeable about what "the code" (meaning currently packaged distributions; bleeding edge stuff is a different kettle of monkeys) does and also like writing documentation.
(Put aside being good at tech writing for the time being.
)

 - Things constantly change.
As an example, Ubuntu's 6 month window leaves non-techy people breathless at the rapid rate of change, but at least it sets expectations.
The tech publishing industry simply isn't capable, right now, of releasing books that fast, even if you assume the can opener of someone competent, willing, and able to write a book targeting the next release.
I'm as quick to joke about M$ or Apple's release schedule, but the Missing Manual types at least have a target to hang a book release cycle on.
- Googlicous search is hit or miss, and humans have a cognitive bias emphasizing miss.
The seven times you find exactly what you need to know (score!
) are mentally outweighed by the one time you couldn't get your new video card to work.
Which all leads me to: the best way to run Linux is to be involved in the community.
Folks in the know are much more willing to help you on a message board, IRC or whatever than to spend a week or six writing documentation.
The payoff is much greater: someone happy at your interactive investment of two hours of partial attention.
Contrast with the investment of a couple of weeks writing docs to see email from someone with weird hardware and poor attention to detail flaming you for "causing" them to lose their term paper.
Not everyone who wishes to run Linux wants to engage geeks on IRC.
There is a mismatch there.
But I don't see that changing.
There may well be an opportunity emerging for knowledgeable communicators  - a $10 service targeted at narrow niches for people like my grandmother's new boyfriend - a non-geek who runs Ubuntu and manages his own website, but is generally clueless about what to do in the face of a problem.
The niche is narrow; it has to target the impedance between wanting a fix now and waiting for me to be able to provide family tech support, and it has to actually work for his particular problem.
And I think it looks more like tech support than publishing.
Anyone who's read Rainbow's End by Vernor Vinge might see the model of 411 service here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313560</id>
	<title>Man pages suck.</title>
	<author>ClintJCL</author>
	<datestamp>1259867640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nothing like documenting every command-line option but giving NO EXAMPLES. So then I'm left having to read what -a, -b, -c, -d, -e,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..., -z do, and having to check EVERY letter to make sure I'm not missing something. 2 or 3 examples added to every man page would have saved me 20 hours out of my life. Consequently, I rarely use man pages anymore. But hey, I'm just a windows user who runs cygwin and uses unix command-line utilities to make life easier. If I had to run my entire operating system with man page documentation, I'd give up. (Because I have. Really. I have better things to do than spend time dealing with makefiles and compiling, when I can just download a pre-compiled binary under windows.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing like documenting every command-line option but giving NO EXAMPLES .
So then I 'm left having to read what -a , -b , -c , -d , -e , ... , -z do , and having to check EVERY letter to make sure I 'm not missing something .
2 or 3 examples added to every man page would have saved me 20 hours out of my life .
Consequently , I rarely use man pages anymore .
But hey , I 'm just a windows user who runs cygwin and uses unix command-line utilities to make life easier .
If I had to run my entire operating system with man page documentation , I 'd give up .
( Because I have .
Really. I have better things to do than spend time dealing with makefiles and compiling , when I can just download a pre-compiled binary under windows .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing like documenting every command-line option but giving NO EXAMPLES.
So then I'm left having to read what -a, -b, -c, -d, -e, ..., -z do, and having to check EVERY letter to make sure I'm not missing something.
2 or 3 examples added to every man page would have saved me 20 hours out of my life.
Consequently, I rarely use man pages anymore.
But hey, I'm just a windows user who runs cygwin and uses unix command-line utilities to make life easier.
If I had to run my entire operating system with man page documentation, I'd give up.
(Because I have.
Really. I have better things to do than spend time dealing with makefiles and compiling, when I can just download a pre-compiled binary under windows.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311154</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>Abreu</author>
	<datestamp>1259859780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you only want the "recipes" on how to do stuff, I suggest the cookbook:</p><p><a href="http://dsl.org/cookbook/cookbook\_toc.html" title="dsl.org">http://dsl.org/cookbook/cookbook\_toc.html</a> [dsl.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you only want the " recipes " on how to do stuff , I suggest the cookbook : http : //dsl.org/cookbook/cookbook \ _toc.html [ dsl.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you only want the "recipes" on how to do stuff, I suggest the cookbook:http://dsl.org/cookbook/cookbook\_toc.html [dsl.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310804</id>
	<title>If you write it will they come?</title>
	<author>Neil Watson</author>
	<datestamp>1259858580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many people actually study the manual that come with any product?  I've been using Linux for so long that I'm not certain what would go into a beginner's guide to Linux.  Does Windows come with such a document?  Do Windows licensees find it useful?  Do they even read it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many people actually study the manual that come with any product ?
I 've been using Linux for so long that I 'm not certain what would go into a beginner 's guide to Linux .
Does Windows come with such a document ?
Do Windows licensees find it useful ?
Do they even read it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many people actually study the manual that come with any product?
I've been using Linux for so long that I'm not certain what would go into a beginner's guide to Linux.
Does Windows come with such a document?
Do Windows licensees find it useful?
Do they even read it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314906</id>
	<title>Re:Don't like man pages.</title>
	<author>digit1001</author>
	<datestamp>1259873040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I tend to agree. At the risk of losing all of the credibility that I do not have, I'm someone who fell into the IT world after college, first using a Mac to do data entry, then learning basic HTML, then scripting languages like ColdFusion/PHP and PL/SQL. Now 15 years later I am fairly comfortable using SSH to get in and change permissions or move files, etc. but I still find there's an initial hump I can't seem to get over to get to the point where man pages really make sense and help. I have an old copy of "Unix in a Nutshell" that I use first, then Google for real world examples or tutorials.

I think one of the main issues for me, and I suspect many other users is the lack of confidence with some of concepts. Even if you THINK you know something, gods(tm) forbid you ask a question in the wrong place for fear of having the whole *nix community come down on you.

That's my take on it things anyhow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I tend to agree .
At the risk of losing all of the credibility that I do not have , I 'm someone who fell into the IT world after college , first using a Mac to do data entry , then learning basic HTML , then scripting languages like ColdFusion/PHP and PL/SQL .
Now 15 years later I am fairly comfortable using SSH to get in and change permissions or move files , etc .
but I still find there 's an initial hump I ca n't seem to get over to get to the point where man pages really make sense and help .
I have an old copy of " Unix in a Nutshell " that I use first , then Google for real world examples or tutorials .
I think one of the main issues for me , and I suspect many other users is the lack of confidence with some of concepts .
Even if you THINK you know something , gods ( tm ) forbid you ask a question in the wrong place for fear of having the whole * nix community come down on you .
That 's my take on it things anyhow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tend to agree.
At the risk of losing all of the credibility that I do not have, I'm someone who fell into the IT world after college, first using a Mac to do data entry, then learning basic HTML, then scripting languages like ColdFusion/PHP and PL/SQL.
Now 15 years later I am fairly comfortable using SSH to get in and change permissions or move files, etc.
but I still find there's an initial hump I can't seem to get over to get to the point where man pages really make sense and help.
I have an old copy of "Unix in a Nutshell" that I use first, then Google for real world examples or tutorials.
I think one of the main issues for me, and I suspect many other users is the lack of confidence with some of concepts.
Even if you THINK you know something, gods(tm) forbid you ask a question in the wrong place for fear of having the whole *nix community come down on you.
That's my take on it things anyhow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30318312</id>
	<title>Re:Women have great difficulties using Linux too.</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1259842500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If "copy", "move", and "list" were all too long, then yes "manual" is too long.  With the high latency serial links people were using back in the day, cutting out a few characters really did help.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If " copy " , " move " , and " list " were all too long , then yes " manual " is too long .
With the high latency serial links people were using back in the day , cutting out a few characters really did help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If "copy", "move", and "list" were all too long, then yes "manual" is too long.
With the high latency serial links people were using back in the day, cutting out a few characters really did help.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312266</id>
	<title>texinfo is the devil</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1259863200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The biggest problem with Linux documentation is the use of Info files instead of man pages. Yes, OK, it was cool that they were working on an early hypertext... but they did such a horrible job of it that flat files in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/share/man are more useful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest problem with Linux documentation is the use of Info files instead of man pages .
Yes , OK , it was cool that they were working on an early hypertext... but they did such a horrible job of it that flat files in /usr/share/man are more useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest problem with Linux documentation is the use of Info files instead of man pages.
Yes, OK, it was cool that they were working on an early hypertext... but they did such a horrible job of it that flat files in /usr/share/man are more useful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310766</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1259858400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well I've been using Linux since 1979, and the documentation has never been that great.  I remember asking Linus and some of the other developers about it when I ran into them at Studio 54, but they were too stoned to answer.  Man, it was crazy back then, you'd get high and write a program and you wouldn't even care about the documentation.  You'd just copy over someone else's man pages, or paste in Beegees lyrics, or whatever you're drug-addled brain came up with at the time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I 've been using Linux since 1979 , and the documentation has never been that great .
I remember asking Linus and some of the other developers about it when I ran into them at Studio 54 , but they were too stoned to answer .
Man , it was crazy back then , you 'd get high and write a program and you would n't even care about the documentation .
You 'd just copy over someone else 's man pages , or paste in Beegees lyrics , or whatever you 're drug-addled brain came up with at the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I've been using Linux since 1979, and the documentation has never been that great.
I remember asking Linus and some of the other developers about it when I ran into them at Studio 54, but they were too stoned to answer.
Man, it was crazy back then, you'd get high and write a program and you wouldn't even care about the documentation.
You'd just copy over someone else's man pages, or paste in Beegees lyrics, or whatever you're drug-addled brain came up with at the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311146</id>
	<title>Docs? We don't read no stinkin docs!</title>
	<author>Etherized</author>
	<datestamp>1259859780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google first, rtfm later. This is what Linux's great popularity and google's great indexing has given us.</p><p>Most Linux distributions do indeed have poor or incomplete documentation. The interesting realization I had with respect to this is that it usually doesn't matter - with the massive power of a search engine like google and the large number of users asking questions, you seldom really *need* the docs to figure out how to do something. You can almost invariably ask your question (in English!) to google, and get an answer in seconds that would take you minutes or hours to cobble together from fully reading man pages and online manuals.</p><p>I came to this realization when I was recently evaluating FreeBSD as a replacement for Solaris. In truth, both of those systems have excellent documentation, but getting things done with either system can actually take longer because the volume of 'internet wisdom' surrounding them is less due to their smaller user bases. With Linux, almost every question has been asked by some clueless newbie, answered, and indexed. With less prevalent systems, the question may have never even been asked in public. People just read the docs and figure out the answer on their own. And google never indexes this.</p><p>Good documentation is good. It's also hard. And in projects run by volunteers, it can easily slip through the cracks. In a lot of cases, though, what people need is not proper documentation, but knowledge of how to do something - and in such cases, documentation may no longer be the easiest way to find out how to do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google first , rtfm later .
This is what Linux 's great popularity and google 's great indexing has given us.Most Linux distributions do indeed have poor or incomplete documentation .
The interesting realization I had with respect to this is that it usually does n't matter - with the massive power of a search engine like google and the large number of users asking questions , you seldom really * need * the docs to figure out how to do something .
You can almost invariably ask your question ( in English !
) to google , and get an answer in seconds that would take you minutes or hours to cobble together from fully reading man pages and online manuals.I came to this realization when I was recently evaluating FreeBSD as a replacement for Solaris .
In truth , both of those systems have excellent documentation , but getting things done with either system can actually take longer because the volume of 'internet wisdom ' surrounding them is less due to their smaller user bases .
With Linux , almost every question has been asked by some clueless newbie , answered , and indexed .
With less prevalent systems , the question may have never even been asked in public .
People just read the docs and figure out the answer on their own .
And google never indexes this.Good documentation is good .
It 's also hard .
And in projects run by volunteers , it can easily slip through the cracks .
In a lot of cases , though , what people need is not proper documentation , but knowledge of how to do something - and in such cases , documentation may no longer be the easiest way to find out how to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google first, rtfm later.
This is what Linux's great popularity and google's great indexing has given us.Most Linux distributions do indeed have poor or incomplete documentation.
The interesting realization I had with respect to this is that it usually doesn't matter - with the massive power of a search engine like google and the large number of users asking questions, you seldom really *need* the docs to figure out how to do something.
You can almost invariably ask your question (in English!
) to google, and get an answer in seconds that would take you minutes or hours to cobble together from fully reading man pages and online manuals.I came to this realization when I was recently evaluating FreeBSD as a replacement for Solaris.
In truth, both of those systems have excellent documentation, but getting things done with either system can actually take longer because the volume of 'internet wisdom' surrounding them is less due to their smaller user bases.
With Linux, almost every question has been asked by some clueless newbie, answered, and indexed.
With less prevalent systems, the question may have never even been asked in public.
People just read the docs and figure out the answer on their own.
And google never indexes this.Good documentation is good.
It's also hard.
And in projects run by volunteers, it can easily slip through the cracks.
In a lot of cases, though, what people need is not proper documentation, but knowledge of how to do something - and in such cases, documentation may no longer be the easiest way to find out how to do it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30334094</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation Doesn't Matter..</title>
	<author>Geminii</author>
	<datestamp>1260016080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>There are sometimes lots of buttons, but they're not scary</i>
</p><p>
Says the poster who has never taken a call from a relative who can't work out how to use the microwave at another relative's house.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are sometimes lots of buttons , but they 're not scary Says the poster who has never taken a call from a relative who ca n't work out how to use the microwave at another relative 's house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> There are sometimes lots of buttons, but they're not scary

Says the poster who has never taken a call from a relative who can't work out how to use the microwave at another relative's house.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30315702</id>
	<title>Re:Not just beginner to apprentice.</title>
	<author>jegerjensen</author>
	<datestamp>1259832960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Amen.

The Linux distros seem to be constantly growing new subsystems, while consistently adding complexity and abandoning the time tested unix principles.  Configuration of the GNOME startup is the most outrageous example.  It is so horribly opaque that the recommended way to switch window manager is<p><div class="quote"><p>"...by running the new WM with the --replace or -replace option, and subsequently saving the session."</p>
 </div><p>(From the man page of metacity on Ubuntu hardy)
How is this better than a single line in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xinit or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xsession?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen .
The Linux distros seem to be constantly growing new subsystems , while consistently adding complexity and abandoning the time tested unix principles .
Configuration of the GNOME startup is the most outrageous example .
It is so horribly opaque that the recommended way to switch window manager is " ...by running the new WM with the --replace or -replace option , and subsequently saving the session .
" ( From the man page of metacity on Ubuntu hardy ) How is this better than a single line in .xinit or .xsession ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen.
The Linux distros seem to be constantly growing new subsystems, while consistently adding complexity and abandoning the time tested unix principles.
Configuration of the GNOME startup is the most outrageous example.
It is so horribly opaque that the recommended way to switch window manager is"...by running the new WM with the --replace or -replace option, and subsequently saving the session.
"
 (From the man page of metacity on Ubuntu hardy)
How is this better than a single line in .xinit or .xsession?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30328758</id>
	<title>Re:Google can be more specific</title>
	<author>Bottlemaster</author>
	<datestamp>1259920620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><tt>find . -path '*/not-these' -prune -or -print</tt><br>Not sure why someone would need google when the man page tells you how to do it in the EXAMPLES section:</p><blockquote><div><p>Find all files in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/src ending in a dot and single digit, but skip directory<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/src/gnu:<br>$ find<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/src -path<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/src/gnu -prune -or -name \*.[0-9]</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>find .
-path ' * /not-these ' -prune -or -printNot sure why someone would need google when the man page tells you how to do it in the EXAMPLES section : Find all files in /usr/src ending in a dot and single digit , but skip directory /usr/src/gnu : $ find /usr/src -path /usr/src/gnu -prune -or -name \ * .
[ 0-9 ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>find .
-path '*/not-these' -prune -or -printNot sure why someone would need google when the man page tells you how to do it in the EXAMPLES section:Find all files in /usr/src ending in a dot and single digit, but skip directory /usr/src/gnu:$ find /usr/src -path /usr/src/gnu -prune -or -name \*.
[0-9]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310594</id>
	<title>Ubuntu Community Docs are pretty good</title>
	<author>mark0</author>
	<datestamp>1259857680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have found the <a href="https://help.ubuntu.com/community" title="ubuntu.com">Ubuntu Community Documentation</a> [ubuntu.com] to be pretty good for cookbook procedures.  Their forums pick up the slack for acute issues.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have found the Ubuntu Community Documentation [ ubuntu.com ] to be pretty good for cookbook procedures .
Their forums pick up the slack for acute issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have found the Ubuntu Community Documentation [ubuntu.com] to be pretty good for cookbook procedures.
Their forums pick up the slack for acute issues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312080</id>
	<title>Of course its terrible!   What we need is...</title>
	<author>beetlejuice321</author>
	<datestamp>1259862600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course its terrible!  I have been using Linux for years but I still use Google over many man pages.  Take something simple for example like the "find" command.  This is an essential and powerful tool, also easy to use.  But I challenge you to find a new user who could figure out how to type in the command in its entirety and correctly perform a search using just the man pages.  Its nearly impossible for them without any examples, and man pages almost NEVER have any examples to help with syntax.</p><p>Man pages are fast a quick to search, what we need are some examples in man pages as well.  Also better online documentation would help.  Like a Linux How To Wiki.  This would be helpful because looking up several pages/forums online can be very time consuming and frustrating for new users (causing them to give up and quit using the OS).  </p><p>Online Help:  I know that when I need info on a topic, I now search wikipedia often by just going to Google and typing in "subject-to-search wiki".  The top hit is always the Wikipedia page for my topic.  I wish we has something like this for Linux, I would definitely use it, and add to it!  While I know there are a lot of Linux Wiki's there I don't know of any that provide an all encompassing support of all linux functions.  Also I don't know of an easy way to search for them from Google like I can Wikipedea. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course its terrible !
I have been using Linux for years but I still use Google over many man pages .
Take something simple for example like the " find " command .
This is an essential and powerful tool , also easy to use .
But I challenge you to find a new user who could figure out how to type in the command in its entirety and correctly perform a search using just the man pages .
Its nearly impossible for them without any examples , and man pages almost NEVER have any examples to help with syntax.Man pages are fast a quick to search , what we need are some examples in man pages as well .
Also better online documentation would help .
Like a Linux How To Wiki .
This would be helpful because looking up several pages/forums online can be very time consuming and frustrating for new users ( causing them to give up and quit using the OS ) .
Online Help : I know that when I need info on a topic , I now search wikipedia often by just going to Google and typing in " subject-to-search wiki " .
The top hit is always the Wikipedia page for my topic .
I wish we has something like this for Linux , I would definitely use it , and add to it !
While I know there are a lot of Linux Wiki 's there I do n't know of any that provide an all encompassing support of all linux functions .
Also I do n't know of an easy way to search for them from Google like I can Wikipedea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course its terrible!
I have been using Linux for years but I still use Google over many man pages.
Take something simple for example like the "find" command.
This is an essential and powerful tool, also easy to use.
But I challenge you to find a new user who could figure out how to type in the command in its entirety and correctly perform a search using just the man pages.
Its nearly impossible for them without any examples, and man pages almost NEVER have any examples to help with syntax.Man pages are fast a quick to search, what we need are some examples in man pages as well.
Also better online documentation would help.
Like a Linux How To Wiki.
This would be helpful because looking up several pages/forums online can be very time consuming and frustrating for new users (causing them to give up and quit using the OS).
Online Help:  I know that when I need info on a topic, I now search wikipedia often by just going to Google and typing in "subject-to-search wiki".
The top hit is always the Wikipedia page for my topic.
I wish we has something like this for Linux, I would definitely use it, and add to it!
While I know there are a lot of Linux Wiki's there I don't know of any that provide an all encompassing support of all linux functions.
Also I don't know of an easy way to search for them from Google like I can Wikipedea. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310888</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>djrosen</author>
	<datestamp>1259858880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except the user didn't get that knowledge in Windows by osmosis OR documentation, they had to learn somehow. You think a green user could work there way through photoshop with just the help file and never having to google? Linux isnt mainstream because it doesn't have a multi-billion dollar company marketing for it, that is the ONLY reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except the user did n't get that knowledge in Windows by osmosis OR documentation , they had to learn somehow .
You think a green user could work there way through photoshop with just the help file and never having to google ?
Linux isnt mainstream because it does n't have a multi-billion dollar company marketing for it , that is the ONLY reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except the user didn't get that knowledge in Windows by osmosis OR documentation, they had to learn somehow.
You think a green user could work there way through photoshop with just the help file and never having to google?
Linux isnt mainstream because it doesn't have a multi-billion dollar company marketing for it, that is the ONLY reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312642</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259864340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is that typo in your signature on purpose? "Athiesm" -&gt; "Atheism"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that typo in your signature on purpose ?
" Athiesm " - &gt; " Atheism "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that typo in your signature on purpose?
"Athiesm" -&gt; "Atheism"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30390222</id>
	<title>Yes - it SUCKS #1 reason I think to leave it</title>
	<author>nooodles</author>
	<datestamp>1260468540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Natuarlly nobody is reading these comments any more.. but for the hell of it.
Doc's Suck.
Man pages are the worst.
Would it kill you to put a simple example in there?
I know it makes you look like your an idiot for having people use your code who are not bright (because I must be an idiot for not figuring out WTF your syntax with all options possible could be!).

Right now I try to install Thunderbird 3.
Downloaded from the 'getthunderbird' site.
Uncompressed the folder.
Now what?
There's a readme file that says if I need help to see the 'getthunderbird' page.  Good, this makes sense.
I'm on the page - where is the motherf@@king help? Walkthrought?
It's not there.
I tried running what look like the files that should go...but NOTHING happens when I try any of them.
Double click this file...wait...wait..wait... nothing.  Now I feel like an idiot because someone else was lazy, short sighted, not that interested in a successful product.  Why bother, soon you'll be able to apt-get or yum it so why should you bother.

FAIL.
So what should I do.  I guess I'm just not smart enough for this crap.

Noooles - A+, Network+, MCP &amp; Stupid noob who deserves to be a microsurf...I guess.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Natuarlly nobody is reading these comments any more.. but for the hell of it .
Doc 's Suck .
Man pages are the worst .
Would it kill you to put a simple example in there ?
I know it makes you look like your an idiot for having people use your code who are not bright ( because I must be an idiot for not figuring out WTF your syntax with all options possible could be ! ) .
Right now I try to install Thunderbird 3 .
Downloaded from the 'getthunderbird ' site .
Uncompressed the folder .
Now what ?
There 's a readme file that says if I need help to see the 'getthunderbird ' page .
Good , this makes sense .
I 'm on the page - where is the motherf @ @ king help ?
Walkthrought ? It 's not there .
I tried running what look like the files that should go...but NOTHING happens when I try any of them .
Double click this file...wait...wait..wait... nothing. Now I feel like an idiot because someone else was lazy , short sighted , not that interested in a successful product .
Why bother , soon you 'll be able to apt-get or yum it so why should you bother .
FAIL . So what should I do .
I guess I 'm just not smart enough for this crap .
Noooles - A + , Network + , MCP &amp; Stupid noob who deserves to be a microsurf...I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Natuarlly nobody is reading these comments any more.. but for the hell of it.
Doc's Suck.
Man pages are the worst.
Would it kill you to put a simple example in there?
I know it makes you look like your an idiot for having people use your code who are not bright (because I must be an idiot for not figuring out WTF your syntax with all options possible could be!).
Right now I try to install Thunderbird 3.
Downloaded from the 'getthunderbird' site.
Uncompressed the folder.
Now what?
There's a readme file that says if I need help to see the 'getthunderbird' page.
Good, this makes sense.
I'm on the page - where is the motherf@@king help?
Walkthrought?
It's not there.
I tried running what look like the files that should go...but NOTHING happens when I try any of them.
Double click this file...wait...wait..wait... nothing.  Now I feel like an idiot because someone else was lazy, short sighted, not that interested in a successful product.
Why bother, soon you'll be able to apt-get or yum it so why should you bother.
FAIL.
So what should I do.
I guess I'm just not smart enough for this crap.
Noooles - A+, Network+, MCP &amp; Stupid noob who deserves to be a microsurf...I guess.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311846</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259861940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$man man</p><p>blah, blah</p><p>See also<br>apropos, whatis,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ man manblah , blahSee alsoapropos , whatis , .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$man manblah, blahSee alsoapropos, whatis, ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30368876</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260303120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What are you talking about?! What kind of a begginer try to look in man pages?! In early 1998. the first thing that i notice in Read Hat 5 Linux, was a pile of wonderfull Linux HOWTO pages about everything what i need! It is difficult to understood purpose of the file "Linux Quake HOWTO.txt"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What are you talking about ? !
What kind of a begginer try to look in man pages ? !
In early 1998. the first thing that i notice in Read Hat 5 Linux , was a pile of wonderfull Linux HOWTO pages about everything what i need !
It is difficult to understood purpose of the file " Linux Quake HOWTO.txt " : ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are you talking about?!
What kind of a begginer try to look in man pages?!
In early 1998. the first thing that i notice in Read Hat 5 Linux, was a pile of wonderfull Linux HOWTO pages about everything what i need!
It is difficult to understood purpose of the file "Linux Quake HOWTO.txt" :)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314840</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation Doesn't Matter..</title>
	<author>the old rang</author>
	<datestamp>1259872740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two things about this article, and all the things wrong with all Linux, if anyone wants it to really be something to use.</p><p>1) Most documentation is written by someone that knows everything about the item, and has not idea of how to communicate, or worse, write instructions...period!.</p><p>2) Most, in Linux, really don't care.</p><p>For example:</p><p>On the web today, was this item.</p><p><a href="http://www.howtoforge.com/install-and-configure-openldap-on-ubuntu-karmic-koala" title="howtoforge.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.howtoforge.com/install-and-configure-openldap-on-ubuntu-karmic-koala</a> [howtoforge.com]</p><p>What is 'openldap?' and why would anyone want it??<br>NOT EXPLAINED.</p><p>What will result if I try to install it?<br>NOT EXPLAINED. (other than normal discount of responsibility if the instructions screw your system.)</p><p>How easy are instructions to follow?<br>Defies explanation.</p><p>Sure. If you have installed things like this, a few hundred times, you know. Why read the instructions? You don't need them. Ergo, the instructions are useless for you.</p><p>If you need to use such instructions... They have no purpose for you, since, if you don't already know how to do what is described... These instructions will (by defined statement...) not work.</p><p>I have often griped about the miasma of poorly worded, instructions with so much of what is needed only 'assumed' to already be known so not included instructions, worked up by programmers that do not know how to write installers that would reduce install instructions to 'double click' installs... But rather would have you use 10,000 lines of double talk to self aggrandising their totally geek double-speak.</p><p>Not to mention<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.tar,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.deb.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.(take your pick of dozens of specialised install) that won't work from one system to another... or even on the same system, depending on which 'assumed steps' the 'programmer/instruction writer' kept in their heads and neglected to elucidate with the minimum 100 steps they knew everyone else would know.</p><p>Real documentation for Linux is almost non-existent. Crappy documentation is everywhere you look.</p><p>Ubuntu has some great ideas. But, many of the same shortcomings come into play, either with the same problems, or, having to install programs, that just will not install, since the 'packages' will not install with the instructions included, or the 'packages' required... (I have spent days, tracking down packages 'not included' in the install package, and not in Ubuntu, nor installable in Ubuntu because of conflicts, lack of 'acceptability,' can not be found, the moon being in the wrong phase, or any of thousands of stupid (read programmer had the only copy, etc) reasons that make no sense.</p><p>Bottom line. I am not computer illiterate. But, the problems that Linux has, knows that it has, and, frankly doesn't care that it has...</p><p>That the problem is there, is not up to question.</p><p>That the Linux community knows it is there, is not up to question.</p><p>That they don't care... is obvious.</p><p>Otherwise, the community would have fixed the problem, but, has devoted nothing to the effort, since the core, doesn't have the problem</p><p>I do not want spoon fed 1st grade reader type instructions...</p><p>But, the general level of instructions for problems in Linux is horrible.</p><p>There are NO standards, and almost no one cares to have them.</p><p>Nor do they want to lose their 'geekhood' to sensibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two things about this article , and all the things wrong with all Linux , if anyone wants it to really be something to use.1 ) Most documentation is written by someone that knows everything about the item , and has not idea of how to communicate , or worse , write instructions...period ! .2 ) Most , in Linux , really do n't care.For example : On the web today , was this item.http : //www.howtoforge.com/install-and-configure-openldap-on-ubuntu-karmic-koala [ howtoforge.com ] What is 'openldap ?
' and why would anyone want it ?
? NOT EXPLAINED.What will result if I try to install it ? NOT EXPLAINED .
( other than normal discount of responsibility if the instructions screw your system .
) How easy are instructions to follow ? Defies explanation.Sure .
If you have installed things like this , a few hundred times , you know .
Why read the instructions ?
You do n't need them .
Ergo , the instructions are useless for you.If you need to use such instructions... They have no purpose for you , since , if you do n't already know how to do what is described... These instructions will ( by defined statement... ) not work.I have often griped about the miasma of poorly worded , instructions with so much of what is needed only 'assumed ' to already be known so not included instructions , worked up by programmers that do not know how to write installers that would reduce install instructions to 'double click ' installs... But rather would have you use 10,000 lines of double talk to self aggrandising their totally geek double-speak.Not to mention .tar , .deb .
. ( take your pick of dozens of specialised install ) that wo n't work from one system to another... or even on the same system , depending on which 'assumed steps ' the 'programmer/instruction writer ' kept in their heads and neglected to elucidate with the minimum 100 steps they knew everyone else would know.Real documentation for Linux is almost non-existent .
Crappy documentation is everywhere you look.Ubuntu has some great ideas .
But , many of the same shortcomings come into play , either with the same problems , or , having to install programs , that just will not install , since the 'packages ' will not install with the instructions included , or the 'packages ' required... ( I have spent days , tracking down packages 'not included ' in the install package , and not in Ubuntu , nor installable in Ubuntu because of conflicts , lack of 'acceptability, ' can not be found , the moon being in the wrong phase , or any of thousands of stupid ( read programmer had the only copy , etc ) reasons that make no sense.Bottom line .
I am not computer illiterate .
But , the problems that Linux has , knows that it has , and , frankly does n't care that it has...That the problem is there , is not up to question.That the Linux community knows it is there , is not up to question.That they do n't care... is obvious.Otherwise , the community would have fixed the problem , but , has devoted nothing to the effort , since the core , does n't have the problemI do not want spoon fed 1st grade reader type instructions...But , the general level of instructions for problems in Linux is horrible.There are NO standards , and almost no one cares to have them.Nor do they want to lose their 'geekhood ' to sensibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two things about this article, and all the things wrong with all Linux, if anyone wants it to really be something to use.1) Most documentation is written by someone that knows everything about the item, and has not idea of how to communicate, or worse, write instructions...period!.2) Most, in Linux, really don't care.For example:On the web today, was this item.http://www.howtoforge.com/install-and-configure-openldap-on-ubuntu-karmic-koala [howtoforge.com]What is 'openldap?
' and why would anyone want it?
?NOT EXPLAINED.What will result if I try to install it?NOT EXPLAINED.
(other than normal discount of responsibility if the instructions screw your system.
)How easy are instructions to follow?Defies explanation.Sure.
If you have installed things like this, a few hundred times, you know.
Why read the instructions?
You don't need them.
Ergo, the instructions are useless for you.If you need to use such instructions... They have no purpose for you, since, if you don't already know how to do what is described... These instructions will (by defined statement...) not work.I have often griped about the miasma of poorly worded, instructions with so much of what is needed only 'assumed' to already be known so not included instructions, worked up by programmers that do not know how to write installers that would reduce install instructions to 'double click' installs... But rather would have you use 10,000 lines of double talk to self aggrandising their totally geek double-speak.Not to mention .tar, .deb.
.(take your pick of dozens of specialised install) that won't work from one system to another... or even on the same system, depending on which 'assumed steps' the 'programmer/instruction writer' kept in their heads and neglected to elucidate with the minimum 100 steps they knew everyone else would know.Real documentation for Linux is almost non-existent.
Crappy documentation is everywhere you look.Ubuntu has some great ideas.
But, many of the same shortcomings come into play, either with the same problems, or, having to install programs, that just will not install, since the 'packages' will not install with the instructions included, or the 'packages' required... (I have spent days, tracking down packages 'not included' in the install package, and not in Ubuntu, nor installable in Ubuntu because of conflicts, lack of 'acceptability,' can not be found, the moon being in the wrong phase, or any of thousands of stupid (read programmer had the only copy, etc) reasons that make no sense.Bottom line.
I am not computer illiterate.
But, the problems that Linux has, knows that it has, and, frankly doesn't care that it has...That the problem is there, is not up to question.That the Linux community knows it is there, is not up to question.That they don't care... is obvious.Otherwise, the community would have fixed the problem, but, has devoted nothing to the effort, since the core, doesn't have the problemI do not want spoon fed 1st grade reader type instructions...But, the general level of instructions for problems in Linux is horrible.There are NO standards, and almost no one cares to have them.Nor do they want to lose their 'geekhood' to sensibility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311250</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1259860080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Exactly. Creating documentation for mainstream users is completely pointless. I personally think Ubuntuforums has great docs. I can just copy paste what they tell me, and voila, i have fakeraid setup, or whatever else is hard to install.</i>
<p>
The easiest way to reduce the need for documentation is to make the UI as accessible, user friendly, forgiving, helpful and task centric as possible. People only seek out help when the OS doesn't appear to do what they want.
</p><p>
Usability has always been the Achilles heel of Linux. Dists have traditionally ignored it completely and only in the last few years has it gained any serious traction. Ubuntu has been the recent pathfinder for usability but even that dist has plenty of rough edges to catch out the unwary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Creating documentation for mainstream users is completely pointless .
I personally think Ubuntuforums has great docs .
I can just copy paste what they tell me , and voila , i have fakeraid setup , or whatever else is hard to install .
The easiest way to reduce the need for documentation is to make the UI as accessible , user friendly , forgiving , helpful and task centric as possible .
People only seek out help when the OS does n't appear to do what they want .
Usability has always been the Achilles heel of Linux .
Dists have traditionally ignored it completely and only in the last few years has it gained any serious traction .
Ubuntu has been the recent pathfinder for usability but even that dist has plenty of rough edges to catch out the unwary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Creating documentation for mainstream users is completely pointless.
I personally think Ubuntuforums has great docs.
I can just copy paste what they tell me, and voila, i have fakeraid setup, or whatever else is hard to install.
The easiest way to reduce the need for documentation is to make the UI as accessible, user friendly, forgiving, helpful and task centric as possible.
People only seek out help when the OS doesn't appear to do what they want.
Usability has always been the Achilles heel of Linux.
Dists have traditionally ignored it completely and only in the last few years has it gained any serious traction.
Ubuntu has been the recent pathfinder for usability but even that dist has plenty of rough edges to catch out the unwary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310508</id>
	<title>user mentality differs now~</title>
	<author>Synflex</author>
	<datestamp>1259857380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact is, Google in most of the times, provide a list of posts in some forum with a working sample code.</p><p>Face it, users nowadays weren't looking to understand the process, they just want a quick solution (even if it risk installing a rootkit).</p><p>Think Ubuntu Community. sigh~~~</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact is , Google in most of the times , provide a list of posts in some forum with a working sample code.Face it , users nowadays were n't looking to understand the process , they just want a quick solution ( even if it risk installing a rootkit ) .Think Ubuntu Community .
sigh ~ ~ ~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact is, Google in most of the times, provide a list of posts in some forum with a working sample code.Face it, users nowadays weren't looking to understand the process, they just want a quick solution (even if it risk installing a rootkit).Think Ubuntu Community.
sigh~~~</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310774</id>
	<title>It's called engineering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259858460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The resolution to the documentation problem is simple. I use it on my projects and when I managed programmers, I made them do it.  Unfortunately, it needs discipline--the difference between programming and engineering--which is in short supply in the FOSS community.</p><p>The resolution is that you write the relevant section of the user manual first, have the client review it for clarity and sanity, and then make the software do exactly what the manual says.</p><p> <i>Pause to recover composure</i> </p><p>What could I be thinking?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The resolution to the documentation problem is simple .
I use it on my projects and when I managed programmers , I made them do it .
Unfortunately , it needs discipline--the difference between programming and engineering--which is in short supply in the FOSS community.The resolution is that you write the relevant section of the user manual first , have the client review it for clarity and sanity , and then make the software do exactly what the manual says .
Pause to recover composure What could I be thinking ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The resolution to the documentation problem is simple.
I use it on my projects and when I managed programmers, I made them do it.
Unfortunately, it needs discipline--the difference between programming and engineering--which is in short supply in the FOSS community.The resolution is that you write the relevant section of the user manual first, have the client review it for clarity and sanity, and then make the software do exactly what the manual says.
Pause to recover composure What could I be thinking?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311064</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>ErnyCowan</author>
	<datestamp>1259859480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To paraphrase Winston Churchill,  "Linux has the worst documentation, except for all those other OSs that I have had the frustration of trying to understand from time to time."
- Erny</htmltext>
<tokenext>To paraphrase Winston Churchill , " Linux has the worst documentation , except for all those other OSs that I have had the frustration of trying to understand from time to time .
" - Erny</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To paraphrase Winston Churchill,  "Linux has the worst documentation, except for all those other OSs that I have had the frustration of trying to understand from time to time.
"
- Erny</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312160</id>
	<title>Wannabe...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259862900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... nerd rage at it's finest! 4tehw1n!!!111!!!1!111!one</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... nerd rage at it 's finest !
4tehw1n ! ! ! 111 ! ! ! 1 ! 111 ! one</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... nerd rage at it's finest!
4tehw1n!!!111!!!1!111!one</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30315406</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1259831640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, what help command in windows tells me how to "get work done" or "enjoy entertainment"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , what help command in windows tells me how to " get work done " or " enjoy entertainment " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, what help command in windows tells me how to "get work done" or "enjoy entertainment"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310666</id>
	<title>Do they mean Linux or the distro?</title>
	<author>G3ckoG33k</author>
	<datestamp>1259858040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do they mean Linux or the distro?

