Hi!
On 11/3/06, [Some Linux Guru] wrote:
On Thursday 02 November 2006 18:27, [Linux newbie] wrote:
kai@sith:~> /proc/cpuinfo bash: /proc/cpuinfo: Permission denied
/proc/* are text files, not executables or scripts.
even windoz will not run a file that does not have an 'executable' extension. It doesn't even know what type a file is without an extension.
... and let's see... -r--r--r-- 1 root root 0 2006-11-02 19:36 cpuinfo Oh... only read flags are showing... that means that no one my write toit (except the kernel), and no one my execute it... NO ONE...
But leave it to someone to try... <sigh> But it looks like anyone can read it... let's see... cat /proc/cpuinfo Yup, that worked. Or, you can use the Suse tools I pedantically showed Randy earlier...
Why do you guys answer Linux newbies like this? This is so belittling. And why can you not just write Windows, why do you have to write windoz? Maybe the newbies never used Windows before, but OS-X for instance. Somebody asks a genuine questions and gets answers with this attitude...
I'm ashamed to be a part of this community. Still I am continuing to be as it's the only channel I get help from. I just hope I'm not answered this way.
HG skrev: [8<] <snip>
Why do you guys answer Linux newbies like this? This is so belittling. And why can you not just write Windows, why do you have to write windoz? Maybe the newbies never used Windows before, but OS-X for instance. Somebody asks a genuine questions and gets answers with this attitude...
I'm ashamed to be a part of this community. Still I am continuing to be as it's the only channel I get help from. I just hope I'm not answered this way.
Thank you!
On Saturday 04 November 2006 05:58, Anders Norrbring wrote:
Thats pretty much the same reason I am here Anders....... to have some questions answered as they arise.
I have put up with the belittling for some time now. I have come to believe that some have nothing better to do than belittle others........ you would think my 10 yr old son was answering some of these posts the way they present themselves.
anyway.... thats my 2 cents.
HG skrev: [8<] <snip>
Why do you guys answer Linux newbies like this? This is so belittling. And why can you not just write Windows, why do you have to write windoz? Maybe the newbies never used Windows before, but OS-X for instance. Somebody asks a genuine questions and gets answers with this attitude...
I'm ashamed to be a part of this community. Still I am continuing to be as it's the only channel I get help from. I just hope I'm not answered this way.
Thank you!
Steve,
On Saturday 04 November 2006 09:04, steve reilly wrote:
On Saturday 04 November 2006 05:58, Anders Norrbring wrote:
Thats pretty much the same reason I am here Anders....... to have some questions answered as they arise.
I have put up with the belittling for some time now. I have come to believe that some have nothing better to do than belittle others........ you would think my 10 yr old son was answering some of these posts the way they present themselves.
anyway.... thats my 2 cents.
You might want to consider the perspective of the subscribers who have been here for years and whose ratio of answers supplied to questions asked is high but who nonetheless stick around in order to be a service to the community of (Enlgish-speaking) SuSE users.
Perhaps you can see how we'd grow weary of the panoply of faux pas that stream in daily.
It's the same old debate: Do you forgive all the crap and nonsense and let the list devolve into drivel or to you ride herd on the newbies in order to instruct them on the way intelligent list interactions are carried on? I'm in the latter camp.
Randall Schulz
On Sat November 4 2006 9:21 am, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Steve,
On Saturday 04 November 2006 09:04, steve reilly wrote:
On Saturday 04 November 2006 05:58, Anders Norrbring wrote:
Thats pretty much the same reason I am here Anders....... to have some questions answered as they arise.
I have put up with the belittling for some time now. I have come to believe that some have nothing better to do than belittle others........
<snip>
It's the same old debate: Do you forgive all the crap and nonsense and let the list devolve into drivel or to you ride herd on the newbies in order to instruct them on the way intelligent list interactions are carried on? I'm in the latter camp.
Randall Schulz
Oh yes, Randall. By all means let's ride herd on those sniveling little idiots. Maybe let's divide into two camps: we'll just call yours the camp of hubris, and maybe the other the camp of assistance.
I used to actively suggest to acquaintances and friends that they try the SUSE distro, and this list was the primary reason, that they could get understanding assistance from some knowledgeable people willing to help the newbie on a very steep learning curve. I do not do that anymore. I still recommend the distro, not the list. I suggest they read the books but I do not mention this list, until they become so committed to the distro use that I feel they will be willing to put up with the derogation and arrogance just to get some questions answered.
