Re: MacTeX 2007 and documentation

Norman Gray <norman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Greetings,

real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:

...lots, but in particular:

But the upshot was (as you report here) that Karl Berry reported that my
problem was a `known issue' and no changes occured as a result that I
know of - that's what I mean by ignored.

Yes, and 'known issue' means (I expect) that it's on a bug-list
somewhere, lurking goblin-like in the future of someone willing to spend
time they might otherwise spend with their children, their cats, or more
interesting projects, instead sorting out tedious distribution wrinkles
for the benefit of other people.

<puzzled>

Well, that's one gloss to put on it, of course. Of course, one might
suggest that those who sort things out do so for themselves and then let
the rest of us have access to it.

It's how best to describe my own contributions to CTAN.

I think I'd better re-state my idea for how I'd like the poor
documentation problem dealt with:

/My/ suggestion is that those in the know should be helpful for those
who wish to write documentation rather than keeping themselves hidden
and unapproachable - so that when people spot a problem and wish to
address it, the job is possible.

It doesn't seem to occur to these people that if
I could understand well enough to write better documentation, then I
wouldn't need better documentation.

I think it occurs to 'these people' perfectly clearly.

I know that your supposition is wrong because `these people' keep
telling me to write documentation myself if I need documentation.

Perhaps you could explain why you thought otherwise, in the light of the
fact that I have reported the above detail more than once in the past,
and you surely must have read it?

In short: why are you ignoring reality?

Essentially all
documentation for open-source projects is written by people who don't
need it,

Naturally - no other sort of person can do the job. I have tried myself
to write docs for the software of others, but it's mostly proven
impossible to get the explanations I need to write the documentation.

It seems that those in the know are often impossible to contact and
those you can contact usually unwilling to explain specific bits when
you ask 'em. Some of them have got abusive - in much the same fashion
you are abusing me here in public.

Honourable exception: the fontinst mailing list people were very helpful
and unfailingly polite and decent - quite unlike you and the MacTeX
mailing list. Unfortunately I think they assumed more ability from me
that I possess, so I remained unable to figure out how to use fontinst
properly and never did finish writing the documentation I was working
on.

(I think they assumed I could figure things out from the source code in
ways that I cannot do)

but who do it anyway because they are willing to donate effort
to the broader community.

Quite - that's why I've written the documentation for my LaTeX packages
which are on CTAN.

It would of course be nice if the TeXLive maintainers dropped everything
and made their distribution tweaks in a way which didn't break anything
downstream.

<sigh> Now you're being silly.

It would be nice if all of the materials which MacTeX
installs were documented fully and consistently

Now you're being even sillier. That cannot possibly be the case, nor
have I ever suggested that anything of that sort be done.

And you damned well know that - so what we have here is dishonest
debating tactics on your part. Set up a straw man, call it `Rowland',
and knock it down - all for what? For no reason other than to cause
people to form a bad opinion of me using very sneakily dishonest
underhand tactics.

Well, I don't do that kind of thing - but I do use the label `piece of
***' inside my own head to describe those who do behave in that way.

(it is actually pretty
good as it is, but it's the last 10% of this sort of thing that's most
visible, and which sinks all the thankless effort).

Actually, the MacTeX documentation is utter *** in almost all aspects.

I've been told in angry terms to `read the fucking source' to work out
whatever it was I wanted to know. Apparently, that's perfectly
acceptable. Never mind that I don't speak the programming language
concerned... No, no, that's irrelevant: the source code is provided, so
that's good enough for anyone's documentation needs, that's the idea,
isn't it?

It's why it took me so long to get round to using MacTeX - the
difficulty in working out how to configure it to work to my spec, and so
on. It would have been easier if people were willing to provide advice
and help, but it seems that the people who *really* know won't do so.

It's very different to the OzTeX world, where people were always helpful
and nice about it.

It would be nice if
all of Rowland's other complaints didn't exist. And it would be nice if
world hunger were not to exist.

It'd be nice if people like you stopped being such total arseholes about
this sort of thing.

