<flame>
Am I alone in thinking that the info program
encourages bad documentation?
I want to shrink my /home partition
to allow me to set up a clean installation of FC-6
side-by-side with my FC-5 installation.
This is on a 64-bit machine,
and there were a couple of nasty problems
when I installed FC-5 on this box,
so I thought I'd keep FC-5 there as a fallback.
I imagine that is what 90% of Linux users
want to use parted for.
But there is nothing I see in the documentation
directed to this end.
I'm sure if I read it all I will find the solution,
but I don't think one should have to go to that much trouble.
I know it will take a fraction of the time
to use Partition Magic (of which I have a legal copy).
But I'd prefer to use a Linux solution.
If only people writing documentation
would consider for a moment why people want to use their program.
To my mind, if 90% of users are interested in one application,
then that should be the subject of the documentation,
with other uses relegated to separate chapters or an appendix.
Also a simple example of usage
(using script or a similar capture program)
is worth a ream of metadata.
It is usually perfectly obvious how to modify an example
to suit one's particular case, while something like
squiggle [options] <io> <xpd>
takes an age to decipher.
</flame>
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail (<80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
