193 lines
7.7 KiB
HTML
193 lines
7.7 KiB
HTML
<!-- MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
|
|
<!--X-Subject: RE:Authorship -->
|
|
<!--X-From-R13: Uertbel Zroynap <UZroynapNph-cbegynaq.rqh> -->
|
|
<!--X-Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 23:21:40 -0400 (EDT) -->
|
|
<!--X-Message-Id: A5F46F4ED18FD211ABEE00105AC6CF0701093735@email.cu-portland.edu -->
|
|
<!--X-Content-Type: text/plain -->
|
|
<!--X-Head-End-->
|
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML//EN">
|
|
<html>
|
|
<head>
|
|
<title>RE:Authorship</title>
|
|
<link rev="made" href="mailto:GLeblanc@cu-portland.edu">
|
|
</head>
|
|
<body>
|
|
<!--X-Body-Begin-->
|
|
<!--X-User-Header-->
|
|
<!--X-User-Header-End-->
|
|
<!--X-TopPNI-->
|
|
<hr>
|
|
[<a href="msg02617.html">Date Prev</a>][<a href="msg02619.html">Date Next</a>][<a href="msg02612.html">Thread Prev</a>][<a href="msg02686.html">Thread Next</a>][<a href="maillist.html#02618">Date Index</a>][<a href="threads.html#02618">Thread Index</a>]
|
|
<!--X-TopPNI-End-->
|
|
<!--X-MsgBody-->
|
|
<!--X-Subject-Header-Begin-->
|
|
<h1>RE:Authorship</h1>
|
|
<hr>
|
|
<!--X-Subject-Header-End-->
|
|
<!--X-Head-of-Message-->
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><em>To</em>: <A HREF="mailto:ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org">ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org</A></li>
|
|
<li><em>Subject</em>: RE:Authorship</li>
|
|
<li><em>From</em>: Gregory Leblanc <<A HREF="mailto:GLeblanc@cu-portland.edu">GLeblanc@cu-portland.edu</A>></li>
|
|
<li><em>Date</em>: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 20:21:29 -0700 </li>
|
|
<li><em>Resent-date</em>: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 23:21:40 -0400 (EDT)</li>
|
|
<li><em>Resent-from</em>: <A HREF="mailto:ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org">ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org</A></li>
|
|
<li><em>Resent-message-id</em>: <gUGdLC.A.CwH.AhyN5@murphy></li>
|
|
<li><em>Resent-sender</em>: <A HREF="mailto:ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org">ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org</A></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
<!--X-Head-of-Message-End-->
|
|
<!--X-Head-Body-Sep-Begin-->
|
|
<hr>
|
|
<!--X-Head-Body-Sep-End-->
|
|
<!--X-Body-of-Message-->
|
|
<pre>
|
|
> -----Original Message-----
|
|
> From: Dan Scott [<A HREF="mailto:kinetix@sympatico.ca">mailto:kinetix@sympatico.ca</A>]
|
|
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 4:13 PM
|
|
> To: Gregory Leblanc; ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org
|
|
> Subject: RE: Authorship
|
|
>
|
|
[snip]
|
|
> > As for formats, uhm, scary to open that can again. Anyway,
|
|
> I think we need
|
|
> > to start a review process for NEW documents that could
|
|
> become part of the
|
|
> > LDP collection. They propose writing their doc and all
|
|
> that Jazz on the
|
|
> > list, then go write it unless somebody else is/has done so.
|
|
> When it's done,
|
|
> > they send a draft of it to the LDP-Submit list, in
|
|
> Any-Old-Format (tm).
|
|
> > Anybody who has the time and inclination replies to the
|
|
> list, saying that
|
|
> > they're going to take a look at the doc. We give them a
|
|
> few days to take a
|
|
> > look and make sure that the document is acurate, and isn't
|
|
> written without
|
|
> > punctuation or capitalization. Any changes proposed by our
|
|
> reviewers should
|
|
> > get sent to the author, and after a few days they can say
|
|
> "ok, I got this
|
|
> > feedback from the nice LDP volunteers, and make some
|
|
> changes". This is the
|
|
> > version that will become part of the LDP's collection.
|
|
>
|
|
> I've read / edited a couple of documents on the ldp-submit
|
|
> list. It's a good
|
|
> way to see what other authors are doing with their tags (good
|
|
> or bad) and a
|
|
> good opportunity to have an impact on the quality of
|
|
> information that goes out.
