Posted by Nick Kew on 12/07/05 16:39

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Nick Kew wrote:
>
>> Matt Probert wrote:
>>
>>> Explained? That's an interesting term to use with regard to the Apache
>>> documentation! I find the Apache documentation to be slightly less
>>> intelligible than if it were written in Ancient Greek.
>>
>>
>>
>> OK, here's a simple challenge. Find another complex product with
>> documentation that's more readable than Apache's, while not being
>> misleading or downright wrong.
>>
>
> MySQL

Hmmm, that's a very readable manual, too.

> Microsoft's Visual Studio products

You must be joking! Where do you find anything that isn't just a
longwinded explanation of how to use GUI menus? It certainly
never told me anything that wasn't bleedin' obvious.

Unlike back in the 1980s, when a microsoft manual was somewhat
helpful in learning C.

> AutoCad

never used it.

> Websphere

Put off even looking by the webpages and ambiguous license
(not sure if that's changed since IBM started to get more
serious about opensource).

> Exim

Well, I chose postfix in preference when I last changed MTA,
and find postfix's documentation much harder than Apache's -
though nevertheless adequately workable.

>
> To start.
>
> Apache's documentation is some of the worst I've ever seen.
>

How so? Instead of whinging, how about some constructive criticism
that might offer some ideas for improving it?

--
Nick Kew

[Back to original message]