Discussion:
LDP still relevant?
(too old to reply)
Tom M
2016-05-01 11:30:02 UTC
Permalink
Hi all,

The Linux Documentation Project [1] is mentioned in Debian's docs, often as the
only source of general GNU/Linux docs. As far as I can see, it is largely an
outdated resource; floppy disks are regularly mentioned, there are links to
software tarballs, etc. In fact, none of the "most popular Linux documents
and manuals" [2] have seen updates in the last 13 years, some as many as 20.
(And they are 2 clicks from the front page!) I don't think we are doing anyone
a favour by mentioning these, and should consider other sources.
--
Tom M

[1] http://www.tldp.org/
[2] https://www.debian.org/doc/ "Manuals for GNU/Linux in general"
Joost van Baal-Ilić
2016-05-01 12:00:01 UTC
Permalink
Hi Tom M,
Post by Tom M
The Linux Documentation Project [1] is mentioned in Debian's docs, often as the
only source of general GNU/Linux docs. As far as I can see, it is largely an
outdated resource; floppy disks are regularly mentioned, there are links to
software tarballs, etc. In fact, none of the "most popular Linux documents
and manuals" [2] have seen updates in the last 13 years, some as many as 20.
(And they are 2 clicks from the front page!) I don't think we are doing anyone
a favour by mentioning these, and should consider other sources.
Yup; very true. Submitting bugreports could be a fist step in solving this
embarrassing problem.

Bye,

Joost
Hendrik Boom
2016-05-01 12:10:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joost van Baal-Ilić
Hi Tom M,
Post by Tom M
The Linux Documentation Project [1] is mentioned in Debian's docs, often as the
only source of general GNU/Linux docs. As far as I can see, it is largely an
outdated resource; floppy disks are regularly mentioned, there are links to
software tarballs, etc. In fact, none of the "most popular Linux documents
and manuals" [2] have seen updates in the last 13 years, some as many as 20.
(And they are 2 clicks from the front page!) I don't think we are doing anyone
a favour by mentioning these, and should consider other sources.
Yup; very true. Submitting bugreports could be a fist step in solving this
embarrassing problem.
Indeed. It would probably be more useful for the LDP to be updated
than to abandon it, if only because it has an easily recognised name.
If there are better sources, the LDP should adopt them, replacing the
outdated ones. Bug reports citing the better documents might help.

-- hendrik
Post by Joost van Baal-Ilić
Bye,
Joost
Osamu Aoki
2016-05-04 17:40:02 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Joost van Baal-Ilić
Hi Tom M,
Post by Tom M
The Linux Documentation Project [1] is mentioned in Debian's docs, often as the
only source of general GNU/Linux docs. As far as I can see, it is largely an
outdated resource; floppy disks are regularly mentioned, there are links to
software tarballs, etc. In fact, none of the "most popular Linux documents
and manuals" [2] have seen updates in the last 13 years, some as many as 20.
(And they are 2 clicks from the front page!) I don't think we are doing anyone
a favour by mentioning these, and should consider other sources.
Yup; very true. Submitting bugreports could be a fist step in solving this
embarrassing problem.
Yes true

These are more or less historic interest document :-)

Now that we have "The Debian Administrator's Handbook"
https://www.debian.org/doc/user-manuals#debian-handbook
and resources such as wikipedia.org, we can skip most of these.

Maybe moving these to
https://www.debian.org/doc/ddp#other
may be an idea.

But I am a bit reluctant to make such an action since it labels LDP as
old/outdated/... etc. which are all negative. Does someone have any
positive attitude change suggestions?

Osamu
victory
2016-05-04 18:10:02 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 5 May 2016 02:05:08 +0900
Post by Osamu Aoki
But I am a bit reluctant to make such an action since it labels LDP as
old/outdated/... etc. which are all negative. Does someone have any
positive attitude change suggestions?
oldies
--
victory
no need to CC me :-)
Joost van Baal-Ilić
2016-05-04 19:00:02 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Osamu Aoki
Post by Joost van Baal-Ilić
Post by Tom M
The Linux Documentation Project [1] is mentioned in Debian's docs, often as the
only source of general GNU/Linux docs. As far as I can see, it is largely an
outdated resource; floppy disks are regularly mentioned, there are links to
software tarballs, etc. In fact, none of the "most popular Linux documents
and manuals" [2] have seen updates in the last 13 years, some as many as 20.
(And they are 2 clicks from the front page!) I don't think we are doing anyone
a favour by mentioning these, and should consider other sources.
Yup; very true. Submitting bugreports could be a fist step in solving this
embarrassing problem.
Yes true
These are more or less historic interest document :-)
Now that we have "The Debian Administrator's Handbook"
https://www.debian.org/doc/user-manuals#debian-handbook
and resources such as wikipedia.org, we can skip most of these.
Maybe moving these to
https://www.debian.org/doc/ddp#other
may be an idea.
But I am a bit reluctant to make such an action since it labels LDP as
old/outdated/... etc. which are all negative. Does someone have any
positive attitude change suggestions?
Fix the LDP documents, I guess. Otoh, I don't believe e.g. the "Linux Hardware
Compatibility HOWTO" could _ever_ be up to date; wiki's are more easy to
update. I agree it's a pity; I don't have a very positive message indeed :(

Anyway, as said, a bug to the www.debian.org pseudo package suggesting a change
to https://www.debian.org/doc/ would be the way forward, imho. The change you
suggested (moving references to LDP documents from https://www.debian.org/doc/
over to https://www.debian.org/doc/ddp#other) indeed is a good idea.

