FAQ/ audience

Jeroen Coumans jeroencoumans at gmx.net
Mon Jun 9 23:54:58 PDT 2003


Alexander E. Patrakov said the following on 06/10/03 06:20:
> On Monday 09 June 2003 21:08, Jeroen Coumans wrote:
> 
>>Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
>>
>>>Maybe we should put some objective criteria (e.g. required skills) to the
>>>book. E.g. a person who did not recompile at least his/her distribution
>>>kernel will probably be disappointed with LFS.
>>
>>Well, I wouldn't want to set such a hard limit,
> 
> Then make it a soft limit, e.g. "If you recompiled your distribution kernel, 
> it's a good sign that you have some of the required skills"

I can live with that.

>>For example; the whoread, whonotread and prerequisites should
>>be 1 page; named "assumptions". Alex Groenewoud suggested such a
>>structural change at
>>http://archive.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2002/02/0497.html
> 
> 
> 404 Not Found

Displays fine here.

>>>And maybe even a short exam on the web page (didn't pass => don't read
>>>the book)
>>
>>Well, I'm trying to advocate adjusting the book's structure and logical
>>flow so newbies are more generally ruled out because they have a harder
>>time following it. I don't think these quizes are effective; esp.
>>because they have the potential to rule out people who could read the
>>book but will be annoyed by the arrogance of setting such an entry point.
> 
> I did not express my point clearly enough. There should be a link "test your 
> skills" on the assumptions page. Readers are not required to click on it.

This would be a fun pop quiz! I can see it's usefullness too. Now we 
just need to decide on the questions and code the darn thing.

>>>A dragon's solution: mention the mailing lists at the _end_ of the FAQ
>>>and nowhere else.
>>
>>We don't want information to become less accessible, so I don't think
>>this is a proper solution. Previously I and other people have suggested:
> 
> I also think it is not a proper solution, but we do want to make lists less 
> accessible than the FAQ, don't we?

I'm working on a revised LFS website with a lot of adjustments which I 
argued, but I think it suffices to adjust the navigation like this:

_Navigation_
     * Introduction
     * Acknowledgements
     * Mirrors
     * *Download*:
           o Book Releases
           o Packages
           o Artwork
     * *Read*:
           o Stable (4.1)
           o Previous Stable (4.0)
           o CVS (pre-5.0)
           o French LFS translation
     * *Contribute*:
           o Make a donation
           o Report bugs
           o Register as LFS user
     * *Get help*:
           o FAQ
           o Search
           o IRC
           o Mailing Lists/Newsgroups

Some pages need to be rewritten to accomodate this structure though. But 
I think it's a much clearer navigation for the website, and also shows a 
clear "action" path for readers.

>>* when someone subscribes to a mailinglist, mail the FAQ or a link
>>thereto in the "welcome" e-mail. IIRC, at the time this was deemed
>>unappropriate because it's assumed that people check out the FAQ before
>>they subscribe.
> 
> And this assumption disproved itself. Well, it may become true upon 
> restructuring the book. I vote for it.
> 
> 
>>* post (a portion of the) FAQ regularly to the mailinglists. This has
>>the same disadvantages of the above, and is also annoying for regulars
>>and a waste of bandwidth. I still don't understand why this solution was
>>chosen previously.
> 
> 
> Regulars can easily set up filters. And it may save more bandwidth than it 
> will consume. This solution is accepted in some newsgroups (e.g. 
> comp.lang.c++), but I really have never seen this in mailing lists.

When people complain about long sigs draining their bandwidth, postings 
of the FAQ is surely unacceptable. I don't think it helps reducing 
bandwidth.

-- 
Groeten/Greetings
Jeroen Coumans

-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list