Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: "Hannu E K Nevalainen" <garbage_collector AT telia DOT com>
To: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: More "vague assertions"  (RE: Problems building cygwin from source)
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 20:54:59 +0100
Message-ID: <NGBBLLIAMFLGJEOAJCCEIEAIDGAA.garbage_collector@telia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <20031105135015.GC26305@redhat.com>
Importance: Normal

> From: Christopher Faylor
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 2:50 PM

> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:36:46PM +0100, Hannu E K Nevalainen wrote:
> >> From: Peter J. Stieber

> >> I think I foolishly picked this up from some misinformation in
> >> the mailing
> >> list thread "Can't build cygwin from CVS: configure error",

> >IIRC, that thread had at least one specific cause; there was a
> >temporary cvs (databease?) error.
>
> Right.  And you compounded the problem by not reporting the cvs error,
> instead insisting that the error be *documented*.

<BOLD>
 You saying this clearly indicates that there is a problem here; Either me
not writing it out clear enough or you being totally blind. :-]
</BOLD>

 Please re-read at [b] below, there you find what I've tried to say all the
time on the subject - I still insist on it being that way, full stop. There
was _no_ request to document the *error*. The request was to document
expected correct behaviour, i.e. what the result should be, thus allowing
"error correction".


> >I've been fighting this sparseness to some extent ;-) (HI CGF!)
>
> Translation: "I was confused so, since I have a high opinion of myself,
> the reason for my confusion must lie elsewhere."

In addition to what I said above...
 I've been using and programming computers for almost twentyfive years, all
of that time increasing my knowledge - this observation based on how
*others* value my knowledge.
 Reading books and whatever documentation there has been, writing some docs
on my own and with coworkers, discussing the contents with others - both
newbies and more knowledgeable people, having newbies read and follow the
documents I've written - while I sit on their side taking note of changes
I've have to apply to make them _usable_.
(Argh: Rule number 54765; Avoid long sentences! ;-)

 Now you're telling me that I should throw away that knowledge and in
addition to that - disregard everything I have been told about how to write
descriptive text, from elementary school and up to university level.

 Well, what can I say... And in addition to this you expect me to stay quiet
after you've said that ;-)


[b]
> >In telecom terms; IMO there needs to be a slight redundancy in the data
> >transmitted via the docs.  Thus allowing for error checking and
> >possibly even correction on errors.
> >
> >In general terms this means; add a word or two after a group of
> >instructions to tell what the outcome of the instruction group _should_
> >give as result.
> >
> >And for CGF; this was NOT a "the docs are bad" inlay, it was one that
> >lobbies for improvements.  ;-)
>
> I really really wish that you would leave this stuff to the experts.

 Whatever experts they are, they still are human; making errors, mistakes
and whatever you can name. More: [2]


> You can't figure out how to build the tools. You can't figure out how
> to change the documentation. You can't even figure out when you are
> getting *errors*.

 As I said before; I've been around for a long time, yet still I have things
to learn - I don't expect that to change anywhere near "soon".

 Observed facts: I'm _not_ initiated on cygwin, linux or any other unix
variant - nor the bundled tools. I'm learning though, the state desribed
above has changed.
 Not beeing initiated doesn't rule out my knowledge of computers in general
or other tools of the same kind, does it? Knowledge that I know can be
applied on any of the above, *if just given a chance*.
 A _good_ chance requires documents that can be read without questions
arising for every sentence there is, i.e. docs that do contain tiny
"redundancy words" at relevant spots - see [b] above.


> Yet, you still seem to think that your opinion is
> so valuable

 Of what your heart is full, your tounge will speak... (direct translation
from Swedish).
 I'm _not_ expecting my opinion to be "valuable" to you personally, I do
though consider freedom of speach have a lot more value. I'm writing this to
lobby for a change, nothing more nor less.


> that you need to repeatedly make the same points so that
> someone else will follow through on your vague assertions.

 Sigh, where is the "vague" part?

 These "You can't" comments of yours (above) seems less relevant as they
only appears to be here to fend me off, including anyone else who might
consider it worthwhile to discuss how to _enhance_ the current state.


> Really, I am asking you again to not bother.

 I stumble on things and shouldn't bother, just skip that part and get on
with the next thing? Progress in its essence, eh?


>  I know that I am always
> asking for help but I'm giving you a pass on this one.  I am not asking
> for your help.

 I'm not offering help, nor asking you personally nor anyone else to do all
of it, do I?


>  Your point has been made.  It is understood.  Really.
> Give it a rest.

The fending just got enhanced... :-7
Too bad it won't enhance anything else.


>  AFAIAC, you are just losing credibility with every
> one of these repeated observations.
>
> cgf

 I'm not afraid of making a fool of myself, sometimes I do it deliebrately.
Speaking of credibility; shoving off people less knowledgeable increases
this, right? At times it seems so at least...

Let's stop this now, I'm not expecting it to lead to anything worthwhile as
it is now. Seems as there is just petty things to expect.

/Hannu E K Nevalainen, B.Sc. EE - 59+16.37'N, 17+12.60'E
-- printf("LocalTime: UTC+%02d\n",(DST)? 2:1); --


[2]
 Disregarding the importance of precise (what there is) and forgiving
documentation (what I ask for) makes the whole bundle of software and
documentation less worth.

 Someone has said; "Linux is only free if your time has no value". I belive
this statement to be valid for any free software. Adding imprecise and/or
unforgiving documentation (speaking in general now) just emphasizes this.

 A newbie and even a relatively experienced user will spend hours scouring
the docs for relevant information. And at times; all this because someone
left out a sentence - or even a word or two - leaving the _at first sight
apparently relevant_ document very terse and thus impossible to understand
for anybody else than the *already initiated*.


--END OF MESSAGE--


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/