This is an important distinction here. I never looked at Linux' documentation; didn't even know it had one except the comments in the code.

But, with the bewildering number of distros, I can see the issue there to any newcomer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do they mean Linux or the distro ?
This is an important distinction here .
I never looked at Linux ' documentation ; did n't even know it had one except the comments in the code .
But , with the bewildering number of distros , I can see the issue there to any newcomer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do they mean Linux or the distro?
This is an important distinction here.
I never looked at Linux' documentation; didn't even know it had one except the comments in the code.
But, with the bewildering number of distros, I can see the issue there to any newcomer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311758</id>
	<title>Is the pope catholic?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259861700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Subject line says it all</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Subject line says it all</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Subject line says it all</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30320960</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation Doesn't Matter..</title>
	<author>cypher-neo</author>
	<datestamp>1259862720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To non-technical people, computers must be appliances, and they will prefer the OS and Software Suite that accomplishes this best. Right now that's Windows and Mac. Linux has too many dials. Things can go wrong. The end user cannot have anything go wrong ever.</p></div><p>It is true that most newbies are generally intimidated by the fact that you can change everything on Linux. However, the appliance principle falls radically short I feel.
</p><p>Most people I've done work on computers for are further frustrated that Windows won't let you change anything. (I'm getting the picture of a microwave that only has a dial to twist to select how much time you want your food to cook. But if it's a Vista microwave, it's a big irritating dial that asks you 20 times whether you're absolutely sure you want to set it for 5 minutes. Or it decides to override your cooking skill completely because you lack the authorization to twist the dial.)
</p><p>Or they are frustrated by Mac for letting you change everything on some programs but nothing on other programs. (I can't think of a good microwave analogy for Mac.)
</p><p>Most people I've found are refreshed by being able to change anything on Linux. They file the knowledge that they can change anything away, and this satisfies them. Most don't try to change everything - at least not immediately - and they establish a routine in using the computer, similar to your comment about microwave people who</p><p><div class="quote"><p>always hit those same buttons because you know they work. Every time you hit those buttons, your food gets warm in exactly the same manner.</p></div><p>Having options is never a bad thing, so long as there is also a simple routine that can be established as well. Linux provides both of those options. Most distros are easy enough to learn for beginners, but depending on your skill and willingness to learn, you can also learn fairly advanced computing on them as well.
</p><p>I believe that all users deserve some documentation though regardless of their skill level or routine. Documentation does matter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To non-technical people , computers must be appliances , and they will prefer the OS and Software Suite that accomplishes this best .
Right now that 's Windows and Mac .
Linux has too many dials .
Things can go wrong .
The end user can not have anything go wrong ever.It is true that most newbies are generally intimidated by the fact that you can change everything on Linux .
However , the appliance principle falls radically short I feel .
Most people I 've done work on computers for are further frustrated that Windows wo n't let you change anything .
( I 'm getting the picture of a microwave that only has a dial to twist to select how much time you want your food to cook .
But if it 's a Vista microwave , it 's a big irritating dial that asks you 20 times whether you 're absolutely sure you want to set it for 5 minutes .
Or it decides to override your cooking skill completely because you lack the authorization to twist the dial .
) Or they are frustrated by Mac for letting you change everything on some programs but nothing on other programs .
( I ca n't think of a good microwave analogy for Mac .
) Most people I 've found are refreshed by being able to change anything on Linux .
They file the knowledge that they can change anything away , and this satisfies them .
Most do n't try to change everything - at least not immediately - and they establish a routine in using the computer , similar to your comment about microwave people whoalways hit those same buttons because you know they work .
Every time you hit those buttons , your food gets warm in exactly the same manner.Having options is never a bad thing , so long as there is also a simple routine that can be established as well .
Linux provides both of those options .
Most distros are easy enough to learn for beginners , but depending on your skill and willingness to learn , you can also learn fairly advanced computing on them as well .
I believe that all users deserve some documentation though regardless of their skill level or routine .
Documentation does matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To non-technical people, computers must be appliances, and they will prefer the OS and Software Suite that accomplishes this best.
Right now that's Windows and Mac.
Linux has too many dials.
Things can go wrong.
The end user cannot have anything go wrong ever.It is true that most newbies are generally intimidated by the fact that you can change everything on Linux.
However, the appliance principle falls radically short I feel.
Most people I've done work on computers for are further frustrated that Windows won't let you change anything.
(I'm getting the picture of a microwave that only has a dial to twist to select how much time you want your food to cook.
But if it's a Vista microwave, it's a big irritating dial that asks you 20 times whether you're absolutely sure you want to set it for 5 minutes.
Or it decides to override your cooking skill completely because you lack the authorization to twist the dial.
)
Or they are frustrated by Mac for letting you change everything on some programs but nothing on other programs.
(I can't think of a good microwave analogy for Mac.
)
Most people I've found are refreshed by being able to change anything on Linux.
They file the knowledge that they can change anything away, and this satisfies them.
Most don't try to change everything - at least not immediately - and they establish a routine in using the computer, similar to your comment about microwave people whoalways hit those same buttons because you know they work.
Every time you hit those buttons, your food gets warm in exactly the same manner.Having options is never a bad thing, so long as there is also a simple routine that can be established as well.
Linux provides both of those options.
Most distros are easy enough to learn for beginners, but depending on your skill and willingness to learn, you can also learn fairly advanced computing on them as well.
I believe that all users deserve some documentation though regardless of their skill level or routine.
Documentation does matter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313292</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259866740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I personally think Ubuntuforums has great docs. I can just copy paste what they tell me, and voila, i have fakeraid setup, or whatever else is hard to install.</i></p><p>And how many minutes does that take from beginning to end?  Are they ever wrong?</p><p>Most users want an answer now, not after 3 days of back-and-forth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally think Ubuntuforums has great docs .
I can just copy paste what they tell me , and voila , i have fakeraid setup , or whatever else is hard to install.And how many minutes does that take from beginning to end ?
Are they ever wrong ? Most users want an answer now , not after 3 days of back-and-forth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally think Ubuntuforums has great docs.
I can just copy paste what they tell me, and voila, i have fakeraid setup, or whatever else is hard to install.And how many minutes does that take from beginning to end?
Are they ever wrong?Most users want an answer now, not after 3 days of back-and-forth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312194</id>
	<title>Opinion from a Ubuntu Newbie</title>
	<author>sherriw</author>
	<datestamp>1259862960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely it is.<br>I can offer a bit of a case study FWIW. I'm a technical person (programmer) and along time Windows user. I recently installed Ubuntu on my laptop to dual boot alongside Windows. I had a few bumps in the road during this process. I'm now trying to configure it and get some software equivalents to the Windows only apps I had been using. I can't even count the number of times my quest for answers landed me on an article or forum post that begins with 'open a command prompt'.</p><p>I know I can open a command prompt, but I don't want to. There's a psychological thing that makes you feel like you could mess things up easier at the command prompt. I can't imagine the frustration of non-technical people trying to do this. And this is talking about Ubuntu which as gone to great strides to make it more newbie friendly. There is still a way to go. The good news, is that it's very, very close.</p><p>For example, there are two ways to add programs - the Add<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Remove programs option and the Synaptic package manager. Why two? And having to add more repositories to get access to other packages is strange to me. How would a user know to do this? Why is it necessary? I get it, but a novice might not. Etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely it is.I can offer a bit of a case study FWIW .
I 'm a technical person ( programmer ) and along time Windows user .
I recently installed Ubuntu on my laptop to dual boot alongside Windows .
I had a few bumps in the road during this process .
I 'm now trying to configure it and get some software equivalents to the Windows only apps I had been using .
I ca n't even count the number of times my quest for answers landed me on an article or forum post that begins with 'open a command prompt'.I know I can open a command prompt , but I do n't want to .
There 's a psychological thing that makes you feel like you could mess things up easier at the command prompt .
I ca n't imagine the frustration of non-technical people trying to do this .
And this is talking about Ubuntu which as gone to great strides to make it more newbie friendly .
There is still a way to go .
The good news , is that it 's very , very close.For example , there are two ways to add programs - the Add /Remove programs option and the Synaptic package manager .
Why two ?
And having to add more repositories to get access to other packages is strange to me .
How would a user know to do this ?
Why is it necessary ?
I get it , but a novice might not .
Etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely it is.I can offer a bit of a case study FWIW.
I'm a technical person (programmer) and along time Windows user.
I recently installed Ubuntu on my laptop to dual boot alongside Windows.
I had a few bumps in the road during this process.
I'm now trying to configure it and get some software equivalents to the Windows only apps I had been using.
I can't even count the number of times my quest for answers landed me on an article or forum post that begins with 'open a command prompt'.I know I can open a command prompt, but I don't want to.
There's a psychological thing that makes you feel like you could mess things up easier at the command prompt.
I can't imagine the frustration of non-technical people trying to do this.
And this is talking about Ubuntu which as gone to great strides to make it more newbie friendly.
There is still a way to go.
The good news, is that it's very, very close.For example, there are two ways to add programs - the Add /Remove programs option and the Synaptic package manager.
Why two?
And having to add more repositories to get access to other packages is strange to me.
How would a user know to do this?
Why is it necessary?
I get it, but a novice might not.
Etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313114</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259866020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't even have to go to the Handbook. Just use the manpages that come with the base system.</p><p>Like I just installed FreeBSD 8.0 on this system. How to enable sound?</p><p>man sound</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't even have to go to the Handbook .
Just use the manpages that come with the base system.Like I just installed FreeBSD 8.0 on this system .
How to enable sound ? man sound</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't even have to go to the Handbook.
Just use the manpages that come with the base system.Like I just installed FreeBSD 8.0 on this system.
How to enable sound?man sound</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312968</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1259865480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I presume to counteract the people that modded it overrated.</p><p>But mostly he was calling the OP out on his absolute bullshit. Yes, Linux existed in 1995, but I'd wager 90\% of the manpages in Debians main testing repository did not exist in 1995. Saying that it hasn't improved since then is just stupid, since most of it didn't exist then. Most of my favorite Linux utilities were written at the earliest in 98, probably in 2001-2002, and the manpages for the most part likely came later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I presume to counteract the people that modded it overrated.But mostly he was calling the OP out on his absolute bullshit .
Yes , Linux existed in 1995 , but I 'd wager 90 \ % of the manpages in Debians main testing repository did not exist in 1995 .
Saying that it has n't improved since then is just stupid , since most of it did n't exist then .
Most of my favorite Linux utilities were written at the earliest in 98 , probably in 2001-2002 , and the manpages for the most part likely came later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I presume to counteract the people that modded it overrated.But mostly he was calling the OP out on his absolute bullshit.
Yes, Linux existed in 1995, but I'd wager 90\% of the manpages in Debians main testing repository did not exist in 1995.
Saying that it hasn't improved since then is just stupid, since most of it didn't exist then.
Most of my favorite Linux utilities were written at the earliest in 98, probably in 2001-2002, and the manpages for the most part likely came later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30322352</id>
	<title>Re:Random Online Linux Doc Complaints</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1259928480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>sounds like you just complaining about the internet...</htmltext>
<tokenext>sounds like you just complaining about the internet.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sounds like you just complaining about the internet...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30381494</id>
	<title>lots of free docs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259578140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there is heaps of excellent free docs around. for example, have you looked at FLOSS Manuals?</p><p>We have been going now for about 2 years and we have many many excellent docs about free software mostly in English (http://en.flossmanuals.net) but also we have an Finnish community (http://fi.flossmanuals.net) and a Farsi community (http://fa.flossmanuals.net) and also many manuals being translated into various languages (see http://translate.flossmanuals.net/write).</p><p>for the linux community there is much of interest, but probably most interesting is the excellent introduction to the command line manual which we produced in collaboration with the FSF:<br>http://en.flossmanuals.net/gnulinux</p><p>You can get it here also:<br>http://shop.fsf.org/</p><p>We produce community authored content and we often do this in 2-5 days. For example the following were produced in 5 days :<br>http://en.flossmanuals.net/civicrm<br>http://en.flossmanuals.net/CircumventionTools<br>http://en.flossmanuals.net/Inkscape<br>http://en.flossmanuals.net/opentranslationtools<br>http://en.flossmanuals.net/ardour/<br>http://en.flossmanuals.net/theoracookbook<br>http://en.flossmanuals.net/sugar</p><p>and the following were written in 2 days:<br>http://en.flossmanuals.net/gnulinux<br>http://en.flossmanuals.net/GSoCMentoringGuide<br>http://en.flossmanuals.net/firefox</p><p>We also produce books. All of the above are available in printed form (see bookstore on the right of the front page).</p><p>We also have produced books in other languages including the recent 'How to Bypass Internet Censorship' book ( http://objavi.flossmanuals.net/books/CircumventionToolsar-translate-2009.12.01-12.02.55.pdf ) which was printed in Arabic for the recent Arabic Bloggers conference (http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2009/12/05/2nd-arab-bloggers-meeting/) held in Beirut.</p><p>all content is free as in libre and gratis</p><p>adam</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there is heaps of excellent free docs around .
for example , have you looked at FLOSS Manuals ? We have been going now for about 2 years and we have many many excellent docs about free software mostly in English ( http : //en.flossmanuals.net ) but also we have an Finnish community ( http : //fi.flossmanuals.net ) and a Farsi community ( http : //fa.flossmanuals.net ) and also many manuals being translated into various languages ( see http : //translate.flossmanuals.net/write ) .for the linux community there is much of interest , but probably most interesting is the excellent introduction to the command line manual which we produced in collaboration with the FSF : http : //en.flossmanuals.net/gnulinuxYou can get it here also : http : //shop.fsf.org/We produce community authored content and we often do this in 2-5 days .
For example the following were produced in 5 days : http : //en.flossmanuals.net/civicrmhttp : //en.flossmanuals.net/CircumventionToolshttp : //en.flossmanuals.net/Inkscapehttp : //en.flossmanuals.net/opentranslationtoolshttp : //en.flossmanuals.net/ardour/http : //en.flossmanuals.net/theoracookbookhttp : //en.flossmanuals.net/sugarand the following were written in 2 days : http : //en.flossmanuals.net/gnulinuxhttp : //en.flossmanuals.net/GSoCMentoringGuidehttp : //en.flossmanuals.net/firefoxWe also produce books .
All of the above are available in printed form ( see bookstore on the right of the front page ) .We also have produced books in other languages including the recent 'How to Bypass Internet Censorship ' book ( http : //objavi.flossmanuals.net/books/CircumventionToolsar-translate-2009.12.01-12.02.55.pdf ) which was printed in Arabic for the recent Arabic Bloggers conference ( http : //advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2009/12/05/2nd-arab-bloggers-meeting/ ) held in Beirut.all content is free as in libre and gratisadam</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there is heaps of excellent free docs around.
for example, have you looked at FLOSS Manuals?We have been going now for about 2 years and we have many many excellent docs about free software mostly in English (http://en.flossmanuals.net) but also we have an Finnish community (http://fi.flossmanuals.net) and a Farsi community (http://fa.flossmanuals.net) and also many manuals being translated into various languages (see http://translate.flossmanuals.net/write).for the linux community there is much of interest, but probably most interesting is the excellent introduction to the command line manual which we produced in collaboration with the FSF:http://en.flossmanuals.net/gnulinuxYou can get it here also:http://shop.fsf.org/We produce community authored content and we often do this in 2-5 days.
For example the following were produced in 5 days :http://en.flossmanuals.net/civicrmhttp://en.flossmanuals.net/CircumventionToolshttp://en.flossmanuals.net/Inkscapehttp://en.flossmanuals.net/opentranslationtoolshttp://en.flossmanuals.net/ardour/http://en.flossmanuals.net/theoracookbookhttp://en.flossmanuals.net/sugarand the following were written in 2 days:http://en.flossmanuals.net/gnulinuxhttp://en.flossmanuals.net/GSoCMentoringGuidehttp://en.flossmanuals.net/firefoxWe also produce books.
All of the above are available in printed form (see bookstore on the right of the front page).We also have produced books in other languages including the recent 'How to Bypass Internet Censorship' book ( http://objavi.flossmanuals.net/books/CircumventionToolsar-translate-2009.12.01-12.02.55.pdf ) which was printed in Arabic for the recent Arabic Bloggers conference (http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2009/12/05/2nd-arab-bloggers-meeting/) held in Beirut.all content is free as in libre and gratisadam</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311724</id>
	<title>Yes</title>
	<author>GypC</author>
	<datestamp>1259861580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It keeps out the riff-raff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It keeps out the riff-raff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It keeps out the riff-raff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310922</id>
	<title>Re:And good luck with Google, too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259859000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or worse, answered with information that was only relevant... in 2005. The other day I was trying to find out why cfdisk won't let me make a partition bigger than 681 GB. There's lots of posts about how to partition your 60 GB hard drive, none about dealing with 2+ TB. Often the answers I find in posts for technical questions like that are out and out wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or worse , answered with information that was only relevant... in 2005 .
The other day I was trying to find out why cfdisk wo n't let me make a partition bigger than 681 GB .
There 's lots of posts about how to partition your 60 GB hard drive , none about dealing with 2 + TB .
Often the answers I find in posts for technical questions like that are out and out wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or worse, answered with information that was only relevant... in 2005.
The other day I was trying to find out why cfdisk won't let me make a partition bigger than 681 GB.
There's lots of posts about how to partition your 60 GB hard drive, none about dealing with 2+ TB.
Often the answers I find in posts for technical questions like that are out and out wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313106</id>
	<title>Great, if you can do it!</title>
	<author>MarkvW</author>
	<datestamp>1259865960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Complete documentation of code (including manuals) is probably the single greatest service that can be provided for an existing project because (a) it makes it much easier for new developers to step right up and help; (b) helps narrow the breach between users and developers; and (c) helps users use the project.</p><p>The difficulty is engaging with a developer who has already thought everything out and persuading that developer to critically go over all that work all over again.  If you can do that, you can collaborate to write awesome documentation, but it's really hard work.</p><p>Developers should try to engage documentation writers from the beginning of that project.  Although it will be a pain to have to explain your work and insight to somebody else, the rewards would be awesome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Complete documentation of code ( including manuals ) is probably the single greatest service that can be provided for an existing project because ( a ) it makes it much easier for new developers to step right up and help ; ( b ) helps narrow the breach between users and developers ; and ( c ) helps users use the project.The difficulty is engaging with a developer who has already thought everything out and persuading that developer to critically go over all that work all over again .
If you can do that , you can collaborate to write awesome documentation , but it 's really hard work.Developers should try to engage documentation writers from the beginning of that project .
Although it will be a pain to have to explain your work and insight to somebody else , the rewards would be awesome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Complete documentation of code (including manuals) is probably the single greatest service that can be provided for an existing project because (a) it makes it much easier for new developers to step right up and help; (b) helps narrow the breach between users and developers; and (c) helps users use the project.The difficulty is engaging with a developer who has already thought everything out and persuading that developer to critically go over all that work all over again.
If you can do that, you can collaborate to write awesome documentation, but it's really hard work.Developers should try to engage documentation writers from the beginning of that project.
Although it will be a pain to have to explain your work and insight to somebody else, the rewards would be awesome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313328</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1259866860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Trying to FIND the command to do something is nearly impossible.</p></div><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>....or if you know that you used a command to do something, but can't remember what, also usually impossible to find again easily...unless you have a near-photographic memory of the results pages for every google search you've done in the last x-many days.
<br> <br>
Something I found that is incredibly useful when using linux, keep a hardcopy notebook where you write down commands you have used and what they did for you. It saves you tons of re-research time. A text file also works if it is saved in a convenient directory like ~/. But yeah, I've found that starting a self-documentation project is the most convenient way to learn linux so far...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Trying to FIND the command to do something is nearly impossible .
....or if you know that you used a command to do something , but ca n't remember what , also usually impossible to find again easily...unless you have a near-photographic memory of the results pages for every google search you 've done in the last x-many days .
Something I found that is incredibly useful when using linux , keep a hardcopy notebook where you write down commands you have used and what they did for you .
It saves you tons of re-research time .
A text file also works if it is saved in a convenient directory like ~ / .
But yeah , I 've found that starting a self-documentation project is the most convenient way to learn linux so far.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trying to FIND the command to do something is nearly impossible.
....or if you know that you used a command to do something, but can't remember what, also usually impossible to find again easily...unless you have a near-photographic memory of the results pages for every google search you've done in the last x-many days.
Something I found that is incredibly useful when using linux, keep a hardcopy notebook where you write down commands you have used and what they did for you.
It saves you tons of re-research time.
A text file also works if it is saved in a convenient directory like ~/.
But yeah, I've found that starting a self-documentation project is the most convenient way to learn linux so far...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310588</id>
	<title>The short answer:  it depends.</title>
	<author>Scholasticus</author>
	<datestamp>1259857680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, if you're talking about official documentation that comes with a particular application, or HOWTOs on various subjects, I think there is a lack of good documentation for beginners etc. in quite a few areas.  But most distributions have help forums, (some better than others) and that plus a little googling provides lots of very helpful information for the less experienced users.

Remember back when any application you bought came with a big fat manual (the paper kind, I mean)?  I'm thinking of when I was using WordPerfect 5.1 in DOS.  Well, those days are gone, and the "missing manuals" which you can buy are both very expensive and sometimes innacurate.

Sure, GNU/Linux and associated applications and DEs could use better official documentation, but there's a lot of good information out there as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if you 're talking about official documentation that comes with a particular application , or HOWTOs on various subjects , I think there is a lack of good documentation for beginners etc .
in quite a few areas .
But most distributions have help forums , ( some better than others ) and that plus a little googling provides lots of very helpful information for the less experienced users .
Remember back when any application you bought came with a big fat manual ( the paper kind , I mean ) ?
I 'm thinking of when I was using WordPerfect 5.1 in DOS .
Well , those days are gone , and the " missing manuals " which you can buy are both very expensive and sometimes innacurate .
Sure , GNU/Linux and associated applications and DEs could use better official documentation , but there 's a lot of good information out there as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if you're talking about official documentation that comes with a particular application, or HOWTOs on various subjects, I think there is a lack of good documentation for beginners etc.
in quite a few areas.
But most distributions have help forums, (some better than others) and that plus a little googling provides lots of very helpful information for the less experienced users.
Remember back when any application you bought came with a big fat manual (the paper kind, I mean)?
I'm thinking of when I was using WordPerfect 5.1 in DOS.
Well, those days are gone, and the "missing manuals" which you can buy are both very expensive and sometimes innacurate.
Sure, GNU/Linux and associated applications and DEs could use better official documentation, but there's a lot of good information out there as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311344</id>
	<title>Re:Well, No Shit</title>
	<author>value\_added</author>
	<datestamp>1259860500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FreeBSD is indeed outstanding in the documentation area -- complete, thorough and consistent.  And as an added bonus, most manpages are written to include examples and handholding (where applicable).</p><p>Linux, I'm afraid, suffers from, among other things, the man/info dilemma.  Personally, I find info somewhere between retarded and useless, but to the extent anyone relies on using info as it was originally conceived, they'll discover soon enough that the info referenced in the manpage was never written.</p><p>As a workaround for the shoddy quality of Linux documentation, what I do is one of the following: (a) install the FreeBSD manpages into my home directory; (b) use a script to dump the on-line version into my terminal; or (c) simply write my own.  Granted the FreeBSD manpages won't necessarily match up, but they're generally close enough to be adequate, and especially useful for unfamiliar concepts or commands.</p><p>As for writing one's own manpages, that does take a bit of knowledge, but it's far simpler than it appears.  An alternative is to use Perl's immensely-readable and easy-to-learn POD format.  Running 'perldoc<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/path/to/mypod' (or simply 'pod2man') gives you the same bold, overstriking and other formatting you'd typically expect from a manpage.  Either way, writing your own seems to be increasingly necessary.  Took me a while to document Firefox correctly, but I haven't had to waste any time since bouncing around dozens of Firefox sites to lookup the meaning of about:config settings.  If you've got documentation, Google is *never* faster.</p><p>Manpages ideally should contain examples, but they shouldn't take the form of a tutorial.  The web is littered with tutorials, so finding one is easy enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FreeBSD is indeed outstanding in the documentation area -- complete , thorough and consistent .
And as an added bonus , most manpages are written to include examples and handholding ( where applicable ) .Linux , I 'm afraid , suffers from , among other things , the man/info dilemma .
Personally , I find info somewhere between retarded and useless , but to the extent anyone relies on using info as it was originally conceived , they 'll discover soon enough that the info referenced in the manpage was never written.As a workaround for the shoddy quality of Linux documentation , what I do is one of the following : ( a ) install the FreeBSD manpages into my home directory ; ( b ) use a script to dump the on-line version into my terminal ; or ( c ) simply write my own .
Granted the FreeBSD manpages wo n't necessarily match up , but they 're generally close enough to be adequate , and especially useful for unfamiliar concepts or commands.As for writing one 's own manpages , that does take a bit of knowledge , but it 's far simpler than it appears .
An alternative is to use Perl 's immensely-readable and easy-to-learn POD format .
Running 'perldoc /path/to/mypod ' ( or simply 'pod2man ' ) gives you the same bold , overstriking and other formatting you 'd typically expect from a manpage .
Either way , writing your own seems to be increasingly necessary .
Took me a while to document Firefox correctly , but I have n't had to waste any time since bouncing around dozens of Firefox sites to lookup the meaning of about : config settings .
If you 've got documentation , Google is * never * faster.Manpages ideally should contain examples , but they should n't take the form of a tutorial .
The web is littered with tutorials , so finding one is easy enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FreeBSD is indeed outstanding in the documentation area -- complete, thorough and consistent.
And as an added bonus, most manpages are written to include examples and handholding (where applicable).Linux, I'm afraid, suffers from, among other things, the man/info dilemma.
Personally, I find info somewhere between retarded and useless, but to the extent anyone relies on using info as it was originally conceived, they'll discover soon enough that the info referenced in the manpage was never written.As a workaround for the shoddy quality of Linux documentation, what I do is one of the following: (a) install the FreeBSD manpages into my home directory; (b) use a script to dump the on-line version into my terminal; or (c) simply write my own.
Granted the FreeBSD manpages won't necessarily match up, but they're generally close enough to be adequate, and especially useful for unfamiliar concepts or commands.As for writing one's own manpages, that does take a bit of knowledge, but it's far simpler than it appears.
An alternative is to use Perl's immensely-readable and easy-to-learn POD format.
Running 'perldoc /path/to/mypod' (or simply 'pod2man') gives you the same bold, overstriking and other formatting you'd typically expect from a manpage.
Either way, writing your own seems to be increasingly necessary.
Took me a while to document Firefox correctly, but I haven't had to waste any time since bouncing around dozens of Firefox sites to lookup the meaning of about:config settings.
If you've got documentation, Google is *never* faster.Manpages ideally should contain examples, but they shouldn't take the form of a tutorial.
The web is littered with tutorials, so finding one is easy enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311198</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>palegray.net</author>
	<datestamp>1259859960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://library.linode.com/" title="linode.com">Oh, really?</a> [linode.com] Granted, that's documentation intended for server administrators, but I'd squarely categorize them as "system users."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , really ?
[ linode.com ] Granted , that 's documentation intended for server administrators , but I 'd squarely categorize them as " system users .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, really?
[linode.com] Granted, that's documentation intended for server administrators, but I'd squarely categorize them as "system users.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313964</id>
	<title>Re:Google can be more specific</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259869080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really, really, bad example. I mean, seriously, did you RTFM? I searched the man page of GNU find for "-prune" and found the \_very\_second\_match\_ in a paragraph mentioning "see an example in the description of -path". Third match was the -path section, and contained an example doing \_just\_exactly\_ what you asked for:</p><p>"find . -path<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./src/emacs -prune -o -print"</p><p>Then I read the -prune section, and then ran your snippet, and whaddya you know? It does \_exactly\_ what I'd expect it to, which is not even really the opposite of what you \_wanted\_ it to. Why in blazes would \_you\_ expect it to change the complete behavior of find when used alone, just because that would be more convenient for your one simple use?!</p><p>Try to understand the way you're constructing a ruleset by adding command-line options, instead of just magic-string copy-pasta programming, and you'll immediately see  why your bizarre semantics, in addition to contradicting the current man page, would make any kind of "don't search any deeper, but do something while you're here" uses much harder to implement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , really , bad example .
I mean , seriously , did you RTFM ?
I searched the man page of GNU find for " -prune " and found the \ _very \ _second \ _match \ _ in a paragraph mentioning " see an example in the description of -path " .
Third match was the -path section , and contained an example doing \ _just \ _exactly \ _ what you asked for : " find .
-path ./src/emacs -prune -o -print " Then I read the -prune section , and then ran your snippet , and whaddya you know ?
It does \ _exactly \ _ what I 'd expect it to , which is not even really the opposite of what you \ _wanted \ _ it to .
Why in blazes would \ _you \ _ expect it to change the complete behavior of find when used alone , just because that would be more convenient for your one simple use ?
! Try to understand the way you 're constructing a ruleset by adding command-line options , instead of just magic-string copy-pasta programming , and you 'll immediately see why your bizarre semantics , in addition to contradicting the current man page , would make any kind of " do n't search any deeper , but do something while you 're here " uses much harder to implement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, really, bad example.
I mean, seriously, did you RTFM?
I searched the man page of GNU find for "-prune" and found the \_very\_second\_match\_ in a paragraph mentioning "see an example in the description of -path".
Third match was the -path section, and contained an example doing \_just\_exactly\_ what you asked for:"find .
-path ./src/emacs -prune -o -print"Then I read the -prune section, and then ran your snippet, and whaddya you know?
It does \_exactly\_ what I'd expect it to, which is not even really the opposite of what you \_wanted\_ it to.
Why in blazes would \_you\_ expect it to change the complete behavior of find when used alone, just because that would be more convenient for your one simple use?
!Try to understand the way you're constructing a ruleset by adding command-line options, instead of just magic-string copy-pasta programming, and you'll immediately see  why your bizarre semantics, in addition to contradicting the current man page, would make any kind of "don't search any deeper, but do something while you're here" uses much harder to implement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313022</id>
	<title>Re:Well, No Shit</title>
	<author>CyberNigma</author>
	<datestamp>1259865720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really like the BSDs as well.  I'm with you on almost everything you said, except you  lost me on the last part.  I think it may have just been the fact that it was a quick snippet, and I may have interpreted it wrong.</p><p>"Relying on GUI config tools, DHCP, and other magic to keep "newbies" from needing to actually learn anything is counter-productive and isn't going to help create new professionals."</p><p>I would like to add that an operating system's purpose shouldn't be to create new professionals any more than a car's purpose should be to create new mechanics.  It's just a tool.  People want to and need to use them that work in fields completely unrelated to understanding the inner workings of computers.  Most people shouldn't even have to know what an IP address is.  It should just work (preferably with some sense of security, though that doesn't usually chide well with ease of use or obscurity of underlying mechanisms).</p><p>You shouldn't need or even care to know anything about radio wave propagation theory in order to watch television, other than the basics of how to set up your antenna (assuming you even watch over the air broadcasts).  The same should apply to any consumer operating system.  I'd include Ubuntu as a linux distro that is trying to fit into that category as opposed to something like Gentoo or OpenBSD which have different reasons to live.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really like the BSDs as well .
I 'm with you on almost everything you said , except you lost me on the last part .
I think it may have just been the fact that it was a quick snippet , and I may have interpreted it wrong .
" Relying on GUI config tools , DHCP , and other magic to keep " newbies " from needing to actually learn anything is counter-productive and is n't going to help create new professionals .
" I would like to add that an operating system 's purpose should n't be to create new professionals any more than a car 's purpose should be to create new mechanics .
It 's just a tool .
People want to and need to use them that work in fields completely unrelated to understanding the inner workings of computers .
Most people should n't even have to know what an IP address is .
It should just work ( preferably with some sense of security , though that does n't usually chide well with ease of use or obscurity of underlying mechanisms ) .You should n't need or even care to know anything about radio wave propagation theory in order to watch television , other than the basics of how to set up your antenna ( assuming you even watch over the air broadcasts ) .
The same should apply to any consumer operating system .
I 'd include Ubuntu as a linux distro that is trying to fit into that category as opposed to something like Gentoo or OpenBSD which have different reasons to live .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really like the BSDs as well.
I'm with you on almost everything you said, except you  lost me on the last part.
I think it may have just been the fact that it was a quick snippet, and I may have interpreted it wrong.
"Relying on GUI config tools, DHCP, and other magic to keep "newbies" from needing to actually learn anything is counter-productive and isn't going to help create new professionals.
"I would like to add that an operating system's purpose shouldn't be to create new professionals any more than a car's purpose should be to create new mechanics.
It's just a tool.
People want to and need to use them that work in fields completely unrelated to understanding the inner workings of computers.
Most people shouldn't even have to know what an IP address is.
It should just work (preferably with some sense of security, though that doesn't usually chide well with ease of use or obscurity of underlying mechanisms).You shouldn't need or even care to know anything about radio wave propagation theory in order to watch television, other than the basics of how to set up your antenna (assuming you even watch over the air broadcasts).
The same should apply to any consumer operating system.
I'd include Ubuntu as a linux distro that is trying to fit into that category as opposed to something like Gentoo or OpenBSD which have different reasons to live.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311394</id>
	<title>What documentation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259860620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/" title="gentoo.org">Gentoo</a> [gentoo.org]?  I've found it to be rather good.<br>Maybe you're not a ricer though and want to use something mainstream like <a href="http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/" title="redhat.com">redhat/centos</a> [redhat.com]?<br>Have any of these people actually RTFM that they are saying is inadequate or lacking?  What is the author's definition of "good" documentation?  The docs I've found for linux have generally been superior to ones I've come across from Oracle, Novell, or Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gentoo [ gentoo.org ] ?
I 've found it to be rather good.Maybe you 're not a ricer though and want to use something mainstream like redhat/centos [ redhat.com ] ? Have any of these people actually RTFM that they are saying is inadequate or lacking ?
What is the author 's definition of " good " documentation ?
The docs I 've found for linux have generally been superior to ones I 've come across from Oracle , Novell , or Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gentoo [gentoo.org]?
I've found it to be rather good.Maybe you're not a ricer though and want to use something mainstream like redhat/centos [redhat.com]?Have any of these people actually RTFM that they are saying is inadequate or lacking?
What is the author's definition of "good" documentation?
The docs I've found for linux have generally been superior to ones I've come across from Oracle, Novell, or Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311170</id>
	<title>Linux documentation lacks curators</title>
	<author>DaveTheTriffids</author>
	<datestamp>1259859840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For most of the desktop apps I use, the MAN pages and Web documentation offered to users by the apps' developers seem to lag a couple of versions behind the code.</p><p>However, using Google brings its own problems: as other posters here have commented, you tend to find more people asking the same question than you find answers.</p><p>Even on forums that do have the answers, they're often buried on the tenth page of "me too" comments responding to the question.</p><p>Those forums would be a lot more helpful if, from time to time, someone went through and deleted the cruft, or edited every posting of a question to include a link to the answer, so that the useful information would get a better pagerank.</p><p>Better yet would be if someone were to paste the useful answers into a Wiki page, editing them to include some context, and make clear which versions of the app and which distros the answer applies to.</p><p>But who would that someone be? Where would we keep the Wiki page? And how would we credit the poster of the original helpful information, and the owner or operator of the forum where they posted it? (If you don't think that's important, then you haven't understood the psychology of a lot of these forums and their users....)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For most of the desktop apps I use , the MAN pages and Web documentation offered to users by the apps ' developers seem to lag a couple of versions behind the code.However , using Google brings its own problems : as other posters here have commented , you tend to find more people asking the same question than you find answers.Even on forums that do have the answers , they 're often buried on the tenth page of " me too " comments responding to the question.Those forums would be a lot more helpful if , from time to time , someone went through and deleted the cruft , or edited every posting of a question to include a link to the answer , so that the useful information would get a better pagerank.Better yet would be if someone were to paste the useful answers into a Wiki page , editing them to include some context , and make clear which versions of the app and which distros the answer applies to.But who would that someone be ?
Where would we keep the Wiki page ?
And how would we credit the poster of the original helpful information , and the owner or operator of the forum where they posted it ?
( If you do n't think that 's important , then you have n't understood the psychology of a lot of these forums and their users.... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For most of the desktop apps I use, the MAN pages and Web documentation offered to users by the apps' developers seem to lag a couple of versions behind the code.However, using Google brings its own problems: as other posters here have commented, you tend to find more people asking the same question than you find answers.Even on forums that do have the answers, they're often buried on the tenth page of "me too" comments responding to the question.Those forums would be a lot more helpful if, from time to time, someone went through and deleted the cruft, or edited every posting of a question to include a link to the answer, so that the useful information would get a better pagerank.Better yet would be if someone were to paste the useful answers into a Wiki page, editing them to include some context, and make clear which versions of the app and which distros the answer applies to.But who would that someone be?
Where would we keep the Wiki page?
And how would we credit the poster of the original helpful information, and the owner or operator of the forum where they posted it?
(If you don't think that's important, then you haven't understood the psychology of a lot of these forums and their users....)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494</id>
	<title>Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>genkael</author>
	<datestamp>1259857320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a linux user since 1995, I have found the documentation to be little more than it was around 2000.  It's easier to do a google search than try to find an answer in a man page.  Not only that, the man page rarely has useful examples, one of the biggest problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a linux user since 1995 , I have found the documentation to be little more than it was around 2000 .
It 's easier to do a google search than try to find an answer in a man page .
Not only that , the man page rarely has useful examples , one of the biggest problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a linux user since 1995, I have found the documentation to be little more than it was around 2000.
It's easier to do a google search than try to find an answer in a man page.
Not only that, the man page rarely has useful examples, one of the biggest problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311386</id>
	<title>Quite close actually....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259860620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linux documentation is coming quite close to Google first. As a matter of fact uShares documentation sucks so bad that I had to resort to Google &gt; IRC to fix my problem. Even then IRC didn't fix it and my own will to 'explore' fixed it. But then there is no place for me to document my fix so well I guess people are just going to have to deal without.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux documentation is coming quite close to Google first .
As a matter of fact uShares documentation sucks so bad that I had to resort to Google &gt; IRC to fix my problem .
Even then IRC did n't fix it and my own will to 'explore ' fixed it .
But then there is no place for me to document my fix so well I guess people are just going to have to deal without .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux documentation is coming quite close to Google first.
As a matter of fact uShares documentation sucks so bad that I had to resort to Google &gt; IRC to fix my problem.
Even then IRC didn't fix it and my own will to 'explore' fixed it.
But then there is no place for me to document my fix so well I guess people are just going to have to deal without.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311584</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1259861220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you build it, they will read.</p><p>Nobody reads it today because it either doesn't exist or sucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you build it , they will read.Nobody reads it today because it either does n't exist or sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you build it, they will read.Nobody reads it today because it either doesn't exist or sucks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314834</id>
	<title>Repeat after me - man pages are not help pages</title>
	<author>tjwhaynes</author>
	<datestamp>1259872740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man pages are not tutorials. They are not help pages. They are reference material, designed to quickly and briefly inform the experienced user about the usage of a command and any related files.

