On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote: > > But printing manuals ain't cheap either -- especially when you > > and your customers would like them to look/read better than, say, the > > RedHat 5.2 books. > > I actually think the RH 5.x manuals were some of the *best* technical > documentation I've ever read. I didn't know squat about Linux, and barely > enough UNIX to know 'ls' and 'man'; and the RH 5.1 manual explained quite > clearly how the filesystem was laid out, what went where, roughly how big > partitions should be, and a vague description of each of the major packages > included in the distro. I agree big time that documentation is worth the price of admission. My point about the manual I mentioned is they were poorly indexed, and it was rare to find two pages where one side of one of them didn't contain a misspelling or grammatical error. Doesn't mean they are bad *info*, but there's a difference between being useful and well written. It won't turn off the computer geeks (didn't turn me off) but it will turn off the literate non-geek. I believe they have made improvements in this area, so don't think I'm bashing RH, even though all your Linux base are belong to Debian. ;) -- "To misattribute a quote is unforgivable." --Anonymous