The LDP Responds to Suggestions

Guylhem Aznar, one of the folks over at the Linux Documentation Project has sent us an updated list of features/responses/additions that they've put into the project. Much of this work comes as a result of Slashdot suggestions; you can read more below and perhaps want to sign up to help out.

Thanks a lot to Slashdot readers for the comments they submitted.

Our announcement may have seemed "empty" but you provided us with lots of good feedback regarding the LDP in general, and that will help us in improving our quality.

While reading the comments, I took a paper and wrote down the different problems people had.

Some will not be solved immediately, some are now solved, others are outside our scope while others can be solved if we get more people to help in the effort.

- web site design : FIXED

Each of your comments were precious to help us improve its appearance and ease of use. Please try out the new version.

- provide direct access to important links : FIXED

We now have big links for each of the major document types (HOWTOs, FAQs...) on the first page. Please check "non-English" where you should find a link to your local LDP with translated documents.

- provide security bulletins & link to RFC archives

I'm sorry, but this is not within the current goals of the LDP. However, we will add links to other sites with this information in our "Links" section.

- provide DocBook and PDF documents : FIXED (Docbook format and ">PDF format are online now

I converted each of the LinuxDoc HOWTOs and mini HOWTOs to DocBook and PDF, uploaded them two days after the Slashdot article ; they are now available on each of the formats as another output, just like the html and ps versions.

- move to DocBook because LinuxDoc sucks - stick to LinuxDoc because DocBook sucks

The HOWTOs are now provided in both LinuxDoc and DocBook; however for the moment we can only accept LinuxDoc source for the HOWTOs.

In the next weeks both DocBook and LinuxDoc SGML source will be accepted for the HOWTOs. We are currently testing DocBook output formats.

You can already submit your DocBook only document which will be put in the DOCBOOK section. (a new major section, like FAQs and HOWTOs)

- "tables don't scale to window size and resolution and 10 pt font size is hardcoded

Our Webmasters are working on these problems.

- How can I submit my work to the LDP? You can read the HOWTO-HOWTO

three possibilities depending on the format:

a. you can write in LinuxDoc : call your document an HOWTO b. you can write in DocBook : call your document a DOCBOOK :-) c. you are a master of TeX/LaTeX, pdf or any specific format : call your document a GUIDE or a FAQ, depending on its contents.

Please use a license compatible with our requirements (GNU Free Documentation License is IMHO the best choice but feel free to take any other license) and mail your document to ldp-submit@lists.linuxdoc.org

If your LinuxDoc or DocBook source contains errors, I'm sorry but we will not process it until the errors are fixed. Please test it first

- You should check the documents : FIXED

We have since November! We would like to be able to have our peer review team proofread each submitted document.

However, there are far too many docs submitted to ldp-submit for our small team to adequately proofread each document. If you would like to help us please subscribe to ldp-submit (mail ldp-submit-request@lists.linuxdoc.org).

- XXXX and YYYY HOWTOs are outdated/unmaintained

Please update the document and submit the new version to the LDP if the license allows modifications. We will be happy to include your new version (News HOWTO and SCSI HOWTO are especially old!).

- I just found ZZZZ HOWTO which is not part of the LDP yet

Then please contact the author and ask him to send his document to ldp-submit@lists.linuxdoc.org Chances are we will include it, unless it contains errors, has a non- free license, or duplicates an existing document.

- license problem, GNU/Linux... FIXED

We have a manifesto and a license guide on the first page. There is an ongoing discussion and both may be revised.

We will not impose any license but rather have some criteria and requirements (free redistribution for ex.)

And if you don't like "LDP", just remember netscape/mozilla : it's written LDP but it reads GNU Linux Documentation Project.

Writing documentation is not as sexy as writing software (To quote a Slashdotter, "Honestly, how many users want to read documentation? How many of them see a fat manual and feel happy?")

We do need more authors. Unfortunately, not everyone can be a good author. It requires a combination of writing skills, technical knowledge, and the willingness to accept criticism that improves your final product. Thank you all for your responses--we hope that you continue to let us know your opinions on the LDP.