</p><p>Info pages are the next step up. They are often more detailed (witness the Emacs pages) but they are generally written for a technical audience and quite frankly, the average user isn't going to find them anyway or be able to do anything with them if they can find them,

</p><p>Man pages and Info pages will, if you are very very lucky, be written by the authors of the software who speak the same language you do and are used to writing technical information. They stand some chance of being updated as the software is updated.

</p><p>Next up on the list of information resources is wikis, hosted at the site where the development is done. These will generally provide more accessible information for new users, will be community driven and hopefully will reflect the state of the code in the last two years. Keeping wikis up to date is a huge task for large projects.

</p><p>Beyond that, proper documentation requires constant community involvement. Most projects don't have someone looking after the docs - the software is the focus. Even teams like GNOME and KDE struggle to keep their docs even vaguely up to date - witness the dearth of information on the latest release of gdm (2.28.1) for example. And these teams do have volunteers who are trying to keep up with the changes.

</p><p>Forums actually give the best location for problem solving because they quickly acquire a list of problem reports that are the things that 90\% of people hit. These show up clearly in google and will, hopefully, get solutions posted or FAQs written.

</p><p>Until the non-technical users of Free software step up to volunteer to write and maintain documentation for software projects, there will always be a lack of current, complete and easily accessible documentation. However, good documentation is hard to write and I often find that commercial software projects are distinctly lacking when it comes to good writing, so I don't think this is an issue which is restricted to open source software.

</p><p>Cheers,
<br>Toby Haynes</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man pages are not tutorials .
They are not help pages .
They are reference material , designed to quickly and briefly inform the experienced user about the usage of a command and any related files .
Info pages are the next step up .
They are often more detailed ( witness the Emacs pages ) but they are generally written for a technical audience and quite frankly , the average user is n't going to find them anyway or be able to do anything with them if they can find them , Man pages and Info pages will , if you are very very lucky , be written by the authors of the software who speak the same language you do and are used to writing technical information .
They stand some chance of being updated as the software is updated .
Next up on the list of information resources is wikis , hosted at the site where the development is done .
These will generally provide more accessible information for new users , will be community driven and hopefully will reflect the state of the code in the last two years .
Keeping wikis up to date is a huge task for large projects .
Beyond that , proper documentation requires constant community involvement .
Most projects do n't have someone looking after the docs - the software is the focus .
Even teams like GNOME and KDE struggle to keep their docs even vaguely up to date - witness the dearth of information on the latest release of gdm ( 2.28.1 ) for example .
And these teams do have volunteers who are trying to keep up with the changes .
Forums actually give the best location for problem solving because they quickly acquire a list of problem reports that are the things that 90 \ % of people hit .
These show up clearly in google and will , hopefully , get solutions posted or FAQs written .
Until the non-technical users of Free software step up to volunteer to write and maintain documentation for software projects , there will always be a lack of current , complete and easily accessible documentation .
However , good documentation is hard to write and I often find that commercial software projects are distinctly lacking when it comes to good writing , so I do n't think this is an issue which is restricted to open source software .
Cheers , Toby Haynes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man pages are not tutorials.
They are not help pages.
They are reference material, designed to quickly and briefly inform the experienced user about the usage of a command and any related files.
Info pages are the next step up.
They are often more detailed (witness the Emacs pages) but they are generally written for a technical audience and quite frankly, the average user isn't going to find them anyway or be able to do anything with them if they can find them,

Man pages and Info pages will, if you are very very lucky, be written by the authors of the software who speak the same language you do and are used to writing technical information.
They stand some chance of being updated as the software is updated.
Next up on the list of information resources is wikis, hosted at the site where the development is done.
These will generally provide more accessible information for new users, will be community driven and hopefully will reflect the state of the code in the last two years.
Keeping wikis up to date is a huge task for large projects.
Beyond that, proper documentation requires constant community involvement.
Most projects don't have someone looking after the docs - the software is the focus.
Even teams like GNOME and KDE struggle to keep their docs even vaguely up to date - witness the dearth of information on the latest release of gdm (2.28.1) for example.
And these teams do have volunteers who are trying to keep up with the changes.
Forums actually give the best location for problem solving because they quickly acquire a list of problem reports that are the things that 90\% of people hit.
These show up clearly in google and will, hopefully, get solutions posted or FAQs written.
Until the non-technical users of Free software step up to volunteer to write and maintain documentation for software projects, there will always be a lack of current, complete and easily accessible documentation.
However, good documentation is hard to write and I often find that commercial software projects are distinctly lacking when it comes to good writing, so I don't think this is an issue which is restricted to open source software.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313736</id>
	<title>Re:Don't like man pages.</title>
	<author>hey</author>
	<datestamp>1259868300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really?  I read a man page to see what options they are and how to use them.  Stuff like that.  That's there.   What else do you expect from a man page?<br>Also man pages are for the version of the command that's installed on your machine.<br>Compare Linux man pages (ie a man page for nearly every command, system call, function, etc) to Windows help!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
I read a man page to see what options they are and how to use them .
Stuff like that .
That 's there .
What else do you expect from a man page ? Also man pages are for the version of the command that 's installed on your machine.Compare Linux man pages ( ie a man page for nearly every command , system call , function , etc ) to Windows help !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
I read a man page to see what options they are and how to use them.
Stuff like that.
That's there.
What else do you expect from a man page?Also man pages are for the version of the command that's installed on your machine.Compare Linux man pages (ie a man page for nearly every command, system call, function, etc) to Windows help!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30342316</id>
	<title>Re:Well, No Shit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260100380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I read was this:</p><p>"I'm going to talk about how much better BSD documentation is.  To do this, I will take a specific BSD, rather than the general BSD, and compare it with a general Linux, rather than a specific Linux."</p><p>That aside, I agree with the essence of what you have said.  ("I should not have to Google around for random blogs and wikis...")  You're darn tootin' you shouldn't.  I've been using Linux on-and-off since 1994, got myself a Bachelor in Computer Science, and I still have serious problems making some things work.</p><p>I've actually put my money where my mouth is, though.  I've ended up writing some hopefully clear documentation on how to perform some basic tasks, so my father can (for example) burn discs.  (It's a shame that his CD burner needs the firmware upgraded.  Blame that one on Linux, Windows zealots!)</p><p>If I still have the file, I could contribute it to Kubuntu, but it's in PDF format...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I read was this : " I 'm going to talk about how much better BSD documentation is .
To do this , I will take a specific BSD , rather than the general BSD , and compare it with a general Linux , rather than a specific Linux .
" That aside , I agree with the essence of what you have said .
( " I should not have to Google around for random blogs and wikis... " ) You 're darn tootin ' you should n't .
I 've been using Linux on-and-off since 1994 , got myself a Bachelor in Computer Science , and I still have serious problems making some things work.I 've actually put my money where my mouth is , though .
I 've ended up writing some hopefully clear documentation on how to perform some basic tasks , so my father can ( for example ) burn discs .
( It 's a shame that his CD burner needs the firmware upgraded .
Blame that one on Linux , Windows zealots !
) If I still have the file , I could contribute it to Kubuntu , but it 's in PDF format.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I read was this:"I'm going to talk about how much better BSD documentation is.
To do this, I will take a specific BSD, rather than the general BSD, and compare it with a general Linux, rather than a specific Linux.
"That aside, I agree with the essence of what you have said.
("I should not have to Google around for random blogs and wikis...")  You're darn tootin' you shouldn't.
I've been using Linux on-and-off since 1994, got myself a Bachelor in Computer Science, and I still have serious problems making some things work.I've actually put my money where my mouth is, though.
I've ended up writing some hopefully clear documentation on how to perform some basic tasks, so my father can (for example) burn discs.
(It's a shame that his CD burner needs the firmware upgraded.
Blame that one on Linux, Windows zealots!
)If I still have the file, I could contribute it to Kubuntu, but it's in PDF format...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311292</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>InsaneProcessor</author>
	<datestamp>1259860260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is exactly why I gave up on the linux solution to my HTPC.  I just install the Windows softare and 'click' it works.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly why I gave up on the linux solution to my HTPC .
I just install the Windows softare and 'click ' it works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly why I gave up on the linux solution to my HTPC.
I just install the Windows softare and 'click' it works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312976</id>
	<title>I have 3 real issues with manpages</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1259865540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>although I like manpages and do consult them, I prefer googling stuff, because three problems you often have are
<ul>
<li>no examples</li>
<li>the parameters are sorted alphabetically - so you might have to scroll through 50 screenpages of obscure parameters that you most certainly never need until you find the one you're looking for (IF you are still reading at that point)</li>
<li>bad descriptions like --fluxcompensator activates fluxcompensation</li>
</ul><p>

just put some real-world examples at the beginning of the manpage and you're good...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>although I like manpages and do consult them , I prefer googling stuff , because three problems you often have are no examples the parameters are sorted alphabetically - so you might have to scroll through 50 screenpages of obscure parameters that you most certainly never need until you find the one you 're looking for ( IF you are still reading at that point ) bad descriptions like --fluxcompensator activates fluxcompensation just put some real-world examples at the beginning of the manpage and you 're good.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>although I like manpages and do consult them, I prefer googling stuff, because three problems you often have are

no examples
the parameters are sorted alphabetically - so you might have to scroll through 50 screenpages of obscure parameters that you most certainly never need until you find the one you're looking for (IF you are still reading at that point)
bad descriptions like --fluxcompensator activates fluxcompensation


just put some real-world examples at the beginning of the manpage and you're good...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311500</id>
	<title>Re:And good luck with Google, too</title>
	<author>Xadnem</author>
	<datestamp>1259860980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You forgot: if the 2005 post has replies they're insulting to the original poster or irrelevant to his question.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot : if the 2005 post has replies they 're insulting to the original poster or irrelevant to his question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot: if the 2005 post has replies they're insulting to the original poster or irrelevant to his question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311918</id>
	<title>ALL documentation has gone down the drain.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1259862120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Documentation for ALL software, hardware, regardless of vendor, has gone down the drain.  man pages are not as useful as they used to be.  Windows Help has gone down the drain.  Commercial software, private software, doesn't make any difference.  Why pay someone to write a good manual when you can sell a consultant instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Documentation for ALL software , hardware , regardless of vendor , has gone down the drain .
man pages are not as useful as they used to be .
Windows Help has gone down the drain .
Commercial software , private software , does n't make any difference .
Why pay someone to write a good manual when you can sell a consultant instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Documentation for ALL software, hardware, regardless of vendor, has gone down the drain.
man pages are not as useful as they used to be.
Windows Help has gone down the drain.
Commercial software, private software, doesn't make any difference.
Why pay someone to write a good manual when you can sell a consultant instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30319970</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>Risen888</author>
	<datestamp>1259852940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Do you feel you have to know how every component in your car works.</i></p><p>No, but if I don't, I have to pay somebody else to fix it when it breaks. That's how it works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you feel you have to know how every component in your car works.No , but if I do n't , I have to pay somebody else to fix it when it breaks .
That 's how it works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you feel you have to know how every component in your car works.No, but if I don't, I have to pay somebody else to fix it when it breaks.
That's how it works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310562</id>
	<title>Google, Safari, Addison-Wesley, Sun</title>
	<author>Bigbutt</author>
	<datestamp>1259857560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yea, generally when I'm trying to figure something out, I'll do a search of the 'net for a quick answer and then reach for an O'Reilly (via Safari) or Addison-Wesley book for in-depth knowledge.</p><p>The problem for me is that the man page is either a paragraph or two and not much help or 35 pages of incredibly detailed information that's difficult to parse. I'll do a google man page search at times just so I have an easy way to browse the page.</p><p>A man page doesn't provide a tutorial and many times don't even provide examples of usage.</p><p>[John]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , generally when I 'm trying to figure something out , I 'll do a search of the 'net for a quick answer and then reach for an O'Reilly ( via Safari ) or Addison-Wesley book for in-depth knowledge.The problem for me is that the man page is either a paragraph or two and not much help or 35 pages of incredibly detailed information that 's difficult to parse .
I 'll do a google man page search at times just so I have an easy way to browse the page.A man page does n't provide a tutorial and many times do n't even provide examples of usage .
[ John ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, generally when I'm trying to figure something out, I'll do a search of the 'net for a quick answer and then reach for an O'Reilly (via Safari) or Addison-Wesley book for in-depth knowledge.The problem for me is that the man page is either a paragraph or two and not much help or 35 pages of incredibly detailed information that's difficult to parse.
I'll do a google man page search at times just so I have an easy way to browse the page.A man page doesn't provide a tutorial and many times don't even provide examples of usage.
[John]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311148</id>
	<title>Re:Why not?</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1259859780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No one ever said you couldn't have some sort of wiki-style replicated documentation system on your machine.  I routinely download the Java JDK/J2EE docs for every version, and some for bigger projects like Hibernate and Junit for my offline work.  Why not have a system to make that easier?</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one ever said you could n't have some sort of wiki-style replicated documentation system on your machine .
I routinely download the Java JDK/J2EE docs for every version , and some for bigger projects like Hibernate and Junit for my offline work .
Why not have a system to make that easier ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one ever said you couldn't have some sort of wiki-style replicated documentation system on your machine.
I routinely download the Java JDK/J2EE docs for every version, and some for bigger projects like Hibernate and Junit for my offline work.
Why not have a system to make that easier?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311172</id>
	<title>KDE's Documentation Is Woefully Out Of Date</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259859840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you follow the links to <a href="http://www.kde.org/documentation/" title="kde.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.kde.org/documentation/</a> [kde.org] and read the "Application documentation" paragraph, a lot of those links are extremely old:

<br> <br>

<a href="http://docs.kde.org/development/en/kdebase-runtime/userguide/" title="kde.org" rel="nofollow">http://docs.kde.org/development/en/kdebase-runtime/userguide/</a> [kde.org]    last revision date 2004-06-16

<br> <br>
<a href="http://docs.kde.org/development/en/kdebase-runtime/faq/" title="kde.org" rel="nofollow">http://docs.kde.org/development/en/kdebase-runtime/faq/</a> [kde.org]   last revision date 2005--01-19
<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.kde.org/info/" title="kde.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.kde.org/info/</a> [kde.org]  no date, but aRts? No Plasma?
<br> <br>

It's inexcusably irresponsible, especially since they've completely re-written KDE.  Doing certain things can be a big hassle. Configuring workspaces properly is rather complex. KDE users shouldn't have to scour the Web for documentation, and no one should have to remind them to update it. Isn't part of software development maintaning accurate, timely documentation?

<br> <br>

Yes, there's <a href="http://userbase.kde.org/Plasma/FAQ/HowTo" title="kde.org" rel="nofollow">http://userbase.kde.org/Plasma/FAQ/HowTo</a> [kde.org], but where's the link from the main documentation page?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you follow the links to http : //www.kde.org/documentation/ [ kde.org ] and read the " Application documentation " paragraph , a lot of those links are extremely old : http : //docs.kde.org/development/en/kdebase-runtime/userguide/ [ kde.org ] last revision date 2004-06-16 http : //docs.kde.org/development/en/kdebase-runtime/faq/ [ kde.org ] last revision date 2005--01-19 http : //www.kde.org/info/ [ kde.org ] no date , but aRts ?
No Plasma ?
It 's inexcusably irresponsible , especially since they 've completely re-written KDE .
Doing certain things can be a big hassle .
Configuring workspaces properly is rather complex .
KDE users should n't have to scour the Web for documentation , and no one should have to remind them to update it .
Is n't part of software development maintaning accurate , timely documentation ?
Yes , there 's http : //userbase.kde.org/Plasma/FAQ/HowTo [ kde.org ] , but where 's the link from the main documentation page ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you follow the links to http://www.kde.org/documentation/ [kde.org] and read the "Application documentation" paragraph, a lot of those links are extremely old:

 

http://docs.kde.org/development/en/kdebase-runtime/userguide/ [kde.org]    last revision date 2004-06-16

 
http://docs.kde.org/development/en/kdebase-runtime/faq/ [kde.org]   last revision date 2005--01-19
 
http://www.kde.org/info/ [kde.org]  no date, but aRts?
No Plasma?
It's inexcusably irresponsible, especially since they've completely re-written KDE.
Doing certain things can be a big hassle.
Configuring workspaces properly is rather complex.
KDE users shouldn't have to scour the Web for documentation, and no one should have to remind them to update it.
Isn't part of software development maintaning accurate, timely documentation?
Yes, there's http://userbase.kde.org/Plasma/FAQ/HowTo [kde.org], but where's the link from the main documentation page?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311674</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>kc8hr</author>
	<datestamp>1259861460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Absolutely!

