Re: about coders, docs and users
=- cga2000 wrote on Mon 28.Aug'06 at 21:59:06 -0400 -=
> > The "pros" are a minority.
>
> I'm not sure what _you_ mean by "the pros" .. but I have a
> feeling that what separates the men from the boys is having the
> *nix fibre.
Even though being a *x geek helps living well with mutt, it is not
required, as long as you're generally not scared by tech-stuff
footwork and commit yourself to make your way even against odds.
*x geeks by their very nature have shown this already, but this is
not limited to them: they are a subset of these folks. ;)
So with [mutt] "pros" I mean more basically people who make/ made
their way against odds, like:
- know how to work even with not non-techy-oriented docs,
- committed/ doomed to succeed with mutt (who "must" bite their
way through) and eventually do,
- or already done with all config tweaking never to touch it again.
"live well": not only happy with "it works somehow for me to the
best of _my_ (limited) knowledge", but "works the absolutely
best way provided by mutt _altogether possible_".
> Even if they are new to mutt those that have mastered this
> "culture" will instinctively make the best of mutt's
> capabilities in a relatively short time and will be content with
> the current "manual".
But even those would be even more efficient with better docs.
Why waste time on something everybody else has wasted his already?
> One possible failing of the current manual where outsiders are
> concerned is that it was written by UNIX guys for UNIX guys.
My talking exactly!
> > There are far too many variations to document all of them.
>
> Agreed. But it would be a lot more profitable where I am
> concerned to adopt one of the ur-users' ways of doing things
> than spend countless hours reinventing the wheel.
Righto, see above.
But which ur-user should do it?
Sure, there are some "basic" functions that are generally useful
(which I tried to {get} record{ed} on the wiki), but some/ many
apply only for special cases/ conditions, and on the other side
don't cover what people actually need (first).
So we need to find those "basic functions".
> > See MuttGuide on wiki, add YOUR ideas to UserGuide. See also
> > my agenda on RadoS: the MuttFaq shows what people miss and
> > therefore needs better coverage in a guide.
>
> At this point my "ideas" are so vague that I don't see the point.
*BZZZZZTTTTT* wrong!
The 1st step is always the hardest!
You don't have to come up with a perfectly outlined & complete plan!
Just begin, and let things evolve: this is the wiki way!
When things reach a critical mass, it will move on its own, others
will jump in, because then they feel it's little enough that they
can afford to add/ fix it. ;)
> Incidentally, there's an "interesting" thread in "debian-user"
> at the moment regarding mailers in general and mutt in
> particular. I'm rather surprised to find that some of the more
> aggressive flamers seem to have tried mutt .. used it for some
> time .. and turned against it .. and yet are not even aware of
> some of its basic capabilities.
... I didn't know about this thread, I learned 1st + 2nd hand how
things are (wrong) and could be better.
However, some people might argue "they're too stupid for mutt" ...
Well, if this is mutters' attitude... I applaud you for your
confidence in your superiority and justification not to improve. :-(
--
© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
Even if it seems insignificant, in fact EVERY effort counts
for a shared task, at least to show your deserving attitude.