On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 12:28:55AM -0800, Isaiah Weiner wrote:
> I thought the topics were fine, the writing was poor (and therefore
> editing), and there was little to zero conveyance of a sound understanding
> of the content. I suppose I should look at it now and see if the same
> complaints are applicable.
>
I never noticed the bad writing. But then again, I'm so used to seeing
bad writing in the Linux community that I've come to expect it. From
emails to websites to magazines, I've seen atrocious grammar,
punctuation, spelling and turbid thought. Much of this, I suspect, is
because there are few real editors in this community. Writers make
mistakes. Editors are supposed to catch them. But if there aren't any
editors, or if the ones there are are not qualified, you get crappy
writing. By that standard, Linux Magazine seems no better.
Paul
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 03:15:09AM -0500, Paul M Foster wrote:
> > Well, if not specifics, what about generalities? Technically inaccurate?
> > Too high-level? Too low-level? Poor writing? Uninteresting subjects?
> >
> > I've heard other people complain about LJ, but I haven't seen a real
> > change. Part of the problem there is that my overall understanding of
> > Linux has changed, so I'm not looking at them from the same viewpoint as
> > when I started taking the magazine.
> >
> > Paul
>
> --
> - Isaiah
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:07:07 EDT