Debian Bug report logs - #325655
www.debian.org: Help us to help ourselves

Package: www.debian.org; Maintainer for www.debian.org is Debian WWW Team <debian-www@lists.debian.org>;

Reported by: Antony Gelberg <antony.gelberg@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 03:18:04 UTC

Severity: wishlist

Reply or subscribe to this bug.

Toggle useless messages

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox


Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian WWW Team <debian-www@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#325655; Package www.debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Antony Gelberg <antony@wayforth.co.uk>:
New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to Debian WWW Team <debian-www@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Antony Gelberg <antony@wayforth.co.uk>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: www.debian.org: Help us to help ourselves
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 04:14:02 +0100
Package: www.debian.org
Severity: wishlist

Hi,

After several years on debian-user, and a month or two on #debian, it is
apparent that we could make life a lot easier for our support community by
recommending that new users read:
1. The Installation Manual.
2. The Reference.

Yes, believe it or not, it seems as if nobody is reading them.  In fact, I can
start at www.debian.org and navigate through until I'm downloading an iso, and
not even know what the Reference is.  The Reference should be plugged, nearly
everywhere that the IG is, as an essential post-install read.  Also, perhaps
it should have a name change to the Manual, but that's probably a different
discussion.  Reference is not something that encourages perusal.

Especially where testing and unstable are concerned, there should be more of a
warning on http://www.us.debian.org/releases/ to those considering using those
distributions.  It should be something like:

"Please note that, whilst many users happily use testing and unstable
on their desktops every day, it is possible that due to their nature,
these distributions may break from time to time.  Therefore, unless you
know what you are doing, please stick with stable until you gain enough
experience to be able to fix things when and if they go wrong on testing
and unstable.

It is sometimes thought that testing is less likely to break than unstable, and
represents a balance in risk between the two, but this is not necessarily the
case.  You have been warned.

Additionally, whatever release you run, but especially if you run testing or
unstable, please check the BTS before asking for help.  It is quite possible
that your issue has already been spotted, and there may be a workaround or fix
available."

I know there is a link to the faq entry on testing, but it's not enough.  The
page discusses the advantages of testing and unstable and _no_
disadvantages.  The stigma of Woody's age should be long gone now,
and we shouldn't shy away from pointing users towards stable.

In addition, not everybody will come
through www.debian.org/releases.  Some may go straight to
http://www.us.debian.org/distrib/.  There are problems with that page too.

It makes no mention of the fact that there are the three releases.
This is bad as it means that users coming in from this route will not see the
releases page, even with the above information.  They may want to download
Debian, already hell-bent on moving straight to unstable, with no regard for
the frustration that may be ahead.

Perhaps there is a case for merging the distrib and releases pages?

Furthermore, all users should be nudged towards reading d-s-a, and possibly
d-u, whether by mail or newsgroup.  Unstable users should read d-d-a.

I understand that users need to fend things for themselves, but all I can say
is spend a few days on d-u or #debian, and you will surely agree that a few
changes could free up a lot of resources.

Antony

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.8.20041210
Locale: LANG=en_GB, LC_CTYPE=en_GB (charmap=ISO-8859-1)



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian WWW Team <debian-www@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#325655; Package www.debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Antony Gelberg <antony@wayforth.co.uk>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian WWW Team <debian-www@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #10 received at 325655@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Antony Gelberg <antony@wayforth.co.uk>
To: 325655@bugs.debian.org
Subject: apt-listbugs
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:20:12 +0100
Something else I just thought of.

Testing and Unstable users (at least) should be strongly advised that if they
are determined to use one of the two, they should install apt-listbugs.  This
might not save the first few broken systems, but it coudl save a considerable
number.



Changed Bug submitter from Antony Gelberg <antony@wayforth.co.uk> to Antony Gelberg <antony.gelberg@wayforth.com>. Request was from Antony Gelberg <antony.gelberg@wayforth.com> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Mon, 06 Oct 2008 01:21:07 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Changed Bug submitter to 'Antony Gelberg <antony.gelberg@gmail.com>' from 'Antony Gelberg <antony.gelberg@wayforth.com>' Request was from Antony Gelberg <antony.gelberg@gmail.com> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Sun, 06 Jun 2010 12:18:13 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.


Debian bug tracking system administrator <owner@bugs.debian.org>. Last modified: Thu Apr 17 21:50:48 2014; Machine Name: beach.debian.org

Debian Bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.