When I started using linux some years ago, I resisted from commenting
on the absurdity of using *.ps and *.div mainly for lilo's documentation.

Since no one else seems to have commented/warned about this, I
think it's time to do so.

Yes, we must appreciate all contributions; but lilo's documentation
really deserves a special boo-boo prize, and mention of how NOT to do
it.

He seems to have uses lilo merely as a vehichle to exercise/punish the
user in using viewers for *.ps and *.div files ?!

== Chris Glur.

not@top-post wrote:

Linux is a community in which everyon can get involved. If you think lilo
documentation needs converting to some more sane format then why not do it
and contribute it to the community?

Ian

not@top-post wrote:

Sorry Chris but you are only demonstrating your own ignorance (in the true
uninsulting meaning of the word)

Postscript and dvi (device independent) formats have long been an integral
part of *nix systems. Postscipt is now the natural internal format of all
modern linux application. When you print to file from a linux app you are
putting a postscript file on your disk which anyone can view exactly as it
was meant to be with a viewer and can can print direct to PS printers or
any printers with GS.
You will find however that you also have man and text pages for lilo and
probably a howto as well in text or html.

Nevertheless I dont see what your complaint is... PS is standard on linux
and all linux distros that I know of have ps and pdf viewers installed by
default, all you have to do is click on the damn file after all....

--
regards,
andrew

not@top-post wrote:
I don't see your problem. What's so difficult in
make ../README
to build a plain-text copy of the documentation, or
make
ps2pdf user.ps user.pdf
to build a pdf of the documentation?

Your point is?


--
Lew Pitcher, IT Consultant, Enterprise Application Architecture
Enterprise Technology Solutions, TD Bank Financial Group

(Opinions expressed here are my own, not my employer's)

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 12:22:08 -0500, Lew Pitcher wrote:

This thread was a surprise. I certainly expected comments about the
documentation itself. lilo documentation is (or was when last I read it)
extremely opaque. I have used it for over 10 years and still the
documentation is befuddling.

But the format? Sheesh. Especially since it is open-standard format, and
every unix machine (and many Windows machines) can display it just fine.

There was originally a reason for it, too. There were several diagrams in
the documentation, as an attempt to explain some of the workings of lilo.
TeX was probably the only way the developers could display that properly.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | "Business!" cried the Ghost. "Mankind was my business. The common
_`\(,_ | welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and
(_)/ (_) | benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade
were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my
<business!" --Dickens, "A Christmas Carol"

not@top-post wrote:

You probably are quite wrong to single out the ps (adobe postscript) and
dvi (device independant) formats as in any way villains of the piece!
The former is, very nearly, the de-facto standard language for high-end
printers and the latter an intermediate format that allows typesetters
to produce camera-ready copy without needing to know what printer or
display device is eventually going to be used.

You might get some more sympathy had you mentioned TeX, which indeed is
the (somewhat eclectic) page mark-up language of choice in both the Unix
documentation and scientific publishing world. There are others such as
HTML, or the nroff, troff, groff family. What these all share in common
is the ability to prepare a document for publication in a language that
remains human-readable.

The disadvantage of these languages is the steep learning curve needed
to gain even modest proficiency. The *huge* advantage is that the
content and the layout instructions remain transparent and accessible,
long after the (usually proprietory) wordprocessor has been abandoned by
its maker. This is often regarded as of huge importance by professional
archivists.

I've refrained from looking at the source distribution and documentation
for lilo. However, I do know that most if not all the GNU software has
tex (more accurately, texinfo) based documentation, usually with build
facilities (make doc, make dvi, make ps, make pdf, make html ... ...)
that allow the builder or packager to generate documentation in the
display format he feels his users will be most comfortable with.

Looking at Mandrake's 9.2 packaging of the lilo documentation I see (in
/usr/share/doc/lilo-22.5.7.2/) a Technical Guide and a User Guide both
in Adobe Acrobat format. Again I can't comment on the usefulness or the
accuracy of these guides, but the chosen output format is as mainstream
and accessible as they come!

There is a real issue here (perhaps talked to death in the late 80s)
between open page mark-up and closed proprietory languages used
internally in wordprocessor and desktop publishers. Not suprisingly, the
discussion has a lot to do with commercial self-interest.

I'm not sure that you are really refering to this and are simply not
aware of the basic intent of providing GNU(ish) software with a
mechanism for displaying the whatever documentation is provided in the
builder's prefered format. It may be not ideal (what is) and is, in any
case, a moving target (look at the KDE Project's documentation process)
but - hey - it's an area hungry for helpers :-).

Ian Bell wrote:


Because it is easier to rant and rave on a newsgroup than to get off your
ass and do some work. The sense of entitlement that many people have about
Linux is mind-boggling.

[rant]

Linux improves when we all improve.

There is that wonderful adage by Ghandi:

"First change yourself, only then try to change the world."

We should really take it to heart. A culture of sharing is only created when
we share not just the fruits of other people's work, but when we are an
integral part of the process. Then, we give of our work to make a better
product and in the process learn how the produt works.

This is not to say that there is no room for improvement in Linux. Tons. And
it's not to say that the person who asked the question doesn't do his
share. What do I know?

But there is too much of this attitude: Fix this for me now or I'll go back
to Windows.

The answer is we don't care. We are helping here out of kindness. We would
like you to learn more about your computer and to realize the wealth of
wonderful free software that there is out there, but it is up to you.
Fortunately, things keep getting easier and easier with Linux, which means
that you just have to do your small little part to keep things rolling.

[/endofrant]

Ps: The irony of ranting about people ranting doesn't escape me, but I
believe that what I said needed to be said.

--
Gonzalo

LILO's documentation seems to be fine. I open konqueror and type 'man:lilo'
and see a nicely formatted piece of documentation.

I double-click on those .ps files and see a nicely laid out manual... What's
the issue, exactly?


not@top-post wrote:

--
remove .spam from address to reply by e-mail.

In article <RfWdnZcXcfElMNXdRVn-sw@is.co.za> (Fri, 05 Mar 2004 10:41:28
-0600), not wrote:

Your plan was good.

No, it's not time, and warning others is just plain stupid.

There's virtually no documentation that is as good as LILO's.

Instead of whining, why don't you do it right and show us how it's
supposed to be done?