Re: Is there a need for a hard copy OpenBSD documentation project?

["STeve Andre'" <andres@msu.edu>]

I hear the soft muffled screams of innocent trees...

I don't think it would be a good idea to do this.  There are times, yes, when
it's nice to have a piece of documentation in paper form--I did that with the
ppp doc so I could really understand it.  But in a year+ of OpenBSD usage
it is the only thing besides the FAQ that I have printed out.

The more realistic problem here is that this project is an ongoing target with
the associated doc changes, such that what was printed today is going to
look stale in a year.

Unless you are pouring over ALL the docs, how many are you apt to  look at
before they are outdated?

Best to leave the very good OpenBSD documentation in cyberspace, and a
few more trees in the forest.

--STeve Andre'

At 09:38 PM 9/1/00 -0400, Luke Seubert wrote:
>I am interested in hard copy documentation for OpenBSD, and would like to
>know if other folks share this interest.
>
>I read through FAQ 2.3 and have a pretty good idea how to go about printing
>out the hard copy of all the text, man pages, docs, etc. that come with the
>CD. If I or anybody else wants their own personal hardcopy documentation,
>well, it is definitely doable, albeit perhaps time consuming and
>inconvenient.
>
>However, this got me to thinking.  Has the OpenBSD project ever thought
>about publishing their documentation in a convenient hard copy format, or
>even writing some sort of manual?  A quick search of the advocacy, misc, and
>tech mailing list archives revealed that somebody was pondering writing a
>SysAdmin manual back in 1998.  I have not been able to discover anything
>else however.
>
>Let me ask this question of the OpenBSD developers, supporters, and users:
>Does anybody see a strong need to create a hard copy documentation project?
>Do most people find the e-documentation to be sufficient?  Or are there a
>lot of folks like me who are a bit rustic and prefer something on plain old
>paper?
>
>Please share your thoughts on this.
>
>Thank you,
>
>--
>
>Luke Seubert