And that is my .02.
...waiting for the flames of arrogance...
Richard
On Saturday 04 November 2006 09:21, Randall R Schulz wrote:
... in order to be a service to the community of (Enlgish-speaking) SuSE users.
Even those who fail to notice the feedback from their spell-checkers...
RRS
On Saturday 04 November 2006 12:32, Richard wrote:
lol........ im glad there is at least ONE person on the list that agrees with me. thanks.
im here for good, and also with suse for good. tried the rest, run some of them too, but staying with the best.
And that is my .02.
...waiting for the flames of arrogance...
lol........ im glad there is at least ONE person on the list that agrees with me. thanks.
im here for good, and also with suse for good. tried the rest, run some of them too, but staying with the best.
It'snot just one person who agrees with you. I've been on this list since 1998 (under various email addresses) and it used to be very helpful... it still is, but now you have to weed your way through the twits, self appointed list police and tinfoil hat waving doom criers.
There are certain members here who I will not name who you can count on to pounce on some poor new list member and "tear a stip off them" for the immortal sin of top posting or whatever.... <shrug> I just try my best to help....
C.
Randall R Schulz wrote: <snip>
It's the same old debate: Do you forgive all the crap and nonsense and let the list devolve into drivel or to you ride herd on the newbies in order to instruct them on the way intelligent list interactions are carried on? I'm in the latter camp.
Or one can behave as though we were part of a civilized society, understand that we cannot all be experts on all subjects, and we respond to others in the way we would wish a response were we asking a question.
AC,
On Saturday 04 November 2006 02:28, HG wrote:
...
Why do you guys answer Linux newbies like this? This is so belittling. And why can you not just write Windows, why do you have to write windoz? Maybe the newbies never used Windows before, but OS-X for instance. Somebody asks a genuine questions and gets answers with this attitude...
I'm ashamed to be a part of this community. Still I am continuing to be as it's the only channel I get help from. I just hope I'm not answered this way.
I just got around to reading Greg Kroah-Hartman's keynote presentation for Linux Symposium 2006 (see http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html), wherein we find this excerpt:
"Wow, for such a small file, every single function was incorrect. And you abused sysfs in a new and interesting way I didn't think was even possible. I think this is two records you have set here, congratulations.
"Greg Kroah-Hartman lkml, May 2006"
So you see, we all just aspire to be surly Linux Kernel Developers!
RRS
Tony,
On Saturday 04 November 2006 11:48, Tony Alfrey wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
<snip>
It's the same old debate: Do you forgive all the crap and nonsense and let the list devolve into drivel or to you ride herd on the newbies in order to instruct them on the way intelligent list interactions are carried on? I'm in the latter camp.
Or one can behave as though we were part of a civilized society, understand that we cannot all be experts on all subjects, and we respond to others in the way we would wish a response were we asking a question.
The point is not about expertise. We all ask questions when our own expertise, be it vast or miniscule, does not supply an answer to the question we have.
The point is that there are intelligent, coherent and respectful ways to ask, answer and follow up on questions. Then there are all the other ways. The other ways must be repudiated.
-- Tony Alfrey
Randall Schulz
On Saturday 04 November 2006 20:52, Randall R Schulz wrote:
So you see, we all just aspire to be surly Linux Kernel Developers!
Did you actually read the story attached to that? "Reviewing code is a hard, unrewarding, tough thing to do. It really makes you grumpy and rude in a very short period of time"
I've been there myself. Not in the kernel space (don't know kernel hacking, don't want to know it) but in user space. When you're pressed from all sides, and the things you're expected to comment on is just too stupid, eventually you will forget decorum and just explode
Randall R Schulz wrote:
Tony,
On Saturday 04 November 2006 11:48, Tony Alfrey wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
<snip>
It's the same old debate: Do you forgive all the crap and nonsense and let the list devolve into drivel or to you ride herd on the newbies in order to instruct them on the way intelligent list interactions are carried on? I'm in the latter camp.
Or one can behave as though we were part of a civilized society, understand that we cannot all be experts on all subjects, and we respond to others in the way we would wish a response were we asking a question.
The point is not about expertise. We all ask questions when our own expertise, be it vast or miniscule, does not supply an answer to the question we have.