Most Linux documentation has been written by coders and engineers. Man pages and 'how-tos' littered with jargon and technical terms can be almost incomprehensible to the average desktop computer user. Man pages are OK for a quick reference if you already have a reasonable idea of what you're doing, but Google is usually the only solution for most people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely !
Most Linux documentation has been written by coders and engineers .
Man pages and 'how-tos ' littered with jargon and technical terms can be almost incomprehensible to the average desktop computer user .
Man pages are OK for a quick reference if you already have a reasonable idea of what you 're doing , but Google is usually the only solution for most people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely!
Most Linux documentation has been written by coders and engineers.
Man pages and 'how-tos' littered with jargon and technical terms can be almost incomprehensible to the average desktop computer user.
Man pages are OK for a quick reference if you already have a reasonable idea of what you're doing, but Google is usually the only solution for most people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312556</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation Doesn't Matter..</title>
	<author>bmearns</author>
	<datestamp>1259864100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Look, I know we like to joke around about it in computer circles, but computers are not toaster, nor are they microwaves. If someone's regarding it as something other than what it is (such as an appliance), then whose responsible for the fact that it doesn't work they way they expect?
</p><p>
At the risk of running counter to the Ubunutu philosphy, Linux isn't for everybody. That's why you don't just go to Walmart and pick up a Linux PC (<a href="http://linux.slashdot.org/story/07/11/01/1421218/200-Linux-PCs-On-Sale-At-Wal-Mart" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">oops...nevermind.</a> [slashdot.org]). It's a hard lesson to learn: I'll be the first to admit that when I started with Linux I was a typical overzealous evangelist, constantly telling my dad all the reasons he should switch to Linux. It wasn't till one day when he saw me working in a full screen text terminal and said "Uh-oh, looks like you crashed!" that I realized it would be completely inappropriate for him to switch to Linux.
</p><p>
From it's humble Finnish beginnings, Linux has always been one thing: an operating system for the people who built it. The rest of us are opportunists.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , I know we like to joke around about it in computer circles , but computers are not toaster , nor are they microwaves .
If someone 's regarding it as something other than what it is ( such as an appliance ) , then whose responsible for the fact that it does n't work they way they expect ?
At the risk of running counter to the Ubunutu philosphy , Linux is n't for everybody .
That 's why you do n't just go to Walmart and pick up a Linux PC ( oops...nevermind .
[ slashdot.org ] ) . It 's a hard lesson to learn : I 'll be the first to admit that when I started with Linux I was a typical overzealous evangelist , constantly telling my dad all the reasons he should switch to Linux .
It was n't till one day when he saw me working in a full screen text terminal and said " Uh-oh , looks like you crashed !
" that I realized it would be completely inappropriate for him to switch to Linux .
From it 's humble Finnish beginnings , Linux has always been one thing : an operating system for the people who built it .
The rest of us are opportunists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Look, I know we like to joke around about it in computer circles, but computers are not toaster, nor are they microwaves.
If someone's regarding it as something other than what it is (such as an appliance), then whose responsible for the fact that it doesn't work they way they expect?
At the risk of running counter to the Ubunutu philosphy, Linux isn't for everybody.
That's why you don't just go to Walmart and pick up a Linux PC (oops...nevermind.
[slashdot.org]). It's a hard lesson to learn: I'll be the first to admit that when I started with Linux I was a typical overzealous evangelist, constantly telling my dad all the reasons he should switch to Linux.
It wasn't till one day when he saw me working in a full screen text terminal and said "Uh-oh, looks like you crashed!
" that I realized it would be completely inappropriate for him to switch to Linux.
From it's humble Finnish beginnings, Linux has always been one thing: an operating system for the people who built it.
The rest of us are opportunists.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314202</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259870100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been building an open source community site that more or less tries to deal with the whole problem of lack of proper documentation, that goes into greater detail, *and* also ties the system to an actual business problem. As an example, configuring linux and its open source tools is great for getting work done, although the community needs to develop greater documentation, that can be explained to a normal human person, and show them how it can be used to solve a problem, or a particular scenario.</p><p>My site, www.itmanagersforum.com , simply aims for this. It's build mostly around documentation, and it aims to help the users look at a common problem their organization might experience, and then attempt to solve it using a tool that linux provides. I know this is not a be-all solution, although it's a small step towards helping the greater community, and I'm doing my part!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>Teo</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been building an open source community site that more or less tries to deal with the whole problem of lack of proper documentation , that goes into greater detail , * and * also ties the system to an actual business problem .
As an example , configuring linux and its open source tools is great for getting work done , although the community needs to develop greater documentation , that can be explained to a normal human person , and show them how it can be used to solve a problem , or a particular scenario.My site , www.itmanagersforum.com , simply aims for this .
It 's build mostly around documentation , and it aims to help the users look at a common problem their organization might experience , and then attempt to solve it using a tool that linux provides .
I know this is not a be-all solution , although it 's a small step towards helping the greater community , and I 'm doing my part !
: ) Teo</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been building an open source community site that more or less tries to deal with the whole problem of lack of proper documentation, that goes into greater detail, *and* also ties the system to an actual business problem.
As an example, configuring linux and its open source tools is great for getting work done, although the community needs to develop greater documentation, that can be explained to a normal human person, and show them how it can be used to solve a problem, or a particular scenario.My site, www.itmanagersforum.com , simply aims for this.
It's build mostly around documentation, and it aims to help the users look at a common problem their organization might experience, and then attempt to solve it using a tool that linux provides.
I know this is not a be-all solution, although it's a small step towards helping the greater community, and I'm doing my part!
:)Teo</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310980</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>poetmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1259859240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>considering that every single thing can be found by putting it in google and adding the word x, where x is the name of your distro, I tend to disagree. Everything is well indexed on the relevant forums.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>considering that every single thing can be found by putting it in google and adding the word x , where x is the name of your distro , I tend to disagree .
Everything is well indexed on the relevant forums .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>considering that every single thing can be found by putting it in google and adding the word x, where x is the name of your distro, I tend to disagree.
Everything is well indexed on the relevant forums.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30320988</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259862960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes yes yes!!!  I *despise* the Gnu info pages.  And I find it insufferably irritating when the man page says "the author of this software disdains man pages and prefers that you read the info page."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes yes yes ! ! !
I * despise * the Gnu info pages .
And I find it insufferably irritating when the man page says " the author of this software disdains man pages and prefers that you read the info page .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes yes yes!!!
I *despise* the Gnu info pages.
And I find it insufferably irritating when the man page says "the author of this software disdains man pages and prefers that you read the info page.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313644</id>
	<title>man or info doc?</title>
	<author>Fatalv</author>
	<datestamp>1259867940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not lacking... Every time I use man on Linux I get a friendly page saying "SEE ALSO info *"</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not lacking... Every time I use man on Linux I get a friendly page saying " SEE ALSO info * "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not lacking... Every time I use man on Linux I get a friendly page saying "SEE ALSO info *"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310554</id>
	<title>yes yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259857560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I google for man pages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I google for man pages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I google for man pages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30319270</id>
	<title>Re:Not just beginner to apprentice.</title>
	<author>xiong.chiamiov</author>
	<datestamp>1259847540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why the hell are you using Fedora if you want to know what's going on in your system?  You'd probably be much happier going back to Slack, or trying something like Arch or Gentoo.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why the hell are you using Fedora if you want to know what 's going on in your system ?
You 'd probably be much happier going back to Slack , or trying something like Arch or Gentoo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why the hell are you using Fedora if you want to know what's going on in your system?
You'd probably be much happier going back to Slack, or trying something like Arch or Gentoo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30318192</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259842020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I often find that the command name is far removed from how newbies would talk about a task ("<tt>grep</tt>" is meaningless* compared to "<tt>search</tt>"**) - GNOME has done some great work on this by creating sensible categories for applications, unlike "&lt;company&gt; Control Center Ultra" on Windows, but it needs a lot more work and a lot less ego. Also, the bridge between the available materials and the expected end point might be two or more levels removed: You just bought the Weird Worlds download version, and have no idea that <tt>gnome-terminal</tt>, <tt>ls</tt>, <tt>mount</tt> and <tt>wine</tt> could get you to the next step in 30 seconds (if they're all installed and you know how they work).</p><p>Come to think of it, why doesn't find have an option like "<tt>--contains</tt>" to grep, instead of the incredibly obtuse <tt>find<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... -exec grep "foo" '{}' \; -print</tt>?</p><p>* Yes, I know what it means</p><p>** Yes, I know you can <tt>echo "alias foo=\"bar\" &gt; ~/.bashrc</tt>. Try that on someone who doesn't know what <tt>grep</tt> is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I often find that the command name is far removed from how newbies would talk about a task ( " grep " is meaningless * compared to " search " * * ) - GNOME has done some great work on this by creating sensible categories for applications , unlike " Control Center Ultra " on Windows , but it needs a lot more work and a lot less ego .
Also , the bridge between the available materials and the expected end point might be two or more levels removed : You just bought the Weird Worlds download version , and have no idea that gnome-terminal , ls , mount and wine could get you to the next step in 30 seconds ( if they 're all installed and you know how they work ) .Come to think of it , why does n't find have an option like " --contains " to grep , instead of the incredibly obtuse find ... -exec grep " foo " ' { } ' \ ; -print ?
* Yes , I know what it means * * Yes , I know you can echo " alias foo = \ " bar \ " &gt; ~ /.bashrc .
Try that on someone who does n't know what grep is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I often find that the command name is far removed from how newbies would talk about a task ("grep" is meaningless* compared to "search"**) - GNOME has done some great work on this by creating sensible categories for applications, unlike " Control Center Ultra" on Windows, but it needs a lot more work and a lot less ego.
Also, the bridge between the available materials and the expected end point might be two or more levels removed: You just bought the Weird Worlds download version, and have no idea that gnome-terminal, ls, mount and wine could get you to the next step in 30 seconds (if they're all installed and you know how they work).Come to think of it, why doesn't find have an option like "--contains" to grep, instead of the incredibly obtuse find ... -exec grep "foo" '{}' \; -print?
* Yes, I know what it means** Yes, I know you can echo "alias foo=\"bar\" &gt; ~/.bashrc.
Try that on someone who doesn't know what grep is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313926</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259868960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is simply NOT true - Ubuntu with variants has the absolute WORST USER DOCUMENTATION of ALL major GNU/Linux distros.<br>I mean it. I've been using GNU/Linux for over a decade - and *buntu documentation SUCKS! Haven't they heard of a TABLE OF CONTENTS? It's a fairly old concept, I know, but IT HAS WORKED FOR CENTURIES FOR A REASON.</p><p>Real users need documentation like this:</p><p>http://lmms.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php?title=Your\_First\_Song\_with\_LMMS</p><p>and</p><p>http://www.rosegardenmusic.com/tutorials/supplemental/piano/index.html</p><p>and</p><p>http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.4/en/tutorial.html#nolinkhere</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is simply NOT true - Ubuntu with variants has the absolute WORST USER DOCUMENTATION of ALL major GNU/Linux distros.I mean it .
I 've been using GNU/Linux for over a decade - and * buntu documentation SUCKS !
Have n't they heard of a TABLE OF CONTENTS ?
It 's a fairly old concept , I know , but IT HAS WORKED FOR CENTURIES FOR A REASON.Real users need documentation like this : http : //lmms.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php ? title = Your \ _First \ _Song \ _with \ _LMMSandhttp : //www.rosegardenmusic.com/tutorials/supplemental/piano/index.htmlandhttp : //dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.4/en/tutorial.html # nolinkhere</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is simply NOT true - Ubuntu with variants has the absolute WORST USER DOCUMENTATION of ALL major GNU/Linux distros.I mean it.
I've been using GNU/Linux for over a decade - and *buntu documentation SUCKS!
Haven't they heard of a TABLE OF CONTENTS?
It's a fairly old concept, I know, but IT HAS WORKED FOR CENTURIES FOR A REASON.Real users need documentation like this:http://lmms.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php?title=Your\_First\_Song\_with\_LMMSandhttp://www.rosegardenmusic.com/tutorials/supplemental/piano/index.htmlandhttp://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.4/en/tutorial.html#nolinkhere</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311164</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>BrentH</author>
	<datestamp>1259859840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been using Windows since 1954, and I've never needed a manual to open them!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using Windows since 1954 , and I 've never needed a manual to open them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using Windows since 1954, and I've never needed a manual to open them!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30325256</id>
	<title>Ehh, really?</title>
	<author>grazzy</author>
	<datestamp>1259949060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this article even possible? Ofcourse you use google instead of man pages.</p><p>Lets say I install a new distro, I want to set up a firewall, routing/nat/forwarding (or whatever you kids call it these days), install my specific hardware and get a weird graphic card working properly in X.</p><p>What man page do I read? The manpage for "firewall", "internet connection sharing", "xconfigurator"? Nope. I google.</p><p>Seriously, man-pages are all good and perky for the nittygritty, but finding a complete solution for the most common tasks are NOT a option. And besides, how do I "man iptables" if the package isnt even installed.</p><p>Any new user to Linux would be completely and utterly stunned by the information contained with the iptables package. I cant even make any sense out of it except for the most basic commands after 10 years (not working as a administrator, praise the lord, though).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this article even possible ?
Ofcourse you use google instead of man pages.Lets say I install a new distro , I want to set up a firewall , routing/nat/forwarding ( or whatever you kids call it these days ) , install my specific hardware and get a weird graphic card working properly in X.What man page do I read ?
The manpage for " firewall " , " internet connection sharing " , " xconfigurator " ?
Nope. I google.Seriously , man-pages are all good and perky for the nittygritty , but finding a complete solution for the most common tasks are NOT a option .
And besides , how do I " man iptables " if the package isnt even installed.Any new user to Linux would be completely and utterly stunned by the information contained with the iptables package .
I cant even make any sense out of it except for the most basic commands after 10 years ( not working as a administrator , praise the lord , though ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this article even possible?
Ofcourse you use google instead of man pages.Lets say I install a new distro, I want to set up a firewall, routing/nat/forwarding (or whatever you kids call it these days), install my specific hardware and get a weird graphic card working properly in X.What man page do I read?
The manpage for "firewall", "internet connection sharing", "xconfigurator"?
Nope. I google.Seriously, man-pages are all good and perky for the nittygritty, but finding a complete solution for the most common tasks are NOT a option.
And besides, how do I "man iptables" if the package isnt even installed.Any new user to Linux would be completely and utterly stunned by the information contained with the iptables package.
I cant even make any sense out of it except for the most basic commands after 10 years (not working as a administrator, praise the lord, though).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311122</id>
	<title>Huh?</title>
	<author>BenEnglishAtHome</author>
	<datestamp>1259859660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somebody modded this <i>insightful</i>?  WTF?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody modded this insightful ?
WTF ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody modded this insightful?
WTF?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314892</id>
	<title>Great design would mean less documention needed.</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1259872980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good design with a GUI means documentation is not needed IMHO.<br> <br>
Back in the day, two decades ago when I was first starting out with comptuers and learning dos/unix, you really had to look up the documentation and study how things worked, because the interface was a epic discoverablity and learning curve failure.
<br> <br>
Then came the GUI revolution, everything changed. Since then, I can't think how many times I've downloaded a application and just started using it, figuring it out on the fly and slowly moving up to more advanced usage. It is what I expect from applications.
<br> <br> Good design means documentation is seldom needed, and for basic applications never needed at all. A GUI gives you a lot of room and many methods to present contextual information to a user. At worst they can click on a link to take them to further detail. Having meaningful and plain english descriptions and other information right in the interface mean studying the documentation is utterly not necessary.
<br> <br>
But we've had another paradigm shift since then, away from the GUI desktop app the next generation of application, a web app. These needs no documentation, because the format of a web page *is* a document itself, at least has evolved from that, and is a format that fundamentally begs to be descriptive and visual.
<br> <br>
Going back to linux reccently and having to use a man pages it suddenly occured to me how primitive and out-of-date linux documenation is. Basicly, man pages predate the era of the hyperlink. It ironic that Google is a superior help tool to much of what comes with applications.
<br> <br>
The solution for linux then is a wave of right-brain web-savvy thinking. Developers are never going to spend time writing comprehensive technical documentation for all levels of use, and having done such technical writing myself I would not wish it on my enemies. The solution is in the web paradigm, link relevant helpful information in context, embed the help right in there, rather than send users off to Google.<br> <br> You know what.. Google *is* a command line interface, and a good one, how ironic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good design with a GUI means documentation is not needed IMHO .
Back in the day , two decades ago when I was first starting out with comptuers and learning dos/unix , you really had to look up the documentation and study how things worked , because the interface was a epic discoverablity and learning curve failure .
Then came the GUI revolution , everything changed .
Since then , I ca n't think how many times I 've downloaded a application and just started using it , figuring it out on the fly and slowly moving up to more advanced usage .
It is what I expect from applications .
Good design means documentation is seldom needed , and for basic applications never needed at all .
A GUI gives you a lot of room and many methods to present contextual information to a user .
At worst they can click on a link to take them to further detail .
Having meaningful and plain english descriptions and other information right in the interface mean studying the documentation is utterly not necessary .
But we 've had another paradigm shift since then , away from the GUI desktop app the next generation of application , a web app .
These needs no documentation , because the format of a web page * is * a document itself , at least has evolved from that , and is a format that fundamentally begs to be descriptive and visual .
Going back to linux reccently and having to use a man pages it suddenly occured to me how primitive and out-of-date linux documenation is .
Basicly , man pages predate the era of the hyperlink .
It ironic that Google is a superior help tool to much of what comes with applications .
The solution for linux then is a wave of right-brain web-savvy thinking .
Developers are never going to spend time writing comprehensive technical documentation for all levels of use , and having done such technical writing myself I would not wish it on my enemies .
The solution is in the web paradigm , link relevant helpful information in context , embed the help right in there , rather than send users off to Google .
You know what.. Google * is * a command line interface , and a good one , how ironic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good design with a GUI means documentation is not needed IMHO.
Back in the day, two decades ago when I was first starting out with comptuers and learning dos/unix, you really had to look up the documentation and study how things worked, because the interface was a epic discoverablity and learning curve failure.
Then came the GUI revolution, everything changed.
Since then, I can't think how many times I've downloaded a application and just started using it, figuring it out on the fly and slowly moving up to more advanced usage.
It is what I expect from applications.
Good design means documentation is seldom needed, and for basic applications never needed at all.
A GUI gives you a lot of room and many methods to present contextual information to a user.
At worst they can click on a link to take them to further detail.
Having meaningful and plain english descriptions and other information right in the interface mean studying the documentation is utterly not necessary.
But we've had another paradigm shift since then, away from the GUI desktop app the next generation of application, a web app.
These needs no documentation, because the format of a web page *is* a document itself, at least has evolved from that, and is a format that fundamentally begs to be descriptive and visual.
Going back to linux reccently and having to use a man pages it suddenly occured to me how primitive and out-of-date linux documenation is.
Basicly, man pages predate the era of the hyperlink.
It ironic that Google is a superior help tool to much of what comes with applications.
The solution for linux then is a wave of right-brain web-savvy thinking.
Developers are never going to spend time writing comprehensive technical documentation for all levels of use, and having done such technical writing myself I would not wish it on my enemies.
The solution is in the web paradigm, link relevant helpful information in context, embed the help right in there, rather than send users off to Google.
You know what.. Google *is* a command line interface, and a good one, how ironic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310776</id>
	<title>Not just beginner to apprentice.</title>
	<author>aussersterne</author>
	<datestamp>1259858460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been a Linux user since 1993 and the state of Linux documentation today is worse than ever before if you don't happen to be an actual coder on a specific project reading project documentation for it in order to facilitate your work and contributions.</p><p>Back in the day, there were manpages, info pages, comprehensive documentation at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/doc or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/share doc for specific packages, and documentation files in nearly every source directory that you compiled yourself. You could also pick up just about any book on UNIX (System V Bible for SysV-like distros, or various BSD books) and apply much of what was said to Linux as well.</p><p>Everything was well-understood and common to the general state of things in the UNIX world and if you didn't understand something, a quick apropos/man or info or visit to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/doc or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/share/doc would result in enlightenment.</p><p>I'm a Red Hat/Fedora user since Red Hat 4 (Slackware before that) and as a 25-year UNIX veteran, I often feel like I have no idea what's going on in (for example) the init process, X configuration, desktop management, app resources/configuration, etc. Where are the dotfiles located? Where are the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc components? What are the command-line arguments? Where are the manual pages? What documentation does exist is generally in the awful "Help Tool" format (click Help -&gt; Help Contents in an application window and get a lot of prose for beginners). This documentation typically offers NO INFORMATION beyond the navigation of the user interface for the application. Nothing on system resources, locations of configuration files, dependencies, APIs, command line arguments, or anything that would allow you to either troubleshoot or modularly re-use the software item in question.</p><p>The system-level stuff (PackageKit, PolicyKit, SELinux, Udev, HAL, Plymouth etc. etc.) does not offer any clear location for configuration and typing for example "man selinux" brings up a couple of paragraphs with no detail. It refers to a pile of other manual pages, none of them installed by default. There is no overview. And SELinux is probably the most transparent of all of these.</p><p>The desktop is completely unmanageable if something breaks; the dotfiles are not in any concise location. gconf-editor is not installed by default and even after you do install it, there's no documentation on the options that it contains. It's not clear how to cause a command to execute on startup. You can go to GNOME startup options in a menu through which you have to use a GUI program to "add" things to the startup process, but the environment that's being configured for the processes spawned this way is not documented and many attempts to execute commands using this method fail.</p><p>More and more it seems as though I am constantly using find and grep either in all dotfiles in a directory or as root through the entire<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/share, and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/lib directories to identify through keywords or binary strings either binaries or text files relevant to tasks I want to accomplish, then paging through them or opening the binaries up in a hex editor to try to grok what I need to change through sheer intuition.</p><p>Yes, I suspect there is documentation "out there" somewhere, but spending an hour trying to Google where it is located in each instance is an hour that I already don't have and that now can't go toward actually reading and grokking the documentation in question. But it appears to be just too much to provide easy directions to the technical documentation that exists, if it exists, in each case.</p><p>There is a definite ethos of "try to hide the system from the user" that has emerged in Linux and it does not make me happy, as is obvious here. I now spend several days each Fedora upgrade trying to bang my personal system into the shape I want it to be in. It used to be really simple to upgrade, and it was one of the greatest things about Linux. Just tr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been a Linux user since 1993 and the state of Linux documentation today is worse than ever before if you do n't happen to be an actual coder on a specific project reading project documentation for it in order to facilitate your work and contributions.Back in the day , there were manpages , info pages , comprehensive documentation at /usr/doc or /usr/share doc for specific packages , and documentation files in nearly every source directory that you compiled yourself .
You could also pick up just about any book on UNIX ( System V Bible for SysV-like distros , or various BSD books ) and apply much of what was said to Linux as well.Everything was well-understood and common to the general state of things in the UNIX world and if you did n't understand something , a quick apropos/man or info or visit to /usr/doc or /usr/share/doc would result in enlightenment.I 'm a Red Hat/Fedora user since Red Hat 4 ( Slackware before that ) and as a 25-year UNIX veteran , I often feel like I have no idea what 's going on in ( for example ) the init process , X configuration , desktop management , app resources/configuration , etc .
Where are the dotfiles located ?
Where are the /etc components ?
What are the command-line arguments ?
Where are the manual pages ?
What documentation does exist is generally in the awful " Help Tool " format ( click Help - &gt; Help Contents in an application window and get a lot of prose for beginners ) .
This documentation typically offers NO INFORMATION beyond the navigation of the user interface for the application .
Nothing on system resources , locations of configuration files , dependencies , APIs , command line arguments , or anything that would allow you to either troubleshoot or modularly re-use the software item in question.The system-level stuff ( PackageKit , PolicyKit , SELinux , Udev , HAL , Plymouth etc .
etc. ) does not offer any clear location for configuration and typing for example " man selinux " brings up a couple of paragraphs with no detail .
It refers to a pile of other manual pages , none of them installed by default .
There is no overview .
And SELinux is probably the most transparent of all of these.The desktop is completely unmanageable if something breaks ; the dotfiles are not in any concise location .
gconf-editor is not installed by default and even after you do install it , there 's no documentation on the options that it contains .
It 's not clear how to cause a command to execute on startup .
You can go to GNOME startup options in a menu through which you have to use a GUI program to " add " things to the startup process , but the environment that 's being configured for the processes spawned this way is not documented and many attempts to execute commands using this method fail.More and more it seems as though I am constantly using find and grep either in all dotfiles in a directory or as root through the entire /etc , /usr/share , and /usr/lib directories to identify through keywords or binary strings either binaries or text files relevant to tasks I want to accomplish , then paging through them or opening the binaries up in a hex editor to try to grok what I need to change through sheer intuition.Yes , I suspect there is documentation " out there " somewhere , but spending an hour trying to Google where it is located in each instance is an hour that I already do n't have and that now ca n't go toward actually reading and grokking the documentation in question .
But it appears to be just too much to provide easy directions to the technical documentation that exists , if it exists , in each case.There is a definite ethos of " try to hide the system from the user " that has emerged in Linux and it does not make me happy , as is obvious here .
I now spend several days each Fedora upgrade trying to bang my personal system into the shape I want it to be in .
It used to be really simple to upgrade , and it was one of the greatest things about Linux .
Just tr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been a Linux user since 1993 and the state of Linux documentation today is worse than ever before if you don't happen to be an actual coder on a specific project reading project documentation for it in order to facilitate your work and contributions.Back in the day, there were manpages, info pages, comprehensive documentation at /usr/doc or /usr/share doc for specific packages, and documentation files in nearly every source directory that you compiled yourself.
You could also pick up just about any book on UNIX (System V Bible for SysV-like distros, or various BSD books) and apply much of what was said to Linux as well.Everything was well-understood and common to the general state of things in the UNIX world and if you didn't understand something, a quick apropos/man or info or visit to /usr/doc or /usr/share/doc would result in enlightenment.I'm a Red Hat/Fedora user since Red Hat 4 (Slackware before that) and as a 25-year UNIX veteran, I often feel like I have no idea what's going on in (for example) the init process, X configuration, desktop management, app resources/configuration, etc.
Where are the dotfiles located?
Where are the /etc components?
What are the command-line arguments?
Where are the manual pages?
What documentation does exist is generally in the awful "Help Tool" format (click Help -&gt; Help Contents in an application window and get a lot of prose for beginners).
This documentation typically offers NO INFORMATION beyond the navigation of the user interface for the application.
Nothing on system resources, locations of configuration files, dependencies, APIs, command line arguments, or anything that would allow you to either troubleshoot or modularly re-use the software item in question.The system-level stuff (PackageKit, PolicyKit, SELinux, Udev, HAL, Plymouth etc.
etc.) does not offer any clear location for configuration and typing for example "man selinux" brings up a couple of paragraphs with no detail.
It refers to a pile of other manual pages, none of them installed by default.
There is no overview.
And SELinux is probably the most transparent of all of these.The desktop is completely unmanageable if something breaks; the dotfiles are not in any concise location.
gconf-editor is not installed by default and even after you do install it, there's no documentation on the options that it contains.
It's not clear how to cause a command to execute on startup.
You can go to GNOME startup options in a menu through which you have to use a GUI program to "add" things to the startup process, but the environment that's being configured for the processes spawned this way is not documented and many attempts to execute commands using this method fail.More and more it seems as though I am constantly using find and grep either in all dotfiles in a directory or as root through the entire /etc, /usr/share, and /usr/lib directories to identify through keywords or binary strings either binaries or text files relevant to tasks I want to accomplish, then paging through them or opening the binaries up in a hex editor to try to grok what I need to change through sheer intuition.Yes, I suspect there is documentation "out there" somewhere, but spending an hour trying to Google where it is located in each instance is an hour that I already don't have and that now can't go toward actually reading and grokking the documentation in question.
But it appears to be just too much to provide easy directions to the technical documentation that exists, if it exists, in each case.There is a definite ethos of "try to hide the system from the user" that has emerged in Linux and it does not make me happy, as is obvious here.
I now spend several days each Fedora upgrade trying to bang my personal system into the shape I want it to be in.
It used to be really simple to upgrade, and it was one of the greatest things about Linux.
Just tr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313636</id>
	<title>It is, and it should be</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1259867940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you serious? We (as in, humanity) neither need nor want Linux to be well documented for the neophyte. It'd be a counter-productive move, resulting in a lot of dissatisfied users.</p><p>You've got three, maybe 4, basic kinds of users, in my mind. Yes, stereotyped a bit, but I'm trying to make a point.</p><p>1) The technically inept who know it, and "just" use their computer within the limits of their intuition. They don't read much of anything.<br>2) The technically inept who doesn't know it, trying to change things, getting themselves in trouble. They read documentation, and try to make ends with it.<br>3) Technically inclined people who don't like to read  documentation, but can figure things out with a point/click interface well enough (see: the bulk of Windows administrator types).<br>4) Technically inclined people who read documentation, and don't need "Windows" style useless documentation which can be inferred easily enough by looking at the menus/etc.</p><p>There isn't any room for "beginner" documentation there. A graphical UI is supposed to be self-documenting (which is, I believe, one of the earlier GUI selling points), and if that isn't enough, then you've either got to use something else to get the job done, or there is a fundamental design flaw in the UI which should be rectified.</p><p>The one form of beginner/newbie documentation I could recommend being more 'forefront' would be a guide to how the system works (Xorg/kernel/multiuser interaction, etc.), which resources to use to find more info (man, info, apropos, etc.) and so on. It wouldn't have to be long - just a page or so, printed. But it'd certainly push category 4 in teh right direction, as well as provide category 3 with enough information to get what they need, when they have to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you serious ?
We ( as in , humanity ) neither need nor want Linux to be well documented for the neophyte .
It 'd be a counter-productive move , resulting in a lot of dissatisfied users.You 've got three , maybe 4 , basic kinds of users , in my mind .
Yes , stereotyped a bit , but I 'm trying to make a point.1 ) The technically inept who know it , and " just " use their computer within the limits of their intuition .
They do n't read much of anything.2 ) The technically inept who does n't know it , trying to change things , getting themselves in trouble .
They read documentation , and try to make ends with it.3 ) Technically inclined people who do n't like to read documentation , but can figure things out with a point/click interface well enough ( see : the bulk of Windows administrator types ) .4 ) Technically inclined people who read documentation , and do n't need " Windows " style useless documentation which can be inferred easily enough by looking at the menus/etc.There is n't any room for " beginner " documentation there .
A graphical UI is supposed to be self-documenting ( which is , I believe , one of the earlier GUI selling points ) , and if that is n't enough , then you 've either got to use something else to get the job done , or there is a fundamental design flaw in the UI which should be rectified.The one form of beginner/newbie documentation I could recommend being more 'forefront ' would be a guide to how the system works ( Xorg/kernel/multiuser interaction , etc .
) , which resources to use to find more info ( man , info , apropos , etc .
) and so on .
It would n't have to be long - just a page or so , printed .
But it 'd certainly push category 4 in teh right direction , as well as provide category 3 with enough information to get what they need , when they have to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you serious?
We (as in, humanity) neither need nor want Linux to be well documented for the neophyte.
It'd be a counter-productive move, resulting in a lot of dissatisfied users.You've got three, maybe 4, basic kinds of users, in my mind.
Yes, stereotyped a bit, but I'm trying to make a point.1) The technically inept who know it, and "just" use their computer within the limits of their intuition.
They don't read much of anything.2) The technically inept who doesn't know it, trying to change things, getting themselves in trouble.
They read documentation, and try to make ends with it.3) Technically inclined people who don't like to read  documentation, but can figure things out with a point/click interface well enough (see: the bulk of Windows administrator types).4) Technically inclined people who read documentation, and don't need "Windows" style useless documentation which can be inferred easily enough by looking at the menus/etc.There isn't any room for "beginner" documentation there.
A graphical UI is supposed to be self-documenting (which is, I believe, one of the earlier GUI selling points), and if that isn't enough, then you've either got to use something else to get the job done, or there is a fundamental design flaw in the UI which should be rectified.The one form of beginner/newbie documentation I could recommend being more 'forefront' would be a guide to how the system works (Xorg/kernel/multiuser interaction, etc.
), which resources to use to find more info (man, info, apropos, etc.
) and so on.
It wouldn't have to be long - just a page or so, printed.
But it'd certainly push category 4 in teh right direction, as well as provide category 3 with enough information to get what they need, when they have to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313484</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>bmearns</author>
	<datestamp>1259867400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ubuntuforums? Sorry, not really into pokemon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ubuntuforums ?
Sorry , not really into pokemon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ubuntuforums?
Sorry, not really into pokemon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310570</id>
	<title>The Culture needs a slight change.</title>
	<author>Icegryphon</author>
	<datestamp>1259857620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is it really as bad as these blogs paint it?</p> </div><p>Sometimes I can be, I have seen some bad documentation even on Windows apps.<br>
It really is the whole programming culture that needs to have a mindset change.<br>
They need to care about Documentation more so other people can pickup where they left off<br>
It also saves programmers the time of having to answer needless questions.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Has it come down to using Google before a man page?</p></div><p>If you deal with obscure software, yes.<br>
I know I had to use google quite a bit the first time I was building lapack and cblas.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it really as bad as these blogs paint it ?
Sometimes I can be , I have seen some bad documentation even on Windows apps .
It really is the whole programming culture that needs to have a mindset change .
They need to care about Documentation more so other people can pickup where they left off It also saves programmers the time of having to answer needless questions.Has it come down to using Google before a man page ? If you deal with obscure software , yes .
I know I had to use google quite a bit the first time I was building lapack and cblas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it really as bad as these blogs paint it?
Sometimes I can be, I have seen some bad documentation even on Windows apps.
It really is the whole programming culture that needs to have a mindset change.
They need to care about Documentation more so other people can pickup where they left off
It also saves programmers the time of having to answer needless questions.Has it come down to using Google before a man page?If you deal with obscure software, yes.
I know I had to use google quite a bit the first time I was building lapack and cblas.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311024</id>
	<title>Random Online Linux Doc Complaints</title>
	<author>happy\_place</author>
	<datestamp>1259859420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My beefs with Unix docs:</p><p>1. Forums that are simply copies of other forums with no actual contributions.
</p><p>2. Installation documentation as the only source for certain unix tools. I don't know how many times I've found Redhat's website insufficient, because it's about how to do an initial install.
</p><p>3. Too many <b>man pages</b> lack useful examples of how commands options are used and their output. (How hard is it to simply create a few examples?)
</p><p>4. Invariably someone has asked the question I want answered online, but often that's it. There's no posted answer for the question in many forums/newsgroups--the thread's just left dangling.
</p><p>5. Stale links and really old revisions of a program clutter/obfuscate searching for solutions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My beefs with Unix docs : 1 .
Forums that are simply copies of other forums with no actual contributions .
2. Installation documentation as the only source for certain unix tools .
I do n't know how many times I 've found Redhat 's website insufficient , because it 's about how to do an initial install .
3. Too many man pages lack useful examples of how commands options are used and their output .
( How hard is it to simply create a few examples ?
) 4 .
Invariably someone has asked the question I want answered online , but often that 's it .
There 's no posted answer for the question in many forums/newsgroups--the thread 's just left dangling .
5. Stale links and really old revisions of a program clutter/obfuscate searching for solutions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My beefs with Unix docs:1.
Forums that are simply copies of other forums with no actual contributions.
2. Installation documentation as the only source for certain unix tools.
I don't know how many times I've found Redhat's website insufficient, because it's about how to do an initial install.
3. Too many man pages lack useful examples of how commands options are used and their output.
(How hard is it to simply create a few examples?
)
4.
Invariably someone has asked the question I want answered online, but often that's it.
There's no posted answer for the question in many forums/newsgroups--the thread's just left dangling.
5. Stale links and really old revisions of a program clutter/obfuscate searching for solutions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313294</id>
	<title>man userfriendlylinuxdocs</title>
	<author>filesiteguy</author>
	<datestamp>1259866740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No manual entry for userfriendlylinuxdocs</htmltext>
<tokenext>No manual entry for userfriendlylinuxdocs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No manual entry for userfriendlylinuxdocs</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30321684</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>rastoboy29</author>
	<datestamp>1259959440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Dude, 'man -k &lt;keyword&gt;'.<br><br>Sounds like you need to read the man page on 'man'!!!</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , 'man -k '.Sounds like you need to read the man page on 'man ' ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, 'man -k '.Sounds like you need to read the man page on 'man'!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313164</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1259866200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most users don't *know* about the documentation. I installed Ubuntu for the first time a year ago. I am generally a power user and love to hack around and try new things on computers. They are a toy for me. I knew Ubuntu was not the most powerful or most efficient OS, but, having no previous linux experience, I picked the distribution that was supposed to be the most user friendly so I could be eased into a new system. Again, that was a year ago.
<br> <br>
After installing (went smoothly) and configuring my wireless network (somewhat smoothly, had to ditch the GUI though, config file editing all the way) I started trying stuff. I started researching programs. I started installing things. I started clicking things. In general, I had fun. If I had a question (which I often did) I went straight to the Ubuntu forums. Why? Because that was always the first Google hit everytime i typed in "Ubuntu \_\_\_\_" in google. I posted on those forums in a dedicated manner for 3 months before I even heard about the 'man' command. I had dicked around on the command line plenty. I even learned the 'command --help' trick and found that, by and large, most commands had that option which was only sometimes useful. Three months of frigging about on a linux platform and I had never even heard of the most basic documentation command.
<br> <br>
So sure, blame newbs for not reading the documentation. Blame developers for not writing good documentation. Blame anyone that can be thought of for new users not learning how to do stuff on their own. None of that changes the fact that new users, especially those coming from windows or mac, will have no idea what the crap 'man,' RTFM, "manpage says<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." or, "read the documentation," means. At best, that will make the user just go search google (assuming they have internet access). At worst it will make them run terrified back into the cold embrace of their previous proprietary OS overlords.
<br> <br>
One other thing, it doesn't help that 'most' linux GUI applications I have stumbled upon have a help menu which only contains 1 item: 'info,'' which, when clicked, pops up a new dialogue box that has a version number, a developer's name, and a latest release date on it and nothing more.
<br> <br>
On a side note, I am still using ubuntu and installing it on many computers that I own. Slowly, but surely, I am learning mostly from force of my own will and my stubbornness in refusing to return to Windows or try Mac. To this day the most useful documentation I have found is a personal notebook that I have kept, written in pencil to allow erasures, where I document every configuration option for every program I use, the locations of all their config files, and an ever growing list of various cryptic command line inputs that automagically allow shit to work the way I want them to when I put them in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most users do n't * know * about the documentation .
I installed Ubuntu for the first time a year ago .
I am generally a power user and love to hack around and try new things on computers .
They are a toy for me .
I knew Ubuntu was not the most powerful or most efficient OS , but , having no previous linux experience , I picked the distribution that was supposed to be the most user friendly so I could be eased into a new system .
Again , that was a year ago .
After installing ( went smoothly ) and configuring my wireless network ( somewhat smoothly , had to ditch the GUI though , config file editing all the way ) I started trying stuff .
I started researching programs .
I started installing things .
I started clicking things .
In general , I had fun .
If I had a question ( which I often did ) I went straight to the Ubuntu forums .
Why ? Because that was always the first Google hit everytime i typed in " Ubuntu \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ " in google .
I posted on those forums in a dedicated manner for 3 months before I even heard about the 'man ' command .
I had dicked around on the command line plenty .
I even learned the 'command --help ' trick and found that , by and large , most commands had that option which was only sometimes useful .
Three months of frigging about on a linux platform and I had never even heard of the most basic documentation command .
So sure , blame newbs for not reading the documentation .
Blame developers for not writing good documentation .
Blame anyone that can be thought of for new users not learning how to do stuff on their own .
None of that changes the fact that new users , especially those coming from windows or mac , will have no idea what the crap 'man, ' RTFM , " manpage says ... " or , " read the documentation , " means .
At best , that will make the user just go search google ( assuming they have internet access ) .
At worst it will make them run terrified back into the cold embrace of their previous proprietary OS overlords .
One other thing , it does n't help that 'most ' linux GUI applications I have stumbled upon have a help menu which only contains 1 item : 'info,' ' which , when clicked , pops up a new dialogue box that has a version number , a developer 's name , and a latest release date on it and nothing more .
On a side note , I am still using ubuntu and installing it on many computers that I own .
Slowly , but surely , I am learning mostly from force of my own will and my stubbornness in refusing to return to Windows or try Mac .
To this day the most useful documentation I have found is a personal notebook that I have kept , written in pencil to allow erasures , where I document every configuration option for every program I use , the locations of all their config files , and an ever growing list of various cryptic command line inputs that automagically allow shit to work the way I want them to when I put them in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most users don't *know* about the documentation.
I installed Ubuntu for the first time a year ago.
I am generally a power user and love to hack around and try new things on computers.
They are a toy for me.
I knew Ubuntu was not the most powerful or most efficient OS, but, having no previous linux experience, I picked the distribution that was supposed to be the most user friendly so I could be eased into a new system.
Again, that was a year ago.
After installing (went smoothly) and configuring my wireless network (somewhat smoothly, had to ditch the GUI though, config file editing all the way) I started trying stuff.
I started researching programs.
I started installing things.
I started clicking things.
In general, I had fun.
If I had a question (which I often did) I went straight to the Ubuntu forums.
Why? Because that was always the first Google hit everytime i typed in "Ubuntu \_\_\_\_" in google.
I posted on those forums in a dedicated manner for 3 months before I even heard about the 'man' command.
I had dicked around on the command line plenty.
I even learned the 'command --help' trick and found that, by and large, most commands had that option which was only sometimes useful.
Three months of frigging about on a linux platform and I had never even heard of the most basic documentation command.
So sure, blame newbs for not reading the documentation.
Blame developers for not writing good documentation.
Blame anyone that can be thought of for new users not learning how to do stuff on their own.
None of that changes the fact that new users, especially those coming from windows or mac, will have no idea what the crap 'man,' RTFM, "manpage says ..." or, "read the documentation," means.
At best, that will make the user just go search google (assuming they have internet access).
At worst it will make them run terrified back into the cold embrace of their previous proprietary OS overlords.
One other thing, it doesn't help that 'most' linux GUI applications I have stumbled upon have a help menu which only contains 1 item: 'info,'' which, when clicked, pops up a new dialogue box that has a version number, a developer's name, and a latest release date on it and nothing more.
On a side note, I am still using ubuntu and installing it on many computers that I own.
Slowly, but surely, I am learning mostly from force of my own will and my stubbornness in refusing to return to Windows or try Mac.
To this day the most useful documentation I have found is a personal notebook that I have kept, written in pencil to allow erasures, where I document every configuration option for every program I use, the locations of all their config files, and an ever growing list of various cryptic command line inputs that automagically allow shit to work the way I want them to when I put them in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310650</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>InsaneProcessor</author>
	<datestamp>1259857980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are a typical "Linux user" not a typcial "computer user".  There is a difference.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are a typical " Linux user " not a typcial " computer user " .
There is a difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are a typical "Linux user" not a typcial "computer user".
There is a difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30317136</id>
	<title>THIS NEEDS TO BE SAID:</title>
	<author>tlambert</author>
	<datestamp>1259837820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>THIS NEEDS TO BE SAID:</p><p>Good software does not require documentation.</p><p>I attended a number of conferences with Bob (Robert) Wallace, the author of PC-Write, Andrew Fluegelman, the author of PC-Talk, and Jim Button (Knopf), the author of PC-File.</p><p>These are largely acknowledged as the first successful shareware programs, and all the authors had basically the same philosophy, but I wlil give you the nutshell version given to me by Bob Wallace:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; "I don't sell software; software isn't real; it's all up here", at which point he waved his hands on both sides of his head, and then continued, "I sell manuals".</p><p>This paradigm, where the revenue is tied to the documentation, which would be relatively expensive to reproduce, whereas software was relatively easy to copy, is what drove shareware sales for Buttonware, Quicksoft, and others, who depended on their software being copied, and then people coming to them for documentation when the software was hard to use, due to it being intentionally non-intuitive.</p><p>As software designers, we've never gotten out of this rut (for the most part), and it's seen as useful to have online help and other extensive documentation for something that should be actually simple, as well as conceptually simple.  Ironically, we've even gone to online documentation, either supplied on the distribution media, or on the Internet, or some combination of both (like Microsoft does), in an attempt to reduce publication costs without having to change our design paradigm.</p><p>I even have a friend who is actively *proud* of this; he says things like "If it was hard to write, it should be hard to use", and similar gems (he's my friend, but that doesn't stop him from being an idiot).</p><p>For tools intended for use by programmers, yes, there should be documentation; there's only so much complexity you can abstract there.  But for finished products, if you can't start them up and just start using them for their intended purpose, then there's something wrong with the design.</p><p>-- Terry</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>THIS NEEDS TO BE SAID : Good software does not require documentation.I attended a number of conferences with Bob ( Robert ) Wallace , the author of PC-Write , Andrew Fluegelman , the author of PC-Talk , and Jim Button ( Knopf ) , the author of PC-File.These are largely acknowledged as the first successful shareware programs , and all the authors had basically the same philosophy , but I wlil give you the nutshell version given to me by Bob Wallace :         " I do n't sell software ; software is n't real ; it 's all up here " , at which point he waved his hands on both sides of his head , and then continued , " I sell manuals " .This paradigm , where the revenue is tied to the documentation , which would be relatively expensive to reproduce , whereas software was relatively easy to copy , is what drove shareware sales for Buttonware , Quicksoft , and others , who depended on their software being copied , and then people coming to them for documentation when the software was hard to use , due to it being intentionally non-intuitive.As software designers , we 've never gotten out of this rut ( for the most part ) , and it 's seen as useful to have online help and other extensive documentation for something that should be actually simple , as well as conceptually simple .
Ironically , we 've even gone to online documentation , either supplied on the distribution media , or on the Internet , or some combination of both ( like Microsoft does ) , in an attempt to reduce publication costs without having to change our design paradigm.I even have a friend who is actively * proud * of this ; he says things like " If it was hard to write , it should be hard to use " , and similar gems ( he 's my friend , but that does n't stop him from being an idiot ) .For tools intended for use by programmers , yes , there should be documentation ; there 's only so much complexity you can abstract there .
But for finished products , if you ca n't start them up and just start using them for their intended purpose , then there 's something wrong with the design.-- Terry</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THIS NEEDS TO BE SAID:Good software does not require documentation.I attended a number of conferences with Bob (Robert) Wallace, the author of PC-Write, Andrew Fluegelman, the author of PC-Talk, and Jim Button (Knopf), the author of PC-File.These are largely acknowledged as the first successful shareware programs, and all the authors had basically the same philosophy, but I wlil give you the nutshell version given to me by Bob Wallace:
        "I don't sell software; software isn't real; it's all up here", at which point he waved his hands on both sides of his head, and then continued, "I sell manuals".This paradigm, where the revenue is tied to the documentation, which would be relatively expensive to reproduce, whereas software was relatively easy to copy, is what drove shareware sales for Buttonware, Quicksoft, and others, who depended on their software being copied, and then people coming to them for documentation when the software was hard to use, due to it being intentionally non-intuitive.As software designers, we've never gotten out of this rut (for the most part), and it's seen as useful to have online help and other extensive documentation for something that should be actually simple, as well as conceptually simple.
Ironically, we've even gone to online documentation, either supplied on the distribution media, or on the Internet, or some combination of both (like Microsoft does), in an attempt to reduce publication costs without having to change our design paradigm.I even have a friend who is actively *proud* of this; he says things like "If it was hard to write, it should be hard to use", and similar gems (he's my friend, but that doesn't stop him from being an idiot).For tools intended for use by programmers, yes, there should be documentation; there's only so much complexity you can abstract there.
But for finished products, if you can't start them up and just start using them for their intended purpose, then there's something wrong with the design.-- Terry</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312818</id>
	<title>Yes</title>
	<author>whitroth</author>
	<datestamp>1259865000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For example, show me the documentation for an experienced sysadmin who's never dealt with LDAP before, to configure and fire up openLDAP. The middle of '06, I spent nearly a month googling, asking on mailing lists, and fighting with it. The "documentation" was garbage, and appeared to assume that I had the time to read the code and understand the zillions of lines of it.</p><p>If I had, I would have rewritten their tools so that a) they gave correct error messages, and b) they didn't require deeply obscure sets of switches just to do normal things like searches.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; mark, author, Egoless Documentation, SysAdmin, June '06</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , show me the documentation for an experienced sysadmin who 's never dealt with LDAP before , to configure and fire up openLDAP .
The middle of '06 , I spent nearly a month googling , asking on mailing lists , and fighting with it .
The " documentation " was garbage , and appeared to assume that I had the time to read the code and understand the zillions of lines of it.If I had , I would have rewritten their tools so that a ) they gave correct error messages , and b ) they did n't require deeply obscure sets of switches just to do normal things like searches .
        mark , author , Egoless Documentation , SysAdmin , June '06</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, show me the documentation for an experienced sysadmin who's never dealt with LDAP before, to configure and fire up openLDAP.
The middle of '06, I spent nearly a month googling, asking on mailing lists, and fighting with it.
The "documentation" was garbage, and appeared to assume that I had the time to read the code and understand the zillions of lines of it.If I had, I would have rewritten their tools so that a) they gave correct error messages, and b) they didn't require deeply obscure sets of switches just to do normal things like searches.
