On Sat, 2005-12-17 at 17:04 +0530, Bhuvaneswaran wrote:
> > (e.g. sudo vim filename), and sometimes it simply says "edit the file
> > [filename]". I personally prefer the second approach, I think the guide
>
> Ok. IMO, we can use sudo vim filename on all occassions. The reason
> being, we may not expect the user to follow the entire document. He
> may be using the document to install a single application. So, he may
> concentrate on just one application. So, IMO, we can specify the
> command to edit the file on all sections. Feedbacks are welcome.
I disagree. I think that it is a lot better to go "editor-agnostic" as
Og Maciel put it. The reason for this is that it seems over the top to
me to continually spell out the command that a user needs to edit a
file: this is a serverguide, and almost every single entry will involve
editing files. I agree, we shouldn't expect everyone to read the whole
document, but this problem can be avoided if the word "edit" is linked
to the section of the document which explains how to edit. That way,
users who know don't click, and those who don't, can click, until they
have learnt.
> > new users won't be able to use it properly, while they will be able to
> > use nano. Experienced users can use whatever they like.
>
> We're using vim based on the decision we took in one meeting. We're
> open to use nano though. Feedbacks are welcome.
I vote for nano: it is much easier, and everyone can use it, experienced
or beginners alike. Those who like vim, can use vim (see the
editor-agnostic approach, above).
Matt
--
mdke@xxxxxxxxxx
gnupg pub 1024D/0E6B06FF
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
|
