Re: Tech Docs and Consultants

Geez Neil, if I didn't know better I'd say you were trying to troll with
your docbook suggestion. Before Josh goes off on another rant or justin
gets his nickers in a pinch or someone else recommends doing everything
in .doc format can we all just take a break for a bit?

We have a plan, step #1 is determining the status of our server.

Marc, can we get an update on that? Are there still plans to move
techdocs or has that been taken care of?

Robert Treat

On Tue, 2003-04-15 at 16:21, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-04-15 at 15:32, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > And the majority of *database application developers* have no exposure to CVS,
> > Emacs, Latex, or similar "Unix geek" utilities.
>
> What about SGML/DocBook? The Linux Documentation Project has tons of
> user-contributed documentation written by individuals of varying levels
> of technical skill, and they seem to be doing fine with DocBook, and
> without a fancy CMS system.
>
> > (BTW, I, like Justin, know how to use CVS but find it arcane and annoying.
> > Also CVS isn't the only version control system in the world, nor the easiest
> > to use. May I point out that Linus has stopped using CVS for the kernel?)
>
> <OT>
>
> Linus never used CVS for the kernel. But since his requirements for a
> version control system are far in excess of whatever techdocs would
> need, I don't really see how it's relevant.
>
> </OT>
>
> I understand the need to settle on the right technology, but before we
> get ahead of ourselves, perhaps we can just pick something and be done
> with it?
>
> Just my 2 cents...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Neil
>