        mark, author, Egoless Documentation, SysAdmin, June '06</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313678</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259868060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Use apropos to find what command you need. If you don't get useful results, the "command" you probably need is your favorite shell, and your favorite text editor.</p><p>If you're lucky, there's a man page for the config file you need to edit, so apropos gets you that far. If not, you should know or be able to guess (again, apropos is your friend) the program that uses it -- rtfm it for config file information. If not, you definitely need to find the config file (try using, e.g., find<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/ -name "*[Ff]oo*"), but there are probably descriptive and/or example comments in it. Only if none of these works are you truly out on your own, editing a foreign and inexplicable syntax.</p><p>And for finding config files, seriously... it's open source, the source really <i>is</i> a viable form of documentation. Almost all software is written in languages that are quite easy to read (if not write) for even the rawest of newbs, as long as they know how to grep for what they want. Looking for a default config file path? Just grep the source tree for lines that look like a path. Or even strings the binary and grep that for paths, if your distribution is one of the annoying ones that patches the crap into everything,  and you can't be arsed to find and apply their patchset.</p><p>The trouble is, people (and I don't mean newbs) think they can "simplify" things such that they can hand someone a UNIX with a shiny layer on top, and they'll be able to learn UNIX by using the shiny layer. People learn UNIX by using UNIX, and the best 1-hour kickstart training you can give is <i>not</i> a walkabout through the desktop environment, but a brief overview of the classic UNIX stuff (shell, some text editor, and the most important dozen or so utils, and the general filesystem), wrapping up with an explanation of how X runs over UNIX, GNOME/KDE runs over X, rxvt runs on X, and csh runs on UNIX communicating with rxvt. (Please, please, please, IMPRESS UPON THEM THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A TERMINAL AND A SHELL!) Yeah, it'll be rushed, maybe even stressful if you actually cram it into 1 hour, but then they'll have at least a chance to know the things that will help them learn more. Showing them how to drag icons around the screen isn't going to enable them to ever learn anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use apropos to find what command you need .
If you do n't get useful results , the " command " you probably need is your favorite shell , and your favorite text editor.If you 're lucky , there 's a man page for the config file you need to edit , so apropos gets you that far .
If not , you should know or be able to guess ( again , apropos is your friend ) the program that uses it -- rtfm it for config file information .
If not , you definitely need to find the config file ( try using , e.g. , find /etc/ -name " * [ Ff ] oo * " ) , but there are probably descriptive and/or example comments in it .
Only if none of these works are you truly out on your own , editing a foreign and inexplicable syntax.And for finding config files , seriously... it 's open source , the source really is a viable form of documentation .
Almost all software is written in languages that are quite easy to read ( if not write ) for even the rawest of newbs , as long as they know how to grep for what they want .
Looking for a default config file path ?
Just grep the source tree for lines that look like a path .
Or even strings the binary and grep that for paths , if your distribution is one of the annoying ones that patches the crap into everything , and you ca n't be arsed to find and apply their patchset.The trouble is , people ( and I do n't mean newbs ) think they can " simplify " things such that they can hand someone a UNIX with a shiny layer on top , and they 'll be able to learn UNIX by using the shiny layer .
People learn UNIX by using UNIX , and the best 1-hour kickstart training you can give is not a walkabout through the desktop environment , but a brief overview of the classic UNIX stuff ( shell , some text editor , and the most important dozen or so utils , and the general filesystem ) , wrapping up with an explanation of how X runs over UNIX , GNOME/KDE runs over X , rxvt runs on X , and csh runs on UNIX communicating with rxvt .
( Please , please , please , IMPRESS UPON THEM THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A TERMINAL AND A SHELL !
) Yeah , it 'll be rushed , maybe even stressful if you actually cram it into 1 hour , but then they 'll have at least a chance to know the things that will help them learn more .
Showing them how to drag icons around the screen is n't going to enable them to ever learn anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use apropos to find what command you need.
If you don't get useful results, the "command" you probably need is your favorite shell, and your favorite text editor.If you're lucky, there's a man page for the config file you need to edit, so apropos gets you that far.
If not, you should know or be able to guess (again, apropos is your friend) the program that uses it -- rtfm it for config file information.
If not, you definitely need to find the config file (try using, e.g., find /etc/ -name "*[Ff]oo*"), but there are probably descriptive and/or example comments in it.
Only if none of these works are you truly out on your own, editing a foreign and inexplicable syntax.And for finding config files, seriously... it's open source, the source really is a viable form of documentation.
Almost all software is written in languages that are quite easy to read (if not write) for even the rawest of newbs, as long as they know how to grep for what they want.
Looking for a default config file path?
Just grep the source tree for lines that look like a path.
Or even strings the binary and grep that for paths, if your distribution is one of the annoying ones that patches the crap into everything,  and you can't be arsed to find and apply their patchset.The trouble is, people (and I don't mean newbs) think they can "simplify" things such that they can hand someone a UNIX with a shiny layer on top, and they'll be able to learn UNIX by using the shiny layer.
People learn UNIX by using UNIX, and the best 1-hour kickstart training you can give is not a walkabout through the desktop environment, but a brief overview of the classic UNIX stuff (shell, some text editor, and the most important dozen or so utils, and the general filesystem), wrapping up with an explanation of how X runs over UNIX, GNOME/KDE runs over X, rxvt runs on X, and csh runs on UNIX communicating with rxvt.
(Please, please, please, IMPRESS UPON THEM THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A TERMINAL AND A SHELL!
) Yeah, it'll be rushed, maybe even stressful if you actually cram it into 1 hour, but then they'll have at least a chance to know the things that will help them learn more.
Showing them how to drag icons around the screen isn't going to enable them to ever learn anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313426</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>AmberBlackCat</author>
	<datestamp>1259867160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you sure you haven't confused the cause with the effect?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you sure you have n't confused the cause with the effect ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you sure you haven't confused the cause with the effect?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30316128</id>
	<title>One problem: no goddam dates/versions on docs</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1259834700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One problem I hit with a lot of online Linux documentation is the pages don't list the date they were last updates, or don't list the version of the software they apply to.</p><p>It's very annoying to find what seems to be just what you are looking for, and then an hour into crafting a solution based on that, you find that it depends on a particular feature of some program, and that feature was substantially changed two years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One problem I hit with a lot of online Linux documentation is the pages do n't list the date they were last updates , or do n't list the version of the software they apply to.It 's very annoying to find what seems to be just what you are looking for , and then an hour into crafting a solution based on that , you find that it depends on a particular feature of some program , and that feature was substantially changed two years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One problem I hit with a lot of online Linux documentation is the pages don't list the date they were last updates, or don't list the version of the software they apply to.It's very annoying to find what seems to be just what you are looking for, and then an hour into crafting a solution based on that, you find that it depends on a particular feature of some program, and that feature was substantially changed two years ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310750</id>
	<title>Documenting shitty software is futile</title>
	<author>gzipped\_tar</author>
	<datestamp>1259858400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a software solution is crappy enough, it is impossible to write document for it. If a program has to be *endured* rather than enjoyed, all its documentation can do is either reinforcing the shittiness experience by point out *how* and *why* it already sucks and un-amendable (if the doc is correct), or dumping more crap on top of that (if the doc is incorrect).</p><p>I'm looking at you, GNOME. I used to be a GNOME user but I gave up. The docs was barely useful for anything. I wanted to configure GDM and there's no explanation of those arcane XML shit and event hooks. The conf files were scattered here and there, and guess what, the infamous, incomprehensible gconf that actually brags about being modeled after MS registry! I finally got the idea that the devs simply gave up the idea of explaining their un-explainable clusterfuck already. I don't use a DE anymore.</p><p>Mod me however you want. I'm not a karma sink and I don't save it for an afterlife.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a software solution is crappy enough , it is impossible to write document for it .
If a program has to be * endured * rather than enjoyed , all its documentation can do is either reinforcing the shittiness experience by point out * how * and * why * it already sucks and un-amendable ( if the doc is correct ) , or dumping more crap on top of that ( if the doc is incorrect ) .I 'm looking at you , GNOME .
I used to be a GNOME user but I gave up .
The docs was barely useful for anything .
I wanted to configure GDM and there 's no explanation of those arcane XML shit and event hooks .
The conf files were scattered here and there , and guess what , the infamous , incomprehensible gconf that actually brags about being modeled after MS registry !
I finally got the idea that the devs simply gave up the idea of explaining their un-explainable clusterfuck already .
I do n't use a DE anymore.Mod me however you want .
I 'm not a karma sink and I do n't save it for an afterlife .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a software solution is crappy enough, it is impossible to write document for it.
If a program has to be *endured* rather than enjoyed, all its documentation can do is either reinforcing the shittiness experience by point out *how* and *why* it already sucks and un-amendable (if the doc is correct), or dumping more crap on top of that (if the doc is incorrect).I'm looking at you, GNOME.
I used to be a GNOME user but I gave up.
The docs was barely useful for anything.
I wanted to configure GDM and there's no explanation of those arcane XML shit and event hooks.
The conf files were scattered here and there, and guess what, the infamous, incomprehensible gconf that actually brags about being modeled after MS registry!
I finally got the idea that the devs simply gave up the idea of explaining their un-explainable clusterfuck already.
I don't use a DE anymore.Mod me however you want.
I'm not a karma sink and I don't save it for an afterlife.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311312</id>
	<title>MOD PARENT UP</title>
	<author>BenEnglishAtHome</author>
	<datestamp>1259860320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Straight, user-directed thinking.  Amazing.  Ya don't see much of that nowadays.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Straight , user-directed thinking .
Amazing. Ya do n't see much of that nowadays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Straight, user-directed thinking.
Amazing.  Ya don't see much of that nowadays.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30321038</id>
	<title>Re:Google can be more specific</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259863560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In less than 5 minutes with just the manual page:</p><p>find $(pwd)/* ! -path '*/not-these' -prune</p><p>At the 4 minute mark I realised that I didn't need to look at the manual page since the answer was one of those "Doh!" moments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In less than 5 minutes with just the manual page : find $ ( pwd ) / * !
-path ' * /not-these ' -pruneAt the 4 minute mark I realised that I did n't need to look at the manual page since the answer was one of those " Doh !
" moments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In less than 5 minutes with just the manual page:find $(pwd)/* !
-path '*/not-these' -pruneAt the 4 minute mark I realised that I didn't need to look at the manual page since the answer was one of those "Doh!
" moments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313610</id>
	<title>That explains it</title>
	<author>KingAlanI</author>
	<datestamp>1259867880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good excuse for an impromptu vacation, eh? "Uh yeah, the man pages strongly suggested that I should go to Massachusetts"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good excuse for an impromptu vacation , eh ?
" Uh yeah , the man pages strongly suggested that I should go to Massachusetts "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good excuse for an impromptu vacation, eh?
"Uh yeah, the man pages strongly suggested that I should go to Massachusetts"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313238</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>Stan92057</author>
	<datestamp>1259866440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is in now way ment to be a troll. What do you want for Free? You already get the software for free. How much free time do theses people have to make software,write docs,for free?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is in now way ment to be a troll .
What do you want for Free ?
You already get the software for free .
How much free time do theses people have to make software,write docs,for free ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is in now way ment to be a troll.
What do you want for Free?
You already get the software for free.
How much free time do theses people have to make software,write docs,for free?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311040</id>
	<title>From the server side of things...</title>
	<author>DarkFencer</author>
	<datestamp>1259859420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the server side of things, yes I use google for Linux and other OSS software info.  But I find that much more reliable than some of the 'enterprise' software companies and their documentation (Sungard &amp; Blackboard among the worst in my opinion).</p><p>Even worse is the fact that many of these enterprise software companies have their documentation &amp; support information protected by login so you are unable to search them with google (and their own internal search software is god awful).</p><p>Bad documentation is not an open source/linux thing.  Its pretty much everywhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the server side of things , yes I use google for Linux and other OSS software info .
But I find that much more reliable than some of the 'enterprise ' software companies and their documentation ( Sungard &amp; Blackboard among the worst in my opinion ) .Even worse is the fact that many of these enterprise software companies have their documentation &amp; support information protected by login so you are unable to search them with google ( and their own internal search software is god awful ) .Bad documentation is not an open source/linux thing .
Its pretty much everywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the server side of things, yes I use google for Linux and other OSS software info.
But I find that much more reliable than some of the 'enterprise' software companies and their documentation (Sungard &amp; Blackboard among the worst in my opinion).Even worse is the fact that many of these enterprise software companies have their documentation &amp; support information protected by login so you are unable to search them with google (and their own internal search software is god awful).Bad documentation is not an open source/linux thing.
Its pretty much everywhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30315430</id>
	<title>Re:And good luck with Google, too</title>
	<author>Vancorps</author>
	<datestamp>1259831820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is a good point, I never even thought of that as I naturally get apps from the repository once a page tells me what app I need. I just did it naturally because I always prefer to install something that will receive updates for any vulnerabilities or bug fixes. I imagine a lot of people wouldn't know to do that though. Of course there are a number of times I have to get apps outside the repository still. I can install phpMyAdmin, Asterisk, but not FreePBX for instance. Talking more specifically about Ubuntu there and I understand why after install FreePBX manually on it. Quite the pain in the arse! </p><p>Of course the main reason that it's a pain is because there is more than one way to do it so the documentation that does exist is fragmented leaving the user the exercise of figuring out what is relevant  from which how-to since together they probably have all the info you need. The flexibility of the Linux environment is what causes a lot of this. If there was only one way to do it then some people wouldn't be able to do it depending on their environments. Because of this I expect usability to lag behind. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is a good point , I never even thought of that as I naturally get apps from the repository once a page tells me what app I need .
I just did it naturally because I always prefer to install something that will receive updates for any vulnerabilities or bug fixes .
I imagine a lot of people would n't know to do that though .
Of course there are a number of times I have to get apps outside the repository still .
I can install phpMyAdmin , Asterisk , but not FreePBX for instance .
Talking more specifically about Ubuntu there and I understand why after install FreePBX manually on it .
Quite the pain in the arse !
Of course the main reason that it 's a pain is because there is more than one way to do it so the documentation that does exist is fragmented leaving the user the exercise of figuring out what is relevant from which how-to since together they probably have all the info you need .
The flexibility of the Linux environment is what causes a lot of this .
If there was only one way to do it then some people would n't be able to do it depending on their environments .
Because of this I expect usability to lag behind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is a good point, I never even thought of that as I naturally get apps from the repository once a page tells me what app I need.
I just did it naturally because I always prefer to install something that will receive updates for any vulnerabilities or bug fixes.
I imagine a lot of people wouldn't know to do that though.
Of course there are a number of times I have to get apps outside the repository still.
I can install phpMyAdmin, Asterisk, but not FreePBX for instance.
Talking more specifically about Ubuntu there and I understand why after install FreePBX manually on it.
Quite the pain in the arse!
Of course the main reason that it's a pain is because there is more than one way to do it so the documentation that does exist is fragmented leaving the user the exercise of figuring out what is relevant  from which how-to since together they probably have all the info you need.
The flexibility of the Linux environment is what causes a lot of this.
If there was only one way to do it then some people wouldn't be able to do it depending on their environments.
Because of this I expect usability to lag behind. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313108</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>interploy</author>
	<datestamp>1259865960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've just recently (within the last six months) starting using linux on a daily basis, and I have to agree with this wholeheartedly.  The man pages are only marginally useful to a n00b, and even a significant portion of online documentation, because a lot of the documentation out there simply assumes too much information.  That's the biggest problem I've had.  I'll be reading some tutorial and there will be a vague, one-line instruction to use some script/program/command that I've never heard of before, and I'll have to go searching for what it is and how it works before I can finish the original tutorial. Sometimes that means a couple extra minutes, sometimes a couple hours (and in one horrible instance two days), but the loss of time builds up and gets really frustrating.</p><p>I think the linux community in general has a real problem with assuming everybody already knows xyz command so there's no need to explain or demonstrate it. Not all of them, mind you, and I'm really thankful for the people who take the time to explain the details, but way too many tutorials come from people who assume their audience have been around linux as long as they have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've just recently ( within the last six months ) starting using linux on a daily basis , and I have to agree with this wholeheartedly .
The man pages are only marginally useful to a n00b , and even a significant portion of online documentation , because a lot of the documentation out there simply assumes too much information .
That 's the biggest problem I 've had .
I 'll be reading some tutorial and there will be a vague , one-line instruction to use some script/program/command that I 've never heard of before , and I 'll have to go searching for what it is and how it works before I can finish the original tutorial .
Sometimes that means a couple extra minutes , sometimes a couple hours ( and in one horrible instance two days ) , but the loss of time builds up and gets really frustrating.I think the linux community in general has a real problem with assuming everybody already knows xyz command so there 's no need to explain or demonstrate it .
Not all of them , mind you , and I 'm really thankful for the people who take the time to explain the details , but way too many tutorials come from people who assume their audience have been around linux as long as they have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've just recently (within the last six months) starting using linux on a daily basis, and I have to agree with this wholeheartedly.
The man pages are only marginally useful to a n00b, and even a significant portion of online documentation, because a lot of the documentation out there simply assumes too much information.
That's the biggest problem I've had.
I'll be reading some tutorial and there will be a vague, one-line instruction to use some script/program/command that I've never heard of before, and I'll have to go searching for what it is and how it works before I can finish the original tutorial.
Sometimes that means a couple extra minutes, sometimes a couple hours (and in one horrible instance two days), but the loss of time builds up and gets really frustrating.I think the linux community in general has a real problem with assuming everybody already knows xyz command so there's no need to explain or demonstrate it.
Not all of them, mind you, and I'm really thankful for the people who take the time to explain the details, but way too many tutorials come from people who assume their audience have been around linux as long as they have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310642</id>
	<title>Google can be more specific</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259857860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Getting the detail you want out of a man page is often harder than finding the relevant bits on Google. And of course, man pages don't help you at all if you don't know which command you want to be using ; and let's face it, for a given task, there might be three ways of doing it.</p><p>I'm still a relative Linux novice despite having used it for some time now, but I'm a programmer and prepared to slog through documentation and web pages to get things going.</p><p>Example - the prune argument of find. I'll give a limited-edition photon to the first person who figures out the way to use the prune argument to produce a list of files that \_doesn't\_ match a particular path pattern, solely limiting themselves to the man page, without using Google.</p><p><tt><br>find . -path '*/not-these' -prune # This does basically the opposite of what you'd expect it to.<br></tt></p><p>Yes, I know how to do it NOW. Well, Google remembers which page I found most relevant for the search terms that eventually found the right way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Getting the detail you want out of a man page is often harder than finding the relevant bits on Google .
And of course , man pages do n't help you at all if you do n't know which command you want to be using ; and let 's face it , for a given task , there might be three ways of doing it.I 'm still a relative Linux novice despite having used it for some time now , but I 'm a programmer and prepared to slog through documentation and web pages to get things going.Example - the prune argument of find .
I 'll give a limited-edition photon to the first person who figures out the way to use the prune argument to produce a list of files that \ _does n't \ _ match a particular path pattern , solely limiting themselves to the man page , without using Google.find .
-path ' * /not-these ' -prune # This does basically the opposite of what you 'd expect it to.Yes , I know how to do it NOW .
Well , Google remembers which page I found most relevant for the search terms that eventually found the right way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Getting the detail you want out of a man page is often harder than finding the relevant bits on Google.
And of course, man pages don't help you at all if you don't know which command you want to be using ; and let's face it, for a given task, there might be three ways of doing it.I'm still a relative Linux novice despite having used it for some time now, but I'm a programmer and prepared to slog through documentation and web pages to get things going.Example - the prune argument of find.
I'll give a limited-edition photon to the first person who figures out the way to use the prune argument to produce a list of files that \_doesn't\_ match a particular path pattern, solely limiting themselves to the man page, without using Google.find .
-path '*/not-these' -prune # This does basically the opposite of what you'd expect it to.Yes, I know how to do it NOW.
Well, Google remembers which page I found most relevant for the search terms that eventually found the right way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310692</id>
	<title>Re:Don't like man pages.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259858160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps that's because you have only seen Linux (or Gnu) manpages. Take a look at the (Free-)BSD manpages and you will be pleasantly surprised.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps that 's because you have only seen Linux ( or Gnu ) manpages .
Take a look at the ( Free- ) BSD manpages and you will be pleasantly surprised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps that's because you have only seen Linux (or Gnu) manpages.
Take a look at the (Free-)BSD manpages and you will be pleasantly surprised.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311204</id>
	<title>The answer is...</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1259859960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes.</p><p>The obvious next question: Will it ever get better?</p><p>And the Magic 8-Ball says:</p><p>"Very Doubtful"</p><p>I am not making this up.  The Magic 8-Ball has spoken.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes.The obvious next question : Will it ever get better ? And the Magic 8-Ball says : " Very Doubtful " I am not making this up .
The Magic 8-Ball has spoken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.The obvious next question: Will it ever get better?And the Magic 8-Ball says:"Very Doubtful"I am not making this up.
The Magic 8-Ball has spoken.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30318178</id>
	<title>Delphi documentation</title>
	<author>tgrigsby</author>
	<datestamp>1259841960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, official Linux documentation is lacking.  I've always held that the success of any software relies heavily on its documentation.  Look at Delphi.  When the now-defunct Borland released Delphi 7, it came with a pretty decent set of content-sensitive, F1-accessible help and examples.  Nowadays I'm using Delphi 2010 from CodeGear, and yet I find myself firing up Delphi 7 and looking up what I need in that version's help because the D2010 help sucks so bad.</p><p>I'm in no way suggesting that Linux is not successful, but it would be a lot easier to use if it came with beginner documentation.  It's safe to say that it's no longer just a hobby OS, and we're far beyond the point when Linux, the various flavors of GUI desktop, and all the applications moved beyond "man".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , official Linux documentation is lacking .
I 've always held that the success of any software relies heavily on its documentation .
Look at Delphi .
When the now-defunct Borland released Delphi 7 , it came with a pretty decent set of content-sensitive , F1-accessible help and examples .
Nowadays I 'm using Delphi 2010 from CodeGear , and yet I find myself firing up Delphi 7 and looking up what I need in that version 's help because the D2010 help sucks so bad.I 'm in no way suggesting that Linux is not successful , but it would be a lot easier to use if it came with beginner documentation .
It 's safe to say that it 's no longer just a hobby OS , and we 're far beyond the point when Linux , the various flavors of GUI desktop , and all the applications moved beyond " man " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, official Linux documentation is lacking.
I've always held that the success of any software relies heavily on its documentation.
Look at Delphi.
When the now-defunct Borland released Delphi 7, it came with a pretty decent set of content-sensitive, F1-accessible help and examples.
Nowadays I'm using Delphi 2010 from CodeGear, and yet I find myself firing up Delphi 7 and looking up what I need in that version's help because the D2010 help sucks so bad.I'm in no way suggesting that Linux is not successful, but it would be a lot easier to use if it came with beginner documentation.
It's safe to say that it's no longer just a hobby OS, and we're far beyond the point when Linux, the various flavors of GUI desktop, and all the applications moved beyond "man".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310958</id>
	<title>Linux docs usually better</title>
	<author>bugs2squash</author>
	<datestamp>1259859120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have often found that<ul> <li>Books on many subjects can be commonly found in high street bookstores. For example, find books on dhcpd and then go look for a book on Cisco CNR in borders</li><li>Much of Linux documentation is in non-traditional form, but that does not make it any less useful. For example the source code</li><li>It's hard work reading through pages of vendor provided sales gumpf masqerading as technical reference material. I have seen many statements that were misleading because the vendor has a case to make. By and large Linux documentation is not trying to sell anything</li><li>Linux documentation goes further than any vendor would. I can find out lots about the inner workings of linux packet shaping, but asking similar questions of vendors of proprietary products is "stealing their secret sauce"</li></ul><p>I generally far prefer the linux documentation that I have read over most proprietary documentation, and I would also say that on the occasions when I've needed a technical question answered, the open source community has been faster to respond than most support contracts I've ever used.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have often found that Books on many subjects can be commonly found in high street bookstores .
For example , find books on dhcpd and then go look for a book on Cisco CNR in bordersMuch of Linux documentation is in non-traditional form , but that does not make it any less useful .
For example the source codeIt 's hard work reading through pages of vendor provided sales gumpf masqerading as technical reference material .
I have seen many statements that were misleading because the vendor has a case to make .
By and large Linux documentation is not trying to sell anythingLinux documentation goes further than any vendor would .
I can find out lots about the inner workings of linux packet shaping , but asking similar questions of vendors of proprietary products is " stealing their secret sauce " I generally far prefer the linux documentation that I have read over most proprietary documentation , and I would also say that on the occasions when I 've needed a technical question answered , the open source community has been faster to respond than most support contracts I 've ever used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have often found that Books on many subjects can be commonly found in high street bookstores.
For example, find books on dhcpd and then go look for a book on Cisco CNR in bordersMuch of Linux documentation is in non-traditional form, but that does not make it any less useful.
For example the source codeIt's hard work reading through pages of vendor provided sales gumpf masqerading as technical reference material.
I have seen many statements that were misleading because the vendor has a case to make.
By and large Linux documentation is not trying to sell anythingLinux documentation goes further than any vendor would.
I can find out lots about the inner workings of linux packet shaping, but asking similar questions of vendors of proprietary products is "stealing their secret sauce"I generally far prefer the linux documentation that I have read over most proprietary documentation, and I would also say that on the occasions when I've needed a technical question answered, the open source community has been faster to respond than most support contracts I've ever used.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312474</id>
	<title>Documentation should not be retrofitted</title>
	<author>Mask</author>
	<datestamp>1259863740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In OSS there is a tendency to code first (and if you are good - design first) and a year later someone else will try to retrofit user documentation. This will never work right. And this is why:</p><p>In order to have a possibly reasonable documentation, the design and code must be  easy to explain. There should be relatively little user-visible corner case, feature X should behave similarly to feature Y even when they are designed/coded by different people at different times.</p><p>In OSS what usually happens is that developer X has an itch and implements his stuff without thinking about developer Y doing a seemingly different feature (proprietary S/W is no better). They end up with a documentation that has to cover 2 different features with subtly different ideas. Very confusing.</p><p>It is quite possible that feature X and Y are technologically independent, but that is not something the user should be aware of (most of the time). This means that it requires more work to make them look similarly from the outside, so that it is easier to document.</p><p>Consider for example the concept of a "file system". Most of the time the user does not have to know if this is XFS, NTFS or EXT4. The documentation is relatively simple and covers 99\% of cases. However, if every file-system had different system calls, documenting it would be hell.</p><p>If every application has a different UI short-cuts and concepts, it is much harder to document. Why can't it resemble other applications? Because the coder did not consider the cost of explaining and documenting the thing, only of technology (certainly), functionality (probably) and ease of use (hopefully). But documentation was written only after the fact. At that point many concepts and ideas are set in stone, changing them to ease the use and documentation ranges between difficult to impossible</p><p>I have gone from the wrong direction and then seen the pain of the users too many times. I hope I learned my lesson. It is simply impossible to document the beast in a reasonable way down the road.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In OSS there is a tendency to code first ( and if you are good - design first ) and a year later someone else will try to retrofit user documentation .
This will never work right .
And this is why : In order to have a possibly reasonable documentation , the design and code must be easy to explain .
There should be relatively little user-visible corner case , feature X should behave similarly to feature Y even when they are designed/coded by different people at different times.In OSS what usually happens is that developer X has an itch and implements his stuff without thinking about developer Y doing a seemingly different feature ( proprietary S/W is no better ) .
They end up with a documentation that has to cover 2 different features with subtly different ideas .
Very confusing.It is quite possible that feature X and Y are technologically independent , but that is not something the user should be aware of ( most of the time ) .
This means that it requires more work to make them look similarly from the outside , so that it is easier to document.Consider for example the concept of a " file system " .
Most of the time the user does not have to know if this is XFS , NTFS or EXT4 .
The documentation is relatively simple and covers 99 \ % of cases .
However , if every file-system had different system calls , documenting it would be hell.If every application has a different UI short-cuts and concepts , it is much harder to document .
Why ca n't it resemble other applications ?
Because the coder did not consider the cost of explaining and documenting the thing , only of technology ( certainly ) , functionality ( probably ) and ease of use ( hopefully ) .
But documentation was written only after the fact .
At that point many concepts and ideas are set in stone , changing them to ease the use and documentation ranges between difficult to impossibleI have gone from the wrong direction and then seen the pain of the users too many times .
I hope I learned my lesson .
It is simply impossible to document the beast in a reasonable way down the road .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In OSS there is a tendency to code first (and if you are good - design first) and a year later someone else will try to retrofit user documentation.
This will never work right.
And this is why:In order to have a possibly reasonable documentation, the design and code must be  easy to explain.
There should be relatively little user-visible corner case, feature X should behave similarly to feature Y even when they are designed/coded by different people at different times.In OSS what usually happens is that developer X has an itch and implements his stuff without thinking about developer Y doing a seemingly different feature (proprietary S/W is no better).
They end up with a documentation that has to cover 2 different features with subtly different ideas.
Very confusing.It is quite possible that feature X and Y are technologically independent, but that is not something the user should be aware of (most of the time).
This means that it requires more work to make them look similarly from the outside, so that it is easier to document.Consider for example the concept of a "file system".
Most of the time the user does not have to know if this is XFS, NTFS or EXT4.
The documentation is relatively simple and covers 99\% of cases.
However, if every file-system had different system calls, documenting it would be hell.If every application has a different UI short-cuts and concepts, it is much harder to document.
Why can't it resemble other applications?
Because the coder did not consider the cost of explaining and documenting the thing, only of technology (certainly), functionality (probably) and ease of use (hopefully).
But documentation was written only after the fact.
At that point many concepts and ideas are set in stone, changing them to ease the use and documentation ranges between difficult to impossibleI have gone from the wrong direction and then seen the pain of the users too many times.
I hope I learned my lesson.
It is simply impossible to document the beast in a reasonable way down the road.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30315144</id>
	<title>Re:Not just beginner to apprentice.</title>
	<author>pongo000</author>
	<datestamp>1259873940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'm a Red Hat/Fedora user since Red Hat 4 (Slackware before that) and as a 25-year UNIX veteran, I often feel like I have no idea what's going on in (for example) the init process, X configuration, desktop management, app resources/configuration, etc. Where are the dotfiles located? Where are the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc components? What are the command-line arguments? Where are the manual pages? What documentation does exist is generally in the awful "Help Tool" format (click Help -&gt; Help Contents in an application window and get a lot of prose for beginners). This documentation typically offers NO INFORMATION beyond the navigation of the user interface for the application. Nothing on system resources, locations of configuration files, dependencies, APIs, command line arguments, or anything that would allow you to either troubleshoot or modularly re-use the software item in question.</i></p><p>This whine rates a 5? Give me a break.  I've been using Unix for 1/2 the time as GP (since 1996), and the only unanswered questions I have are the ones I haven't researched yet.  It's implausible to me that a "25-year UNIX veteran" doesn't have the slightest understanding of how to research the simplest of questions.  Still doesn't know how init works?  I might suggest that said poster stop posting on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. and start reading some of the excellent <b>books</b> (yes, as in dead trees) that are out there and are still relevant to the topic.</p><p>Most of the "lack of documentation" rant I attribute to laziness, not lack of documentation:  Lack on the part of the complainers to get off their asses, stop relying on others to spoon-feed them the information they seek, and research the answers themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a Red Hat/Fedora user since Red Hat 4 ( Slackware before that ) and as a 25-year UNIX veteran , I often feel like I have no idea what 's going on in ( for example ) the init process , X configuration , desktop management , app resources/configuration , etc .
Where are the dotfiles located ?
Where are the /etc components ?
What are the command-line arguments ?
Where are the manual pages ?
What documentation does exist is generally in the awful " Help Tool " format ( click Help - &gt; Help Contents in an application window and get a lot of prose for beginners ) .
This documentation typically offers NO INFORMATION beyond the navigation of the user interface for the application .
Nothing on system resources , locations of configuration files , dependencies , APIs , command line arguments , or anything that would allow you to either troubleshoot or modularly re-use the software item in question.This whine rates a 5 ?
Give me a break .
I 've been using Unix for 1/2 the time as GP ( since 1996 ) , and the only unanswered questions I have are the ones I have n't researched yet .
It 's implausible to me that a " 25-year UNIX veteran " does n't have the slightest understanding of how to research the simplest of questions .
Still does n't know how init works ?
I might suggest that said poster stop posting on / .
and start reading some of the excellent books ( yes , as in dead trees ) that are out there and are still relevant to the topic.Most of the " lack of documentation " rant I attribute to laziness , not lack of documentation : Lack on the part of the complainers to get off their asses , stop relying on others to spoon-feed them the information they seek , and research the answers themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a Red Hat/Fedora user since Red Hat 4 (Slackware before that) and as a 25-year UNIX veteran, I often feel like I have no idea what's going on in (for example) the init process, X configuration, desktop management, app resources/configuration, etc.
Where are the dotfiles located?
Where are the /etc components?
What are the command-line arguments?
Where are the manual pages?
What documentation does exist is generally in the awful "Help Tool" format (click Help -&gt; Help Contents in an application window and get a lot of prose for beginners).
This documentation typically offers NO INFORMATION beyond the navigation of the user interface for the application.
Nothing on system resources, locations of configuration files, dependencies, APIs, command line arguments, or anything that would allow you to either troubleshoot or modularly re-use the software item in question.This whine rates a 5?
Give me a break.
I've been using Unix for 1/2 the time as GP (since 1996), and the only unanswered questions I have are the ones I haven't researched yet.
It's implausible to me that a "25-year UNIX veteran" doesn't have the slightest understanding of how to research the simplest of questions.
Still doesn't know how init works?
I might suggest that said poster stop posting on /.
and start reading some of the excellent books (yes, as in dead trees) that are out there and are still relevant to the topic.Most of the "lack of documentation" rant I attribute to laziness, not lack of documentation:  Lack on the part of the complainers to get off their asses, stop relying on others to spoon-feed them the information they seek, and research the answers themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312638</id>
	<title>Back in the day...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259864280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having both linux and windows boxes in my house over the past 10 years, I'd end up on google for both. One thing I noticed on the linux side, I'd end up at the gentoo wiki more than anywhere else. The wiki was generally well written, with updates and notes along the way. It'd offer multiple options, and was easy to follow.</p><p>Aside from proprietary needs, I'm not sure this is really an issue. (It pains me to admit this, and trust me, I'm not a fanboi) Ubuntu handles all of this seemingly well, as does most of the major distros. Personally, I believe that most people are going to hit google regardless, because it's just habit. From my windows days, google was the place I went by default. If people will be adding something, popping in a new piece of hardware, etc, they're already in the mindset that they can hit google if they're questioning anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having both linux and windows boxes in my house over the past 10 years , I 'd end up on google for both .
One thing I noticed on the linux side , I 'd end up at the gentoo wiki more than anywhere else .
The wiki was generally well written , with updates and notes along the way .
It 'd offer multiple options , and was easy to follow.Aside from proprietary needs , I 'm not sure this is really an issue .
( It pains me to admit this , and trust me , I 'm not a fanboi ) Ubuntu handles all of this seemingly well , as does most of the major distros .
Personally , I believe that most people are going to hit google regardless , because it 's just habit .
From my windows days , google was the place I went by default .
If people will be adding something , popping in a new piece of hardware , etc , they 're already in the mindset that they can hit google if they 're questioning anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having both linux and windows boxes in my house over the past 10 years, I'd end up on google for both.
One thing I noticed on the linux side, I'd end up at the gentoo wiki more than anywhere else.
The wiki was generally well written, with updates and notes along the way.
It'd offer multiple options, and was easy to follow.Aside from proprietary needs, I'm not sure this is really an issue.
(It pains me to admit this, and trust me, I'm not a fanboi) Ubuntu handles all of this seemingly well, as does most of the major distros.
Personally, I believe that most people are going to hit google regardless, because it's just habit.
From my windows days, google was the place I went by default.
If people will be adding something, popping in a new piece of hardware, etc, they're already in the mindset that they can hit google if they're questioning anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311108</id>
	<title>Re:Yes.</title>
	<author>Vanderhoth</author>
	<datestamp>1259859660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it wasn't well documented when it was being developed it falls on someone else to do it later. That someone has no real vested interest in documenting something they didn't write.</p><p>I'm a developer and have had to deal with several legacy applications that contractors had previously written. When I first started my job I was pretty much given one of these applications and told it needed some documentation updating. I feel extremely annoyed when I look back and realize that for pretty much the first year of my job I was writing developer, security and user doc's for someone else poorly coded system. The result is the documentation I wrote for the other systems is probably incomplete or doesn't make perfect sense in the grand scheme. It seems a little arrogant, but I no longer accept responsibility for applications written by other people, epically contractors that were hired to write an application, which should have taken one to two years to develop, in six months. If someone insist I take over a project I tell them I want to see to documentation and code first if it's good I'll accept, if it's bad I'll accept on the condition I get to redevelop the whole project because it takes less time then writing, rewriting or expanding existing documentation while fumbling through someone else hacked together code.</p><p>Sorry for the rant. I read this saying somewhere, "Document your code like the person who will maintain it after you is a psycho pathetic killer who knows where you live".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was n't well documented when it was being developed it falls on someone else to do it later .
That someone has no real vested interest in documenting something they did n't write.I 'm a developer and have had to deal with several legacy applications that contractors had previously written .
When I first started my job I was pretty much given one of these applications and told it needed some documentation updating .
I feel extremely annoyed when I look back and realize that for pretty much the first year of my job I was writing developer , security and user doc 's for someone else poorly coded system .
The result is the documentation I wrote for the other systems is probably incomplete or does n't make perfect sense in the grand scheme .
It seems a little arrogant , but I no longer accept responsibility for applications written by other people , epically contractors that were hired to write an application , which should have taken one to two years to develop , in six months .
If someone insist I take over a project I tell them I want to see to documentation and code first if it 's good I 'll accept , if it 's bad I 'll accept on the condition I get to redevelop the whole project because it takes less time then writing , rewriting or expanding existing documentation while fumbling through someone else hacked together code.Sorry for the rant .
I read this saying somewhere , " Document your code like the person who will maintain it after you is a psycho pathetic killer who knows where you live " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it wasn't well documented when it was being developed it falls on someone else to do it later.
That someone has no real vested interest in documenting something they didn't write.I'm a developer and have had to deal with several legacy applications that contractors had previously written.
When I first started my job I was pretty much given one of these applications and told it needed some documentation updating.
I feel extremely annoyed when I look back and realize that for pretty much the first year of my job I was writing developer, security and user doc's for someone else poorly coded system.
The result is the documentation I wrote for the other systems is probably incomplete or doesn't make perfect sense in the grand scheme.
It seems a little arrogant, but I no longer accept responsibility for applications written by other people, epically contractors that were hired to write an application, which should have taken one to two years to develop, in six months.
If someone insist I take over a project I tell them I want to see to documentation and code first if it's good I'll accept, if it's bad I'll accept on the condition I get to redevelop the whole project because it takes less time then writing, rewriting or expanding existing documentation while fumbling through someone else hacked together code.Sorry for the rant.
I read this saying somewhere, "Document your code like the person who will maintain it after you is a psycho pathetic killer who knows where you live".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310940</id>
	<title>Does the avg user actually require man pages?</title>
	<author>HockeyPuck</author>
	<datestamp>1259859060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would assume that the average user doesn't use the CLI.  Whether in windows or linux, so why should we assume that the average user would even look at man pages.  Man firefox? Man calc/writer/impress?  Doubt it.  Take openoffice for example... let's say I want to create a textbox, so I go to the landing help page for openoffice.org and I'm presented with 4 textboxes,</p><p>-Complete Documentation Wiki<br>-OOo FAQ on the Wiki<br>-OOo Manuals on the Wiki<br>-Documentation Website</p><p>How is the avg user supposed to know which one to search in and the results are just a output of a google search.  It would be nice if it OO.org provided more information or catagorized the output along the lines of tutorials/videos, manuals etc rather just whatever google spits out.</p><p>And OO.org is one of the better sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would assume that the average user does n't use the CLI .
Whether in windows or linux , so why should we assume that the average user would even look at man pages .
Man firefox ?
Man calc/writer/impress ?
Doubt it .
Take openoffice for example... let 's say I want to create a textbox , so I go to the landing help page for openoffice.org and I 'm presented with 4 textboxes,-Complete Documentation Wiki-OOo FAQ on the Wiki-OOo Manuals on the Wiki-Documentation WebsiteHow is the avg user supposed to know which one to search in and the results are just a output of a google search .
It would be nice if it OO.org provided more information or catagorized the output along the lines of tutorials/videos , manuals etc rather just whatever google spits out.And OO.org is one of the better sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would assume that the average user doesn't use the CLI.
Whether in windows or linux, so why should we assume that the average user would even look at man pages.
Man firefox?
Man calc/writer/impress?
Doubt it.
Take openoffice for example... let's say I want to create a textbox, so I go to the landing help page for openoffice.org and I'm presented with 4 textboxes,-Complete Documentation Wiki-OOo FAQ on the Wiki-OOo Manuals on the Wiki-Documentation WebsiteHow is the avg user supposed to know which one to search in and the results are just a output of a google search.
It would be nice if it OO.org provided more information or catagorized the output along the lines of tutorials/videos, manuals etc rather just whatever google spits out.And OO.org is one of the better sites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313522</id>
	<title>Re:Noobs can't use Vim</title>
	<author>TemporalBeing</author>
	<datestamp>1259867520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>okay - use gvim.</htmltext>
<tokenext>okay - use gvim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>okay - use gvim.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310496</id>
	<title>Why not?</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1259857380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The PHP documentation is online, and you can comment on every page. Sometimes it&rsquo;s really helpful to see what other people have said about a function, how they used it, or problems they had and how they worked around them.</p><p>A static documentation doesn&rsquo;t have any of this. You get what you get, that&rsquo;s it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The PHP documentation is online , and you can comment on every page .
Sometimes it    s really helpful to see what other people have said about a function , how they used it , or problems they had and how they worked around them.A static documentation doesn    t have any of this .
You get what you get , that    s it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The PHP documentation is online, and you can comment on every page.
Sometimes it’s really helpful to see what other people have said about a function, how they used it, or problems they had and how they worked around them.A static documentation doesn’t have any of this.
You get what you get, that’s it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312762</id>
	<title>Re:The Culture needs a slight change.</title>
	<author>HereIAmJH</author>
	<datestamp>1259864820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It really is the whole programming culture that needs to have a mindset change.<br>They need to care about Documentation more so other people can pickup where they left off.</i></p><p>Often the programmers have the wrong type of personality for writing documentation.  They tend to be focused on creating/maintaining software rather than telling someone else how to use it.  It makes them look at how the software accomplishes a task rather than how the user does.  A greatly simplified analogy; suppose you asked your plumber how to get water from the kitchen faucet and he said "well, I tapped into the main in the utility closet, ran a line under the kitchen floor, up through the cabinet, and connected it to the cold water tap.  Then I went to the hot water tank, ran another line under the kitchen floor and through the cabinet, and connected it to the hot water tap."  And then a non-plumber would say "turn on the cold water faucet, then slowly turn on the hot water faucet and adjust it to the correct temperature."  It all depends on perspective.</p><p>While that isn't an excuse for poor documentation, it might be a call for users of free software to give back by helping make it more usable.  I'm a firm believer in Wikis.</p><p>And FWIW, if I have an available internet connection, Google has generally become the first place I tend to look.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It really is the whole programming culture that needs to have a mindset change.They need to care about Documentation more so other people can pickup where they left off.Often the programmers have the wrong type of personality for writing documentation .
They tend to be focused on creating/maintaining software rather than telling someone else how to use it .
It makes them look at how the software accomplishes a task rather than how the user does .
A greatly simplified analogy ; suppose you asked your plumber how to get water from the kitchen faucet and he said " well , I tapped into the main in the utility closet , ran a line under the kitchen floor , up through the cabinet , and connected it to the cold water tap .
Then I went to the hot water tank , ran another line under the kitchen floor and through the cabinet , and connected it to the hot water tap .
" And then a non-plumber would say " turn on the cold water faucet , then slowly turn on the hot water faucet and adjust it to the correct temperature .
" It all depends on perspective.While that is n't an excuse for poor documentation , it might be a call for users of free software to give back by helping make it more usable .
I 'm a firm believer in Wikis.And FWIW , if I have an available internet connection , Google has generally become the first place I tend to look .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It really is the whole programming culture that needs to have a mindset change.They need to care about Documentation more so other people can pickup where they left off.Often the programmers have the wrong type of personality for writing documentation.
They tend to be focused on creating/maintaining software rather than telling someone else how to use it.
It makes them look at how the software accomplishes a task rather than how the user does.
A greatly simplified analogy; suppose you asked your plumber how to get water from the kitchen faucet and he said "well, I tapped into the main in the utility closet, ran a line under the kitchen floor, up through the cabinet, and connected it to the cold water tap.
Then I went to the hot water tank, ran another line under the kitchen floor and through the cabinet, and connected it to the hot water tap.
"  And then a non-plumber would say "turn on the cold water faucet, then slowly turn on the hot water faucet and adjust it to the correct temperature.
"  It all depends on perspective.While that isn't an excuse for poor documentation, it might be a call for users of free software to give back by helping make it more usable.
I'm a firm believer in Wikis.And FWIW, if I have an available internet connection, Google has generally become the first place I tend to look.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311362</id>
	<title>ALL system documentation is lacking.</title>
	<author>Carik</author>
	<datestamp>1259860560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a sysadmin, and have been for about 6 years.  I manage a mix of Linux, Windows, and Mac machines, with few DOS boxes and a couple running some version of Solaris on them.  In general, there's no good documentation included for the problems we have with any OS.</p><p>Since this thread is supposed to be about linux, I'll mostly stick with that.  I go straight to google for almost everything, at least the first time.  Why?  Because the man pages are mostly illegible.  There's actually too much information to be useful when I'm trying to figure out how something works.  If it's one of the few that has meaningful examples with explanations, fine.  Otherwise, I'll go back to explanations written in english.  And if I don't even know what command I need, forget it -- there's no way man pages are going to help.  And lets not even get started with man pages that tell me to refer to the info page...</p><p>So when are man pages useful, in my opinion?  When I already know the command, and just need to be reminded which flag to use.  Basically that's the only time I use them... the rest of the time, it's easier (and frequently quicker) to look it up using google.</p><p>Now... I also do some programming, though I'm not very good at it.  I document everything.  The last thing I wrote came out to about 500 lines of code, and about 50 pages of documentation, including design decisions, details on the database backend I used, SQL layouts, installation and setup, lists of things that still needed fixing (which have been updated as I fixed things), and a beginners guide.  I also built argument listings into the script, so using a -h flag would tell you what you needed.  Once we started using it, everyone just came to me and asked questions, and I think I'm still the only one who ever read the documentation.  So I can sympathize with not wanting to bother -- if no one is going to read it, what's the point?  Still, I'd like to see more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a sysadmin , and have been for about 6 years .
I manage a mix of Linux , Windows , and Mac machines , with few DOS boxes and a couple running some version of Solaris on them .
In general , there 's no good documentation included for the problems we have with any OS.Since this thread is supposed to be about linux , I 'll mostly stick with that .
I go straight to google for almost everything , at least the first time .
Why ? Because the man pages are mostly illegible .
There 's actually too much information to be useful when I 'm trying to figure out how something works .
If it 's one of the few that has meaningful examples with explanations , fine .
Otherwise , I 'll go back to explanations written in english .
And if I do n't even know what command I need , forget it -- there 's no way man pages are going to help .
And lets not even get started with man pages that tell me to refer to the info page...So when are man pages useful , in my opinion ?
When I already know the command , and just need to be reminded which flag to use .
Basically that 's the only time I use them... the rest of the time , it 's easier ( and frequently quicker ) to look it up using google.Now... I also do some programming , though I 'm not very good at it .
I document everything .
The last thing I wrote came out to about 500 lines of code , and about 50 pages of documentation , including design decisions , details on the database backend I used , SQL layouts , installation and setup , lists of things that still needed fixing ( which have been updated as I fixed things ) , and a beginners guide .
I also built argument listings into the script , so using a -h flag would tell you what you needed .
Once we started using it , everyone just came to me and asked questions , and I think I 'm still the only one who ever read the documentation .
So I can sympathize with not wanting to bother -- if no one is going to read it , what 's the point ?
Still , I 'd like to see more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a sysadmin, and have been for about 6 years.
I manage a mix of Linux, Windows, and Mac machines, with few DOS boxes and a couple running some version of Solaris on them.
In general, there's no good documentation included for the problems we have with any OS.Since this thread is supposed to be about linux, I'll mostly stick with that.
I go straight to google for almost everything, at least the first time.
Why?  Because the man pages are mostly illegible.
There's actually too much information to be useful when I'm trying to figure out how something works.
If it's one of the few that has meaningful examples with explanations, fine.
Otherwise, I'll go back to explanations written in english.
And if I don't even know what command I need, forget it -- there's no way man pages are going to help.
And lets not even get started with man pages that tell me to refer to the info page...So when are man pages useful, in my opinion?
When I already know the command, and just need to be reminded which flag to use.
Basically that's the only time I use them... the rest of the time, it's easier (and frequently quicker) to look it up using google.Now... I also do some programming, though I'm not very good at it.
I document everything.
The last thing I wrote came out to about 500 lines of code, and about 50 pages of documentation, including design decisions, details on the database backend I used, SQL layouts, installation and setup, lists of things that still needed fixing (which have been updated as I fixed things), and a beginners guide.
I also built argument listings into the script, so using a -h flag would tell you what you needed.
Once we started using it, everyone just came to me and asked questions, and I think I'm still the only one who ever read the documentation.
So I can sympathize with not wanting to bother -- if no one is going to read it, what's the point?
Still, I'd like to see more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311388</id>
	<title>It's not actually lacking</title>
	<author>ehntoo</author>
	<datestamp>1259860620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's just horrifically out of date.

