4 ms·
fwiw I find the arch approach the best tradeoff of practical and useful. Usually when I go to a distro wiki, I'm not really going there to learn in-depth what i
by cashewchoo 6y ago
fwiw I find the arch approach the best tradeoff of practical and useful. Usually when I go to a distro wiki, I'm not really going there to learn in-depth what it is. I'm going there because I have a problem or a question. So having low-structure (easy to contribute to), high-signal (too much low-interest clutter info tends to contribute to documentation decay) tidbits seems to work out well.
I particularly like that if I have an issue, and I figure it out, I can just pop a quick line in there. h4:"Issues snafucating while running nvidia proprietary driver". Body: "you get this error message. <snip>. This is due to <snip>. Run this command to fix it." And it's already at the quality that people expect.
- agumonkey 6y agoYes and this tells a few things about what a good piece of software is. Arch is not easy but it doesn't bloat you, it gives you a few pieces to play, when you have an issue there's a paragraph for you. Software is often documented as if it was a integral part of the program, but it's wrong on the human level I believe.