On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 11:23:35AM +1100, Adam Brown wrote: > As an example of the existing redundancy in the installation > documentation, from the documentation page I could potentially arrive at > three different installation guides: > > http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/install > http://www.newriders.com/debian/html/noframes/ > http://www.debian.org/releases/potato/installguide/
Ah, that's a different kind of redundancy than one I thought about :) Basically, the first one is the official manual. The second one is a semi-random book about Debian, and the third is oriented towards newbies, with the screenshots, `loose' language and all. I thought about redundancy within one document, a lot of cross-references, stuff like that... > - Confusion for users trying to determine an authoratative reference The first document is. I thought it was obvious, since the second is a book (it's available online at its publisher's page), and the third has a warning at the top about it not being official. > Another issue is in the development of Debian specific sysadmin and > network manuals. It is a little disconcerting the way so much redundant > Linux documentation is being developed in parallel. Which reference > should a Debian user turn to: the Debian Network Admin guide, the Linux > Network HOWTO, the Linux Network Admin Guide or the myriad of other > contributed guides? > > It would seem to make sense to me that Debian joined forces with the > developers of the Linux NAG and SAG and helped improve those and added > clauses where Debian specific issues arose. Our System and Network administration guides are hardly finished, and they don't look like getting finished soon. I guess we need someone to actually write the docs about that on Debian systems, then it can be decided whether to make it a separate document or a part of the general Linux documents... -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
