From: crystal@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Crystal)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
Subject: Re: Commodity question
Keywords: manuals documentation 2.04
Date: 10 Jan 93 02:16:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: glia.crystal.726632197
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: glia.biostr.washington.edu

In <38444@cbmvax.commodore.com> ross@cbmvax.commodore.com (Ross Hippely - Manuals) writes:

>In article <crystal.726524912@glia> crystal@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Crystal) writes:
>>In <38416@cbmvax.commodore.com> ross@cbmvax.commodore.com (Ross Hippely - Manuals) writes:

>[...discussion of undocumented disk items in C= disks, of which I said:]

>>>...in general, stuff that is undocumented should be left alone.
>>
>>If it is undocumented, then it shouldn't even be included.  

>Um, I believe you mean, "If it is included, it should be documented." :-)

Either way, pick your poison.  :>

>>                                                            Not everyone who
>>buys a computer is programming whiz.  Nor do they understand not to play with
>>things that are undocumented.  

>True.  Adding an explicit statement to the effect that undocumented stuff
>should be left alone is probably a good idea for future C= manuals.

Yes, I think that would be a good idea.  If nothing else, it would alleviate
the possibility of lawsuits should someone screw up something playing with
something they shouldn't have.  (Americans are lawyer happy these days. :<)
If C= can point to a line that says "well, we TOLD you not to play with that",
then they can likely stay out of legal battles.

>The other option, more troublesome but not out of the question, would be to 
>include docs of every little bit, even if it's just to say "This is related 
>to so-and-so and you should leave it alone."  Is this what you would recommend?

If you can, I would suggest that to also be a possibility.

>>                              If it's high-level developmental stuff, then it
>>should not be left out on the table, unattended, where the baby can get 
>>into it...

>Hmm, I guess we've never looked at our clientele as babies... :-)
 
There are a LOT of computer-illiterate owners out there.  (Dumber than ME!)
I've run across a LOT in my jobs as a temporary.  I've been told horror stories
by consultants of secretaries who THUMBTACKED floppies onto a corkboard, and 
then couldn't figure out why the floppy didn't work...TRUE STORY!  And I've
also run across computer users who like to show off that they know things that
they know nothing about, just to impress the girls  (or their peers).  These 
are the ones who do NOT read a manual, because "manuals are for wimps, I *know*
what I'm doing".  At one job I had, the office "consultant" did more harm than
good.  Since I was there for 6 months, I decided to try to figure out what the
problem was BEFORE I called him, and a couple of times made suggestions that 
he finally went ahead and implemented after all other things he tried, failed.
(I only know concepts, not details :<)

So, yes, your clientele includes babies that are quite likely to be sticking
their fingers in the frosting when you aren't looking... :>

>>>It's unlikely you'll get a virus on an original disk from Commodore.
>>
>>Uh...I didn't KNOW it came from a Commodore disk.  All I knew was that I had
>>some strange program in my directory with a rather ominous sounding name that
>>*I* did not put there.  

>[Crystal elaborates on her alarm at discovering Enforcer on her HD]

>>And with no docs to support what
>>I knew *I* hadn't put on my disk, what's a newbie to think? 
>>
>>So, why didn't I LOOK on the original system disk?  

>I was just going to say...

>>                                                    Because there were posts
>>saying that Enforcer was on an FTP site, and one saying that it was NOT part
>>of the system software.  

>And you believed them?  Rather than just pop in the disks?

Yeah, I'm beginning to think that the net is not a very good source for help
in some ways. :<  I thought everyone here knew something, except me.  Now that
I am learning more, I can see that it's just a lot of that "macho peer" stuff
I mentioned above. :<

>>So, if it was commercial, from C=, why would it be
>>on an FTP site?  

>Surely you know that there is software that is from Commodore, yet could be
>acquired from other sources?  E.g. amigaguide.library, the Installer, and of
>course programming tools like Enforcer...

No, I wasn't aware of that.  Seems to me that having the amigaguide.library
available for free would cut into C= sales of 2.1 OS.  Same with other 
commercial companies.  I'd expect PATCHES to existing programs that people
have paid for, but I would not expect ENTIRE programs that are part of other
things that people have to pay for to be available free of charge from C=.

Thank you! (If such is the case)  ;>

>>Hence, I had to assume it had arrived on my HD by suspicious
>>means.

>An assumption so questionably grounded, and so easily checked, to me
>suggests an alarmist response.

Yes...and when dealing with computers, what I don't know can likely cause me
the most damage.  Fear is based on the unknown.  I know that viruses exist,
I know that I had been FTP'ing a lot without using a virus checker (didn't know
how, and was scared that a VirusChecker off the net could contain a virus, too),
so naturally, when I see something I didn't put there, I'm going to be rather
alarmed.  

>Still, I am only quibbling.  Your basic point is valid.  I'll look into how
>we could improve our docs to take account of possible newbie reaction to 
>unexplained disk contents.

Thank you... :>

(uh, can I proofread it? *grin*)

>>Crystal
>>  ;>

>-- 
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Ross Hippely:                                               Technical Writer
>employed by, not speaking for:              Commodore Business Machines Inc.