Re: [seul-edu] School Networking Guide (was: need detailed network advice)

[Douglas Loss <dloss@suscom.net>]

On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Manuel Gutierrez Algaba wrote:
> 
> Certainly, I WON'T handle DTD, I don't feel like these days,
> even
> when I admit that there's a straight forward translation from 
> DocBook<-->LaTeX . So, it's up to you. I use LaTeX only.
> 
That's fine; we use DocBook.

> > >Nevertheless, DocBook is the DTD we're using for our
> SEUL/edu
> > >documentation project guides, since we have tools to easily
> 
> That's the sort of things I don't like from
> pseudo-institutional
> linux places, like seul. Why that standard, when LaTeX is far
> more general that DocBook, with far more possibilities for
> having
> niceties and with translator to .pdf, .html ....?
> 
You're certainly welcome to not like it, but Bill Tihen and
Ramin (I know I can't spell his last name properly) put a lot of
thought and effort into our documentation standards and decided
on DocBook.  We're not going to change that because one person
has a different opinion.

> So, it's extremely limited sometimes. How can you get a table
> several pages long in DocBook ? How can you get margin
> comments ?
> How two column pages ? Geeks are so stupid that they can't
> handle
> LaTeX and that they can't understand LaTeX has many
> translators.
> 
Gratuitous insults don't help you to make your point.  If you
think DocBook is difficult to write to, how many of the people
who will be writing guides for us do you think will be able to
handle writing LaTeX?  And I don't know just how you define
"geeks," but by pretty much any definition geeks invented TeX
and LaTeX.  Your assertions don't hold up.

> I've managed to produce face-shaped paragraphs using LaTeX, or
> snake-shaped,... you can't get that in DocBook in a million
> years.
> 
That may be useful in magazines or for advertising, but for
documentation (the "Doc" in DocBook) it's worse than useless--it
detracts from the content.  If anyone _did_ manage to do that in
DocBook, they'd get it back for revision.
> 
> Apart from that, what kind of graphical support  Docbook has ?
> Yeah, yeah, geeks don't know about Pstricks, TeXdraw, picture
> environment, Metapost or gpic. Because that's the point geeks
> are comfortable with, what they know,...
> 
Again, gratuitous insults to the people who invented the things
you're talking about.  If you don't know about DocBooks level of
graphical support, you obviously haven't looked at the DTD
closely enough to have reasoned opinions.

> If you have graphics, you still have problems for
> translations. 
> DocBook is very nice for dull doc.
> 
Thank you!  Exciting isn't wkat we're looking for.  Informative
is.

> I think that far more important than following the
> requirements
> SEUL imposes over its doc, is getting the stuff done in any
> format !!!
> 
We're not forcing anyone to follow our requirements.  If you
don't like them, start your own documentation project.  That's
the essence of what this community stands for, after all.

I'm sorry to have been so blunt here, folks, but I think this
needed saying.

-- 
Doug Loss           The art of medicine consists of amusing the
dloss@suscom.net    patient while nature cures the disease.
(570) 326-3987             Voltaire