Congratulation to all of you having worked hard on getting the 2.6 out.

So pls let me come back to my proposal for a different style of the

For several month now I made many tests with LaTeX, LyX, basic PDF, etc.
- but was not able to achieve with those what I am proposing:

-- splitting up the ever growing pdf-file "getstart" into smaller
"books", totaling a growing contents with increasing "referencing"
between specialized chapters. Thus achieving a BASE from which users can
develop their skills.

-- make use of the modern art of on-line reading/studying!
e.g.: Jumping between the "books" to any given place inside and outside
the book! Thus achieving the oposit of todays "Indexing". Not searching
in the Index to find something in the book (that you can do much more
efficient with the standard on-line "Find"-utilities) - but jumping from
any place inside the books to other places for advanced and/or common
explanations/informations. Thus avoiding the need of describing many
things many times (and forget to change many places when a change is
  Why shouldn't we, as the promoters of the most modern style of
designing, not also make use of the most modern style of
reading/studying/updating manuals, dictionaries, newspapers, etc.?

-- stimulate translations!
Consider that this Manual will not be used just for highly educated
professionals that mostly do speak English - but for common users of all
Nationalities, all stages in education, etc. We definitely do need to
attract those to participate. As we accept that any professional can
participate in the design, we should also trust our users to generate
and maintain their manuals by themselves! FGFS, FGFS-wiki, Wikipedia,
Linux, etc. etc. -- they all proved that it works!

-- Use common tools.
Most kids today learn how to generate a Homepage and use "html" - while
"LaTeX" (and similar) needs some more "unique"
skills/environments/procedures. It is streamlined for the use in
"publishing houses/departments" - with the need for a so called
"corporate identity". But that identity is also achievable today via
HTML (CSS) -- see e.g. the articles inside todays FGFS-wiki! 

-- Avoid the dependency on uniquely skilled persons:
What happens when the private priorities of those "few" (and thus often
overloaded volunteers) will change? In addition: A detailed proofreading
of todays "getstart" takes weeks - while thousands of users will find
errors and improvements without any scheduled task - just by using it!
But then an "administrative procedure for corrective actions" might not
really convince them to become active!

Please let me know if you have an issue with that - otherwise I will
start to setup FGFS-wiki versions. Then we may have two versions - which
I believe could develop into different flavors: One more "users-taste"
and one more "engineering-needs". I see my personal preferences more on
the user/customer aspects - and hope the "engineering" environment
forgives me for that!

If you are interested to know more about the WIKI pros/cons, I suggest:
See also my current HTML-version on
(having now about 1000 hits per month after 2 month on-line).
rgds joe

Try before you buy = See our experts in action!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to