The point is that there are intelligent, coherent and respectful ways to ask, answer and follow up on questions. Then there are all the other ways. The other ways must be repudiated.
The best way to repudiate a disrespectful question or response is to ignore it. This will stop it immediately. It is the equivalent of sending it to /dev/null. The intelligence or coherence of a Q/A depends on the judgment of the reader and is inappropriate and irrelevant. Again, one may chose not to respond.
Tony,
On Saturday 04 November 2006 12:45, Tony Alfrey wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
Tony,
...
Or one can behave as though we were part of a civilized society, understand that we cannot all be experts on all subjects, and we respond to others in the way we would wish a response were we asking a question.
...
The point is that there are intelligent, coherent and respectful ways to ask, answer and follow up on questions. Then there are all the other ways. The other ways must be repudiated.
The best way to repudiate a disrespectful question or response is to ignore it. This will stop it immediately. It is the equivalent of sending it to /dev/null.
For one thing, I do not believe this is true. Without negative feedback, people will typically persist in their behaviors.
Secondly, my personal practice is to chastise only when I'm already writing to supply an answer, never just to chastise. (I'll admit my record on following that policy is not perfect, but I stick to it for the most part.)
The intelligence or coherence of a Q/A depends on the judgment of the reader and is inappropriate and irrelevant. ...
Not true. These things may some some measure of relativity to them, but they're really is such a thing as following the list's conventions, asking questions in an intelligent fashion and researching the matter first before asking. It very much _is_ appropriate and relevant to impose standards on people's actions in a public forum.
Besides, except for teeth, ignoring things usually does _not_ make them go away.
-- Tony Alfrey
Randall Schulz
On Saturday 04 November 2006 02:28, HG wrote:
Hi!
On 11/3/06, [Some Linux Guru] wrote:
On Thursday 02 November 2006 18:27, [Linux newbie] wrote:
kai@sith:~> /proc/cpuinfo bash: /proc/cpuinfo: Permission denied
<snip>
But it looks like anyone can read it... let's see... cat /proc/cpuinfo Yup, that worked. Or, you can use the Suse tools I pedantically showed Randyearlier...
Why do you guys answer Linux newbies like this?
Some people like to do that. It is a mailing list. I take nothing written here personally. I've been on Usenet, compuserve, and mailing lists for 20+ years. Nothing phases me.
Had I known it was a text file then I wouldn't have tried to run it as an executable. My bad.
This is so belittling. And why can you not just write Windows, why do you have to write windoz? Maybe the newbies never used Windows before, but OS-X for instance. Somebody asks a genuine questions and gets answers with this attitude...
Welcome to the world wide web. :) It has been this way as far as I can remember and will continue to be so.
At 09:21 AM 11/4/2006 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Content-Disposition: inline
Steve,
On Saturday 04 November 2006 09:04, steve reilly wrote:
On Saturday 04 November 2006 05:58, Anders Norrbring wrote:
Thats pretty much the same reason I am here Anders....... to have some questions answered as they arise.
I have put up with the belittling for some time now. I have come to believe that some have nothing better to do than belittle others........ you would think my 10 yr old son was answering some of these posts the way they present themselves.
anyway.... thats my 2 cents.
You might want to consider the perspective of the subscribers who have been here for years and whose ratio of answers supplied to questions asked is high but who nonetheless stick around in order to be a service to the community of (Enlgish-speaking) SuSE users.
Perhaps you can see how we'd grow weary of the panoply of faux pas that stream in daily.
It's the same old debate: Do you forgive all the crap and nonsense and let the list devolve into drivel or to you ride herd on the newbies in order to instruct them on the way intelligent list interactions are carried on? I'm in the latter camp.
Randall Schulz
Well, I can see your point, but there are those who are very helpful, and some who have been _very_ helpful to me, to whom I say a most heartfelt "Thank You!" and there are those who appear to be grudgingly helpful, and unfortunately there are a few wiseguys. I guess it's the wiseguys that the original poster has in mind. I can think of one, who shall not be named, who hurts more often than he helps. I have only fooled with Linux since about 10 years ago, but I still think of myself as a newbie. And prove it every time I try to install something new! Thank heavens I have the books from SuSE 9.1 and 9.2. The latest version gives you almost nothing. (In books or performance, AFAIC.) I hope you continue to contribute to this list, and that you will forgive the newbie questions. We really _don't_ know any better--if we did, we wouldn't ask the questions.