|
|
> I've only had one experience where I didn't get a reply of
|
|
> any sort from the
|
|
> author after trying to contact him in a couple of ways. Then
|
|
> again, he probably
|
|
> gets more mail than your average Linux enthusiast.
|
|
>
|
|
> So, I like the suggestion. We just need people that are
|
|
> willing to do it.
|
|
> The information flow on ldp-submit is currently mostly
|
|
> one-directional.
|
|
|
|
I think this is partly because we don't have much online that tells what to
|
|
do on the LDP-submit list. From the name, I'd assume that it's NOT a list
|
|
that should get replies posted to it, although I know this isn't the case.
|
|
If we publicize it better, and get a good "welcome" message on there, then I
|
|
think it could become a lot more two-way. This is just a matter of not the
|
|
right publication of the purpose of the list.
|
|
|
|
> > > 3) *big assumption* The author wants to use Linux - meaning a
|
|
> > > large preference towards open-source or Linux-based tools.
|
|
> >
|
|
> > Hmm... From talking to one of our authors, this isn't
|
|
> necessarily true
|
|
> > either. Not everybody is "into" Linux. (You know who are,
|
|
> can I name
|
|
> > names?) They may use Linux for task X, because it's the
|
|
> best possible way
|
|
> > to do task X. They may use some other OS do to task Y,
|
|
> because Linux is
|
|
> > ill-suited to that, or because the other OS/tool is so much
|
|
> better suited to
|
|
> > it than Linux is. I'll be happy to bow to majority opinion
|
|
> here, but I've
|
|
> > only hear 4 arguments (including mine), two on each side.
|
|
>
|
|
> Okay, I would like to question Gary P's argument that using
|
|
> "superior" non-Linux
|
|
> tools helps improve the available Linux tools. The problem is
|
|
> that without
|
|
> users who can point out the problems that they're
|
|
> encountering with the
|
|
> available Linux tools, the people that are capable of
|
|
> developing and improving
|
|
> the tools don't have a basis for deciding on what features
|
|
> need to be fixed or
|
|
> added. In fact, if no-one ends up using the available Linux
|
|
> tools, there's not
|
|
> much reason for a developer to generate new versions at all, is there?
|
|
|
|
Hmm, you're both right. There have to be some die-hard who use the Linux
|
|
tools, or at least refuse to use the ones on Windows, or nothing gets done.
|
|
That's not to say that everyone should be a die-hard, but they are a
|
|
REQUIRED element of Free software. There also need to be people who use the
|
|
Windows alternative on a daily basis, who are willing to put in the time
|
|
that's required to make the Linux version as good, or better. I'm doing
|
|
this right now with a mail client. I live in Outlook, and help out the
|
|
people writing a Linux (actually in this case it's GNOME, so *nix) version
|
|
by telling them some of the good things, and some of the bad things, about
|
|
Outlook. As soon as that client gets to a version where it's safe to use on
|
|
my mailbox, I'll start using both, and telling them what needs
|
|
fixing/writing. Since nobody seems to think that patches in Pascal are
|
|
good, I've got a while before I can actually fix anything myself. The same
|
|
thing needs to happen with the SGML/XML editors and Integrated Development
|
|
Environments for Linux, so that they become superior to those on any other
|
|
platform.
|
|
|
|
Feel free to flame me (but use the template!) if you think I'm dead wrong.
|
|
Otherwise, talk and tell me (and everybody else) what you think! Later,
|
|
Greg
|
|
[snip]
|
|
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
|
|
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|
|
|
|
</pre>
|
|
|
|
<!--X-Body-of-Message-End-->
|
|
<!--X-MsgBody-End-->
|
|
<!--X-Follow-Ups-->
|
|
<hr>
|
|
<!--X-Follow-Ups-End-->
|
|
<!--X-References-->
|
|
<!--X-References-End-->
|
|
<!--X-BotPNI-->
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>Prev by Date:
|
|
<strong><a href="msg02617.html">Re: Authorship</a></strong>
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>Next by Date:
|
|
<strong><a href="msg02619.html">RE: Authorship</a></strong>
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>Previous by thread:
|
|
<strong><a href="msg02612.html">Re: Authorship</a></strong>
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>Next by thread:
|
|
<strong><a href="msg02686.html">RE: Authorship</a></strong>
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>Index(es):
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a href="maillist.html#02618"><strong>Date</strong></a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="threads.html#02618"><strong>Thread</strong></a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<!--X-BotPNI-End-->
|
|
<!--X-User-Footer-->
|
|
<!--X-User-Footer-End-->
|
|
</body>
|
|
</html>
|