Done.jassing wrote:if it's not too much trouble, I'd prefer chm's...srod wrote:Can make CHM versions available for off-line reading should anyone prefer.
That's not correct. Although Chm is a proprietary online help format from Microsoft, there exist several free software readers for Linux and MacOS X. Take a look into the postings of ShDancer and Progi1984 or into Wikipedia: Use in non-Windows applications...Poshu wrote:mmmh... Chm aren't linux-readable
Ok, so, to be more specific: CHM is neither an open nor a ISO format, making it unreadable out of the box on most linux distribution without downloading third party software. That is both non-intuitive for user and not future proof.Shardik wrote:That's not correct. Although Chm is a proprietary online help format from Microsoft, there exist several free software readers for Linux and MacOS X. Take a look into the postings of ShDancer and Progi1984 or into Wikipedia: Use in non-Windows applications...Poshu wrote:mmmh... Chm aren't linux-readable
That's perfectsrod wrote:Well, I am happy to make the individual HTML pages available or even the entire online manuals. You can then read them offline with any browser.
In fact that is what I will do. When I have completed the next update I shall add the online manuals to the CHM packages so that you can read the entire manuals offline with your browser.
Linux has improved somewhat in the last several dedcades since you last tried it. I'm a complete linux newbie and those statements are false.Zach wrote:Linux by nature isn't very "intuitive" out of the box in my opinion ... Having to download countless software, compile stuff myself, etc. Just to get seemingly simple things to work.
Yeah, I can remember those days... Like in 1998 when I couldn't compile the drivers for my modem. Let's be realistic now, in 2012 this is just crap used by windows fanatics to scare people away from linux. I agree that it's a requirement for a programmer to be able to understand stuff about his OS, not a normal user, and most Linux distributions do a much better job than windows for that matter: you don't have to install drivers, to check the software source reliability, to manually install redistributable libraries...Zach wrote:Linux by nature isn't very "intuitive" out of the box in my opinion. One reason I've tried it many times, but ultimately gotten sick of it and given up. Having to download countless software, compile stuff myself, etc. Just to get seemingly simple things to work.
Come a long way of course, but on the flip side I feel like if someone is invested in using Linux, and knows a fair bit about getting things done for themselves, is it really too much trouble to download something to you can open a file?
Agreed. Plenty of places in these forums to discuss help formats and the like.Poshu wrote:The complete manual in HTML form that srod will include is just perfect, no need to go further on this off-topic subject.
Bogus logic. The reality is there are not many proprietary formats that are commonly used, but then those that are.... tend to be common when it comes to what the general public uses. I last tried a couple distros a year ago, had problems getting something working right on all of them. Too many generic drivers to sort through for common components, like onboard Ethernet or sound and what have you. Sure its come a long way, but still finding stuff that has easy install packages can be a pain. And when I have to spend days finding the right driver source code for a Realtek ethernet chip, and then fuss with compile commands and crap to get it installed, yes I would call it unintuitive.Poshu wrote:Yeah, I can remember those days... Like in 1998 when I couldn't compile the drivers for my modem. Let's be realistic now, in 2012 this is just crap used by windows fanatics to scare people away from linux. I agree that it's a requirement for a programmer to be able to understand stuff about his OS, not a normal user, and most Linux distributions do a much better job than windows for that matter: you don't have to install drivers, to check the software source reliability, to manually install redistributable libraries...Zach wrote:Linux by nature isn't very "intuitive" out of the box in my opinion. One reason I've tried it many times, but ultimately gotten sick of it and given up. Having to download countless software, compile stuff myself, etc. Just to get seemingly simple things to work.
Come a long way of course, but on the flip side I feel like if someone is invested in using Linux, and knows a fair bit about getting things done for themselves, is it really too much trouble to download something to you can open a file?
Now, why would you have to use a proprietary file format when there is perfectly good standard equivalent? Would you find it normal if every release on this forum came with it's own and unique documentation format requiring you to install something just to read it? It seems to me that programmers should understand the importance of standardization, as long as they want their software to be used at least.
The complete manual in HTML form that srod will include is just perfect, no need to go further on this off-topic subject.