--doug
On 2006-11-04 11:39, Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Saturday 04 November 2006 09:21, Randall R Schulz wrote:
... in order to be a service to the community of (Enlgish-speaking) SuSE users.
Even those who fail to notice the feedback from their spell-checkers...
Spell checkers?
On Sunday 05 November 2006 00:22, Darryl Gregorash wrote:
On 2006-11-04 11:39, Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Saturday 04 November 2006 09:21, Randall R Schulz wrote:
... in order to be a service to the community of (Enlgish-speaking) SuSE users.
Even those who fail to notice the feedback from their spell-checkers...
Spell checkers?
Spelling checkers
No magic here :)
On 2006-11-04 13:56, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Tony,
On Saturday 04 November 2006 11:48, Tony Alfrey wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
<snip>
It's the same old debate: Do you forgive all the crap and nonsense and let the list devolve into drivel or to you ride herd on the newbies in order to instruct them on the way intelligent list interactions are carried on? I'm in the latter camp.
Or one can behave as though we were part of a civilized society, understand that we cannot all be experts on all subjects, and we respond to others in the way we would wish a response were we asking a question.
The point is not about expertise. We all ask questions when our own expertise, be it vast or miniscule, does not supply an answer to the question we have.
The point is that there are intelligent, coherent and respectful ways to ask, answer and follow up on questions. Then there are all the other ways. The other ways must be repudiated.
No, these "other ways" must not be repudiated, but they can be corrected. Half the path to getting an answer to a question lies in knowing how to ask the question in the first place...
half? hell, based on my own experience doing physics research, I think it might be a lot higher than that.
You cannot expect someone who has little or no experience with the Unix-like environment to know, by any means, how best to ask a *nix-related question. The differences with what they are used to using are simply far too great.
On Saturday 04 November 2006 15:27, Darryl Gregorash wrote:
...
You cannot expect someone who has little or no experience with the Unix-like environment to know, by any means, how best to ask a *nix-related question. The differences with what they are used to using are simply far too great.
Wrong. The how-tos of good question-asking are unrelated to the topic area. The context is:
- There's a specific domain (in this case, SuSE Linux, but it could be anything). The question must regard this domain. - There's an existing body of readily accessible information (man pages, books & magazines, the Internet, etc.). The questioner should make some attempt to discover the answer independently. - There are conventions on how to use the medium--email--to interact with the community to which you're directing your inquiry. Proper juxtaposition of quoted material and added response should be respected. Quoted material should be trimmed. Etc.
The only thing in this set-up that is domain-specific is the domain itself. A well-formed question submitted here after the proper homework is done is a well-formed question that is about SuSE Linux. Period.
It's basically a matter of formality. If you go to a court of law and speak in some non-legalistic vernacular, you'll be reprimanded. If you submit an article for publication in a magazine on Astronomy and use the argot of the surfing community (even though the article's topic is something astronomical), it'll be rejected. And so on.
For those interested and not already familiar, Eric Raymond has written the long form of these guidelines:
http://catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Randall Schulz
On 2006-11-04 17:27, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Sunday 05 November 2006 00:22, Darryl Gregorash wrote:
On 2006-11-04 11:39, Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Saturday 04 November 2006 09:21, Randall R Schulz wrote:
... in order to be a service to the community of (Enlgish-speaking) SuSE users.
Even those who fail to notice the feedback from their spell-checkers...
Spell checkers?
Spelling checkers
No magic here :)
(Referring back to my FFS/FSF thingy) What are these? :-)
On 2006-11-04 18:40, Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Saturday 04 November 2006 15:27, Darryl Gregorash wrote:
...
You cannot expect someone who has little or no experience with the Unix-like environment to know, by any means, how best to ask a *nix-related question. The differences with what they are used to using are simply far too great.
Wrong. The how-tos of good question-asking are unrelated to the topic area. The context is:
You are speaking about form, Randall, when I am speaking of substance. The formulation of the specific question which states the problem, including any additional information needed to identify the problem to the reader, is a non-trivial exercise which, I assure you, few on this list properly understand. This statement is made independently of the particular general topic (SuSE, on this list); I have seen the same difficulties in the formulation of questions arise time and again, first as a university physics instructor, next as an instructor for the Army, and now here.
