delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/07/06/10:28:09

Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 17:27:35 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Phil Galbiati <galbiati AT cse DOT ogi DOT edu>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: DJGPP is in WAY too many pieces
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.95.970701005024.23956A-100000@blue.cse.ogi.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970706172518.8624F-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0

On Tue, 1 Jul 1997, Phil Galbiati wrote:

> Furthermore, I believe that your assertion that "we are all
> computer-literate programmers" is false.  Many DJGPP users are
> completely new to computing, and should not be relied upon [yet] to
> do anything besides driving Netscape or M$ Internet Exploiter (but
> not both).

IMHO, it is pointless to request that DJGPP will present zero-slope
learning curve to computer-illiterate people.  Such goals, while
doubtlessly noble, require resources that DJGPP (or any free software
project, for that matter) just doesn't have.  You need people who can
write crystal-clear English technical prose, have good understanding
of DJGPP internals, and can see things through the eyes of a newbie on
top of that.  I have yet to see such people, even in commercial
firms, to say nothing of ever having such people here, working for free; 
volunteers are welcome.

Installing and using free software will always require to look around,
and in particular read every piece of documentation in sight.  Like
Shawn, I fail to understand how could anybody miss a file called
README.1ST, or read only parts of it, and then complain that things
don't work.

>    1) Converting README.1ST to HTML, and including a Table of
>       Contents at the top.  I think that people are more prone to
>       poke around with their web browsers than with their text
>       editors.

Please feel free to contribute such README.html, and let's see if that
will have any effect whatsoever on the flow of already-answered
questions.  Somehow, I doubt it would, but it doesn't hurt to try.

>    2) Including a copy of the converted README.HTM in at least one
>       (if not all) of the "required" binary zips.

FYI: such a README was included in v1x distribution, but I don't think
it had any effect on the amount of such questions.

>    3) Making sure that all references to FTP & web sites in the FAQ,
>       the mini-FAQ, and the README, are fully qualified (i.e. that they 
>       include the "ftp://" or "http://" protocol specifiers).

The FAQ already does that.  (In fact, the single most important reason
for most of the semi-kludgy process of generating HTML from Texinfo
sources was invented because I *wanted* every reference to be
converted to a full URL automatically.)

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019