If you're talking about Linux as in things that are generally applicable to all Linuxes, the Linux Documentation Project (http://tldp.org/) is actually quite well written... but almost everything is uselessly out of date.  Most of the articles I've needed in desperate hours of trouble are still written for the 2.4 kernel series.  This was especially painful when I was looking into software RAID.  There's some great stuff in TLDP, but it's all outdated.

At this point, I think gentoo-wiki and ArchLinux's wiki are some of the most helpful places to go if you're using anything that's not<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.deb or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.rpm based.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just horrifically out of date .
If you 're talking about Linux as in things that are generally applicable to all Linuxes , the Linux Documentation Project ( http : //tldp.org/ ) is actually quite well written... but almost everything is uselessly out of date .
Most of the articles I 've needed in desperate hours of trouble are still written for the 2.4 kernel series .
This was especially painful when I was looking into software RAID .
There 's some great stuff in TLDP , but it 's all outdated .
At this point , I think gentoo-wiki and ArchLinux 's wiki are some of the most helpful places to go if you 're using anything that 's not .deb or .rpm based .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just horrifically out of date.
If you're talking about Linux as in things that are generally applicable to all Linuxes, the Linux Documentation Project (http://tldp.org/) is actually quite well written... but almost everything is uselessly out of date.
Most of the articles I've needed in desperate hours of trouble are still written for the 2.4 kernel series.
This was especially painful when I was looking into software RAID.
There's some great stuff in TLDP, but it's all outdated.
At this point, I think gentoo-wiki and ArchLinux's wiki are some of the most helpful places to go if you're using anything that's not .deb or .rpm based.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313066</id>
	<title>Man Pages at Linux.org</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259865840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A month or two ago, I was trying to find a place that would have current man pages for everything.  I tried <a href="http://www.linux.org/docs/" title="linux.org" rel="nofollow"> http://www.linux.org/docs </a> [linux.org], clicked the "Linux Man Pages" link, and..... file does not exist.  I checked again today and it still doesn't open.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A month or two ago , I was trying to find a place that would have current man pages for everything .
I tried http : //www.linux.org/docs [ linux.org ] , clicked the " Linux Man Pages " link , and..... file does not exist .
I checked again today and it still does n't open .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A month or two ago, I was trying to find a place that would have current man pages for everything.
I tried  http://www.linux.org/docs  [linux.org], clicked the "Linux Man Pages" link, and..... file does not exist.
I checked again today and it still doesn't open.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312360</id>
	<title>news at 10</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259863440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>linux got in my opinion really great docs. there are hundreds of really carefully written howto's, man pages for nearly every program, fora and google. i mean, really! and the best thing when you search for something linux, is that you don't get bothered with ads and shit all the time and nobody tries to SELL you something. also they set standards in layout and data formats. of course there are man pages rigid and abstract as fuck which can drive you crazy when you really need something fast, but that doesn't mean they are bad or lack proper info - mostly people are just to stupid or lazy to suck them in anyways (have you ever visited a package's readme file under<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/share or downloaded source code figure something out? just asking...). however, with documentation it's the same like it's with code: linux is ours, so if you need something nobody has implemented before, you'd better stop complaining and fire up your favorite editor...it is a community project in flux which relies on participation, or do you think the people writing all the howto's got paid? that's the prize of our freedom. if you don't like it you'd be better off accepting microshit's "authority" or at least admit that you are kinda lazy bastards used to pay for readily made "products". what do you like more, mcdonalds or a good homecooked meal? got to get cooking if you like to eat a REAL meal. cooking has quite a steep learning curve. you mess up meals from time to time - and learn from it. man, when i first installed linux on my box i thought i got a trojan because of the strange symlinks under<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/lib/i686. i cleaned them recursively with cleanlinks, the system never booted again. i didn't even know how to add an user and shit. today i administer a nice home lan with dozens of servers and cool stuff (hey, i got the tlg-e in my lan and a hurd image runnung under kvm!:-), compile my own kernels and automate everything i do more than once a day with bash and cron, laughing about my first steps within unix. it's like driving huge trucks (in europe of course, with all the narrow places in italy and england). it needs one or two years until you can shove a hangler back into a loading bay without even thinking about it. but in the end it's way more fun, secure and usefule than driving a car...if you don't like trucks, just don't drive them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>linux got in my opinion really great docs .
there are hundreds of really carefully written howto 's , man pages for nearly every program , fora and google .
i mean , really !
and the best thing when you search for something linux , is that you do n't get bothered with ads and shit all the time and nobody tries to SELL you something .
also they set standards in layout and data formats .
of course there are man pages rigid and abstract as fuck which can drive you crazy when you really need something fast , but that does n't mean they are bad or lack proper info - mostly people are just to stupid or lazy to suck them in anyways ( have you ever visited a package 's readme file under /usr/share or downloaded source code figure something out ?
just asking... ) .
however , with documentation it 's the same like it 's with code : linux is ours , so if you need something nobody has implemented before , you 'd better stop complaining and fire up your favorite editor...it is a community project in flux which relies on participation , or do you think the people writing all the howto 's got paid ?
that 's the prize of our freedom .
if you do n't like it you 'd be better off accepting microshit 's " authority " or at least admit that you are kinda lazy bastards used to pay for readily made " products " .
what do you like more , mcdonalds or a good homecooked meal ?
got to get cooking if you like to eat a REAL meal .
cooking has quite a steep learning curve .
you mess up meals from time to time - and learn from it .
man , when i first installed linux on my box i thought i got a trojan because of the strange symlinks under /lib/i686 .
i cleaned them recursively with cleanlinks , the system never booted again .
i did n't even know how to add an user and shit .
today i administer a nice home lan with dozens of servers and cool stuff ( hey , i got the tlg-e in my lan and a hurd image runnung under kvm !
: - ) , compile my own kernels and automate everything i do more than once a day with bash and cron , laughing about my first steps within unix .
it 's like driving huge trucks ( in europe of course , with all the narrow places in italy and england ) .
it needs one or two years until you can shove a hangler back into a loading bay without even thinking about it .
but in the end it 's way more fun , secure and usefule than driving a car...if you do n't like trucks , just do n't drive them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>linux got in my opinion really great docs.
there are hundreds of really carefully written howto's, man pages for nearly every program, fora and google.
i mean, really!
and the best thing when you search for something linux, is that you don't get bothered with ads and shit all the time and nobody tries to SELL you something.
also they set standards in layout and data formats.
of course there are man pages rigid and abstract as fuck which can drive you crazy when you really need something fast, but that doesn't mean they are bad or lack proper info - mostly people are just to stupid or lazy to suck them in anyways (have you ever visited a package's readme file under /usr/share or downloaded source code figure something out?
just asking...).
however, with documentation it's the same like it's with code: linux is ours, so if you need something nobody has implemented before, you'd better stop complaining and fire up your favorite editor...it is a community project in flux which relies on participation, or do you think the people writing all the howto's got paid?
that's the prize of our freedom.
if you don't like it you'd be better off accepting microshit's "authority" or at least admit that you are kinda lazy bastards used to pay for readily made "products".
what do you like more, mcdonalds or a good homecooked meal?
got to get cooking if you like to eat a REAL meal.
cooking has quite a steep learning curve.
you mess up meals from time to time - and learn from it.
man, when i first installed linux on my box i thought i got a trojan because of the strange symlinks under /lib/i686.
i cleaned them recursively with cleanlinks, the system never booted again.
i didn't even know how to add an user and shit.
today i administer a nice home lan with dozens of servers and cool stuff (hey, i got the tlg-e in my lan and a hurd image runnung under kvm!
:-), compile my own kernels and automate everything i do more than once a day with bash and cron, laughing about my first steps within unix.
it's like driving huge trucks (in europe of course, with all the narrow places in italy and england).
it needs one or two years until you can shove a hangler back into a loading bay without even thinking about it.
but in the end it's way more fun, secure and usefule than driving a car...if you don't like trucks, just don't drive them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314244</id>
	<title>Audio subsystem is the worst</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259870220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>As someone who has repeatedly tried to set up a small music computer lab to work of Linux and open software, I can testify that the documentation for setting up ALSA and the Linux Audio subsystem in general is the worst documented in all Linux distros we've tried. Developers either seem to hope that audio cards will respond to default configurations, or expect the person installing to be able/familiar with the intricacies of ALSA (which, BTW, not only is easily the worst online documentation I've come through, but once set up, even with "compatible" cards, breaks really easily).