The proper response to a poorly formulated question is not to suggest the person asking it is an idiot.
On Saturday 04 November 2006 04:28, HG wrote:
extension.
... and let's see...
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 0 2006-11-02 19:36 cpuinfo
Oh... only read flags are showing... that means that no one my write to it (except the kernel), and no one my execute it... NO ONE...
But leave it to someone to try... <sigh>
But it looks like anyone can read it... let's see...
cat /proc/cpuinfo
Yup, that worked.
Or, you can use the Suse tools I pedantically showed Randy earlier...
Why do you guys answer Linux newbies like this? This is so belittling. And why can you not just write Windows, why do you have to write windoz?
Because...
When I (and a couple of others) genuinely offered to help (with a tcl/tk script no less) and tried to get at the bottom of what he was really asking for, he called me pedantic. I just decided that the rest of the responses should therefore be pedantic.
However, in the first place, none of the individuals *in the context* are newbies... far from it. And in the second place, one of the individuals involved has been harassing my input and answers (for some time now) because he does not agree with my politics, or philosophy. (there is a history of name calling from the one individual that has been on-going... I mostly ignore it)
Having said all this... if you will read the archives... you will notice that I spend long detailed updates with newbies (probably longer and more detailed than they were asking for) because I want to help them. This will not change. But I don't tolerate rude. Rude and immature put me right into pedantic mode. (although I will still try to be helpful, accurate, and complete)
Now, why "windoze" instead of Windows? I'm a protestant. Its called a protest. Call it flaming disrespect... for a marketing company who has illegally (IMO) set computer science back 25 years, robbed other hard working American inventors of their inventions (livelyhood), and their dignity. Who have hamstrung American industry almost beyond repair... and who are unrepentant filthy greedy opportunists ... and those are only the nice things I can honestly think to say about the M$ company. For myself (and others) "M$" and "windoze" are simply protestant trademarks intended to communicate disrespect, and disapproval. I'M PROTESTING... with almost every post. This isn't an emotional appeal either. Neither is it a blog. In an on-going dialog with other data processing professionals I will continue to show my disapproval and disrespect for the M$ monster at every opportunity... against their own spin that they are beloved, respected, and "popular". They are hated... throughout almost every quarter of society... but they are entrenched (people have been literally forced to use their junk). It is a protest against evil... and I don't use that word lightly. And this isn't a personal protest... is not against a person... its against a marketing strategy, against a bullying corporate parasite who has consumed enough. This is also not an attack against the pitiful Americans who are forced (through ignorance or lack of opportunity, or bullying from M$) to pull out of the ditch and move on with something better. The technology is clearly here... but M$ is entrenched. There must be a steady voice against this oppression. This isn't just about emotional ditties like "my OS is better than yours". FOR CRYING OUT LOUD... this is about standing up for right and standing against wrong. We have come to a place in this country where anything goes in "marketing". We all agreed that monopolies are a "bad" thing... and then we let it happen again... and it just isn't right. I'M PROTESTING. (and if you look really hard, you'll notice that I'm not alone, thank goodness)
On Saturday 04 November 2006 20:10, Darryl Gregorash wrote: ....
The proper response to a poorly formulated question is not to suggest the person asking it is an idiot.
That is right.
It is just necessary to remember how it was to install linux for the first time.
Although some people will have complaint on style etc, this web page names most of the problems in interaction new and old linux users. http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm
Hi!
On 11/5/06, M Harris harrismh777@earthlink.net wrote:
On Saturday 04 November 2006 04:28, HG wrote:
extension.
... and let's see...
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 0 2006-11-02 19:36 cpuinfo
Oh... only read flags are showing... that means that no one my write to it (except the kernel), and no one my execute it... NO ONE...
But leave it to someone to try... <sigh>
But it looks like anyone can read it... let's see...
cat /proc/cpuinfo
Yup, that worked.
Or, you can use the Suse tools I pedantically showed Randy earlier...
Why do you guys answer Linux newbies like this? This is so belittling. And why can you not just write Windows, why do you have to write windoz?
Because... When I (and a couple of others) genuinely offered to help (with a tcl/tkscript no less) and tried to get at the bottom of what he was really asking for, he called me pedantic. I just decided that the rest of the responses should therefore be pedantic.
