Any in English? Some place that doesn't aspire to be an encyclopedia? Something along the lines of a troubleshooting guide is what I'd want. So you'd have [[Fonts Are Tiny]] in [[Category Problems With X]] and [[DHCP Does Not Work]] in [[Category Problems With Networking]] and so on.

The traditional sources for such knowledge are newsgroups. But those are disorganized, time-consuming, and transient.

''Googling finds:''

 http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/Main_Page
	(forums entry point:)
	http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/index.php
	(test search on "fonts":)
	http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/index.php?search=fonts

''Also:''

* http://www.hants.lug.org.uk/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?LinuxHints
* http://wiki.kernel-panic.org/
* http://linuxnewbies.editthispage.com/
* http://wiki.debian.org/
* http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_For_Newbies


I knew about the first; it's where I found out that invoking vnc is done using vncviewer after I couldn't find '''any''' docs under the term 'vnc'. However, they're all useless from a troubleshooting perspective. Linux Questions thinks of itself as a documentation and introduction project, and so does Linux Hints. Kernel Panic barely has anything.

I don't want to read "how to get Esound working", I want "how to fix alsa doesn't detect any video card". I don't want to know about ''standard procedures'' and ''customization'', but about ''errors'' and ''exceptional conditions''. The former's documentation, the latter's troubleshooting.

I don't want to have to read "mount -t smbfs -o username=username password=password //machine/share /mount/share" and have to GUESS that means you HAVE to provide bogus username/passwords otherwise Windows will complain.

I don't want to search through docs, apropos and whereis to find a command I ''know'' exists, to list filesystems compiled into a kernel, and give up because I can't find it. I want it listed under "filesystem not supported" as a solution.

Let me be crystal clear, I don't want to learn or educate myself about Linux just to run it. I don't want to try to understand it because understanding something so overcomplicated and incoherent is for chumps. I want to find my very well-defined problem in a highly organized list and just do what's known to work to solve it.

''It's conceivable that your desire cannot be fulfilled. I've had problems in such regards with Windows, Mac OS, AmigaOS, VMS, etc, too, however Windows or Mac might at least be better in such regards, although still guaranteed to be a trial at times.''

''I sympathize with wanting things to "just work", but I have never had sympathy for not wanting to learn what one uses, because I think it leads to guaranteed frustration -- and also that, philosophically, it's misguided to resist learning on any subject, even if theoretically that learning shouldn't be necessary.''

''However, I suggest that you choose the OS that you think will come closest to giving you what you want in these regards, and that Linux may not be it.''

''P.S. No doubt I am one of the worst people in the world to ask about such things, because I tend to the opposite extreme. I literally wrote a new device driver just  to use a particular sound card (actually I wanted plug and play support for it, too, which wasn't in the kernel, so I added it), helped XFree86 debug support for a new graphics card (i.e. fixed bugs they could not, the same bugs the manufacturer had in their own Windows drivers, due to errors in the hardware documentation) for the same reason, etc etc. When something doesn't work, my first response is to fix the source code or replace it with my bare hands. I don't do this quite so much anymore, life being short and all, but still...''

You're missing the point entirely. It isn't important that something "just work" out of the box, but it is '''''critical''''' that you provide clear instructions on how to '''''make it work''''' without having to consult a technician, being a technician, or making oneself into a technician. You just look up your problem in a database and you apply the solution. It's called ''self-service'' and though Linux relies on the "self", it traditionally scorns the service.

Do you know why everyone wants binaries? It's not that people don't want to compile from the source. It's that there are no ''clear step by step instructions'' on what to do when things fail. Source vs binary really isn't a big deal if you can do it in such a way that users don't need to think for themselves to compile something. So they don't need to understand, just ''do''. Not everyone wants to problem-solve everything they encounter. Not everyone wants to directly manipulate something they couldn't care less about. But they'll be happy with a script. People are ''used'' to scripts.

And it's not like that knowledge doesn't exist, because it sure as hell is out there. And it's not like that knowledge can't be formalized and organized in an accessible way, because it sure as hell can. It's just the fact that Linux users are cretins, they're FANBOYS who are happy to TOY with their machine instead of USING IT to do productive work.
* True, in many cases. Unix in general was created by programmers for programmers, and that's still where it and its variants are strongest. On the other hand, by now there are millions of people in your shoes -- where are they? You're not the only one with these problems and desires.

And don't start harping about knowledge, especially after I've explained all about knowledge vs understanding. Why the hell should people accumulate knowledge of Unix at the expense of understanding OS theory? Like the difference between compiler writing and language design. I think we've got way too many of the former category. They're like a roach infestation, you can't walk without stepping on a technician. We need fewer of them. We need to prevent people from turning into technicians. Because if things continue the way they're doing, pretty soon we'll have to start shooting them.
* Heh! :-) True (in some sense). But I personally believe in learning both sides. The thing that I suspect you haven't noticed is that you '''can't''' leap directly to the third system effect, avoiding the SecondSystemEffect (nor one's first system). It's seeing what happens with attempts at implementation that teaches lessons that can't be anticipated ahead of time. One can create a better first system than people who don't anticipate, but one will still learn very important things from its implementation, which then importantly influence one's second and third designs. As FredBrooks said.

Oh, and the OS that suits my purposes is one that can run enlightenment. Since it's difficult enough on Linux, I'm not even considering anything else. Except a PowerPC emulator to run the latest Self.
* Enlightenment is pretty. Rasterman has always been extreme in his opinions (that is, 0 or 10, never a 5), although I haven't tracked him/talked to him in recent years. Maybe he's mellowing, like Matt Dillon eventually did in the BSD world following the Amiga world.

Oh, and don't get the mistaken impression that any of this is personal. I could easily go to a newsgroup to ask about any specific problems I can't live with. But it would be pointless in the grand scheme of things. You can't expect every single average user to do that. -- rk

''Certainly. They don't in the Windows world, for the most part. In the Windows world, typically they just give up on what they wanted to do. Or reinstall, the answer to everything. :-S''