Some of the problem, of course, has to do with manufacturers not releasing specs, etc., a situation which is even worse with professional audio cards than with top of the line video cards. And I don't mean to pan the work of people who get ALSA and OSS and the audio parts of kernel working. Yet it must be said: it's precisely this situation and the lack of real documentation for troubleshooting, that has prevented us from switching to Linux. It's hard enough trying to wean our students from Windows when even we teachers can't get our systems working.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who has repeatedly tried to set up a small music computer lab to work of Linux and open software , I can testify that the documentation for setting up ALSA and the Linux Audio subsystem in general is the worst documented in all Linux distros we 've tried .
Developers either seem to hope that audio cards will respond to default configurations , or expect the person installing to be able/familiar with the intricacies of ALSA ( which , BTW , not only is easily the worst online documentation I 've come through , but once set up , even with " compatible " cards , breaks really easily ) .
Some of the problem , of course , has to do with manufacturers not releasing specs , etc. , a situation which is even worse with professional audio cards than with top of the line video cards .
And I do n't mean to pan the work of people who get ALSA and OSS and the audio parts of kernel working .
Yet it must be said : it 's precisely this situation and the lack of real documentation for troubleshooting , that has prevented us from switching to Linux .
It 's hard enough trying to wean our students from Windows when even we teachers ca n't get our systems working .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who has repeatedly tried to set up a small music computer lab to work of Linux and open software, I can testify that the documentation for setting up ALSA and the Linux Audio subsystem in general is the worst documented in all Linux distros we've tried.
Developers either seem to hope that audio cards will respond to default configurations, or expect the person installing to be able/familiar with the intricacies of ALSA (which, BTW, not only is easily the worst online documentation I've come through, but once set up, even with "compatible" cards, breaks really easily).
Some of the problem, of course, has to do with manufacturers not releasing specs, etc., a situation which is even worse with professional audio cards than with top of the line video cards.
And I don't mean to pan the work of people who get ALSA and OSS and the audio parts of kernel working.
Yet it must be said: it's precisely this situation and the lack of real documentation for troubleshooting, that has prevented us from switching to Linux.
It's hard enough trying to wean our students from Windows when even we teachers can't get our systems working.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310602</id>
	<title>Yes.</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1259857740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Writing documentation is hard work and is boring. It is also thankless.<br>The funny thing is that documentation for the most technical programs tends to be very good. PHP, Perl, Apache, Postgres, and MySql all do seem to have good documentation.<br>Gnome not so much. Many other apps also seem to lack good docs. X is just a disaster. It is documented but it is still a pain when things fail they are a huge mess to fix.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Writing documentation is hard work and is boring .
It is also thankless.The funny thing is that documentation for the most technical programs tends to be very good .
PHP , Perl , Apache , Postgres , and MySql all do seem to have good documentation.Gnome not so much .
Many other apps also seem to lack good docs .
X is just a disaster .
It is documented but it is still a pain when things fail they are a huge mess to fix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Writing documentation is hard work and is boring.
It is also thankless.The funny thing is that documentation for the most technical programs tends to be very good.
PHP, Perl, Apache, Postgres, and MySql all do seem to have good documentation.Gnome not so much.
Many other apps also seem to lack good docs.
X is just a disaster.
It is documented but it is still a pain when things fail they are a huge mess to fix.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312802</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation Doesn't Matter..</title>
	<author>master\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1259864940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about Microwaves running Linux? are users scared of them too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about Microwaves running Linux ?
are users scared of them too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about Microwaves running Linux?
are users scared of them too?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311212</id>
	<title>Simple answer:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259860020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311180</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>ShieldW0lf</author>
	<datestamp>1259859900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Linux is not intended for real users.  Linux is a kernel, not an operating system.  Documentation for Linux should target the audience of developers and the audience of distribution packagers.  Ordinary users should be reading the documentation for their specific distribution.  Ubuntu, Red Hat, SUSE, etc.  These groups are the ones responsible for delivering end user documentation.
<br> <br>
The NT kernel was used in Windows NT 3.1, Windows NT 3.5, Windows NT 4, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows Home Server, Windows Server 2008, Windows Vista, Windows 7 and probably a few more that I forgot.  When you're trying to fix your computer, are you going to read documentation on the NT kernel and expect it to be helpful?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux is not intended for real users .
Linux is a kernel , not an operating system .
Documentation for Linux should target the audience of developers and the audience of distribution packagers .
Ordinary users should be reading the documentation for their specific distribution .
Ubuntu , Red Hat , SUSE , etc .
These groups are the ones responsible for delivering end user documentation .
The NT kernel was used in Windows NT 3.1 , Windows NT 3.5 , Windows NT 4 , Windows 2000 , Windows XP , Windows Server 2003 , Windows Home Server , Windows Server 2008 , Windows Vista , Windows 7 and probably a few more that I forgot .
When you 're trying to fix your computer , are you going to read documentation on the NT kernel and expect it to be helpful ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux is not intended for real users.
Linux is a kernel, not an operating system.
Documentation for Linux should target the audience of developers and the audience of distribution packagers.
Ordinary users should be reading the documentation for their specific distribution.
Ubuntu, Red Hat, SUSE, etc.
These groups are the ones responsible for delivering end user documentation.
The NT kernel was used in Windows NT 3.1, Windows NT 3.5, Windows NT 4, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows Home Server, Windows Server 2008, Windows Vista, Windows 7 and probably a few more that I forgot.
When you're trying to fix your computer, are you going to read documentation on the NT kernel and expect it to be helpful?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30324754</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1259947080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would add that, it is sometimes a hassle determining where the config file is. Much of the documentation is silent about that, because they can't be sure. It may be in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/myapp/conf.conf for 90\% of the people, but there's always that one distro or package that put it in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/var/upmy.ss/nevergonnafindthissh\_t.conf , and the documentation prefers to remain silent, instead focusing on how the config file will be laid out when you figure out where it is located.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would add that , it is sometimes a hassle determining where the config file is .
Much of the documentation is silent about that , because they ca n't be sure .
It may be in /etc/myapp/conf.conf for 90 \ % of the people , but there 's always that one distro or package that put it in /var/upmy.ss/nevergonnafindthissh \ _t.conf , and the documentation prefers to remain silent , instead focusing on how the config file will be laid out when you figure out where it is located .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would add that, it is sometimes a hassle determining where the config file is.
Much of the documentation is silent about that, because they can't be sure.
It may be in /etc/myapp/conf.conf for 90\% of the people, but there's always that one distro or package that put it in /var/upmy.ss/nevergonnafindthissh\_t.conf , and the documentation prefers to remain silent, instead focusing on how the config file will be laid out when you figure out where it is located.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313320</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>machine321</author>
	<datestamp>1259866800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not only that, the man page rarely <b>is correct</b>, one of the biggest problems.</p></div><p>Fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that , the man page rarely is correct , one of the biggest problems.Fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that, the man page rarely is correct, one of the biggest problems.Fixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310982</id>
	<title>Re:And good luck with Google, too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259859240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can top that:</p><p>As often as not, the only hits you get are posts in forums where someone is asking the exact same question you need answered... and getting no replies. Since 2005. And that person is me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can top that : As often as not , the only hits you get are posts in forums where someone is asking the exact same question you need answered... and getting no replies .
Since 2005 .
And that person is me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can top that:As often as not, the only hits you get are posts in forums where someone is asking the exact same question you need answered... and getting no replies.
Since 2005.
And that person is me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314124</id>
	<title>Plenty of documentation</title>
	<author>tibman</author>
	<datestamp>1259869800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've always felt there was <b>too much</b> documentation.  Information overload is very easy with linux.</p><p>I thought it was up to each Distro to maintain the relevant docs for their stuff?  I've been using Gentoo for a long time now and they have great documentation.  Here's the ATI howto/FAQ, for example: <a href="http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/ati-faq.xml" title="gentoo.org">http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/ati-faq.xml</a> [gentoo.org]  That wasn't cherry picked, look at the rest here: <a href="http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/" title="gentoo.org">http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/</a> [gentoo.org]</p><p>If i can't find the info i need i check the software's homepage (probably from sourceforge) or search the forums.  Lastly i search the web *shudders* but that is where info-overload comes from.. so much there from present day to decades old.</p><p>PS: i'm at work and IE is previewing this post as a super tall box only one word wide.. hope it doesn't post like that : /</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always felt there was too much documentation .
Information overload is very easy with linux.I thought it was up to each Distro to maintain the relevant docs for their stuff ?
I 've been using Gentoo for a long time now and they have great documentation .
Here 's the ATI howto/FAQ , for example : http : //www.gentoo.org/doc/en/ati-faq.xml [ gentoo.org ] That was n't cherry picked , look at the rest here : http : //www.gentoo.org/doc/en/ [ gentoo.org ] If i ca n't find the info i need i check the software 's homepage ( probably from sourceforge ) or search the forums .
Lastly i search the web * shudders * but that is where info-overload comes from.. so much there from present day to decades old.PS : i 'm at work and IE is previewing this post as a super tall box only one word wide.. hope it does n't post like that : /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always felt there was too much documentation.
Information overload is very easy with linux.I thought it was up to each Distro to maintain the relevant docs for their stuff?
I've been using Gentoo for a long time now and they have great documentation.
Here's the ATI howto/FAQ, for example: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/ati-faq.xml [gentoo.org]  That wasn't cherry picked, look at the rest here: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/ [gentoo.org]If i can't find the info i need i check the software's homepage (probably from sourceforge) or search the forums.
Lastly i search the web *shudders* but that is where info-overload comes from.. so much there from present day to decades old.PS: i'm at work and IE is previewing this post as a super tall box only one word wide.. hope it doesn't post like that : /</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312614</id>
	<title>Re:Well, No Shit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259864220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I ran my own ISP as a fourth grader you insensitive clod!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ran my own ISP as a fourth grader you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I ran my own ISP as a fourth grader you insensitive clod!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312540</id>
	<title>Linux documentation is not Linux documentation</title>
	<author>julian67</author>
	<datestamp>1259864040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because almost every application/tool is also found packaged for OS X, BSD, even for Windows....obvious likely exception: the Linux kernel docs.  So the article is kind of stupid from that premise onwards.  But anyway how about someone offer more than a single example, not just anecdotes, cliches and rants?  While remembering tfa is about new(ish) users' experiences?</p><p>Assuming a new(ish) user is using a graphical environment means that man pages will not be the first place a user looks.  So basically we're looking at the docs specific to the environment (Gnome/Xfce/KDE etc) and the docs of the individual applications. Almost every gui application I've seen has a 'help' button on the menu bar.  Some of these launch a help doc in a doc browser, some a locally hosted html doc in the default web browser and some do the evil thing of offering only a web address and assume you are connected...grrrr.  Most of the apps I use have very decent help docs.  A few don't have anything useful and then again some are models of excellence.  I notice the same situation when I use Windows.  It's really dumb to say this is some endemic problem with Linux/free software.</p><p>If the issue is with stuff like 'how do I set up RAID' or 'how do I install with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/home encrypted' then this is up to the distribution to get right. Some are better than others. In Debian there is the online Debian Reference, a reference guide aimed at *users* not developers.  This can also be installed and so be accessible without a net connection. It covers all kinds of stuff from the introductory section on the UNIX filesystem hierarchy i.e. what are<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/home<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/var and what is the root account, right through to setting up your own subversion repo or customising the kernel.</p><p>Occasionally a user might come across an application which is poorly documented, that is there is little documentation or the documentation is inaccurate/outdated/difficult to understand.  But why should one or two particular/anecdotal experiences lead to a belief that 'omg linx has bad docs!' It's an overreaction, but I suppose it fills column inches for bloggers/journos and offers the casual blowhard the opportunity for a badly informed whinge post on a board.</p><p>Thinking back to the last thing I struggled with: wake on lan. I didn't have a clue what to do to set it up. Searched distro wiki for wake on lan, result being a page of good instructions about which tools to use, how to check my ethernet card supports it, how to enable it, a brief comparison of two different wol clients, lots of examples and other helpful stuff.  A few minutes later had it all working. Shocking!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because almost every application/tool is also found packaged for OS X , BSD , even for Windows....obvious likely exception : the Linux kernel docs .
So the article is kind of stupid from that premise onwards .
But anyway how about someone offer more than a single example , not just anecdotes , cliches and rants ?
While remembering tfa is about new ( ish ) users ' experiences ? Assuming a new ( ish ) user is using a graphical environment means that man pages will not be the first place a user looks .
So basically we 're looking at the docs specific to the environment ( Gnome/Xfce/KDE etc ) and the docs of the individual applications .
Almost every gui application I 've seen has a 'help ' button on the menu bar .
Some of these launch a help doc in a doc browser , some a locally hosted html doc in the default web browser and some do the evil thing of offering only a web address and assume you are connected...grrrr .
Most of the apps I use have very decent help docs .
A few do n't have anything useful and then again some are models of excellence .
I notice the same situation when I use Windows .
It 's really dumb to say this is some endemic problem with Linux/free software.If the issue is with stuff like 'how do I set up RAID ' or 'how do I install with /home encrypted ' then this is up to the distribution to get right .
Some are better than others .
In Debian there is the online Debian Reference , a reference guide aimed at * users * not developers .
This can also be installed and so be accessible without a net connection .
It covers all kinds of stuff from the introductory section on the UNIX filesystem hierarchy i.e .
what are /etc /home /var and what is the root account , right through to setting up your own subversion repo or customising the kernel.Occasionally a user might come across an application which is poorly documented , that is there is little documentation or the documentation is inaccurate/outdated/difficult to understand .
But why should one or two particular/anecdotal experiences lead to a belief that 'omg linx has bad docs !
' It 's an overreaction , but I suppose it fills column inches for bloggers/journos and offers the casual blowhard the opportunity for a badly informed whinge post on a board.Thinking back to the last thing I struggled with : wake on lan .
I did n't have a clue what to do to set it up .
Searched distro wiki for wake on lan , result being a page of good instructions about which tools to use , how to check my ethernet card supports it , how to enable it , a brief comparison of two different wol clients , lots of examples and other helpful stuff .
A few minutes later had it all working .
Shocking !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because almost every application/tool is also found packaged for OS X, BSD, even for Windows....obvious likely exception: the Linux kernel docs.
So the article is kind of stupid from that premise onwards.
But anyway how about someone offer more than a single example, not just anecdotes, cliches and rants?
While remembering tfa is about new(ish) users' experiences?Assuming a new(ish) user is using a graphical environment means that man pages will not be the first place a user looks.
So basically we're looking at the docs specific to the environment (Gnome/Xfce/KDE etc) and the docs of the individual applications.
Almost every gui application I've seen has a 'help' button on the menu bar.
Some of these launch a help doc in a doc browser, some a locally hosted html doc in the default web browser and some do the evil thing of offering only a web address and assume you are connected...grrrr.
Most of the apps I use have very decent help docs.
A few don't have anything useful and then again some are models of excellence.
I notice the same situation when I use Windows.
It's really dumb to say this is some endemic problem with Linux/free software.If the issue is with stuff like 'how do I set up RAID' or 'how do I install with /home encrypted' then this is up to the distribution to get right.
Some are better than others.
In Debian there is the online Debian Reference, a reference guide aimed at *users* not developers.
This can also be installed and so be accessible without a net connection.
It covers all kinds of stuff from the introductory section on the UNIX filesystem hierarchy i.e.
what are /etc /home /var and what is the root account, right through to setting up your own subversion repo or customising the kernel.Occasionally a user might come across an application which is poorly documented, that is there is little documentation or the documentation is inaccurate/outdated/difficult to understand.
But why should one or two particular/anecdotal experiences lead to a belief that 'omg linx has bad docs!
' It's an overreaction, but I suppose it fills column inches for bloggers/journos and offers the casual blowhard the opportunity for a badly informed whinge post on a board.Thinking back to the last thing I struggled with: wake on lan.
I didn't have a clue what to do to set it up.
Searched distro wiki for wake on lan, result being a page of good instructions about which tools to use, how to check my ethernet card supports it, how to enable it, a brief comparison of two different wol clients, lots of examples and other helpful stuff.
A few minutes later had it all working.
Shocking!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30321988</id>
	<title>If you are not satisfied with the documentation,</title>
	<author>TxRv</author>
	<datestamp>1259921340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>start writing new documentation! Start on the stuff you do know about and see if anyone on the forums is interested in writing docs on their areas of expertise. That's how things get done in Linux.</htmltext>
<tokenext>start writing new documentation !
Start on the stuff you do know about and see if anyone on the forums is interested in writing docs on their areas of expertise .
That 's how things get done in Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>start writing new documentation!
Start on the stuff you do know about and see if anyone on the forums is interested in writing docs on their areas of expertise.
That's how things get done in Linux.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313018</id>
	<title>Re:It's better than Mac OS X documentation</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1259865660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a little preposterous to say that Linux documentation is lacking. It's not fantastic, but manpages are significantly more useful than Windows help, and well, Solaris manpages... they're terrible. FOSS documentation beats commercial documentation in my experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a little preposterous to say that Linux documentation is lacking .
It 's not fantastic , but manpages are significantly more useful than Windows help , and well , Solaris manpages... they 're terrible .
FOSS documentation beats commercial documentation in my experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a little preposterous to say that Linux documentation is lacking.
It's not fantastic, but manpages are significantly more useful than Windows help, and well, Solaris manpages... they're terrible.
FOSS documentation beats commercial documentation in my experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30315630</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259832720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Exactly. Creating documentation for mainstream users is completely pointless.</p></div><p>Hard to agree with this--how else are beginniners going to, uh, begin?  There is some great documentation for such users out there.  See, for instance, the MEPIS User's Manual: http://www.mepislovers.org/forums/user\_manual8/</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Creating documentation for mainstream users is completely pointless.Hard to agree with this--how else are beginniners going to , uh , begin ?
There is some great documentation for such users out there .
See , for instance , the MEPIS User 's Manual : http : //www.mepislovers.org/forums/user \ _manual8/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Creating documentation for mainstream users is completely pointless.Hard to agree with this--how else are beginniners going to, uh, begin?
There is some great documentation for such users out there.
See, for instance, the MEPIS User's Manual: http://www.mepislovers.org/forums/user\_manual8/
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313398</id>
	<title>FreeBSD Handbook</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259867040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe that the FreeBSD handbook is the gold standard for FOSS documentation outside of man pages.  Oh, and info(1) can suck it.</p><p>Thanks,<br>AC</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that the FreeBSD handbook is the gold standard for FOSS documentation outside of man pages .
Oh , and info ( 1 ) can suck it.Thanks,AC</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that the FreeBSD handbook is the gold standard for FOSS documentation outside of man pages.
Oh, and info(1) can suck it.Thanks,AC</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311090</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1259859600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a problem with OSS in general. Go over to SourceForge sometime and count the pages that *don't* consist entirely of a list of bug fixes. If you're lucky, the opening page might have a brief description of what the software is and does, but often even that basic piece of info is often missing. Too much OSS is written by coders who think they don't need technical writers and UI designers on their project (why OSS is plagued with terrible GUI's too). And that's fine if you're writing for other coders and geeks. It's not so great if you expect anyone outside that tiny clique to ever use your software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a problem with OSS in general .
Go over to SourceForge sometime and count the pages that * do n't * consist entirely of a list of bug fixes .
If you 're lucky , the opening page might have a brief description of what the software is and does , but often even that basic piece of info is often missing .
Too much OSS is written by coders who think they do n't need technical writers and UI designers on their project ( why OSS is plagued with terrible GUI 's too ) .
And that 's fine if you 're writing for other coders and geeks .
It 's not so great if you expect anyone outside that tiny clique to ever use your software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a problem with OSS in general.
Go over to SourceForge sometime and count the pages that *don't* consist entirely of a list of bug fixes.
If you're lucky, the opening page might have a brief description of what the software is and does, but often even that basic piece of info is often missing.
Too much OSS is written by coders who think they don't need technical writers and UI designers on their project (why OSS is plagued with terrible GUI's too).
And that's fine if you're writing for other coders and geeks.
It's not so great if you expect anyone outside that tiny clique to ever use your software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311068</id>
	<title>Noobs can't use Vim</title>
	<author>Amphetam1ne</author>
	<datestamp>1259859540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get the howto writers to stop using Vim. Seriously, people who are used to windows are driven away by stuff like that, just tell them to use nano!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get the howto writers to stop using Vim .
Seriously , people who are used to windows are driven away by stuff like that , just tell them to use nano !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get the howto writers to stop using Vim.
Seriously, people who are used to windows are driven away by stuff like that, just tell them to use nano!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30343188</id>
	<title>Re:Ubuntu Community Docs are pretty good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260115260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I clicked on this link... and then many more links, until ultimately it told me I have to learn Docbook.</p><p>I've written documentation professionally, and I've never heard of Docbook. Now, that's not a huge surprise, I'm new to linux, but then it told me I had to read two books on this before I could contribute. Huh?</p><p>If this was a paying job, maybe...</p><p>I think they would get a lot more documentation writers, and better documentation, if they actually used programs similar to those that most "writers" actually use for work projects. That doesn't mean windows... but how about openoffice at least?</p><p>Also, fact is, you don't need to be a subject matter expert(in linux)to write good documentation. This sort of thing, however, makes me think this is exactly what is expected from ubuntu documentation team members. And that ain't me, not yet, and not for a while.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I clicked on this link... and then many more links , until ultimately it told me I have to learn Docbook.I 've written documentation professionally , and I 've never heard of Docbook .
Now , that 's not a huge surprise , I 'm new to linux , but then it told me I had to read two books on this before I could contribute .
Huh ? If this was a paying job , maybe...I think they would get a lot more documentation writers , and better documentation , if they actually used programs similar to those that most " writers " actually use for work projects .
That does n't mean windows... but how about openoffice at least ? Also , fact is , you do n't need to be a subject matter expert ( in linux ) to write good documentation .
This sort of thing , however , makes me think this is exactly what is expected from ubuntu documentation team members .
And that ai n't me , not yet , and not for a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I clicked on this link... and then many more links, until ultimately it told me I have to learn Docbook.I've written documentation professionally, and I've never heard of Docbook.
Now, that's not a huge surprise, I'm new to linux, but then it told me I had to read two books on this before I could contribute.
Huh?If this was a paying job, maybe...I think they would get a lot more documentation writers, and better documentation, if they actually used programs similar to those that most "writers" actually use for work projects.
That doesn't mean windows... but how about openoffice at least?Also, fact is, you don't need to be a subject matter expert(in linux)to write good documentation.
This sort of thing, however, makes me think this is exactly what is expected from ubuntu documentation team members.
And that ain't me, not yet, and not for a while.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310890</id>
	<title>and those undated, irrelevant web docs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259858880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how many millions of man days have been squandered trawling through outdated (and irrelevant) documentation because the author or poster could not be bothered to put a date on the document, or to specify which version of the software it refers to.</p><p>And all those all but abandoned websites which claim to list Linux friendly hardware but which list only antiquated items which can't even be bought in the shops any more. You would be doing the world a favour if you deleted the whole site. And don't even bother to explain that someone somewhere might possibly still have a need to configure Ubuntu 1.0 using a piece of junk sold in the nineties.</p><p>But maybe the worst type of documentation is that found in forums which ostensibly discuss problems and supply answers. In my experience, one can find hundreds of web forums in which the simple most obvious questions are answered (ones where the person asking the question could have found the answer for themselves in a trice) but the difficult questions are asked over and over again but nobody has the answer. Why doesn't the developer document their own software? Why when i search for documentation for a driver does Google take me to countless forums where the blind are leading the blind? Who links to forums where a hundred people all have their say, but none actually resolves the problem?</p><p>Do Microsofties leave all that crud lying around the Internet to sap the will of the unwary Linux newbies?</p><p>Date your documents. Make it clear right up front which particular bit of software and which version your documentation refers to. If you know full well that there is a separate rival project, name them and include a link. Don't waste everyone's time trying to pretend that your project is the one and only, while you know full well that there is another project which does a better job.</p><p>How many times do I have to read about ndiswrapper before I actually discover the name of the native Linux driver I need?</p><p>If you are one of those responsible for this sorry state of play, shame on you. You haven't helped anyone. Your contribution is just the spanner in the works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how many millions of man days have been squandered trawling through outdated ( and irrelevant ) documentation because the author or poster could not be bothered to put a date on the document , or to specify which version of the software it refers to.And all those all but abandoned websites which claim to list Linux friendly hardware but which list only antiquated items which ca n't even be bought in the shops any more .
You would be doing the world a favour if you deleted the whole site .
And do n't even bother to explain that someone somewhere might possibly still have a need to configure Ubuntu 1.0 using a piece of junk sold in the nineties.But maybe the worst type of documentation is that found in forums which ostensibly discuss problems and supply answers .
In my experience , one can find hundreds of web forums in which the simple most obvious questions are answered ( ones where the person asking the question could have found the answer for themselves in a trice ) but the difficult questions are asked over and over again but nobody has the answer .
Why does n't the developer document their own software ?
Why when i search for documentation for a driver does Google take me to countless forums where the blind are leading the blind ?
Who links to forums where a hundred people all have their say , but none actually resolves the problem ? Do Microsofties leave all that crud lying around the Internet to sap the will of the unwary Linux newbies ? Date your documents .
Make it clear right up front which particular bit of software and which version your documentation refers to .
If you know full well that there is a separate rival project , name them and include a link .
Do n't waste everyone 's time trying to pretend that your project is the one and only , while you know full well that there is another project which does a better job.How many times do I have to read about ndiswrapper before I actually discover the name of the native Linux driver I need ? If you are one of those responsible for this sorry state of play , shame on you .
You have n't helped anyone .
Your contribution is just the spanner in the works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how many millions of man days have been squandered trawling through outdated (and irrelevant) documentation because the author or poster could not be bothered to put a date on the document, or to specify which version of the software it refers to.And all those all but abandoned websites which claim to list Linux friendly hardware but which list only antiquated items which can't even be bought in the shops any more.
You would be doing the world a favour if you deleted the whole site.
And don't even bother to explain that someone somewhere might possibly still have a need to configure Ubuntu 1.0 using a piece of junk sold in the nineties.But maybe the worst type of documentation is that found in forums which ostensibly discuss problems and supply answers.
In my experience, one can find hundreds of web forums in which the simple most obvious questions are answered (ones where the person asking the question could have found the answer for themselves in a trice) but the difficult questions are asked over and over again but nobody has the answer.
Why doesn't the developer document their own software?
Why when i search for documentation for a driver does Google take me to countless forums where the blind are leading the blind?
Who links to forums where a hundred people all have their say, but none actually resolves the problem?Do Microsofties leave all that crud lying around the Internet to sap the will of the unwary Linux newbies?Date your documents.
Make it clear right up front which particular bit of software and which version your documentation refers to.
If you know full well that there is a separate rival project, name them and include a link.
Don't waste everyone's time trying to pretend that your project is the one and only, while you know full well that there is another project which does a better job.How many times do I have to read about ndiswrapper before I actually discover the name of the native Linux driver I need?If you are one of those responsible for this sorry state of play, shame on you.
You haven't helped anyone.
Your contribution is just the spanner in the works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30330896</id>
	<title>LInux Documentation</title>
	<author>BlueFigToast</author>
	<datestamp>1259931000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have used Linux for almost 4 years now - and the lack of adequate user documentation finally hit an end!

I created a site to help people with Linux, <a href="http://www.pkill-9.com/" title="pkill-9.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.pkill-9.com/</a> [pkill-9.com]

and I am active on the #ubuntu channel on freenode.

The best example I can think of is:  k9copy --

No documentation, not intuitive so hey, I run the windows dvd shrink under wine!  (works for me!)

Wayno</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have used Linux for almost 4 years now - and the lack of adequate user documentation finally hit an end !
I created a site to help people with Linux , http : //www.pkill-9.com/ [ pkill-9.com ] and I am active on the # ubuntu channel on freenode .
The best example I can think of is : k9copy -- No documentation , not intuitive so hey , I run the windows dvd shrink under wine !
( works for me !
) Wayno</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have used Linux for almost 4 years now - and the lack of adequate user documentation finally hit an end!
I created a site to help people with Linux, http://www.pkill-9.com/ [pkill-9.com]

and I am active on the #ubuntu channel on freenode.
The best example I can think of is:  k9copy --

No documentation, not intuitive so hey, I run the windows dvd shrink under wine!
(works for me!
)

Wayno</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310760</id>
	<title>oh please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259858400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe some comparison to windows' help files would apply to these people.<br> <br>
What I see in everyday use of computers is that the end user experience is primarily based on culture rather than some completeness of built-in assistance  system. <br>
Googling answers to common issues of the system is a just next step to asking some techie's advise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe some comparison to windows ' help files would apply to these people .
What I see in everyday use of computers is that the end user experience is primarily based on culture rather than some completeness of built-in assistance system .
Googling answers to common issues of the system is a just next step to asking some techie 's advise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe some comparison to windows' help files would apply to these people.
What I see in everyday use of computers is that the end user experience is primarily based on culture rather than some completeness of built-in assistance  system.
Googling answers to common issues of the system is a just next step to asking some techie's advise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313892</id>
	<title>Obv</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1259868780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>man tcp/ip repair

"Just Google it!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>man tcp/ip repair " Just Google it !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>man tcp/ip repair

"Just Google it!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312044</id>
	<title>Short answer: yes</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1259862480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm OK with computers in general and Windows in particular. I'd deeply like to be able to competently install and run Linux, and recommend to friends &amp; family, but so far I'm running into several issues:</p><p>1- Much documentation is required. Setup is less straightforward than Windows. Both because I know less, and because there are quite a few weird issues: VLC working badly until you configure video driver such and such, Wifi card support a bit iffy, some packages installing badly and screwing the whole system...</p><p>2- Documentation is hard to locate. Sometimes it's an official HOW-TO on Ubuntu's website, sometimes it's on the developper's site, sometimes it's a post in either forum, sometimes somechere else...</p><p>3- Documentation is not very up-to-date. Ubuntu releases every 6 months. Forum posts are usually not updated, Ubuntu, Dev's docs, and how-tos seem mostly 2 years old. You HAVE to do a Google search for docs since no single site is enough, and then there's much clicking and weeding out to do before finding, maybe, an answer for your question for your Linux version. Or you can try some older solution, which usually won't work, but might.</p><p>4- There's precious little documentation for the Linux newb. Or rather, there is for the absolute newb, but not for the Windows wiseman switching over to Linux. I'd like to quickly do in Linux what I'm doing in Windows, even though I barely understand Linux. Most somewhat-advanced packages' docs (the Remote Desktop Protocol thingy, rsync NTFS to ext3...) assume a good level of Linux knowledge. There's no "here's how you do that in linux" for the 10 most common tasks an advanced Windows user does (remote control, backups, moving data directories, setup mobile apps on usb dongles...).</p><p>5- The forums are not that great. I got a useful answer 50\% of the time. Sometimes I got flamed because the question had already been answered (which I mostly missed because of not using the right search terms), or the post was "old" and I wasn't sure it still applied, or I didn't understand / couldn't implement the answer... In the end, I got ashamed and discouraged, and no longer dared ask my stupid questions.</p><p>In the end, it took me about an afternoon to get VLC working. I never managed to get the RDP server working, nor the rsynch backup from my main PC. My 'experimental' Ubuntu PC is right now booting mainly in Windows, and I'm not calling the experiment a success. Although it did install faultlessly, in the end I'm not confident enough to make it my main machine, nor to recommend it to friends and family knowing I'll end up having to do support for them. And it's mostly a Documentation problem, I'm sure Linux I could do everything I want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm OK with computers in general and Windows in particular .
I 'd deeply like to be able to competently install and run Linux , and recommend to friends &amp; family , but so far I 'm running into several issues : 1- Much documentation is required .
Setup is less straightforward than Windows .
Both because I know less , and because there are quite a few weird issues : VLC working badly until you configure video driver such and such , Wifi card support a bit iffy , some packages installing badly and screwing the whole system...2- Documentation is hard to locate .
Sometimes it 's an official HOW-TO on Ubuntu 's website , sometimes it 's on the developper 's site , sometimes it 's a post in either forum , sometimes somechere else...3- Documentation is not very up-to-date .
Ubuntu releases every 6 months .
Forum posts are usually not updated , Ubuntu , Dev 's docs , and how-tos seem mostly 2 years old .
You HAVE to do a Google search for docs since no single site is enough , and then there 's much clicking and weeding out to do before finding , maybe , an answer for your question for your Linux version .
Or you can try some older solution , which usually wo n't work , but might.4- There 's precious little documentation for the Linux newb .
Or rather , there is for the absolute newb , but not for the Windows wiseman switching over to Linux .
I 'd like to quickly do in Linux what I 'm doing in Windows , even though I barely understand Linux .
Most somewhat-advanced packages ' docs ( the Remote Desktop Protocol thingy , rsync NTFS to ext3... ) assume a good level of Linux knowledge .
There 's no " here 's how you do that in linux " for the 10 most common tasks an advanced Windows user does ( remote control , backups , moving data directories , setup mobile apps on usb dongles... ) .5- The forums are not that great .
I got a useful answer 50 \ % of the time .
Sometimes I got flamed because the question had already been answered ( which I mostly missed because of not using the right search terms ) , or the post was " old " and I was n't sure it still applied , or I did n't understand / could n't implement the answer... In the end , I got ashamed and discouraged , and no longer dared ask my stupid questions.In the end , it took me about an afternoon to get VLC working .
I never managed to get the RDP server working , nor the rsynch backup from my main PC .
My 'experimental ' Ubuntu PC is right now booting mainly in Windows , and I 'm not calling the experiment a success .
Although it did install faultlessly , in the end I 'm not confident enough to make it my main machine , nor to recommend it to friends and family knowing I 'll end up having to do support for them .
And it 's mostly a Documentation problem , I 'm sure Linux I could do everything I want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm OK with computers in general and Windows in particular.
I'd deeply like to be able to competently install and run Linux, and recommend to friends &amp; family, but so far I'm running into several issues:1- Much documentation is required.
Setup is less straightforward than Windows.
Both because I know less, and because there are quite a few weird issues: VLC working badly until you configure video driver such and such, Wifi card support a bit iffy, some packages installing badly and screwing the whole system...2- Documentation is hard to locate.
Sometimes it's an official HOW-TO on Ubuntu's website, sometimes it's on the developper's site, sometimes it's a post in either forum, sometimes somechere else...3- Documentation is not very up-to-date.
Ubuntu releases every 6 months.
Forum posts are usually not updated, Ubuntu, Dev's docs, and how-tos seem mostly 2 years old.
You HAVE to do a Google search for docs since no single site is enough, and then there's much clicking and weeding out to do before finding, maybe, an answer for your question for your Linux version.
Or you can try some older solution, which usually won't work, but might.4- There's precious little documentation for the Linux newb.
Or rather, there is for the absolute newb, but not for the Windows wiseman switching over to Linux.
I'd like to quickly do in Linux what I'm doing in Windows, even though I barely understand Linux.
Most somewhat-advanced packages' docs (the Remote Desktop Protocol thingy, rsync NTFS to ext3...) assume a good level of Linux knowledge.
There's no "here's how you do that in linux" for the 10 most common tasks an advanced Windows user does (remote control, backups, moving data directories, setup mobile apps on usb dongles...).5- The forums are not that great.
I got a useful answer 50\% of the time.
Sometimes I got flamed because the question had already been answered (which I mostly missed because of not using the right search terms), or the post was "old" and I wasn't sure it still applied, or I didn't understand / couldn't implement the answer... In the end, I got ashamed and discouraged, and no longer dared ask my stupid questions.In the end, it took me about an afternoon to get VLC working.
I never managed to get the RDP server working, nor the rsynch backup from my main PC.
My 'experimental' Ubuntu PC is right now booting mainly in Windows, and I'm not calling the experiment a success.
Although it did install faultlessly, in the end I'm not confident enough to make it my main machine, nor to recommend it to friends and family knowing I'll end up having to do support for them.
And it's mostly a Documentation problem, I'm sure Linux I could do everything I want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312198</id>
	<title>Re:And good luck with Google, too</title>
	<author>miggyb</author>
	<datestamp>1259862960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The posts I find usually tell me to "just fucking Google it." It gets quite maddening when I get into a recursive loop like that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The posts I find usually tell me to " just fucking Google it .
" It gets quite maddening when I get into a recursive loop like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The posts I find usually tell me to "just fucking Google it.
" It gets quite maddening when I get into a recursive loop like that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310794</id>
	<title>Think in terms of \_subsystems\_, please!</title>
	<author>figmagee</author>
	<datestamp>1259858520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My biggest gripe is when a complex subsystem (e.g. audio in recent distros) lacks a "10,000ft perspective".  Sure, I can read about all the bits and pieces, but there's simply nothing that treats it as a \_system\_.  Fine to handwave about "this maps this to that", but for crying out loud how much effort does it take to draw a )(*^&amp;)^ block diagram showing the sense and direction of said mappings?