Maybe you should be more careful to who you actually answer. I left out the names intentionally as it was only a example - nothing personal, just a generic attitude that I've seen here. But as Kai stepped out on this thread, it was to Kai that you were answering (technically, you replied to someone elses email, but you were clearly referring to what Kai wrote that he'd done. Actually I think that the email you replied to already explained what Kai had done wrong). Before that, Kai had only once written about the subject and he was quite polite.
However, in the first place, none of the individuals *in the context* arenewbies... far from it. And in the second place, one of the individuals
My wife could install SUSE and use it for word processing and surfing and all that (she does use it for this), yet she would have no clue about CLI, far from trying to figure out what -r--r--r-- would mean. Is she a newbie? I thought the context here is the SUSE users. Maybe I'm wrong and it's something else.
Kai, no it was not your bad.
And still, this was *only an example* to illustrate the point that I had. Nothing personal (I did leave you guys out, but you both stepped in by yourself). Even though I've been here (in the Internet) since about 1993 and I've seen this attitude on many lists and news groups before, I still now and then hope we can change and be more polite. Maybe it takes 20+ years for me to learn that. :-(
But let's drop this for now. I did not want to start any wars... besides, we'll all be gone from here in an year anyways with this M$ deal ... [ runs and ducks for cover... :-D ]
HG wrote:
Hi!
Why do you guys answer Linux newbies like this? This is so belittling. And why can you not just write Windows, why do you have to write windoz? Maybe the newbies never used Windows before, but OS-X for instance. Somebody asks a genuine questions and gets answers with this attitude...
I'm ashamed to be a part of this community. Still I am continuing to be as it's the only channel I get help from. I just hope I'm not answered this way.
For what it's worth. I am with you. It doesn't matter how long you have been here and how many dumb questions you have seen posted and had to answer. Acting like a dweeb and ticking people off will achieve nothing. If you want to help, then help. If you don't -- then move on. There will always be another person who does not RTFM's and post dumb questions. It's part of life.
jj
On 11/4/06, Randall R Schulz rschulz@sonic.net wrote:
The best way to repudiate a disrespectful question or response is to ignore it. This will stop it immediately. It is the equivalent of sending it to /dev/null.
For one thing, I do not believe this is true. Without negative feedback, people will typically persist in their behaviors.
actually, it is pretty well accepted that feedback of any sort reinforces behaviour. The adage is "ignore and re-direct". Generally this approach is most effective.
Peter
Randall R Schulz wrote:
Tony,
On Saturday 04 November 2006 11:48, Tony Alfrey wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
<snip>
It's the same old debate: Do you forgive all the crap and nonsense and let the list devolve into drivel or to you ride herd on the newbies in order to instruct them on the way intelligent list interactions are carried on? I'm in the latter camp.
Or one can behave as though we were part of a civilized society, understand that we cannot all be experts on all subjects, and we respond to others in the way we would wish a response were we asking a question.
The point is not about expertise. We all ask questions when our own expertise, be it vast or miniscule, does not supply an answer to the question we have.
The point is that there are intelligent, coherent and respectful ways to ask, answer and follow up on questions. Then there are all the other ways. The other ways must be repudiated.
-- Tony Alfrey
Randall Schulz
Randall, I consider myself new to the Linux environment, and I must agree with Tony and Darryl. There are so many different backgrounds, cultures, and personalities here that it is easy to misunderstand what someone has written. For example, (and I honestly mean no offense to you) the first time I saw your name on the list, your questions gave me the impression that you were newer to Linux than I am. I have since learned, that this was incorrect. So, don't let what could be a simple misunderstanding interfere with developing a good atmosphere for learning.
-- ED --
Darryl Gregorash wrote:
On 2006-11-04 11:39, Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Saturday 04 November 2006 09:21, Randall R Schulz wrote:
... in order to be a service to the community of (Enlgish-speaking) SuSE users.
Even those who fail to notice the feedback from their spell-checkers...
Spell checkers?
I couldn't compost a decent sentance without my spill checker! -- ED --
On Tuesday 07 November 2006 12:29 pm, Ed McCanless wrote:
Darryl Gregorash wrote:
On 2006-11-04 11:39, Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Saturday 04 November 2006 09:21, Randall R Schulz wrote:
... in order to be a service to the community of (Enlgish-speaking) SuSE users.
