On Aug 26, 2007, at 4:16 PM, Gavin Henry wrote:
<quote who="kurt@OpenLDAP.org"> > Update of /repo/OpenLDAP/pkg/openldap-guide > > Modified Files: > preamble.sdf 1.90 -> 1.91 > > Log Message: > Don't comment on software produced by others. Those who desire to > use a > network analyzer are likely to know which ones are or are not > "great".
Understood, but how far does that go?
Well, this instance I saw going over too far because it was basically it stated an opinion regarding the quality of a piece of software. It made a specific recommendation when no specific recommendation is needed. Even if there were a need for the admin to use a network analyzer, there is no particular reason for OpenLDAP Project to favor one analyzer over another.
Does that mean we can't talk about "tail", as it "wasn't made here"?
There are multiple implementations of tail(1) specification. The guide should using non-standard features of some implementations. Stick to POSIX whenever possible.
Also, I assume we're not stating any opinion as to the quality of any particular implementation of tail(1).
It's a debugging section so I think referencing Open Source tools should be allowed.
Avoid playing favorites. If there are more than one tool that can do a job (which is generally the case), don't pick one. Instead, describe the job that needs getting done and leave it to the admin to decide which tool to use.
My 2 pence.
Night.
CVS Web URLs: http://www.openldap.org/devel/cvsweb.cgi/?cvsroot=OpenLDAP-guide http://www.openldap.org/devel/cvsweb.cgi/preamble.sdf? cvsroot=OpenLDAP-guide
Changes are generally available on cvs.openldap.org (and CVSweb) within 30 minutes of being committed.