Comments

Re:MSDN for Linux

[Jon Peterson]

"The relevant results will come up immediately because it will have a very high relevance coefficient. "

That's not really true, is it. MSDN and technet are pretty good. It's depressing the number of times you search for a problem on the net and find 50 pointers to different archives of the same mailing list, all of which reveal someone with exactly the same problem as you - someone who got no response from the mailing list beyond a couple of 'me too' followups.

More to the point, MSDN/Technet is simply more convenient. There's alot to be said for putting some of that stuff on CD-Rom and giving it a real search engine. Imagine something like all the documentation of every app in a standard Linux distribution on CD-Rom. With a proper search engine. Properly searchable Man pages would be a start, but then add to that the contents of every user-foo and admin-foo and devel-foo mailing list archive for each application. Then add to that all the documentation branches of the applications' respective home pages. Then add all the howto's and the rest.

Then update the CD-set quarterly or bi-monthly. Sounds like a useful thing to me.

If I had to choose MSDN style or Internet style, I'd probably go for Internet - but both together would be much nicer than either on it's own. Sitting around saying "No Linux documentation? Just search the ***ing net man" is actually not too helpful.

So, gratz to the LDP, but if anyone's looking for business plan I'd go for a Linux Technet CD-Rom set. Errr, only I use Solaris at work. But otherwise I would :-)

Limit redundancy?

[Lettuce B. Qrious]

This may not be the proper forum for this, but since I've felt frustrated by this on numerous occasions, I need to vent;

When I run RedHat 6.1, I truly and honestly don't give a rats ass about how things are done with Linux Kernel 1.7.009 or Debian/Suse/Slackware or whatnot. I don't know how many times I've gone through a document only to find that nothing (or little) within it applies to my problem.

The ultimate functionality enhancer for Linux documentation, would be an interface where you specify whatever hardware/software setup that applies to you, and then get documentation specifically for that purpose.

However, this may be a point more suited for attention from the distributors. RedHat indiscriminatorily doles out a ton of HowTo's that for a large part do little but waste its customer's time, and if someone starts doing this better, I'll switch in a New York minute. The product from the distros should be facilitation of setup and maintenance, not randomly collected material of little relevance...

Oh, and by the way, adding a "Troubleshooting"-section to the howto's would be a blessing for newbies...

Sign UP

[reality-bytes]

They will need a lot of help.

The Linux Documentation Project will need all the help it can get; this at the moment can only be an uphill struggle. Linux software development is undoubtedly at its most prolific it has ever been so as soon as something is documented; it will have been revised (something that LDP have taken note of)
It seems therefore that the only way to win this is to increase the manpower available and signup to help...

I emplore /. readers who have knowledge and experience of related issues to get involed (get their keyboard dirty) and be part of the big picture :)
Linuxdoc.org has already proved invaluble to me so I will be doing whatever I can.....

Categorization by filetype?

[LetterJ]

This part bothered me a bit:

a. you can write in LinuxDoc : call your document an HOWTO b. you can write in DocBook : call your document a DOCBOOK :-) c. you are a master of TeX/LaTeX, pdf or any specific format : call your document a GUIDE or a FAQ, depending on its contents.

Why are the documents being titled according to filetype first, and contents second. That's like Yahoo categorizing sites by whether they use PHP or Perl, and not by what the site is about.

Yes, I realize that they are still considering content, however, the quoted statement indicates that the title category is decided by the file format. "I'm looking for a HOWTO on ???. What? I need the GUIDE instead? There's no HOWTO because the expert doesn't use the right file format?" Good documentation relies on consistency. I thought that was one of the main points for the LDP: you can go there to get all of your questions answered. Companies like O'Reilly have it figured out. All of their "???? in a Nutshell" books are fairly similar in style and content. You can intuit from the title category what type of book it is. You ought to be able to do the same with LDP documents.

I'm sure someone will ask why I don't have any HOWTO's in the LDP.

1. When I first went to contribute, I found tons of stuff on making sure that I got the file format(s) properly set. However, I couldn't find much of anything on a suggested content outline, organizational structure, suggested content, etc. All of those things are important to create consistent documentation.
   
2. I'm not an expert on much Linux related.
   
3. As people tend to get a little touchy about a complete rewrite of their HOWTO, helping on existing one's isn't welcomed.
   
4. I spend enough time on the job writing doc, I'd rather write PHP apps in my free time.
   

LetterJ