Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihdev.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ihdev!pdg
From: pdg@ihdev.UUCP (P. D. Guthrie)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: net.docs (sorry - rather long, but important)
Message-ID: <363@ihdev.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 18-Oct-85 13:01:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihdev.363
Posted: Fri Oct 18 13:01:52 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Oct-85 03:58:00 EDT
References: <96@tekadg.UUCP> <2850@pesnta.UUCP> <354@ihdev.UUCP> <271@dlvax1.datlog.UUCP>
Reply-To: pdg@ihdev.UUCP (55224-P. D. Guthrie)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 79

In article <271@dlvax1.datlog.UUCP> dc@datlog.UUCP ( David Crone ) writes:
>In article <354@ihdev.UUCP> pdg@ihdev.UUCP (55224-P. D. Guthrie) writes:
>>In article <2850@pesnta.UUCP> earlw@pesnta.UUCP (Earl Wallace) writes:
>>>Well, I think you have made a good point about Unix and the documentation.
>>>Maybe what we need is net.docs where good documentation can be placed and
>>>expired monthly.
>>
>>
>>What a great idea!! net.docs !! There is a real need for "how-to"
>>manuals on all aspects of unix-life.  I think that these documents could
>>be as useful as stuff in net.source for sites without a resident guru. 
>>What we all need to do is to share our knowledge and let more people in
>>on the "secrets" of Unix.  How about a "How to Port Software Between
>>Berkeley 4.x and System V.x" for starters.  Actually, this might go
>>better as a moderated group, just to keep duplications, and junk out. 
>>Then of course we would need a net.docs.d for discussion about
>>questionable points in submitted articles.
>>
>>					Paul Guthrie
>>					ihnp4!ihdev!pdg
>
>I think both Paul and Earl are missing the point!!!!
>
>UNIX is now a COMMERCIAL ( :-) ) operating system used by manufacturers,
>software houses and believe it or not END USERS of applications.
>
I agree, but there people need this type of documentation MORE than
anyone else because in business "Time is Money".  Relevant
documentation could be a great asset to professional organizations
that would otherwise have to pay large amounts of money to hire a guru
or research something themselves.  In a competitive market such as Unix
software it would be too much to expect to have all the companies
publishing their tecniques and skills in net.docs, but I feel that there
would still be enough documentation of various sorts coming out of
non-profit groups (Universities etc - people STILL are required to write
papers aren't they?) and also from companies that wish to increase the
Unix users base or supply additional information about the use of their
products.  This would help the Unix community, as the idea that
documentation is shared would be an incentive for a company to "go"
Unix.

>It's time that AT&T and Berkeley revamped/rewrote the system documentation 
>so anybody could at least have some understanding of the operation of the
>utilities without a) writing test programs b) relying on UNIX 'gurus' or 
>c) looking at the source code (if your're lucky enough to have the licence) .

I disagree. If you look at any operating system ( I only have experience
with Unix,Tops20,VMS,RSX,Pick [All probably TM's of someone or other]
and various micro OS's, it is difficult to find any documentation that
does more than show the usage.  Examples and tales of experience are few
and far between.  This is the gap that I think should be bridged by
net.docs.  

>
>The idea of having a news directory to disseminate 'good' documenation without
>making it available to all through the proper channels(AT&T and Berkeley) is to
>me completely worthless. Remember the UNIX community is larger than the net.!!! 

Yes, the Unix community is larger than the net,  but I think that the
net is the backbone of the Unix community, and has the ability to bring
software and I hope documentation into general circulation.

>
>UNIX's long term existence now rests within the commercial arena. Such companies
>that are using or wish to use UNIX cannot/will not (ultimately) rely on the
>guru principle of operation and the lack of good OS documentation could
>jeopardise the future of the system.
>
I agree, so why not use net.docs?  It is a step in the right direction,
not something that would detract from the incentive to write good
documentation.

>
>		Dave (19th Nervous Breakdown) Crone
>
>(These opinions are mine alone, and do not necessarily reflect those of my
> employers or fellow-workers)

				Paul Guthrie