Hey, > I don't doubt that these are the best currently available books on > their subject matter, but in the end, I don't think standards(7) > should act as a bibliography. > But my inclination would be to take the references to Gallmeister and > Lewine out (both now rather dated), rather than add more references. > And in fact, that is what I've done. (Adding more books to > standards(7) would only lead me into temptation one day in the > future.) Are you sure that is the best thing to do? Man pages are there to help the reader get a better picture. The more information the better I would have thought. What if somebody were to look at standards(7) and wanted to know more information? Instead of going to what people considered the best material available (be it books, websites etc), they would instead waste their time searching and maybe getting inferior or incorrect information. This leads to floods of questions to forums, IRC and mailing lists. And I'm sure one common response to these type of questions is going to be "if you want more info, the best place is X book"! It would cut out the middle man if references were there from the beginning :) > So, sorry -- but I won't take this patch. No problem. I'm just trying to help out people who are in the same boat as me -- people wanting to know where the best place to find things are. Maybe a man page called "unix-references", "unix-books" or "programming-books" would be a better option. Alfie -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