Even those who fail to notice the feedback from their spell-checkers...
Spell checkers?
I couldn't compost a decent sentance without my spill checker! -- ED --
hehehe
"compost" an aerobic mixture of decaying organic matter, such as leaves and manure, used as fertilizer. www.wef.org/publicinfo/newsroom/wastewater_glossary.jhtml
B-)
Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Saturday 04 November 2006 15:27, Darryl Gregorash wrote:
...
You cannot expect someone who has little or no experience with the Unix-like environment to know, by any means, how best to ask a *nix-related question. The differences with what they are used to using are simply far too great.
Wrong. The how-tos of good question-asking are unrelated to the topic area. The context is:
- There's a specific domain (in this case, SuSE Linux, but it could be
anything). The question must regard this domain.
- There's an existing body of readily accessible information (man pages,
books & magazines, the Internet, etc.). The questioner should make some attempt to discover the answer independently.
- There are conventions on how to use the medium--email--to interact
with the community to which you're directing your inquiry. Proper juxtaposition of quoted material and added response should be respected. Quoted material should be trimmed. Etc.
The only thing in this set-up that is domain-specific is the domain itself. A well-formed question submitted here after the proper homework is done is a well-formed question that is about SuSE Linux. Period.
It's basically a matter of formality. If you go to a court of law and speak in some non-legalistic vernacular, you'll be reprimanded. If you submit an article for publication in a magazine on Astronomy and use the argot of the surfing community (even though the article's topic is something astronomical), it'll be rejected. And so on.
For those interested and not already familiar, Eric Raymond has written the long form of these guidelines:
http://catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Randall Schulz
This is an excerpt from the link you posted, Randall.
"How To Answer Questions in a Helpful Way
/Be gentle./ Problem-related stress can make people seem rude or stupid even when they're not.
/Reply to a first offender off-line./ There is no need of public humiliation for someone who may have made an honest mistake. A real newbie may not know how to search archives or where the FAQ is stored or posted."
On Sunday 05 November 2006 09:10, HG wrote:
And still, this was *only an example* to illustrate the point that I had. Nothing personal (I did leave you guys out, but you both stepped in by yourself).
Thank you. Your point is well taken, and for myself, I will try to be more kind and less pedantic. Every now and then all of us need that reminder... especially me.
You are correct... most lists tend towards the "attitude" you described... I think it is because we can't see each others faces and we forget that each of us is a person with feelings. I'll try to remember that.
M Harris wrote:
On Saturday 04 November 2006 04:28, HG wrote:
Now, why "windoze" instead of Windows? I'm a protestant. Its called aprotest. Call it flaming disrespect... for a marketing company who has illegally (IMO) set computer science back 25 years, robbed other hard working American inventors of their inventions (livelyhood), and their dignity. Who have hamstrung American industry almost beyond repair... and who are unrepentant filthy greedy opportunists ... and those are only the nice things I can honestly think to say about the M$ company.
Bravo! and well-said indeed Mr Harris. I am keeping this entire message as a reminder (it's much better enunciated than i could have), of the rotten monopolistic behaviour of said M$ corporation. Keep on protesting...BrianB.
On Saturday 04 November 2006 10:21, Randall R Schulz wrote: No as I have see it there are a few fools who really have a few answers.
You might want to consider the perspective of the subscribers who have been here for years and whose ratio of answers supplied to questions asked is high but who nonetheless stick around in order to be a service to the community of (Enlgish-speaking) SuSE users.
Perhaps you can see how we'd grow weary of the panoply of faux pas that stream in daily.
It's the same old debate: Do you forgive all the crap and nonsense and let the list devolve into drivel or to you ride herd on the newbies in order to instruct them on the way intelligent list interactions are carried on? I'm in the latter camp.
Randall Schulz
On Sunday 17 December 2006 18:28, John Bright wrote:
On Saturday 04 November 2006 10:21, Randall R Schulz wrote:
You might want to consider the perspective of the subscribers who have been here for years and whose ratio of answers supplied to questions asked is high but who nonetheless stick around in order to be a service to the community of (Enlgish-speaking) SuSE users.
Perhaps you can see how we'd grow weary of the panoply of faux pas that stream in daily.
It's the same old debate: Do you forgive all the crap and nonsense and let the list devolve into drivel or to you ride herd on the newbies in order to instruct them on the way intelligent list interactions are carried on? I'm in the latter camp.