Another prime example:  KDE (and perhaps Gnome) initialization.  How about a step-by-step runthrough of how the various blocks are started, what starts them, where they all read configuration data from, etc, etc.  If this exists now, my apologies, but I spent a horrendous amount of time working out how a desktop session figures out the paths of its<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.kde and Desktop directories from square one.  It's \_almost\_ explained properly in several places, but until I wrote a script to dynamically modify ~/.config/user-dirs.dirs at KDE login it insisted on defaulting back to the "well known" directories for the initial phases.  Can I really be the only person who needs to keep their KDE desktops disjoint across host machines when using a common home directory?</htmltext>
<tokenext>My biggest gripe is when a complex subsystem ( e.g .
audio in recent distros ) lacks a " 10,000ft perspective " .
Sure , I can read about all the bits and pieces , but there 's simply nothing that treats it as a \ _system \ _ .
Fine to handwave about " this maps this to that " , but for crying out loud how much effort does it take to draw a ) ( * ^ &amp; ) ^ block diagram showing the sense and direction of said mappings ?
Another prime example : KDE ( and perhaps Gnome ) initialization .
How about a step-by-step runthrough of how the various blocks are started , what starts them , where they all read configuration data from , etc , etc .
If this exists now , my apologies , but I spent a horrendous amount of time working out how a desktop session figures out the paths of its .kde and Desktop directories from square one .
It 's \ _almost \ _ explained properly in several places , but until I wrote a script to dynamically modify ~ /.config/user-dirs.dirs at KDE login it insisted on defaulting back to the " well known " directories for the initial phases .
Can I really be the only person who needs to keep their KDE desktops disjoint across host machines when using a common home directory ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My biggest gripe is when a complex subsystem (e.g.
audio in recent distros) lacks a "10,000ft perspective".
Sure, I can read about all the bits and pieces, but there's simply nothing that treats it as a \_system\_.
Fine to handwave about "this maps this to that", but for crying out loud how much effort does it take to draw a )(*^&amp;)^ block diagram showing the sense and direction of said mappings?
Another prime example:  KDE (and perhaps Gnome) initialization.
How about a step-by-step runthrough of how the various blocks are started, what starts them, where they all read configuration data from, etc, etc.
If this exists now, my apologies, but I spent a horrendous amount of time working out how a desktop session figures out the paths of its .kde and Desktop directories from square one.
It's \_almost\_ explained properly in several places, but until I wrote a script to dynamically modify ~/.config/user-dirs.dirs at KDE login it insisted on defaulting back to the "well known" directories for the initial phases.
Can I really be the only person who needs to keep their KDE desktops disjoint across host machines when using a common home directory?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310746</id>
	<title>Silly Goose, Google is the "documentation"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259858340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Google doesn't know, it is un-knowable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Google does n't know , it is un-knowable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Google doesn't know, it is un-knowable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310678</id>
	<title>Well, No Shit</title>
	<author>bsDaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1259858100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's because its really difficult to determine what's "Linux" when you're talking about Linux.  What works on RHEL/CentOS won't necessarily work exactly the same on Fedora, and will probably be way different than on a Debian box.<br><br>Contrast this, however, to one of the BSDs, say FreeBSD, which I am the most familiar with.  Let us take a look here:  http://www.freebsd.org/docs.html.  All of these documents ship with the OS, so if you don't have a network connection (for instance, you need the docs to help you set it up), then you have them there as well.  The FreeBSD Handbook covers everything from installation to configuring BGP.<br><br>There is a separate Developer's Handbook (which even contains a primer on x86 asm), a Porter's Handbook, etc.  The docs that ship with the OS include even The Design and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating System, which is somewhat dated at this time, but still a great help in theory.<br><br>Then, of course, there are the man pages that everyone always mentions, which are awesome, but don't really help make the point I'm putting forward.  Of course, the fact that FreeBSD can ship such thorough documentation is because FreeBSD is FreeBSD anywhere, where "Linux" is not.  So, perhaps the problem isn't with "Linux," but with certain distributions not taking documentation seriously enough for the various common tasks and interfaces.<br><br>What I'm really getting at is, I should not have to Google around for random blogs and wikis to find out how to do a common task that I may be getting to for the first time, hope that I can find an answer, and that the source can be trusted.  Any of the distributions which have any sort of commercial or foundation backing at all, really should just bite the bullet and hire on a few technical writers to actually make proper documentation, and then keep it up-to-date.  Hell, even Microsoft updates their online help files, and most tasks in Windows are straight forward enough that only 4th grades and 60 year olds need to ask about it.<br><br>Relying on GUI config tools, DHCP, and other magic to keep "newbies" from needing to actually learn anything is counter-productive and isn't going to help create new professionals.  "RTFM" shouldn't be a put down or a dirty word, but TFM needs to actually contain TFInformation.  Is that really so much to provide?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because its really difficult to determine what 's " Linux " when you 're talking about Linux .
What works on RHEL/CentOS wo n't necessarily work exactly the same on Fedora , and will probably be way different than on a Debian box.Contrast this , however , to one of the BSDs , say FreeBSD , which I am the most familiar with .
Let us take a look here : http : //www.freebsd.org/docs.html .
All of these documents ship with the OS , so if you do n't have a network connection ( for instance , you need the docs to help you set it up ) , then you have them there as well .
The FreeBSD Handbook covers everything from installation to configuring BGP.There is a separate Developer 's Handbook ( which even contains a primer on x86 asm ) , a Porter 's Handbook , etc .
The docs that ship with the OS include even The Design and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating System , which is somewhat dated at this time , but still a great help in theory.Then , of course , there are the man pages that everyone always mentions , which are awesome , but do n't really help make the point I 'm putting forward .
Of course , the fact that FreeBSD can ship such thorough documentation is because FreeBSD is FreeBSD anywhere , where " Linux " is not .
So , perhaps the problem is n't with " Linux , " but with certain distributions not taking documentation seriously enough for the various common tasks and interfaces.What I 'm really getting at is , I should not have to Google around for random blogs and wikis to find out how to do a common task that I may be getting to for the first time , hope that I can find an answer , and that the source can be trusted .
Any of the distributions which have any sort of commercial or foundation backing at all , really should just bite the bullet and hire on a few technical writers to actually make proper documentation , and then keep it up-to-date .
Hell , even Microsoft updates their online help files , and most tasks in Windows are straight forward enough that only 4th grades and 60 year olds need to ask about it.Relying on GUI config tools , DHCP , and other magic to keep " newbies " from needing to actually learn anything is counter-productive and is n't going to help create new professionals .
" RTFM " should n't be a put down or a dirty word , but TFM needs to actually contain TFInformation .
Is that really so much to provide ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because its really difficult to determine what's "Linux" when you're talking about Linux.
What works on RHEL/CentOS won't necessarily work exactly the same on Fedora, and will probably be way different than on a Debian box.Contrast this, however, to one of the BSDs, say FreeBSD, which I am the most familiar with.
Let us take a look here:  http://www.freebsd.org/docs.html.
All of these documents ship with the OS, so if you don't have a network connection (for instance, you need the docs to help you set it up), then you have them there as well.
The FreeBSD Handbook covers everything from installation to configuring BGP.There is a separate Developer's Handbook (which even contains a primer on x86 asm), a Porter's Handbook, etc.
The docs that ship with the OS include even The Design and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating System, which is somewhat dated at this time, but still a great help in theory.Then, of course, there are the man pages that everyone always mentions, which are awesome, but don't really help make the point I'm putting forward.
Of course, the fact that FreeBSD can ship such thorough documentation is because FreeBSD is FreeBSD anywhere, where "Linux" is not.
So, perhaps the problem isn't with "Linux," but with certain distributions not taking documentation seriously enough for the various common tasks and interfaces.What I'm really getting at is, I should not have to Google around for random blogs and wikis to find out how to do a common task that I may be getting to for the first time, hope that I can find an answer, and that the source can be trusted.
Any of the distributions which have any sort of commercial or foundation backing at all, really should just bite the bullet and hire on a few technical writers to actually make proper documentation, and then keep it up-to-date.
Hell, even Microsoft updates their online help files, and most tasks in Windows are straight forward enough that only 4th grades and 60 year olds need to ask about it.Relying on GUI config tools, DHCP, and other magic to keep "newbies" from needing to actually learn anything is counter-productive and isn't going to help create new professionals.
"RTFM" shouldn't be a put down or a dirty word, but TFM needs to actually contain TFInformation.
Is that really so much to provide?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311990</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>Simulant</author>
	<datestamp>1259862360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not only that, the man page rarely has useful examples, one of the biggest problems.</p></div><p>
Hear, hear.. more and useful examples would go a very long way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that , the man page rarely has useful examples , one of the biggest problems .
Hear , hear.. more and useful examples would go a very long way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that, the man page rarely has useful examples, one of the biggest problems.
Hear, hear.. more and useful examples would go a very long way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311356</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1259860500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I bet "+3 Insightful" was not what you had in mind when you wrote that comment, but good ol' Slashdot moderators!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet " + 3 Insightful " was not what you had in mind when you wrote that comment , but good ol ' Slashdot moderators !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet "+3 Insightful" was not what you had in mind when you wrote that comment, but good ol' Slashdot moderators!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310882</id>
	<title>Well these people are what are missing!</title>
	<author>cybereal</author>
	<datestamp>1259858820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The open source community is essentially a huge collaborative composition of people with various skills and interests that drive the results in a direction that is essentially a function of all those participants.</p><p>So, if you are some clever blogger who points out that the documentation is lacking for a certain group of people then the reason for it is obvious.  None of the active participating components are people who care about the type of documentation.</p><p>The fundamental problem with this style of production is that only the manufacturers will be consistently pleased with the results.  Today many people are interested in the software but unable or just unwilling to participate in its creation.  That includes documentation of course.  So until they are able to participate somehow, their interests will rarely, if ever, be represented.</p><p>In a way this is where commercial entities could really benefit this system.  A commercial entity has interests beyond their own.  In fact, in most cases their interests for the production are entirely outside their personal interests.  A commercial entity that wants to rely on, say, KMail for their mail client in some one-off OS based on Linux may have a customer-base that is largely non-technical.  Perhaps they are selling network kiosks to elderly or something.  They will be particularly interested in proper documentation or help systems that appeal to those highly uninitiated.</p><p>But what happens with those actual real commercial entities with real needs for these types of missing components?  It seems that they have a tendency to branch and the work they do that would benefit the average consumer of this software never ends up back in the main lines.  Maybe because the mainline maintainers don't care, don't like it, or maybe because of licensing issues or perhaps... perhaps nobody gave it any thought yet.</p><p>At any rate, it still boils down to the same thing.  The a classic "OSS" community developed project will generally only have features that are desired by the contributors.  If you're lucky you'll have some contributors that seek to look out for others' interests but that seems to be incredibly rare in this subculture.</p><p>If maintainers of software cited for lacking this kind of documentation care about this issue, they should be proactive about it.  There is an entire class of concerns that will rarely be raised by the sort of person able and willing to contribute to an OSS project.  These concerns include aspects of UI design that benefit less technically savvy individuals and, of course, user friendly documentation.  If the maintainers want to excel in the production of their software they need to reach out for these types of features.  Find people who can provide the materials but don't know or want to know the processes involved in making the contributions themselves.  Find commercial entities that have already done the work and try to integrate what they produce, or ask them to do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The open source community is essentially a huge collaborative composition of people with various skills and interests that drive the results in a direction that is essentially a function of all those participants.So , if you are some clever blogger who points out that the documentation is lacking for a certain group of people then the reason for it is obvious .
None of the active participating components are people who care about the type of documentation.The fundamental problem with this style of production is that only the manufacturers will be consistently pleased with the results .
Today many people are interested in the software but unable or just unwilling to participate in its creation .
That includes documentation of course .
So until they are able to participate somehow , their interests will rarely , if ever , be represented.In a way this is where commercial entities could really benefit this system .
A commercial entity has interests beyond their own .
In fact , in most cases their interests for the production are entirely outside their personal interests .
A commercial entity that wants to rely on , say , KMail for their mail client in some one-off OS based on Linux may have a customer-base that is largely non-technical .
Perhaps they are selling network kiosks to elderly or something .
They will be particularly interested in proper documentation or help systems that appeal to those highly uninitiated.But what happens with those actual real commercial entities with real needs for these types of missing components ?
It seems that they have a tendency to branch and the work they do that would benefit the average consumer of this software never ends up back in the main lines .
Maybe because the mainline maintainers do n't care , do n't like it , or maybe because of licensing issues or perhaps... perhaps nobody gave it any thought yet.At any rate , it still boils down to the same thing .
The a classic " OSS " community developed project will generally only have features that are desired by the contributors .
If you 're lucky you 'll have some contributors that seek to look out for others ' interests but that seems to be incredibly rare in this subculture.If maintainers of software cited for lacking this kind of documentation care about this issue , they should be proactive about it .
There is an entire class of concerns that will rarely be raised by the sort of person able and willing to contribute to an OSS project .
These concerns include aspects of UI design that benefit less technically savvy individuals and , of course , user friendly documentation .
If the maintainers want to excel in the production of their software they need to reach out for these types of features .
Find people who can provide the materials but do n't know or want to know the processes involved in making the contributions themselves .
Find commercial entities that have already done the work and try to integrate what they produce , or ask them to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The open source community is essentially a huge collaborative composition of people with various skills and interests that drive the results in a direction that is essentially a function of all those participants.So, if you are some clever blogger who points out that the documentation is lacking for a certain group of people then the reason for it is obvious.
None of the active participating components are people who care about the type of documentation.The fundamental problem with this style of production is that only the manufacturers will be consistently pleased with the results.
Today many people are interested in the software but unable or just unwilling to participate in its creation.
That includes documentation of course.
So until they are able to participate somehow, their interests will rarely, if ever, be represented.In a way this is where commercial entities could really benefit this system.
A commercial entity has interests beyond their own.
In fact, in most cases their interests for the production are entirely outside their personal interests.
A commercial entity that wants to rely on, say, KMail for their mail client in some one-off OS based on Linux may have a customer-base that is largely non-technical.
Perhaps they are selling network kiosks to elderly or something.
They will be particularly interested in proper documentation or help systems that appeal to those highly uninitiated.But what happens with those actual real commercial entities with real needs for these types of missing components?
It seems that they have a tendency to branch and the work they do that would benefit the average consumer of this software never ends up back in the main lines.
Maybe because the mainline maintainers don't care, don't like it, or maybe because of licensing issues or perhaps... perhaps nobody gave it any thought yet.At any rate, it still boils down to the same thing.
The a classic "OSS" community developed project will generally only have features that are desired by the contributors.
If you're lucky you'll have some contributors that seek to look out for others' interests but that seems to be incredibly rare in this subculture.If maintainers of software cited for lacking this kind of documentation care about this issue, they should be proactive about it.
There is an entire class of concerns that will rarely be raised by the sort of person able and willing to contribute to an OSS project.
These concerns include aspects of UI design that benefit less technically savvy individuals and, of course, user friendly documentation.
If the maintainers want to excel in the production of their software they need to reach out for these types of features.
Find people who can provide the materials but don't know or want to know the processes involved in making the contributions themselves.
Find commercial entities that have already done the work and try to integrate what they produce, or ask them to do it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311444</id>
	<title>Re:Documentation is very lacking</title>
	<author>value\_added</author>
	<datestamp>1259860800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Trying to FIND the command to do something is nearly impossible. </i></p><p>Typing 'man -k somecommand' is impossible?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trying to FIND the command to do something is nearly impossible .
Typing 'man -k somecommand ' is impossible ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trying to FIND the command to do something is nearly impossible.
Typing 'man -k somecommand' is impossible?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480</id>
	<title>Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259857320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is one of the key reasons Linux is not mainstream for users (not us geeks but real users).  The user does not want to learn how to do anything more on his computer than get is work done or enjoy the entertainment.   User level documentation simple does not exist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one of the key reasons Linux is not mainstream for users ( not us geeks but real users ) .
The user does not want to learn how to do anything more on his computer than get is work done or enjoy the entertainment .
User level documentation simple does not exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one of the key reasons Linux is not mainstream for users (not us geeks but real users).
The user does not want to learn how to do anything more on his computer than get is work done or enjoy the entertainment.
User level documentation simple does not exist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314098</id>
	<title>Saying Linux has bad documentation is like saying.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259869620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Saying Linux has bad documentation is like saying Windows can be unstable or unsecure at times. In both cases it is the nature of the beast. I've played with both OS's for quite a while now (Windows since 1992, Linux since 1998) and they both seemed to be stuck to be what they are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Saying Linux has bad documentation is like saying Windows can be unstable or unsecure at times .
In both cases it is the nature of the beast .
I 've played with both OS 's for quite a while now ( Windows since 1992 , Linux since 1998 ) and they both seemed to be stuck to be what they are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saying Linux has bad documentation is like saying Windows can be unstable or unsecure at times.
In both cases it is the nature of the beast.
I've played with both OS's for quite a while now (Windows since 1992, Linux since 1998) and they both seemed to be stuck to be what they are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311934</id>
	<title>Hell yeah....</title>
	<author>Simulant</author>
	<datestamp>1259862180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> I suggest more real world examples in the man pages.   I frequently find myself trying do tasks that I think would be relatively simple and common, only to to find the examples lacking and having to wade through and decipher dozens of obscure and poorly explained switches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suggest more real world examples in the man pages .
I frequently find myself trying do tasks that I think would be relatively simple and common , only to to find the examples lacking and having to wade through and decipher dozens of obscure and poorly explained switches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I suggest more real world examples in the man pages.
I frequently find myself trying do tasks that I think would be relatively simple and common, only to to find the examples lacking and having to wade through and decipher dozens of obscure and poorly explained switches.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311348</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>MooPi</author>
	<datestamp>1259860500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find using man entertaining. Blindly typing in commands found in a man page to fit a useful result is so much fun. You should see some of my early attempts at encoding video using mencoder. Or there was the time I bricked my sound system working after pulse audio fubar'd. Good times, good times.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find using man entertaining .
Blindly typing in commands found in a man page to fit a useful result is so much fun .
You should see some of my early attempts at encoding video using mencoder .
Or there was the time I bricked my sound system working after pulse audio fubar 'd .
Good times , good times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find using man entertaining.
Blindly typing in commands found in a man page to fit a useful result is so much fun.
You should see some of my early attempts at encoding video using mencoder.
Or there was the time I bricked my sound system working after pulse audio fubar'd.
Good times, good times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311398</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259860680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The important things to have in mainstream-user documentation are, in this order:</p><p>1. Have a UI that allows users to see everything that they can possibly do with the program</p><p>2. Have on-hover tooltips that explain what everything does if it is not immediately clear</p><p>3. Have few inconsistencies between how this program works and other programs work</p><p>4. Have searchable, readable documents that wholly explain the program.</p><p>For command-line programs, you don't get hover tooltips so users need --help, usage(), and man pages that explain what the program does, and the programs should run without side effects if the user decides to run them to see what they do.</p><p>Good example:<br>~user$ xyzzy<br>xyzzy [filename] -- frobnicate a file.<br>~user$</p><p>Bad example:<br>~user$ xyzzy</p><p>[hangs on input]</p><p>Worse example:<br>~user$ xyzzy<br>~user$ ls ~<br>~user$</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The important things to have in mainstream-user documentation are , in this order : 1 .
Have a UI that allows users to see everything that they can possibly do with the program2 .
Have on-hover tooltips that explain what everything does if it is not immediately clear3 .
Have few inconsistencies between how this program works and other programs work4 .
Have searchable , readable documents that wholly explain the program.For command-line programs , you do n't get hover tooltips so users need --help , usage ( ) , and man pages that explain what the program does , and the programs should run without side effects if the user decides to run them to see what they do.Good example : ~ user $ xyzzyxyzzy [ filename ] -- frobnicate a file. ~ user $ Bad example : ~ user $ xyzzy [ hangs on input ] Worse example : ~ user $ xyzzy ~ user $ ls ~ ~ user $</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The important things to have in mainstream-user documentation are, in this order:1.
Have a UI that allows users to see everything that they can possibly do with the program2.
Have on-hover tooltips that explain what everything does if it is not immediately clear3.
Have few inconsistencies between how this program works and other programs work4.
Have searchable, readable documents that wholly explain the program.For command-line programs, you don't get hover tooltips so users need --help, usage(), and man pages that explain what the program does, and the programs should run without side effects if the user decides to run them to see what they do.Good example:~user$ xyzzyxyzzy [filename] -- frobnicate a file.~user$Bad example:~user$ xyzzy[hangs on input]Worse example:~user$ xyzzy~user$ ls ~~user$</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311000</id>
	<title>open source community shortsighted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259859300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems to me that this is the biggest avenue of attack that the open source community could make against proprietary software, as improving the docs would most certainly up the number of users. Problem is that the open source developers often have a knee-jerk reflex of candidly dismissing all criticism of new users on their software, especially when it comes to "user-friendly" issues. However, if they would just swallow their pride for a moment and take a lesson or two from the proprietary folks, they could really make a much bigger dent in the computer world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me that this is the biggest avenue of attack that the open source community could make against proprietary software , as improving the docs would most certainly up the number of users .
Problem is that the open source developers often have a knee-jerk reflex of candidly dismissing all criticism of new users on their software , especially when it comes to " user-friendly " issues .
However , if they would just swallow their pride for a moment and take a lesson or two from the proprietary folks , they could really make a much bigger dent in the computer world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me that this is the biggest avenue of attack that the open source community could make against proprietary software, as improving the docs would most certainly up the number of users.
Problem is that the open source developers often have a knee-jerk reflex of candidly dismissing all criticism of new users on their software, especially when it comes to "user-friendly" issues.
However, if they would just swallow their pride for a moment and take a lesson or two from the proprietary folks, they could really make a much bigger dent in the computer world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313364</id>
	<title>Re:And good luck with Google, too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259866920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, there's almost always *one*  answer that pops up on Google, and it's almost always on one of those infuriating Experts Exchange pages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , there 's almost always * one * answer that pops up on Google , and it 's almost always on one of those infuriating Experts Exchange pages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, there's almost always *one*  answer that pops up on Google, and it's almost always on one of those infuriating Experts Exchange pages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312346</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259863380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One other big problem with using the web as your documentation is that there's no real way to handle retiring outdated information.</p><p>Try to set up a Samba network share, or a firewall.</p><p>There are at least three versions of each of these things (ipfw, iptables etc.) and only ONE set of instructions applies to your version.</p><p>But which?  Who knows!  All you have is a forum post saying how someone fixed it once upon a time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One other big problem with using the web as your documentation is that there 's no real way to handle retiring outdated information.Try to set up a Samba network share , or a firewall.There are at least three versions of each of these things ( ipfw , iptables etc .
) and only ONE set of instructions applies to your version.But which ?
Who knows !
All you have is a forum post saying how someone fixed it once upon a time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One other big problem with using the web as your documentation is that there's no real way to handle retiring outdated information.Try to set up a Samba network share, or a firewall.There are at least three versions of each of these things (ipfw, iptables etc.
) and only ONE set of instructions applies to your version.But which?
Who knows!
All you have is a forum post saying how someone fixed it once upon a time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314048</id>
	<title>What if...</title>
	<author>forceofyoda</author>
	<datestamp>1259869500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if the thing you need help with is installing drivers for your NIC?  You can't access Google 'cause you don't got no internet!<br> <br>

I ran into this long ago when I tried installing Linux on my laptop.  I was dual-booted and it was my only PC, so I had to reboot to windows, search the webs, reboot to Linux, try something, reboot to Windows, etc.  A real pain in the arse.<br> <br>

Of course that was a long time ago and in think default drivers have gotten a lot better since then, but man those were tough times!</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if the thing you need help with is installing drivers for your NIC ?
You ca n't access Google 'cause you do n't got no internet !
I ran into this long ago when I tried installing Linux on my laptop .
I was dual-booted and it was my only PC , so I had to reboot to windows , search the webs , reboot to Linux , try something , reboot to Windows , etc .
A real pain in the arse .
Of course that was a long time ago and in think default drivers have gotten a lot better since then , but man those were tough times !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if the thing you need help with is installing drivers for your NIC?
You can't access Google 'cause you don't got no internet!
I ran into this long ago when I tried installing Linux on my laptop.
I was dual-booted and it was my only PC, so I had to reboot to windows, search the webs, reboot to Linux, try something, reboot to Windows, etc.
A real pain in the arse.
Of course that was a long time ago and in think default drivers have gotten a lot better since then, but man those were tough times!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311602</id>
	<title>Re:CMD.exe /? vs Linux Man pages</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259861280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hear, hear. Microsoft had an easy-to-use hypertext help system with excellent documentation back in DOS 6. I've been waiting for over a decade for Linux to catch up with help.com, and it hasn't yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hear , hear .
Microsoft had an easy-to-use hypertext help system with excellent documentation back in DOS 6 .
I 've been waiting for over a decade for Linux to catch up with help.com , and it has n't yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hear, hear.
Microsoft had an easy-to-use hypertext help system with excellent documentation back in DOS 6.
I've been waiting for over a decade for Linux to catch up with help.com, and it hasn't yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311306</id>
	<title>Re:Does Linux have poor documentation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259860320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does the pope shit in his hat?</p></div><p>No, no no, it's:</p><p>"Do bears shit in the woods?" and "is the Pope a Nazi?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the pope shit in his hat ? No , no no , it 's : " Do bears shit in the woods ?
" and " is the Pope a Nazi ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the pope shit in his hat?No, no no, it's:"Do bears shit in the woods?
" and "is the Pope a Nazi?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311330</id>
	<title>Re:Google can be more specific</title>
	<author>wizztick</author>
	<datestamp>1259860440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess that would not be to hard for any person willing to read the manual page of find. This manual page is very helpful in using this particular problem as an example:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>To  ignore a whole directory tree, use -prune rather<br>than checking every file in the tree.  For example, to skip the<br>directory  'src/emacs'  and all files and directories under it,<br>and print the names of the other files found, do something like<br>this:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; find . -path './src/emacs' -prune -o -print</p> </div><p>There is lots to say about documentation on Linux, but the find manual page is not a good example.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess that would not be to hard for any person willing to read the manual page of find .
This manual page is very helpful in using this particular problem as an example : To ignore a whole directory tree , use -prune ratherthan checking every file in the tree .
For example , to skip thedirectory 'src/emacs ' and all files and directories under it,and print the names of the other files found , do something likethis :                                       find .
-path './src/emacs ' -prune -o -print There is lots to say about documentation on Linux , but the find manual page is not a good example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess that would not be to hard for any person willing to read the manual page of find.
This manual page is very helpful in using this particular problem as an example:To  ignore a whole directory tree, use -prune ratherthan checking every file in the tree.
For example, to skip thedirectory  'src/emacs'  and all files and directories under it,and print the names of the other files found, do something likethis:
                                      find .
-path './src/emacs' -prune -o -print There is lots to say about documentation on Linux, but the find manual page is not a good example.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313524</id>
	<title>It's a real pain</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1259867520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The current state of the documentation for most typical Linux packages are:</p><p>Man pages: Out of date, and refer yout to the info pages for more recent information.<br>Info pages: Starts with copyright, then covers everything you don't need to know.Doesn't cover anything beyond the man pages, even though you were refered here. Usually just an exact copy of the man pages, spread over several pages.<br>Tex pages: The same as the info pages, just paged differently.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/share/doc: Copyright information. Exact same information for every package, but exists seperately for all of them.<br>HTML info: Either copies of man pages or info pages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The current state of the documentation for most typical Linux packages are : Man pages : Out of date , and refer yout to the info pages for more recent information.Info pages : Starts with copyright , then covers everything you do n't need to know.Does n't cover anything beyond the man pages , even though you were refered here .
Usually just an exact copy of the man pages , spread over several pages.Tex pages : The same as the info pages , just paged differently .
/usr/share/doc : Copyright information .
Exact same information for every package , but exists seperately for all of them.HTML info : Either copies of man pages or info pages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The current state of the documentation for most typical Linux packages are:Man pages: Out of date, and refer yout to the info pages for more recent information.Info pages: Starts with copyright, then covers everything you don't need to know.Doesn't cover anything beyond the man pages, even though you were refered here.
Usually just an exact copy of the man pages, spread over several pages.Tex pages: The same as the info pages, just paged differently.
/usr/share/doc: Copyright information.
Exact same information for every package, but exists seperately for all of them.HTML info: Either copies of man pages or info pages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30316376</id>
	<title>Re:Yes it is terrible!</title>
	<author>rantingkitten</author>
	<datestamp>1259835660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What?  Windows is mainstream and the documentation for that sucks too.  Where is the easy-to-use documentation on how to do basic things in Windows?  I've never seen any aside from maybe the "Windows for Dummies" stuff, but that's not really documentation.  The Windows "help"?  Please, those things make manpages look clear and straightforward.<br>
<br>
Most people don't really need documentation, especially not in these days of desktop-friendly distros.  In Windows people just click icons and menus.  Well, that's how it works in, say, Ubuntu as well.  A user doesn't need a terminal any more than they need the cmd shell in Windows.  Not much documentation is required for point-and-click and users don't really have to learn anything they don't already know.<br>
<br>
When it comes to applications, documentation is different, but that's not a Linux problem, and perhaps not even a distro problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
Windows is mainstream and the documentation for that sucks too .
Where is the easy-to-use documentation on how to do basic things in Windows ?
I 've never seen any aside from maybe the " Windows for Dummies " stuff , but that 's not really documentation .
The Windows " help " ?
Please , those things make manpages look clear and straightforward .
Most people do n't really need documentation , especially not in these days of desktop-friendly distros .
In Windows people just click icons and menus .
Well , that 's how it works in , say , Ubuntu as well .
A user does n't need a terminal any more than they need the cmd shell in Windows .
Not much documentation is required for point-and-click and users do n't really have to learn anything they do n't already know .
When it comes to applications , documentation is different , but that 's not a Linux problem , and perhaps not even a distro problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
Windows is mainstream and the documentation for that sucks too.
Where is the easy-to-use documentation on how to do basic things in Windows?
I've never seen any aside from maybe the "Windows for Dummies" stuff, but that's not really documentation.
The Windows "help"?
Please, those things make manpages look clear and straightforward.
Most people don't really need documentation, especially not in these days of desktop-friendly distros.
In Windows people just click icons and menus.
Well, that's how it works in, say, Ubuntu as well.
A user doesn't need a terminal any more than they need the cmd shell in Windows.
Not much documentation is required for point-and-click and users don't really have to learn anything they don't already know.
When it comes to applications, documentation is different, but that's not a Linux problem, and perhaps not even a distro problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311832</id>
	<title>GIMP Problem All Over Again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259861880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the interminable flame wars when GIMP stories run is "If it just had feature XYZ... then I'd switch."  Or, the flamebait, "GIMP isn't as good as Photoshop, therefore I'll never use it."</p><p>In this case, "If only a Linux distro had more XYZ... then I'd switch."  People are stubborn.  They will either switch and deal with the learning curve (warts and all) or they won't and they'll start flamebait threads like, "Docs suck..."</p><p>Like the GIMP, when some Photoshop feature makes it into the application, (ex. color management) the "If it just had feature XYZ..." comments don't decline and the new users don't come flooding in.  Bottom line, there's no amount of documentation that would end the "Docs suck" post.</p><p>Do some specific applications need better documentation?  Sure, but that's not a Linux-specific problem.  Overall, it's a very well documented OS.</p><p>I don't know if anyone has mentioned the Gentoo pages, but those are pure gold when I don't know where to start.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the interminable flame wars when GIMP stories run is " If it just had feature XYZ... then I 'd switch .
" Or , the flamebait , " GIMP is n't as good as Photoshop , therefore I 'll never use it .
" In this case , " If only a Linux distro had more XYZ... then I 'd switch .
" People are stubborn .
They will either switch and deal with the learning curve ( warts and all ) or they wo n't and they 'll start flamebait threads like , " Docs suck... " Like the GIMP , when some Photoshop feature makes it into the application , ( ex .
color management ) the " If it just had feature XYZ... " comments do n't decline and the new users do n't come flooding in .
Bottom line , there 's no amount of documentation that would end the " Docs suck " post.Do some specific applications need better documentation ?
Sure , but that 's not a Linux-specific problem .
Overall , it 's a very well documented OS.I do n't know if anyone has mentioned the Gentoo pages , but those are pure gold when I do n't know where to start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the interminable flame wars when GIMP stories run is "If it just had feature XYZ... then I'd switch.
"  Or, the flamebait, "GIMP isn't as good as Photoshop, therefore I'll never use it.
"In this case, "If only a Linux distro had more XYZ... then I'd switch.
"  People are stubborn.
They will either switch and deal with the learning curve (warts and all) or they won't and they'll start flamebait threads like, "Docs suck..."Like the GIMP, when some Photoshop feature makes it into the application, (ex.
color management) the "If it just had feature XYZ..." comments don't decline and the new users don't come flooding in.
Bottom line, there's no amount of documentation that would end the "Docs suck" post.Do some specific applications need better documentation?
Sure, but that's not a Linux-specific problem.
Overall, it's a very well documented OS.I don't know if anyone has mentioned the Gentoo pages, but those are pure gold when I don't know where to start.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30316516</id>
	<title>Is Windows any better?  What's wrong with Google?</title>
	<author>SleepingWaterBear</author>
	<datestamp>1259836020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, so I'll be the first to agree that Linux documentation is on the whole terrible.  You can get some documentation with man, but unless you're pretty comfortable with a command line, the documentation is likely to be completely useless to the average user (I remember when I first started using Linux that figuring out how to make sense of man pages was often more challenging than just guessing how to do things).  The contextual help in Ubuntu is slightly more readable, but usually useless when there's any available at all.</p><p>That said, is Windows documentation any better?  I haven't really used Windows in a couple years now, but from what I recall, opening up one of the help files to figure out how to get something done was completely useless.  I have generally found that I'm much more able to figure out how the program works by fiddling than by reading help pages.  Less technical users (like my parents) generally can't figure out how to do things, it's true, but they also are completely incapable of finding the relevant help page - I suspect that the skills are related.  I suppose what I'm trying to say is that for most end user applications documentation is pretty well irrelevant, and the real question is how intuitive the interface is.  On this front I think that Windows and Linux are pretty well tied at this point, both lagging a ways behind the top to bottom uniformity you get from Mac OS.
</p><p>Finally, is there really any problem with using Google as your documentation?  I think that Google is the best sort available documentation on all the major OSes, and I'm not really sure I see the problem the summary is claiming exists.  So, in summary, poor documentation isn't a linux problem, and I'm not even really sure it's a problem at all.  This seems like a lot of fuss over nothing to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , so I 'll be the first to agree that Linux documentation is on the whole terrible .
You can get some documentation with man , but unless you 're pretty comfortable with a command line , the documentation is likely to be completely useless to the average user ( I remember when I first started using Linux that figuring out how to make sense of man pages was often more challenging than just guessing how to do things ) .
The contextual help in Ubuntu is slightly more readable , but usually useless when there 's any available at all.That said , is Windows documentation any better ?
I have n't really used Windows in a couple years now , but from what I recall , opening up one of the help files to figure out how to get something done was completely useless .
I have generally found that I 'm much more able to figure out how the program works by fiddling than by reading help pages .
Less technical users ( like my parents ) generally ca n't figure out how to do things , it 's true , but they also are completely incapable of finding the relevant help page - I suspect that the skills are related .
I suppose what I 'm trying to say is that for most end user applications documentation is pretty well irrelevant , and the real question is how intuitive the interface is .
On this front I think that Windows and Linux are pretty well tied at this point , both lagging a ways behind the top to bottom uniformity you get from Mac OS .
Finally , is there really any problem with using Google as your documentation ?
I think that Google is the best sort available documentation on all the major OSes , and I 'm not really sure I see the problem the summary is claiming exists .
So , in summary , poor documentation is n't a linux problem , and I 'm not even really sure it 's a problem at all .
This seems like a lot of fuss over nothing to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, so I'll be the first to agree that Linux documentation is on the whole terrible.
You can get some documentation with man, but unless you're pretty comfortable with a command line, the documentation is likely to be completely useless to the average user (I remember when I first started using Linux that figuring out how to make sense of man pages was often more challenging than just guessing how to do things).
The contextual help in Ubuntu is slightly more readable, but usually useless when there's any available at all.That said, is Windows documentation any better?
I haven't really used Windows in a couple years now, but from what I recall, opening up one of the help files to figure out how to get something done was completely useless.
I have generally found that I'm much more able to figure out how the program works by fiddling than by reading help pages.
Less technical users (like my parents) generally can't figure out how to do things, it's true, but they also are completely incapable of finding the relevant help page - I suspect that the skills are related.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that for most end user applications documentation is pretty well irrelevant, and the real question is how intuitive the interface is.
On this front I think that Windows and Linux are pretty well tied at this point, both lagging a ways behind the top to bottom uniformity you get from Mac OS.
Finally, is there really any problem with using Google as your documentation?
I think that Google is the best sort available documentation on all the major OSes, and I'm not really sure I see the problem the summary is claiming exists.
So, in summary, poor documentation isn't a linux problem, and I'm not even really sure it's a problem at all.
This seems like a lot of fuss over nothing to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310900</id>
	<title>Is Linux Documentation Lacking?</title>
	<author>odin84gk</author>
	<datestamp>1259858880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>JFGI</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>JFGI</tokentext>
<sentencetext>JFGI</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30315490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_140</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_128</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30315420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30316362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_131</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30318312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30368876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_130</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30321038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30319270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30315702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30315406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_136</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_138</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30319990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30321016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30324754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30315430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_135</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_134</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30328758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_141</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30322368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30318064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30342316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30320988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30316376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_133</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30315866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30320006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30319292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30322352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30319430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30315144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30320960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30319424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30315630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30316998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30318440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30324772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30322376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30318932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30316698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30318414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30343188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_137</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30321684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_139</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30317554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_129</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_132</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30318192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30334094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30319970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30322450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30316096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1449211_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1449211.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1449211.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1449211.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30321016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30322352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1449211.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1449211.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310562
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1449211.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314892
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1449211.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30318312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1449211.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30316096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1449211.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1449211.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30315420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310982
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312184
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30318064
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310850
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30315430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1449211.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30343188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30316698
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1449211.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30315866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30322368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30318932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30334094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30320960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312802
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1449211.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310884
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1449211.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30322376
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1449211.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1449211.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1449211.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1449211.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310592
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30320988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30319990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310654
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30316998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310766
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311164
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311122
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312968
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30324772
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310698
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313922
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30318192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30318440
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30320006
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311154
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30321684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311648
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30315490
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30324754
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30368876
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311846
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1449211.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313522
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1449211.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30316376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310672
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313292
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311348
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311250
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311224
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313484
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312924
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311398
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30316362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30315630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30319430
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310780
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311584
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313426
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313164
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30322450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310936
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313238
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30315406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310762
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30317554
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30318414
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312144
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311800
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312470
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312346
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30314190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310906
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30319970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311198
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1449211.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1449211.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1449211.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1449211.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30315702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30319270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30315144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312780
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1449211.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311722
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1449211.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30328758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30321038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311330
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1449211.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1449211.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1449211.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1449211.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1449211.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30319424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30319292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1449211.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313398
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1449211.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30310678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30312614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30342316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30311416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30313022
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1449211.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1449211.30390222
</commentlist>
</conversation>