Bye,

Joost
--
"This particular group of cats is mostly self-herding." -- Bdale Garbee
http://mdcc.cx/ ★ Tilburg, НОзПзеЌска ★ http://ad1810.com/
Tom M
2016-05-01 15:30:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hendrik Boom
Indeed. It would probably be more useful for the LDP to be updated
than to abandon it, if only because it has an easily recognised name.
If there are better sources, the LDP should adopt them, replacing the
outdated ones.
Unfortunately I don't think the LDP in its current form has much of a chance of
catching up with anything else. Technical-style guides are simply not the way
most users read information. I'd love to see the effort redirected to
distribution wikis or even upstream to projects!
--
Tom M
Andrew M.A. Cater
2016-05-01 17:10:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom M
Hi all,
The Linux Documentation Project [1] is mentioned in Debian's docs, often as the
only source of general GNU/Linux docs. As far as I can see, it is largely an
outdated resource; floppy disks are regularly mentioned, there are links to
software tarballs, etc. In fact, none of the "most popular Linux documents
and manuals" [2] have seen updates in the last 13 years, some as many as 20.
(And they are 2 clicks from the front page!) I don't think we are doing anyone
a favour by mentioning these, and should consider other sources.
--
Tom M
[1] http://www.tldp.org/
[2] https://www.debian.org/doc/ "Manuals for GNU/Linux in general"
TLDP is _just_ in the first steps of starting activity again after some years
of minimal axctivity.

If they do seem to get anything back together, we can use it. Unfortunately, they
are still arguing document formats as often as writing / updating documents or so it seems.

All the very best,

AndyC
Joost van Baal-Ilić
2016-05-01 18:10:02 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Andrew M.A. Cater
Post by Tom M
The Linux Documentation Project [1] is mentioned in Debian's docs, often as the
only source of general GNU/Linux docs. As far as I can see, it is largely an
outdated resource; floppy disks are regularly mentioned, there are links to
software tarballs, etc. In fact, none of the "most popular Linux documents
and manuals" [2] have seen updates in the last 13 years, some as many as 20.
(And they are 2 clicks from the front page!) I don't think we are doing anyone
a favour by mentioning these, and should consider other sources.
--
Tom M
[1] http://www.tldp.org/
[2] https://www.debian.org/doc/ "Manuals for GNU/Linux in general"
TLDP is _just_ in the first steps of starting activity again after some years
of minimal axctivity.
If they do seem to get anything back together, we can use it. Unfortunately,
they are still arguing document formats as often as writing / updating
documents or so it seems.
http://www.tldp.org/sorted_howtos_full.html shows: Since 2013 there have been
not more than 2 new releases of all TLDP howto's. I don't think we should hold
our breath now, and imho we should remove references to obsolete
TLDP-documents.

Bye,

Joost
--
our thing was we’re gonna do exactly what’s not on the radio
James ‟J Dilla / Jay Dee” Dewitt Yancey (★ Feb 8, 1974, Detroit
- † Feb 10, 2006, LA)
Andrzej Bylicki
2016-05-02 07:00:02 UTC
Permalink
I agree that something needs to be done in respect to the LDP and GNU/Linux
documentation in general. BSDs have fantastic documentation and I feel
GNU/Linux as an ecosystem also deserves such. Although probably the most
demanding, working on individual manpages for/with upstream projects would
be the most profitable to everyone in the long-run. Finally, some level of
technical
language is needed. The user should be allowed to understand, not merely be
informed :).

Best regards,
Andy Mender

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 7:42 PM, Joost van Baal-Ilić <
Post by Tom M
Hi,
Post by Andrew M.A. Cater
Post by Tom M
The Linux Documentation Project [1] is mentioned in Debian's docs,
often as the
Post by Andrew M.A. Cater
Post by Tom M
only source of general GNU/Linux docs. As far as I can see, it is
largely an
Post by Andrew M.A. Cater
Post by Tom M
outdated resource; floppy disks are regularly mentioned, there are
links to
Post by Andrew M.A. Cater
Post by Tom M
software tarballs, etc. In fact, none of the "most popular Linux
documents
Post by Andrew M.A. Cater
Post by Tom M
and manuals" [2] have seen updates in the last 13 years, some as many
as 20.
Post by Andrew M.A. Cater
Post by Tom M
(And they are 2 clicks from the front page!) I don't think we are
doing anyone
Post by Andrew M.A. Cater
Post by Tom M
a favour by mentioning these, and should consider other sources.
--
Tom M
[1] http://www.tldp.org/
[2] https://www.debian.org/doc/ "Manuals for GNU/Linux in general"
TLDP is _just_ in the first steps of starting activity again after some
years
Post by Andrew M.A. Cater
of minimal axctivity.
If they do seem to get anything back together, we can use it.
Unfortunately,
Post by Andrew M.A. Cater
they are still arguing document formats as often as writing / updating
documents or so it seems.
http://www.tldp.org/sorted_howtos_full.html shows: Since 2013 there have been
not more than 2 new releases of all TLDP howto's. I don't think we should hold
our breath now, and imho we should remove references to obsolete
TLDP-documents.
Bye,
Joost
--
our thing was we’re gonna do exactly what’s not on the radio
James ‟J Dilla / Jay Dee” Dewitt Yancey (★ Feb 8, 1974, Detroit
- † Feb 10, 2006, LA)
Loading...