I want to add two footnotes to my own earlier rem.s on the sub-thread of this thread: First, on motivation why (at all) muddle with Linux (and this I consider very much on topic for this list): I think a well set-up combo of DOS + Linux is "appropriate technology" for both (a) limited hardware (an budgetary !) means, (b) acessing complex functionalities where DOS is limited, that is, firstly and mostly the pixel stuff.(*) For most things text-based, I would consider Linux as far too heavy - I'd prefer the KISS principle (keep it small and simple), and therefore DOS. And lots of the (huge fund of) DOS stuff comes with far better ergonomical layout then wha we have there in Linux(-textmode). Thus: For more than eight months now I have been on (and off; necessarily I have to care for my job and bread occasionally) with what I (mostly, but not alone) had thought of to become perhaps a "project". It would consist of recycling all sorts of parts and componets, adding needed new ones - to a least possible extent, but input devices (keyboards, mice, CD drives, printers) are subject to mechanical use and ageing -, which a devlopment NGO gets donated, into ready useable units for partner groups of that org. in Africa (but for even some branches of this NGO around here, and co-operating volunteers/initiatives). I'm the one who has to "try out", or find out rather - wuite similar to what Yolanda says, who is > continuing to try and get a machine working out of > the cheap parts I've cobbled together in the last 3 years. Now, the "project" means "appropriate technology" for all the common tasks, *and* "sustainable" use - maintenance and adding both hardware and sofware to those individual units in use should be feasible for those people who use them. These are no 'puter gurus (but therefore not necessarily idiots either). So each of the units would have to be joined by a concise, but sufficiently comprising manual/documentation. Focus of this has to be on "use & troubleshooting"; *not* on how to learn OSs, or how to become member of this or that school of believers-in-the-best-of-all- programs/distributions/languages/etc. Which leads me to the second footnote, re the other sub-thread of this, where two postings had seized the full band-width of the Linux misery in that respect (there would be need for a concise DOS-doc, and that had been discussed here a good year ago too; but then there are lots of DOS-intros gathering dust on bookshelves, and most DOS-progs *do* come with sufficient explanation): - eg. from Bob (Deering): > ... I've never _found_ TFM! Any > "documentation" (printed, downloaded, whatever...) is in "know what I > mean" format. It's _not_ a case of poor understanding or inability - it's > just very, very poor writing (which is well rewarded by course > instructors, for some reason). (I would assume his aggreement that there are good exceptionts too.) -or from Yolanda/pippi5: > Documentation. ~groan~ What is there is long, involved, pendantic and > well buried and to this day has never addressed MY specific problems. I > could work a full time job slogging through the various man pages and > howtos and still not have a clue! Thgis describes quite well the situation of accessing the understanding of Linux - either decisive clues are not there, or are buried in a way which prevents non-experts from finding them. Each uf us probably has his/her own way of "learning". I would prefer an analyical approach (starting from good indexes; it's incredible what those thick and expensive O'Reilly books offer in that regard, from biased wording to outright sloppiness), Yolana perhaps "step by step instructions", others inbetween these two poles. None is well served with the present state of (documentation) things. There's one reason why I find it important to allow accessibility for "users", and where the analogy with technicalities of cars or the like (sometimes evoked here) does not cover an essential aspect: "information" is quite a peculiar beast, and it's manipulated, selected, sorted, or distorted by the very means of its "transport" and "processing", and by who/what does what therewith. While you could give a damn about the intestines of the car engine, as long as it runs and and the whole thing carries you where you want to, this 'puter-driven "information technology" does effect our perception of what we "see", and what we get - or *not* get - to know, to an enormous degree. // Heimo Claasen // < hammer at inti dot be > // Brussels 2000-10-20 The WebPlace of ReRead - and much to read ==> http://www.inti.be/hammer (*) I do have another, very individual "project", which is feasible only with rather resources-demanding gadgetry, and where the "high edge" of Linux is "appropriate" technology (and the only affordable for me). But that's another story. -hc To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message. Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies. More info can be found at; http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
