[Mailman-Users] Getting a Subscriber List
Dan.Mick at west.sun.com
Fri Sep 22 22:54:23 CEST 2000
"Roger B.A. Klorese" wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Dan Mick wrote:
> > Did you see me arguing against documentation?
> No, I didn't. But in the absence of documentation, the only way one can
> "look in the bin directory and figure it out yourself" is by reading
Complete and utter nonsense.
1) all those utilities have really obvious names (assuming English is a language you speak).
2) all have huge comments at the very top of the file explaining just what they do and what
options they take.
3) all give a usage message when invoked with no arguments or with -?.
> I see no reason literacy in the language a package is written in
> should be the price of admission.
Well, I knew no Python when I started, and I had sense enough to look around me.
Do you need to know the street map of a town by heart to stay our of intersections?
> > I thought not. Take your diatribes somewhere they'll do some good. Better yet,
> > write that documentation and submit it, so you're part of the solution.
> Why should I not be F*R*E*E to be a user of the software without being a
> programmer or tech writer? The input of a non-developer user as to what's
> needed must be respected in the open source process, as it is not
> now; that's why we have such powerful, high-quality software that's
> impossible to use.
Like I said: if you want to rail against Open Software or complain that someone
hasn't volunteered their time to solve your every problem, go somewhere else.
You didn't pay a cent for Mailman, and that gives you no right whatsoever to
be petulant about lack of documentation.
Moreover, it still has no bearing at all on what I said.
I agree that having documentation for the utilities would be unquestionably better,
but I find your attitude about it ungrateful and offensive in the extreme, especially
when you try to bend a completely-different point to your own hobby-horse's purpose.
More information about the Mailman-Users