View Single Post
Old 12-05-2010, 02:23 PM   #9
KenJackson
Addict
KenJackson goes to infinity... and beyond!KenJackson goes to infinity... and beyond!KenJackson goes to infinity... and beyond!KenJackson goes to infinity... and beyond!KenJackson goes to infinity... and beyond!KenJackson goes to infinity... and beyond!KenJackson goes to infinity... and beyond!KenJackson goes to infinity... and beyond!KenJackson goes to infinity... and beyond!KenJackson goes to infinity... and beyond!KenJackson goes to infinity... and beyond!
 
Posts: 256
Karma: 112042
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Maryland, USA
Device: Sony PRS-650
Quote:
Originally Posted by jswinden View Post
I suspect the linux team didn't know squat about documentation and therefore created an extremely poorly formatted ePub from a DOC or some equally innappropriate format.
Your analysis of the problem may be correct, but let's not dump on the linux team.

I work for a company that is extremely image concious and is constantly harping on protecting our identity with correct colors and logos. I can well imagine them making the same mistake.

It's quite amazing that Red Hat is still in business and AFAIK still profitable. The CentOS Linux distribution copies the Red Hat source code, lock, stock and barrel (as the expression goes) and puts out a nearly duplicate product for free, though all mention of Red Hat is scrubbed. It's legal because of the GNU General Public License.

So what's left for Red Hat to make a profit on? Service. And their good name. So of course they are very sensitive about protecting their image by protecting how their docs look.

I just hope they find a way to protect it while making the docs readable too.


BTW, I can guarantee that Red Hat, a Microsoft antithesis, does not use Microsoft word for anything.

Last edited by KenJackson; 12-05-2010 at 02:26 PM. Reason: Microsoft note
KenJackson is offline   Reply With Quote