Or, to put it another way, it'd be nice if you didn't imply that I had
made the suggestions/demands implied by your remarks above, which are
sneaky lies posted to denigrate me personally.

It'd be nice if you stopped doing that sort of thing and addressed the
real points I've been blathering on about.

But I don't suppose you'd consider decent, reasonable behaviour, would
you?

But all these things take other people's donated effort, and Rowland
can't magically whisk that effort into being by saying

What Rowland's suggesting is that it'd be good if, when a problem with
something straightforward like `inadequate or absent documentation' were
pointed out, that some effort was put into correcting the defect.

As it is, it seems impossible even to find out how to get in contact
with the people who have the information which needs to go into the
documentation.

So because the people who know keep their knowledge to themselves and
remain unapproachable, we have a big problem.

<shrug> It's a serious issue.

Repeating the same complaints again and again, in one thread after
another, achieves precisely nothing.

For sure - so why do it? I get the same complaints, time after time,
any time I bring up these issues. And the complaints never seem to have
much to do with what I'm on about - it's usually like your complaints,
which I must characterise as `lies aimed at denigrating me personally
with the intention of causing people to dismiss my concerns due to your
dishonest personal attacks against me'.

There are weaknesses in the
open-source model -- patchy documentation is a common complaint -- but
these are not addressed by exhortation.

Of course - and despite your dishonest implication, exhortation is not a
method I expect to see achieve any success in many fields.

Which leads me on to my question: so what, Oh Great and Wise Master of
All, would you suggest is an effective way to address this problem?

I note that your dishonest implications about me and your stream of
insane complaints achieve precisely nothing except to indicate that
you're a dishonest ***. Your dishonesty might also (in the case of
those with poor abilities in the field of critical thinking) to persuade
people to think that I'm to be ignored - which is of course your main
aim in this thread, isn't it?

You're just interested in using dishonest methods to harm my personal
reputation in TeX forums, aren't you? Pretty despicable behaviour on
your part, I feel.

I note that you *IMPLY* - that is, lying in a sneakily underhand
cowardly fashion - that I engage in nothing but exhortation on this
subject. That is not the case, of course - but I can't expect you to
have any truck with decency or the truth, can I now?

[Yes, I know all this has been rehearsed at length in previous
Rowland-threads over the past few years. I'm not positive it's useful
to keep this version of the thread going, but so far it appeared to be
missing the required general rebuttal.]

A shame that your idea about the `required general rebuttal' doesn't
actually rebut any of my suggestions or ideas. Your `general rebuttal'
does not in fact rebut any of my points at all - in fact, you refuse to
address my real points, and use seriously dishonest sneaky tactics which
imply that I've said and done things which I have not - but without
actually stating so, thus making it almost impossible for me to rebut
your rebuttal.

In other words, you're using cowardly dishonest tactics to personally
attack me because you don't like me and want to cause harm to my
reputation.

I'd much rather you dealt with specific issues, but of course someone as
cowardly and dishonest as you won't engage in any kind of decent, honest
debate.

I read the same things from so many people - so many people raving on at
me, so many people implying (but always been too cowardly to make their
complaints explicit) that I engage in all sorts of madly destructive
behaviour that I in fact do *NOT* engage in.

Clearly, I've annoyed a lot of very vindictive cowardly people such as
yourself.

Your post is nothing more than a dishonest personal attack against me
based on an unstated set of entirely fictional implications about my
behaviour. I name you coward, and I name you liar.

I remain interested in your suggestions on how to deal with the
documentation issue - if you have any constructive suggestions, that is.

Can you try for constructive suggestions instead of hurling more *** at
me?

/My/ suggestion is that those in the know should be helpful for those
who wish to write documentation rather than keeping themselves hidden
and unapproachable - so that when people spot a problem and wish to
address it, the job is possible.

What is your suggesting on dealing with the problem?

Or are you just someone who enjoys hurling *** from the sidelines, in
the dishonestly destructive fashion you have amply demonstrated in this
thread?

Rowland.
(whose Mac has finally come back from the menders)

--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
.