Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)

From: Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner <spc_at_conman.org>
Date: Sun Apr 21 21:47:04 2002

It was thus said that the Great Richard Erlacher once stated:
>
> I wouldn't say it's better, but (1) it's better documented, and (2) I don't
> have to look at the code.

  Better documented [1] as for using the program, yes, I'll grant you that
(to a degree). And for two, you were the one who brought up the source code
of Linux as being ``full of ugly hacks and undocumented modifications, among
comments relevant only to the original code that was abandoned six or seven
revisions back, though it's not obvious.'' So if you don't have to look at
the code, why should this be of concern to you?

  -spc (Who has looked to the source of Linux to figure out the stack frame
        given to a signal handler to help debug a problem in user code ... )

[1] For various values of documented. Using only the documentation that
        comes with Microsoft Word (hardcopy or the help files) can someone
        be reasonably expected to learn how to use Word?

        Seems like books on *using* software is crowding out books about
        *writing* software at the bookstores. And to me, that says that
        the documentation that comes with software is so lacking that a
        market of third party documentation is viable. So I might contend
        that your assertion of ``better documented'' is invalid.
Received on Sun Apr 21 2002 - 21:47:04 BST