Subject: Re: Some comments
From: [email-masked] (Greg Hankins)
To: Linux Documentation Project writers <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 09:57:19 -0500

Matt Welsh writes:
>Is he wrong or right? If wrong, what is he doing wrong that won't allow
>him to use gettyps? What's wrong with documenting mgetty if other people
>seem to have less problems with it?

mgetty and getty_ps are almost a religeous issue.  My main reason for not
documenting mgetty is the fact that it doesn't follow the Linux standard
of using cua and ttyS devices.  I am going to incorportate mgetty stuff
somehow in the next version.  Also, the mgetty documentation is really good
and doesn't really need any supplementing, like the getty_ps docs do.

I have no idea what he's doing wrong for getty_ps.  I'm not convinced mgetty
gives people less problems, either.  What I'm thinking of doing is just
discussing the merits of each package, and then letting the user decide which
one he wants to use.

Greg

-- 
"Wenn ist das Nunstuck git und Slotermeyer? | Greg Hankins ([email-masked])
Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt    | Georgia Tech College of Computing,
gersput!" - World's Funniest Joke           | Computing and Networking Services 
<A HREF="http://www.cc.gatech.edu/staff/h/Greg.Hankins/">Greg Hankins</A>