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