No as I have see it there are a few fools who really have a few answers.
Eh? I cannot decipher that. Please try to clarify or amplify.
Randall Schulz
No as I have see it there are a few fools who really have a few answers.
Eh? I cannot decipher that. Please try to clarify or amplify.
Randall Schulz
Is he trying to say even an idiot can be right some times?
On Sunday 17 December 2006 18:47, Michael S. Dunsavage wrote:
No as I have see it there are a few fools who really have a few answers.
Eh? I cannot decipher that. Please try to clarify or amplify.
Randall Schulz
Is he trying to say even an idiot can be right some times?
I suppose. They can always use a random sentence generator...
RRS
On Sunday 17 December 2006 20:47, Michael S. Dunsavage wrote:
Is he trying to say even an idiot can be right some times?
A stopped clock is right twice a day....
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 17:50, M Harris wrote:
On Sunday 17 December 2006 20:47, Michael S. Dunsavage wrote:
Is he trying to say even an idiot can be right some times?
A stopped clock is right twice a day....
Not here. Here a stopped clock is ony right once a day. There is only one 18:15 per day...
Hugo
On 2006-12-19 13:12, Hugo Costelha wrote:
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 17:50, M Harris wrote:
On Sunday 17 December 2006 20:47, Michael S. Dunsavage wrote:
Is he trying to say even an idiot can be right some times?
A stopped clock is right twice a day....
Not here. Here a stopped clock is ony right once a day. There is only one 18:15 per day...
That also depends on whether it stopped on Feb 29 -- then it will be right again in 4 years :-)
Is he trying to say even an idiot can be right some times?
A stopped clock is right twice a day....
Not here. Here a stopped clock is ony right once a day. There is only one 18:15 per day...
That also depends on whether it stopped on Feb 29 -- then it will be right again in 4 years :-)
Not here at all. My clock is a strftime("%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S"), so it's right once every 68 or 136 years, given that Unixtime is the base.
-`J'
On 2006-12-19 14:20, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
Is he trying to say even an idiot can be right some times?
A stopped clock is right twice a day....
Not here. Here a stopped clock is ony right once a day. There is only one 18:15 per day...
That also depends on whether it stopped on Feb 29 -- then it will be right again in 4 years :-)
Not here at all. My clock is a strftime("%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S"), so it's right once every 68 or 136 years, given that Unixtime is the base.
Showoff ;-þ
Darryl Gregorash wrote:
On 2006-12-19 14:20, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
Is he trying to say even an idiot can be right some times?
A stopped clock is right twice a day....
Not here. Here a stopped clock is ony right once a day. There is only one 18:15 per day...
That also depends on whether it stopped on Feb 29 -- then it will be right again in 4 years :-)
Not here at all. My clock is a strftime("%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S"), so it's right once every 68 or 136 years, given that Unixtime is the base.
Showoff ;-þ
Well, I've got a 64 bit system, which means that it's 4 billion times longer! ;-)
Not here at all. My clock is a strftime("%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S"), so it's right once every 68 or 136 years, given that Unixtime is the base.
Showoff ;-þ
Well, I've got a 64 bit system, which means that it's 4 billion times longer! ;-)
time_t should still be only 32 bit. Currently.
-`J' --
On Tuesday, December 19, 2006 @ 1:13 PM, Hugo Costelha wrote:
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 17:50, M Harris wrote:
On Sunday 17 December 2006 20:47, Michael S. Dunsavage wrote:
Is he trying to say even an idiot can be right some times?
A stopped clock is right twice a day....
Not here. Here a stopped clock is ony right once a day. There is only one 18:15 per day...
Hugo
Unless it stopped at 02:00 on the day that Daylight Savings Time ends.
Greg Wallace
-
Anders Johansson -
Anders Norrbring -
Brad Bourn -
Brian J Berrigan -
Clayton -
Darryl Gregorash -
Doug McGarrett -
Ed McCanless -
Greg Wallace -
HG -
Hugo Costelha -
James Knott -
Jan Engelhardt -
JJ Gitties -
John -
John Bright -
Kai Ponte -
M Harris -
Michael S. Dunsavage -
Peter Van Lone -
Rajko M -
Randall R Schulz -
Richard -
steve reilly -
Tony Alfrey