Re: Re: why are there no themes for galeon? and is galeon 1.3 cooler than 1.2, let's vote

on Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 11:49:28AM +0000, Nix ([email protected]) wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Karsten M. Self prattled cheerily:
> > on Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0000, Nix ([email protected]) wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Karsten M. Self murmured woefully:
> >> > Have you considered a career in comedy?  I see an _amazing_ future
> >> > for you.
> >> 
> >> You know, if you try really hard, you could possibly manage to surpass
> >> the Abrasiveness Event Horizon.
> > 
> > Got the t-shirt.
> > 
> > 
> > My point (and there was one) is that GNOME fails massively on docs.
> > Even just providing minimal manpages.  On four years' standing
> > bugreports.
> 
> Ah. Given that Michael Mauch had previously pointed out where it *was*
> documented (in a rather beware-of-the-leopardish place) I thought you
> were saying the opposite (`the docs are somewhere obvious, idiot').

No.

That's what the GNOMEistas say.  You'll find a multi-post subthread in
'more gconf brain death' at linux-elitists where Martin Pool does just
this.  To me.  Over, of all things, gconftool.  He finally does admit
that, yes, there is no manpage.
 
> > I really wasn't picking on you, but pointed out that that this stuff
> > likely _isn't_ documented.  Certainly not where a competent admin would
> > expect to find it documented.
> 
> Certainly I have to resort to UTSL a *lot* with GNOME, but I've used
> Windows: I'm used to fine details of `user-friendly' systems being
> totally undocumented.
> 
> (Besides, hell, this is free software, where only HOWTO authors and the
> GNU Project bother to actually document anything at all, and the latter
> uses a silly license.)

Right.

I have _reasonably_ little problem with "Um.  We'd _really_ like to
document that but we haven't got around to it yet".

I've got massive problems with claims to massive user / admin
friendliness, documentation, and pointers to http://bum.fsck.egypt/ for
stuff that _really_ deserves a minimal manpage.

And I'd also expect a project which _has_ had its nose rubbed in it
more than once to turn out even a minimal manpage.

The fact that Debian provides a stub 'undocumented' manpage to flag
executables which do, in fact, lack a man page, and that in four years
standing of the bug on gconftool that _stub_ page remains unreferenced,
really just boggles the imagination.


Peace.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <[email protected]>        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
    [Orkut, Friendster, and ilk] allow a passing hacker to scarf up [a]
    potential archive of great exploitable value.
    - Andrew Orlowski        http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/35129.html

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCR9DlefG8443k044RAmreAKCHIxxLfzT4la+JE5U5EHJOONaIMwCeItge
aPN4xOgP5P1IpvhJQ42DQ7E=
=ubIc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----