But clarity in the documentation is certainly a desired feature, and
as it stands now, it seems (based on responses to the list, as well as
my own personal experience) that going from a small LDAP server
following basically the default configuration to a more complex
directory environment requires a pretty steep learning curve. Good
documentation could improve that situation.
Yes, jump on in.
IMHO the OpenLDAP docs are not less detailed than that of other good
*. I don't find the argument that other products have bad
documentation to be justification for not creating good documentation.
Yes, jump on in.
I would even go so far as to suggest that much of the growth in
postfix, exim, and the like is due to the poor documentation in
sendmail and cyrus.
You think postfix has better docs? It has a simpler configuration syntax
which makes docs almost unnecessary for the experienced admin.
*. I don't actually think the problem with OpenLDAP is a *lack*
documentation (which is certainly a problem with Cyrus). Again, the
man pages are very thorough and very complete. And if one reads the
RFCs (which are also exceptionally good) and some of the code, then
one can get along pretty well with OpenLDAP. But that seems to be a
high barrier of entry. I'd like to see it get lower.
Yes, everything should be easier at no cost.
Who's going to take that task? You?
Tim Howes' book is excellent. I would certainly not dispute that.
at nearly 1000 pages, it's not exactly a breeze compared to the RFCs.
So reading such a book is too much effort for getting a good OpenLDAP admin?
[..] is that this
list is on the tough side. And this generally negative attitude
impedes improvement because it turns people away.
Some list members are simply tired by people asking for more docs
without really contributing to it. You have to change your own role from
a consumer to a producer when using open source software. Everything
else is a really lame attitude.
And I am using
Emmanuel's attempt to contribute to the documentation as a case in