Items missing from the handbook and/or FAQs.

[Joe Rhett]

On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 11:38:16AM -0500, Kevin D. Kinsey, DaleCo, S.P. wrote:
> It certainly seems as if you brought a lot of pre-conceived ideas to
> the desk, which may have been good in some other context, but
> simply are not the same ideas that *BSD has its roots in.
 
There are no pre-conceived ideas in my complaint other than a lack of
documentation.  Unless you mean a pre-conceived idea that someone should
be able to figure out to how do something...?

> The docs are a complete and highly distilled overview of the entire
> OS; I don't think that it was intended as a simple "how to" type
> affair.  I'm not saying that you didn't read them, perhaps in near
> entirety, but from this end it *sounds* as if you expected automagic
> config wizards and eye-candy help menus from an OS that simply
> has a different philosophy.

I'm reading through my posts, and there simply isn't a single complaint
about config wizards or eye candy, so I'm really not sure what you are
refering to.

I had 3 complaints about lack of coherent documentation, 1 complaint that
inline documentation should be available (list of filesystem types) and 1
complaint that a modern x startup should be easier to set up.

Back to what you said...
> the desk, which may have been good in some other context, but
> simply are not the same ideas that *BSD has its roots in.

If the ideas that *BSD has its roots in are that the systems are supposed
to require tons of undocumented, manual hacking to make them operational
are what you are trying to say...  sorry, I don't believe that. I've been
using *BSD offspring since 1986.  For many, many years the BSD variants
were a LOT more functional out of the box than System III and System V
systems.  Are you honestly arguing that going backwards is helpful?

-- 
Joe Rhett                                                      Chief Geek
JRhett at Isite.Net                                      Isite Services, Inc.