Subject: Linux-Activists - DOC Channel digest. 93-4-9-15:13
From: "Linux Activists" <[email-masked]>
To: "Linux-Activists" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 May 1993 22:54:54 +0300

Topics:
	 Re: Linux-Activists - DOC Channel digest. 93-4-9-5:7
	 Re: Linux-Activists - DOC Channel digest. 93-4-9-5:7

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Matt Welsh)
Subject: Re: Linux-Activists - DOC Channel digest. 93-4-9-5:7
Date: Sun, 9 May 1993 18:07:12 +0300

> From: "Vincent D. Skahan" <[email-masked]>
> 
> Also, I also grabbed the sysadm and getty docs and can't do a damn thing
> with them to get them into anything readable (short of me spending my
> unavailable time looking for format codes and writing a perl filter to
> strip 'em all out...which is undoubtedly reinventing a wheel that MUST
> exist somewhere already).  I'm certain that they're nice too, but when you're
> talking a volunteer project here...I can't waste what little time I can
> devote to adding to the effort all on just getting the darn thing into
> a format that I can BEGIN to read.

Folks,

If you have problems printing the docs, it's not that difficult to mail the
author and ask them to produce a PostScript file from the .dvi's. Perhaps
we should put Postscript up on ftp.stolaf.edu as well, for those who don't
have LaTeX and/or dvips. Michael?

> The questions I gave earlier still are open.  How can I get those
> documents in their MULTIPLE INCOMPATIBLE formats into *one* format
> that I can review and kick edits back on?

They're all in the same format: LaTeX source. I'm sorry if this was not 
made clear enough. You format the source using LaTeX, then produce Postscript
the resulting .dvi with dvips. 

> Once I get a list of software I need...then what do I do to use it ?

Get the SLS t1-t3 disks and install it. You probably don't need MetaFont
but it can't hurt. xdvi is an X11 previewer for .dvi files, if you don't
want to do all of that printing. dvips converts .dvi to PostScript, as 
explained above. 

Any changes you make to the docs should be made on the LaTeX source, and
you can send the author(s) cdiffs against this source. If you don't
know LaTeX, get "LaTeX: A Document Preparation System" by Leslie Lamport.
It should be quite obvious from there on in. :)

> How can I get the format (FORMAT(S)) into ascii to mail my comments to
> the author ?

See above; send changes to the LaTeX source.

> This is *NOT* intrinsically self-evident folks...

It is to those of us who have used LaTeX before. We assume that if you don't
recognize *.tex or *.dvi then you haven't used it before. Early on we
specified that everything was going to be done in LaTeX; the LDP "Manifesto" 
mentions this as well.

mdw

------------------------------

From: Greg Naber <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Linux-Activists - DOC Channel digest. 93-4-9-5:7
Date: Sun, 9 May 1993 18:51:59 +0300

> > How can I read this so called documentation? When I try to look at it with
> > more/less or attempt to print it, alls I see is a bunch of garbage.
> 
> If you're referring to the alpha LDP manuals, they're all in LaTeX format.
> Essentially, this means:
> 
>            via LaTeX            via dvips
>   foo.tex  --------->  foo.dvi  ----------> foo.ps
>  (LaTeX source)   (Device Independent)    (Postscript)

O.K., this helps somewhat, but just for grins (since I deleted TeX off the
BBS system, to make more room for the Linux archive), I went to the SLS
t-series disks and seeing a texdoc.tgz, I took it apart to read the doc's,
and imagine my surprize, when I found out that I need to have TeX
installed BEFORE I could read the manual on it;) and the file name of this
documentation is called Gentle.Tex, I hope this isn't what you had in
mind when you stated the LDP's would be made available in simple format's...

> > When I see valid questions about various programs in comp.os.linux, the
> > reply's always state, look at the documentation, that is what it's there 
> >  for.
> > 
> > So we are sending everyone to the docs to read them and they are again up
> > against a blank wall, looking at a bunch of characters that are tossed in
> > between/amongst text strings. 
> 
> Unfortunately, "the documentation" that we're sending them to on c.o.l
> is *not* the LDP documentation! Those are for development only.

I could point you to a message of yours talking about the wonders of the
LDP docs that you posted on comp.os.linux, then point you to the message
from you about where the docs are stored, the point being, that you have
made them readily available in your own posts.

> > Is this still the intentions? Are we going to have ascii versions available?
> 
> Yes. 

That is good.

> > I think that an ascii version of some of the fine work that is being done
> > would benefit the new Linux users, allowing them to become informed about
> > the stuff they are using, before they connect up to the net.
> 
> I tend to agree with you, however: the LDP manuals are not written as
> normal ASCII-based "README" files. They are quite long, in-depth, and 
> structured like a real book---not at all like online documentation. In 
> other words to truly benefit from this format you'll want to print the 
> books out via LaTeX and converting the .dvi for your printer. 

Which brings us back full circle to the catch-22 situation of having TeX
installed before being able to read the TeX manual;(

> Alternatively, for those without LaTeX formatting capabilities (or reasonable
> printing resources), I'd like to provide inexpensive printed copies of 
.
.
> And of course there's always O'Reilly and Associates, who have expressed
> interest in possibly publishing some of our docs professionally. We'll
> see what happens down this road.

Both of this options are additional avenues that 'should' be available to
those who would like to take advantage of them. But that does not make the
availability of ascii formats any less advantageous to those who are
interested in reading the meat, before looking at pictures. Reminds me of
the reason I have a PlayBoy subscription, to read the articles;)

> All of your points are valid, however just remember that the LDP docs are
> not for general distribution. The only folks using/looking at these docs
> now should be those who are editing/revising/writing them, therefore we
> haven't made any kind of official release of the docs (or provided 
> instructions on how to print them---if you're working on the docs it's 
> assumed you know how to format and print them). 

By virtue of default, they *are* available to anyone who takes the time to
find out *where* they are stored. 

Also, as Vince pointed out, by having formats that are easily read, edited,
and printed, it *MAY* increase the chances of some of us who can help
contribute to the project. 

I really didn't & don't intend to start a 'flame' war over this issue in
this channel, I am getting enough of that in my mailbox;), 

I am attempting to point out that there are people who can contribute to
the documentation project, either by writing something themselves, or by
reading and submitting changes to the documentation already available, but
may not have the time or interest in setting up the 'so far' required
programs to manipulate these documents.

Increase the potential of having 100's of proof-readers and editor's
before the LDP is made available in the 'final' version, by having more
avenue's for people to look at, you may just be surprised at the amount of
support that could possibly be generated.....

---
               S'Qually Holler's BBS  +1-206-235-0270
                   Another WaffleIron on Linux!
         For anonymous uucp access, login: nuucp word: nuucp
           uucp squally!/sc2/bbs/filelist.z  filelist.z

------------------------------

End of DOC Digest
*****************
-------