Documentation?

[Patrick O'Donnell]

>Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 22:23:35 +1000
>From: Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org>
>
>On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 12:01:42PM +0000, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
>> that need root access to modify.
>
>That or an ability to read documentation.

Hmmm.. It seems to me that that's how this thread started, and the
original question has yet to be answered.

Someone offered up www.x.org/docs, which may be fine for X Window
System developers, but is not what most application programmers would
call documentation.  I have made similar queries on this list for
documentation, with similar lack of results.

Linux is not the whole world, nor is X.Org.  Some of us have to deploy
applications on many different X Window System implementations.  What
they have in common is the core.  If you disembowel the core and
require a raft of undocumented¹ add-ons that must be installed for the
simplest of applications to work², you've succumbed to the
embrance-and-extend arrogance that puts you in bed with Microsoft.

		- Patrick

¹... or sketchily documented, or where the "documentation" is an
unadorned protocol specification, or where no one can or will reveal
where the documentation is -- effectively undocumented.

²I can't say that this is the actual case, but from the comments I
read on this list, and the lack of any effective documentation
describing the additional modules and how they relate to the core
specifications, that is certainly the perception.